Freeconomy Blog
Thu
04 Feb
Criticisms
A few weeks ago, just after the Guardian Film came out, I got a phone call from a woman who has been doing an experiment where her and her family have resolved to put zero waste in landfill in 2010. A few of the national papers picked up on the story, and with that came the inevitable criticism from the public. Not only that, but somebody out there was so outraged by their efforts to minimise their ecological impact that they decided to dump loads of rubbish bags on her front doorstep.
She found this backlash really upsetting mainly, I think, because it made her feel crap about the type of people she was sharing this fantastic planet, and experience called life, with. So she called me to get some advice on how to deal with intense criticism, and she's not the first to have done so.
When people start phoning to ask how to take criticism well, it's hard to know whether to take it as a compliment or the ultimate insult! Either way, it matters not. I've had a lot of criticism over the last two years. I've been called it all, repeatedly - idiot, berk, hypocrite, egotistical maniac, middle-class trustafarian, arrogant Brit (even though I'm Irish) who knows nothing about the poor brown people who need our charity, freeloader, imbecile, scrounger, jerk, loser, disgusting pathetic low-life who jumps in bins. And that's just the ones that were reprintable. I hadn't realised they all knew me so well!
Whilst I used to get really excited if a positive article came out about Freeconomy and moneyless living two years, and really upset if it was extremely negative, I've stumbled my way to a really nice place in life where I don't mind either way now. It is what it is. The negative remarks usually stem from the fact I've communicated it really badly or haven't been given enough space by film and copy editors to give a true representation of it all. And even though over 90% of humanity's existence on the planet has been moneyless, it has become a radically new concept again, and for anyone to question our quest for more and more cash (something we're all taught from the moment we're born is a 'good' thing), is still incredibly taboo and so will inevitably trigger defensive buttons in people, even if no attack is intended.
I decided last year that I would live the way I genuinely believed was the most ecological, harmonious way to live, to then question it every day, and let people take it whatever way they need to. It's so important to not be attached to the fruits of your labour. As Gandhi once said, "whether you be a minority of one or a majority of millions, the truth is the truth." Thankfully, it's far from a minority of one anymore, but even if it was then it would still all be perfectly imperfect, and I would still continue to do it.
I actually welcome all criticism, as it gives me a chance to clarify thoughts and issues, as I never have enough space in a short blog to expand on the entire philosophy and concepts involved (the book will do exactly this though). Here are my brief answers to some of the most common criticisms of the last few weeks:
1. You live off other people's money.
I assume that this is never intended to mean that other people buy me things, because they don't. I guess it is implied that because I collect waste I use other people's money. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding.
My diet consists of about 5% waste maximum, but many weeks it is zero. If I go skipping it is usually not for myself, I usually give it all away to people who need it. And I could happily get by without that 5%, I only use it because it is there and a nice treat sometimes.
My long term goal, the real-life Freeconomy Community (the proposal for which I start work on tomorrow), is intended to be completely 'communally-sufficient' by 2017, evolving to zero waste consumption and creation by then. However I've been born into a world where that is currently extremely difficult right now, so it will take time to get to that stage, but this has always been about transition and not revolution.
It is also important to remember that money isn't required in the slightest to create things, as everything is given by the Earth freely, on a 'pay-it-forward' basis. Money is simply one method of rewarding people for their parts to play in the creation of all our crap. But it is only one method.
I am in the second year of a lifelong experiment and exploration into solutions. The aim is to be 100% waste free by 2017. Until then I'll try to live as low impact as I possibly can, and that may involve liberating stuff from bins.
2. You're an idiotic berk!
Fair enough. Give me a shout on 0044 775 886 1783 (I can't text back though so no texts that need an answer!) if you ever want to come out for some al fresco dinner or just have a chat about it all. My e-mail is mark@justfortheloveofit.org
3. You're an attention seeking egomaniac.
I am attention seeking, but not for myself. I just want to seek attention for the issues I feel passionate about. If I could do it anonymously I would, but the media doesn't work like that.
Because we are so disconnected from the embodied energy, embodied suffering and embodied destruction that goes into the things we buy, the natural ecology of the planet we share is being eroded by the minute, factory farms and horrific slaughterhouses have become insanely 'normal', and we kill millions of people in the middle east just so that us greedy bastards can have the luxurious, built-in-obsolescence gadgetry that oil cheap oil affords us. I am sorry if that sounds harsh, but the truth shouldn't be avoided for fear of offence. One of the problems in the media and the publishing world is that everyone is so cautious that they'll upset the reader and lose some sales, and so the truth is rarely laid bare. We're adults though, so lets all grow up, it's really our ego's that are making this planet inhabitable for many species.
I feel the pain of these issues acutely some days, which usually ends up with me crying by myself in the caravan for an hour every now and again. My miniscule attempts at trying to raise awareness of these issues is my way of still wanting to be on this planet. I rather not be than to see everything I hold dear go to shit, to be frank. I just want humanity to evolve to the beautiful state I know it is capable of.
What else would I be seeking attention for? I don't gain from this. Life is so hectic I rarely get time to even see friends, let alone go out in public. I don't even see 99% of the stories on it or Freeconomy, and have no wish to either, as its not something in my control.
4. Everyone couldn't live moneyless.
Not overnight, no. But if we collectively chose to live more ecologically tomorrow, where friendships and closely knit community were security and your reputation was your currency (instead of finding both in a piece of paper with an illusory value attached to it), then we could, I have no doubt about this.
We can decide to live whatever way we want. This current society is one way. It's not the only way. I just want to highlight another way, and show how much better it could be. Does anyone still think that modern consumerist society really is the pinnacle of happiness?
5. You're not saving the world by doing this.
No major expectation, then?! This is the one I love most. Does anyone expect any one person or philosophy to change the entire world and its myriad cultures. The problems of the world are complex, and the solutions have to be locally driven (or preferably cycled). Why would I think I could possibly save the world, whatever that even means? I do strongly believe, though, that if we moved to a moneyless society a lot of the other problems would sort themselves out in time, but that's about it.
I could take some critics advice and continue earning lots of money and then giving whatever I don't spend to charity, but is that not like Shell or Exxon-Mobil giving some of its profits to Friends of the Earth, or a large mahogany wholesaler giving some cash to the WWF? (the Pandas by the way, not Hulk Hogan)
Is it not better not to create such a mess in the first place, than to create one and then pay someone else to try - in vain - to clean it up?
I think those who criticise on a very personal level sometimes forget that just because you do something that the media picks up on, that you're still actually human with feelings and emotions. People can argue that if you decide to go public with something, you deserve whatever. The reality is that it is often not chosen, if the media want to report on something they will, which means your only choice is whether or not to work with it or against it. And people who try to raise awareness of the issues (such as the zero waste people) rarely gain from it, and almost always they'd much prefer to just hang out with their friends.
I also think that with the freedom of speech comes the responsibility to study what you are about to talk about, so that you've got a fuller appreciation for the issues involved, and not say just the first thing that comes into your mind at that moment without deeper reflection. False arguments can be very damaging even if they come from someone who has spent no time contemplating the issues involved holistically. I must admit that can be frustrating sometimes as I just don't have the hours in the day to respond to them all.
I genuinely do encourage criticism, as I am happy to clarify my thoughts on anything and often forget to communicate some important points in blogs, interviews, articles etc, so the criticism is inevitable. If you have any, please write them below and I will answer them as best as I can.
Great to be sharing the planet with you all, even those of you who think I am a berk!
THE FREECONOMY BLOG is written by the berk Mark Boyle, founder of the Freeconomy Community, who has been living with zero money for the last 14 months.
Comment on this Post:
guri comments ...
This. This. This is why I bother.
I wish I'd been able to write this, but well done for doing so.
Awesome!
Jason Olshefsky comments ...
I'm glad I clicked through the RSS reader to read this. It's a nice high-point to my day so far.
I guess in response, I'm glad that I have made so much progress not caring much about the opinions of other people that once bothered me (political views, hypocrisy, etc.) and, as much as I wish I could let all the bad that remains flow right off, I'm really glad for the process to _learn_ how to do it instead.
Gary comments ...
I have an answer to all Criticisms. ( Which starts with a question)
Is anything that your doing having a negative impact on any other living entity including the environment at large?
I think not.
It's more a case of what your doing is having a positive impact on many people and the odd skip here and there.
So I think we can agree that the only negative vibes coming out are coming from people who are jealous or have a big ego themselves or don't understand what's at stake or indeed how to tie there shoelaces ( oops I'm being sarcastic ).
No I shouldn't mock, there are some, indeed many, people that just don't get it. These are the people that will always follow the crowd, if you are not one of these people then sometimes you have to expect rubbish bags dumped on your doorstep both literally and metaphorically.
You are a leader with courage, as is the family with the rubbish bags dumped in front of there door. Would you rather be a sheep.
What do you get for pretending the danger's not real.
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel.
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes.
Now things are really what they seem.
No, this is not a bad dream. (Extract from Pink Floyds « SHEEP »)
Sorry Roger, I keep nicking (recycling if you like) your lyrics but they just seem to fit so well.
zach comments ...
Very nice post. Criticism is the hardest part it seems sometimes when it comes to any 'radical' thought that is the slightest bit different from the norm. I deal with the whole 'green' thing that's going on in architectural design. I don't buy the branding of it, but I still defend its principles sometimes. It boils down to ignorance, an outward rejection to expand your own knowledge. I don't get it, but perhaps I am not meant to. Sometimes I feel like screaming "I just want to live differently than you, please!?!" Is that too much to ask?
Again, I applaud your efforts. I will refer back to this post upon the next harsh crit. Keep up the work you love. peace.
-z
Sandie and Simon comments ...
Both you, Mark, and My Zero Waste's author 'Mrs Green' have been getting some thoughtless and nasty comments in the press of late, and we feel for you both.
However, please be aware that we are so grateful that you both give your time and energy freely; sharing, so eloquently, your philosophies and actions with us, the folk leading pretty normal lives and wishing to make a change for the positive.
Thanks Mark and Mrs Green. Keep up the great work - we really do need your help on this one!
The ZaZ comments ...
The real idiots are those who pose statements like, "Everyone couldn't live moneyless."
Everyone should be striving to be moneyless right now. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not let the power structure get used to the fact their inherent self-importance will be removed next week. Today. Right now. Until then we're all doomed to this nasty joke and the imaginary yoke.
Michael Rottersman comments ...
You don't have to answer to anybody--but thanks all the same for making the effort. I'm very impressed with what you're doing, and especially appreciate that you are not "preachy"; but, like you say, the truth is the truth. I live in rural Maine (U.S.A.) and feel hamstrung by the car issue. We have zero public transportation and are two hours from "civilization." We need to burn a lot of fuel just to visit family. Any thoughts on that?
Barry Kiernan comments ...
fair play Mark ; ) what your doing is so good.... for all the reasons you've written about. i do have have a laptop, a car, a bicycle and other so called luxuries. i know that people in less "wealthier" parts of the world have been exploited and robbed of their natural resources to produce these things at a cheap price. it all sticks!!! i'll allow myself these items..... for the time being. but i'll be sure to make the most of them......to make them last....and in the end recycle them. when i feel i need to buy something i go through all this in my head. consumerism is rampant and its ugly. i dont just buy because i can like most people do and the way the media will urge one to do. im glad the "celtic tiger" is over. its time for people to change their attitudes and with people like yourself highlighting the inherent waste and damage and ultimate uselessness of it all....people will open their eyes and start to question their real needs!
Keep it up..... your not a berk...... your a good man with a great heart ; )
Des Troy comments ...
I'm astonished. Why would anyone object to anyone else producing zero waste? Presumably, the same people who would want to bomb brown people for breathing the West's air.
Better gird your loins Mark, the mainstream media is starting to report a backlash against environmental issues - check out Australian politics.
Fame is a curse and the media is the witch.
Lyssa M comments ...
Oh no... I think I know the woman you're talking about... well not personally.. I mean I know of her.. my one and only bit of tv watching is the bbc breakfast news on the weekday... and saw her and her family putting out their once a year bin of rubbish... not even half full at that! and think that was from when people have given stuff (looked like some of those cheapy things kids get given at parties and stuff.)
Can't believe someone would be so awful as to dump rubbish outside their home! I wouldn't have thought anyone would have a problem with them, I mean it doesn't affect anyone else!!
And about the criticisms you've had... most from what I've seen, seem to be by people who KNOW they are living even remotely in harmony with their environment and REALLY resent you making this obvious to them and making them feel guilty, that's my opinion anyway.
Tho I DO have to agree that sometimes you haven't come across well and Ihave been upset by something you said... but seriously... once or twice tops in the entire year I've followed you and your year... that's good going.... my hubby sayings things wrong and upsets me on a daily basis and I still love him, so I think you're not doing badly at all! lol!
(Did have a laugh at the not knowing if it's a compliment or offense that she asked you for advice, lol... I think compliment definately! )
Oh... and don't forget in one of those guardian articles there were comments of proposals and things, lol!!
Sandie comments ...
What a coincidence that you mentioned the My Zero Waste blog ..... my guest post is on there today http://myzerowaste.com/2010/02/the-art-of-recycling-warmth/
Hope you like it and know of anyone who knits xxx
Ladyplotter comments ...
Good for you for answering the other berks issues-theyr're obviously blind to the world around them and don't care-selfish, self centred and greedy.
Jordi.b comments ...
Hi Mark, as I said before, I think you do a very good thing. Some people just don't think outside the box(where everyone earns respect with money or power.) I hope that your ideas will make more and more impact. Maybe if the first real free-economic society comes, and people see, that there is a way to go along with eachother on a personal way.
I feel the same as you Mark: depressed by this world, the feeling that everybody screws you, just to be rich.. to have a shiny car. I really hope that you can change it, if there is anything, anything I can do, I will try.
Bless you Jordi from Holland;)
mike gilli comments ...
Hi there.. just read your nice blog post.. congrats on the zero money campaign, didn't realize you're actually doing it.. I imagine you've checked out the Money Free site , http://money-free.ning.com/ ,which has lots of interesting material.
catch you later.............. mike gilli
jean-michel comments ...
criticism for critism this is rubbish! at least constructive criticism yes!
anyway, pretty impressive writing!
keep it up and keep it going
thanks :)))))
jean-michel comments ...
just to add that it's so easy to criticise! are those people oh! so perfect :) critics are frustated people...
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ Everyone - thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and support, much appreciated.
I do feel it is important to remember not to criticise the critics though. As I say, a lot of the time it comes up because I've communicated my ideas and plans badly, or haven't had enough space to. And the different formats of the media are a really awkward way of communicating with people you'll never get to meet in person, to begin with.
So could I ask everyone to not criticise those who criticise, I'd love this to be a place where everyone feels safe to air their thoughts. Definitely respond and debate the issues involved, but just keep it a place where all opinion is welcome! Debate actions, not actors.
Your comments are very life affirming though so a HUGE thank you. x
The Question comments ...
How would a freeconomic society produce complex engineering works such as manufacturing glasses for those members with poor eyesight, or the production of medicines such as insulin? Who would teach those skills and who would provide the infrastrucutre and in exchange for what? How would communities without these things/products trade for them with a society that's completely self sufficient?
The Question comments ...
In regards to point 1 in this blog entry...
Who pays for the network you use to receive calls (assuming you only use your phone for incoming calls)?
Who pays for the internet access your computer uses?
Who pays for the maintenance of this site (in terms of hosting)?
Who paid for your pc?
Who paid for your solar panel and what would you have done if you couldn't get one?
Who pays for the supermarket waste?
Who pays for the clothes you wear?
By who pays, I mean how are these costs met sans money.
Robert Howes comments ...
Hi Mark,
I am sure you are doing what you think you need to do to raise awareness, just as are a number of others (including myself). The Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project/Jacque Fresco are the most visible. There are others who are all but invisible, and I know you don't like me blowing my own trumpet here, but I will anyway.
***
You and Fresco are better than me at causing a stir, but I have something to offer too, and since you are inviting criticisms my criticism of you is that you seem to be ignoring certain realities, like the billion really poor. How does what you are advocating, about living without money, help the billion who are "living without money"? Are you willing to debate this with me? If you are, let's get on with it. If not then expect more criticism from me. If we are not helping we might be hindering progress, and I do not want to do that. How about you?
