Page 14 RAIN February-March 1979 The Myth of Perpetual Affluence Spending my winter holidays ~n and around the Great ~akes region was yet another lesson m the contorted economics of the larger system that envelopes us. All the way _home-from Toronto, through Detroit and Ann Arbor, b_ack ~n ToledoI was impressed over and over by the gra_nd illus10n of affluence that colors the lives of North Amencans. Not that there isn't a great deal of money around. There is. But it's not doing a lot for most of us. While the '70s have taught us a lot about looking good, under the veneer, quality of lif~ is getting harder to find. We are getting poorer all the time. Toronto glittered with ostentatious prosperity; yet Canadians on the cross-country train were worrying out lo:1d abou~ their sagging dollar and the massive foreign ownership of their country and its resources. In Toledo, the suburban mall~ were packed with big automobiles and record volume_s ?f Chnstmas shoppers, but downtown the city fathers ~ere givmg aw~y public tax subsidies so the largest corporations would bmld more skyscrapers rather than relo~ate some plac~ else. Everywhere, people seemed to be labonng under the r~sky assumption that not only do they need more of everything, but that if they go for it, they will sooner or later get it. ~ence,. the_y were spending money they really didn't have, ?r mve_stmg m things that will bring little or no return on their quality of life. So what's new? While the great expectations of most folks are on the rise, spurred on by the consumer ec~nomy and advertising m,edia, real wealth has been headed m the other direction, eroded by the centralization of capi~al, goods production and public services, money-gobbling bi~ ~nergy de- . velopment, and subsequent inflation. Not surpnsmgly, there 1s an undercurrent expectation- acknowledged by many-tha~ having gone up, the larger economy must now com~ tumbling down. People who are grasping for more of ever~thmg are, at the same time, fantasizing all manner of economic apocalypse -which makes them grasp even harder. The apparent contradiction persists. Up against a slick wall! With my preference for simpler lifestyles and a planet left intact, the logic ?fall this se~ms too warped! Our goal should be simple to discern: to reJect the ethics of boom and bust, restructure the use of our affluence for sustainability, and look after our basic needs more frugally and fairly. Can these honest alternatives b~ so ?ifficult to put in front of people? Is anyone out there listening? Well, no one can deny that there are a lot of people who are trying hard to turn things around. Public interest, environmental, consumer and self-help groups have multiplied incredibly in the last decade-there must b~ millions of fo_lks out there pushing the system to respond ma hundred different ways. The consciousness of social change is light years beyond the '50s. But somehow that change keeps avoiding critical mass. The larger system is more rigid, its problems more intractable, and its captive ~udience more tr_ansfixed than eve~. And so our change work 1s at once more timely and m~re difficult. If the self-excited failure of the macroeconomy 1s to avoid a psychological sense of closure, painf':11_ dislocati_ons for the working and even middle classes, political react10n, and who knows what else, there is going to have to be a great deal more cooperation among the many groups and individuals who hold pieces of a workable future in their hands- . and more deliberateness in reaching out to the greater public. The True Test of Our Vision No doubt, this is some of the potential of the network of people involved with appropriate tec_hnology. Those of us who in one way or another are workmg for local power, decentralized economies, soft technologies and cooperative institutions know this experientially and intuitively. These tools and ideas have a kind of practicality and common sense about them that is capable of exciting all manner of people. Appropriate technologies can give us an ~nablin~ philosophy for a world shortchanged by high-tech, h1gh-cap1tal solutions; they can be the nuts and bolts of social empowerment. We have in our hands the means to push past the myth of perpetual affluence into that of sustainability. But where is the commitment to make this happen? When it comes to sharing our tools and vision with other social change groups, or in reaching beyond to all those people trying so desperately to'Beat the Crunch, we seem to be slow on the take. For a movement of people's technology we have too much hesitancy and reserve about us-even elitism. Maybe it comes from all that college education and freedom of personal choice so many of us have enjoyed. It's made it difficult to identify with working people who've never gotte~ t_h_ei:nselves off the treadmill long enough to see the new possib1ht1es we envision. Perhaps it comes from our sentimental attachment to the days of "counter" culture, when the easiest way to survive unbearable reality was to opt out. It's made us move in directions unthinkable by most. Now we are beginning to structure an alter~ative ~eali_ty that just might work. But if we never succeed m sharing It with others, it will always be just an alternative. The true test of our vision has got to be how broadly it can be sow~ !n the real world-in turning the heads of people who need hvmg
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz