- no mention of lending money at interest (usury), which is a major driver of so-called ‘growth’ and all that follows behind it;

- it would be nice to see ‘the people’ referred to as ‘custodians’ somewhere, for that is what we are.

Otherwise, it’s really great! Like the above comment says, maybe it should be called ‘Interdependence’ rather than ‘Independence’ ?

http://www.earthcharter.org/

Susan said the Declaration of Independence she was involved in came from the needs and impulses of a particular group. That group was obviously moved by the language she used. It had resonance for them. It met their needs.

The Declaration had resonance for me as well. Living in the United States, I have been steeped in the original Declaration. I have been schooled in a million ways in the ideology that says these people who created that document and formed a new union had the right to do so.

For me, therefore, the new Declaration of Independence made a connection that had never been made before. It made it possible for me to de-elevate the “God of the Growth Market” in my mind and psyche, and connect with my own right to partner with others for break away and form that new community.

Bob’s post indicates that not everyone will respond that way. Some individuals, and some groups, will need different language that speaks to their history, their own beliefs, the “DNA” that moves them.

Recognizing that is not, I believe, a convenient drop into the sea of moral relativism. It is, I believe, an objective observation of “what is.”

A movement that ties disparate groups of independent communities into an interdependent global community will not be able to appeal to a single articulation of what motivates people to do what they do. It will be a movement that recognizes and “blesses” what is, as long as the communities involved are living in ways that express the principles of genuinely steady state existence.

Or so it seems to me.

I don’t get the repressed consumer bit – is it not just a bit of an oxymoron and a little bit pathetic – please god save me from shopping – really! I exercise my judgement every time I shop and consume, its not hard. But, ultimately you’re cool because you conveniently drop into the sea that is moral relativism – if it floats your boat, if it works for you then that’s OK – perhaps a bit contradictory, given your defence of the “higher”, but hey. So why get a bit ruffled when questions are raised about how useful the god/religion paradigm is going to be for framing our collective consciousness in ways that help humanity make the transition to a genuinely sustainable, steady state existence? The transition process should be positive, creative, innovative but it shouldn’t dispense with critical and self-critical thinking, otherwise, we are lost.

.

However, this should be different than consumer driven capitalist sosciety. For instance communities can exchange goods and skills which can be artisan based or made with smaill or human scale technologies. Even communies can organise festival to exchange their things like Australian Abiriginies used to that ones a year. In this way people used to meet with the other tribal members and even some engagement could happen:)

In short, we do not need to buy electricity or water and more…from the centralized city services, but at the same time I’m not into primitivism. Human beign have deveoped many good things e.g washing machine, computer, telephone, etc. they are asset to keep. So transition to autonomy/independence requires deatiled thinking, cause we need to educate other people too.

Ciao,
Emet Degirmenci-Alpay

I’d re-iterate that I drew this up for a certain group of people, and for them it said what they felt. If it doesn’t speak to someone, then they should do something else. But this journey has a long way to go. People should share what they have, and others can use it or not.

The one call for freedom in this declaration was aimed at being freed from being a “consumer”. Claiming the right to exercise human judgement, mercy and grace etc. – not just utility. The talk that this went with was looking at the paradigm of economic growth for its own sake and how that paradigm thinks of people, as “consumers who work to increase their utility”. This one-dimensional view of people and that their primary motivation is to consume is a basic tennet of economics. The freedom wasn’t from government or social ties or other people, it was from being considered as nothing but a “consumer”, only partly human.

So, Bob, if the references in a document to a Creator turn you green, then don’t use it yourself.

Shane, I think after a group of people recognise that they can particiapte in their own local economy on their own terms without having to destroy their commons to do it, then their interdependencies develop naturally. I agree with Bob that the play on words is tempting, but not really what is meant in this particular instance.

If you like, there are different stages:

(1) Declaration of Independence from destructive, de-humanizing economics.

(2) Articles to set out the agreed rules of interdependence. e.g. you have to disclose all ingredients if you sell a food product. The people participating in the market will devise these for them selves as needed.