Cheers,
Bob
***
Wishface comments ...
I think the reason people get defensive about recycling/waste is because they feel misunderstood. I can understand that totally; shopping is hugely stressful, tiring and expensive. Not for everyone, but for those who don't have the choice to grow their own chickens, mill their own clothes and all the rest of it. People with low incomes who don't live near cheap market stalls that sell, almost magically, a bit of everything.
I have to shop at the tescos in town if i want to not starve. That's just a fact. It means having to travel by bus, which around here is stupidly overpriced (even then it's still cheaper to do shopping at Tescos). In my village, the shops don't stock enough (there's no fruit and veg stalls here) and what they do stock is beyond the means of someone living on the dole (not even that, actually). Believe me, it would be MUCH easier to not have to traipse into the local Tescos, it's a shithole (to say nothing of their ethics), it's stressful and luggin massive bags of food back home is exhausting.
But it's the only choice. Therefore whatever crap the shops have decided to wrap around the food I buy (such as two layers of plastic around half a cucumber) I have no choice to bin it (they don't recycle plastics locally).
Like most people I do what I can, but I'll be damned if I'm going to feel guilty about it when there's no choice. Not that there's any excuse for some people's appalling behaviour.
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ Robert Howes - What do you believe the roots of poverty to be in the 'developing' nations? It is a very attractive comment to make, as poverty is a emotive subject, but I am not sure its one based on a full understanding, but I am very happy for you to correct me on this, as I am just guessing from your comment. So I'd be interested in knowing 'why you think people in 'developing' nation live in poverty?'
By the ways, I see serious flaws in the Zeitgeist vision, as much as I really support many of their views and intentions.
@ The Question - I think your answers are in the blog. a.) Money is not required to produce things, it is a means of exchange and one method of rewarding labour. b.) As I said, this is Year 1 of a lifelong project, and so the long term goal is to be 'communally-sufficient for everything'. Laptops, wireless, mobiles and other similar technologies are not essential for life, but they are useful for spreading ideas at this point of human evolution. I am working on the long term project at the moment.
@ wishface - I completely respect your honesty and your situation. Have you tried getting an organic veg box, as you can get one to anywhere now, and also setting up a local food co-op which will make great food affordable for you.
Ytrish comments ...
Mark's way is setting an example and surely intends to show that if people co operate, share, realise that each one of us are of life and nature. and act from that realisation then how much easier it could all be.
The example and the living of this way has its own impetus, the more people who do it, the more will see what is possible and change just happens, minds and hearts are opened.
So surely the most fundamental change such as this is the one which is going ultimately to have the most impact ?
If enough people change their view point to a more real place ....
Realistically, I see that this is possible and can do a great deal do alleviate scarcity of basic material resources just because people are thinking differently....so feeling differently and acting differently.
Actually I think I am repeating quite a lot that Mark has already said !!!!! .... :-)
wishface comments ...
those options are not practical at all. Veg boxes are extremely expensive. Even then it wouldn't provide all my food needs (i am not a vegetarian) and so you would be back to square one. For some shopping locally is practical (though i find this craze for 'locally sourced' food to be somewhat fascistic really; how do people in poor countries trade out of poverty against that mentality?). For others it's not, and this is the problem with idealistic ways of living.
The Question comments ...
I think your time would be better served addressing more practical and realistic issues; issues which are more relevant. I woudl go so far as to say that you are in fact avoiding such issues by following what is essentially a dream. I'm not even sure moneyless living is desirable. It certainly isn't going to happen: the world isn't going to stop using money.
Better, much better, to focus on improving society. Let's focus on issues of waste, inequality, disenfranchisement and dissatisfaction where people are forced by capitalism to work 24 hours a day for the betterment of the elite.
What about a citizen's wage? What about lobbying governments to treat the unemployed with respect? Lobbying the media to give johnny foreigner a fair deal and not label them as terrorists? What about looking for ways for people to live creative and fulfilling lives for the betterment of themselves and the culture of society?
In light of these issues, it seems almost petty to worry about the actual mode of transaction.
Margaret comments ...
The Question says
"Better, much better, to focus on improving society."
Don't you think that is exactly what Mark is doing already?
Ytrish comments ...
Actually instead of "thinking"differently I should have put "seeing" differently.
So it goes:
Seeing differently,which leads to
Feeling differently, then
Thinking differently, to
Acting differently !
And I wonder what on earth we are all doing in front of computers on a sunny afternoon ( well it is here!).
There must be such a big need for change and dialogue.
For me that is certainly true !
Robert Howes comments ...
I need to just go out in the sunshine and do some work. The sun is in my eyes anyway and I can hardly see the keyboard.
***
I'll be back...
Bob
***
The Question comments ...
@Margaret I don't think, ultimately, given that money will never be abandoned, he isn't. I don't doubt he believes his cause.
Put it this way; if everyone had enough money to satisfy their needs, wants and desires, would there be a problem with money? No of course not, so the issue isn't money is it.
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ The Question - you say "if everyone had enough money to satisfy their needs, wants and desires, would there be a problem with money? No of course not, so the issue isn't money is it." That is exactly one of the problems! But to explain why would take me hours, but I recommend previous blogs and articles, its all already written.
@ Ytrish - wise words indeed. Thank you.
The Question comments ...
@Mark the why is simple: distribution of wealth. That's the problem. Rejecting money doesn't address that issue at all and since the world will not move to a moneyless society you will be making your life harder for ultimately what purpose? For instance what will you do when the crop fails after a bad winter or you need to trade with the moneyed community outside for essentials you need through circumstance?
This is what money facilitates so its removal simply creates the need for it to exist. That's how it came to be in the first place. It's not the root of all evil per se, it's abuse is. These are the things that should be dealt with. Why not fight for a citizens wage, for example, rather than promote a fraught existence that cannot work for everyone?
Robert Howes comments ...
Hi Mark,
From how you start your reply to me I gather that you think you might know more about the subject than I do. This is not the way to deal with a problem. I am only interested in solutions, not personality or ego. So if we can put ourselves to one side for the duration, and since you are interested to know what I think, I will tell you. Nothing you don't already know, it is the system as it is run that is the problem. Like a car that can be run recklessly or carefully, the world system taken as an aggregate of all its parts, is certainly not being run with care. You could say that the system we loosely term capitalism is being driven without due care and attention, or even dangerously.
***
The driver would appear to be the rich, whilst the passengers and pedestrians are respectively the middle strata and the poor. The passengers are being made sick by all the jolting and the pedestrians are being mowed down left right and centre. Enough of analogy though, let us get down to the nitty gritty.
***
Assuming that we cannot convince everyone to abandon this society, especially those who think they are benefiting from it more than they would from any other system so far proposed, we have to think of ways to change it from within. If everyone followed the person with the best worked out lifestyle and that lifestyle was realistic then all would be hunky dory. Unfortunately, the world has a thousand would be gurus to choose from, all with conflicting messages. Your message, as you indicate, is not quite the same as the Zeitgeist message. Each guru in turn finds faults with all the others and confusion reigns. Here I am using the term guru as a person who others look up to to set a good example. You and Fresco are more looked up to than I am, partly because you are better at promoting your ideas than I am, and partly (in my opinion) because you leave out all the difficult stuff that I thrive on. All the nasty little details. As they say, the Devil is in the details. I am trying to get you to acknowledge those details, of which there are many, but for our purposes we can concentrate for the moment on just a few.
***
As much as we don't like what money is doing to harm us, we few cannot abolish it the way the Marxists would have us do, if we the majority would only see it, we can ignore the problem or look for ways to engage the majority. And by engage I don't mean membership of an online community, I mean in the full life sense of an organisation, a collective, that provides everything or nearly everything that anyone and everyone needs. If your way, of moneylessness now regardless of the very real fact that the rest of the world doesn't know or care very much about a small group living off the fat of the land in England whilst a billion others starve in half the countries in the world can somehow translate into food for all, then I and others would like to know the process.
***
Assuming that a number of others join you in a field near Bristol in the near future, what is next? And let us assume that in some way not disclosed, and this is in common with the Venus Project to some degree, you manage to blag one field after another and get dedicated members to move from various countries where they have Internet and those well off enough to get here and who are allowed to come here (not the starving millions), what can ten thousand vegans in a thousand fields do to make life one iota better for the worst off in the world? I really want your answer to this.