Cheers, Susan

Thanks!
Ted

Hi Ted,

I’ve typed up the 200 skills in a rtf format document, which is more easily opened by different computer systems. Let me know if there is something I’ve missed or need to correct (in particular for the introduction/source). If it is okay with you (or with Michael O’Brien), I was planning to send it to a few people who have asked for it, and also to Rob Hopkins.

Cheers,

Corinne

List of 200 artisan skills required to make a Victorian town functional

(skills that might be needed in a post-carbon world)

-taken from the last 2 pages of appendices from “Victorian Oamaru : A vision For The Future” by Michael O’Brien. Sent in by Ted Howard of Nelson, New Zealand.

Woodland Crafts. Coppicers, hurdle makers, rake makers, fork makers, besom makers, handle makers, hoop makers, ladder makers, crib makers, broaches and peg makers, clog sole cutters, bodgers, charcoal burners, oak basket makers, trug makers, stick and staff makers, field gate makers, willow basket makers, net makers.

Building crafts. Stone masons, joiners, roofers, floor layers, wallers, thatchers, slaters, lime burners, paint makers, glass blowers, glaziers, stained glass artists, mud brick makers, tile makers, chimney sweeps, plumbers, decorators, bridge builders, French polishers, sign writers.

Field crafts. Hedge layers, dry stone wallers, stile makers, well diggers, peat cutters, gardeners, horticulturists, vintners, arborists, tree surgeons, foresters, farmers, shepherds, shearers, bee keepers, millers, fishermen, orchardists, veterinarians.

Workshop crafts. Chair makers, iron founders, blacksmiths, wheelwrights, coopers, coppersmiths, tinsmiths, wood turners, coach builders, boat builders, sail makers, rope makers, wainwrights, block makers, leather tanners, harness makers, saddlers, horse collar makers, boot and shoe makers, cobblers, clog makers, knife makers, cutters, millstone dressers, potters, printers, typographers, calligraphers, bookbinders, paper makers, furniture makers, jewellers, mechanics, boiler makers, boiler men, soap makers, gunsmith, sword smith, brush maker, candle maker, artist, sculptor, firework maker, cycle builder, bone carver, musical instrument maker, clay pipe maker, tool maker.

Textile crafts. Spinner, weaver, dyer, silk grower, tailor, seamstress, milliner, hatter, lace maker, button maker, mat and rug maker, crochet worker, tatting and macramé worker, knitter, quilter, smock worker, embroiderer, leather worker, felt maker.

Domestic crafts. Fish smoker, bacon curer, butter maker, cheese maker, brewer, cider maker, wine maker, distiller, herbalist, ice cream maker, butcher, fishmonger, pie maker, pickle maker, baker, barrister and coffee roaster, homeopath, reflexologist, osteopath, naturopath, storyteller, teacher naturalist, historian, jester, actor, administrator, philosopher, labourer, poet, writer, midwife, publican, bookseller, librarian and idiot – there is no unemployment in this traditional model!

No doubt there are many others I have not thought of.

I think that the Declaration of Interdependence is an obvious but not too deeply thought out play on words. Interdependence is a de facto part of the human condition, always was – we wouldn’t be here now if we had not or did not learn interdependence. What is or should be at issue are the terms of those socio-economic relationships, the values that underpin them and the (power) structures that are maintained to enforce, govern and re-create those interdependence relationships (the law, normative behaviour, armed force?).

The dependency-independence-interdependence-dependence continuum makes sense at the scale of the individual and their developing maturity, precisely so that they can participate effectively in society, working with others (I think this is Stephen Covey’s idea?) but not so sure how useful this concept is for modelling society, unless it is a recognition that some communities with strong internal bonds (world view, common purpose etc) cannot exist in isolation and must build mutually beneficial bridges with others (win-win). Whichever, I suppose the point is that it is the quality of the interdependence not interdependence in itself that is important.

I never thought that Transition was aiming at greater independence just different scale linkages, less alienation, more just, human and equitable relationships. If anything we become individually less independent when the scale and relationships are re-localised, family and neighbour will become more important. Capitalist society in the way that it has commodified all relationships (think about old folks homes- the dependence at the end of our lives)has reduced every social transaction to a money value. May be less independence and a bit more responsibility (duty?) is part of the future in ways it has not been for some time?