***
What I am going to suggest, and you can ignore me if you like, is that the time has come now to do what you might realise could have been done all along, and that is to promote the immediate transition from capitalism to a moneyless economy, not by the vow of poverty method favoured by Eastern gurus over the centuries, but by using the system that is in place, globally now, to drive carefully into the future, picking up those pedestrians along the way who want to come along for the ride. Oops, slipped into metaphor again.
***
Okay, nuts and bolts. The only way to grow from you or I to billions, in a reasonable time-frame is exponentially. Linear expansion isn't enough. If you got a thousand people per year to join you in moneyless living then it would take a thousand years to reach one million. And since there are at least 70 million extra people on the planet each and every year you wouldn't even be able to keep up unless you got over seventy million per year joining in. Is that feasible? Do the maths.
***
Exponential growth is an entirely different matter. And it wouldn't happen accidentally, it would need to be planned, and in some detail too. But the beauty of exponential growth is that you can get away with just enough detail to get you to each succeeding stage, by which time certain things would have happened to show you the way, if you are awake enough.
***
As I have said to you several times, I am willing to help you, but you don't need my help to live the way you are living now, you are doing okay, and I'm glad you are. But think forward forty years. There is you and a bunch of other food foragers/growers, living in a world with now not one billion starving people but two or three billion. And all because something inside you wouldn't listen to reason. If I am totally wrong why don't you prove it by asking your 14,000 members to spare me 25 volunteers, and why don't you be one of them, to come and listen properly to all that I have to say, and carry out what I am suggesting long enough to prove me wrong. Would it waste your time and their time? What if I'm right?
***
I cannot do what you have done, Mark. I cannot get thousands to join my forums. Nor do I need to if you will co-operate and ask your members to co-operate in the greatest experiment ever tried. And if we succeed we can then ask the Zeitgeist group to join us, and with sufficient success we could even get most of the followers of the hard left (Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist/Maoist etc) to stop being a threat to any peaceful transition, which they surely are. We might even get Islam to join in as we have much in common with them, and even the Catholics and Protestants. The Buddhists should come quietly.
***
Why wait?
Cheers,
Bob
***
@ Robert Howes - What do you believe the roots of poverty to be in the 'developing' nations? It is a very attractive comment to make, as poverty is a emotive subject, but I am not sure its one based on a full understanding, but I am very happy for you to correct me on this, as I am just guessing from your comment. So I'd be interested in knowing 'why you think people in 'developing' nation live in poverty?'
By the ways, I see serious flaws in the Zeitgeist vision, as much as I really support many of their views and intentions.
nelly comments ...
hey i was just wondering how do you go about living with zero money. I mean i like theidea of this website, i think its a really neat concept, but i honestly dont get what you do about food, and where the hell are the skips for the skipping, because i have never seen one EVER!!!! um, so this is not a critism and i dont think your a berk, i actually think you have amazing writing talent, if you do decide to go back on ur moneyless pledge u should totally become a journalist. But anyway basically all I was asking for is a little guidance, on kinda how to get started? Thanks...:)
nelly
nelisiledube@hotmail.co.uk
jessica comments ...
I joined this website last year after reading about it in a blog on the guardian, and I followed the criticisms there, and it was interesting to observe.
The vast, vast majority of critics are men!!
I wonder why? I am really not casting any judgement, I just wonder why.
You've got my support anyway Mark, in every way you can imagine!
The Jordans comments ...
We're big advocates of your vision and we tell many of our family friends about it. One of them actually sent me on this link today, and I thought it was fantastic:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/06/down-with-kids-new-hero
You've brought an issue that has for the longest time been the domain of hippies and anarchists and not just brought it to mainstream attention, but even to the kids now!
Sandie comments ...
I think that the Freeconomy philosophy is far too complex to be judged in a purely positive or negative way.
As I understand it, the 'Freeconomy' isn't claiming to solve all of our planet's current problems, but it could go a long way to making the world a much nicer place live in.
Over the last few months we have been practicing more and more freeganism and it's starting feel like the way to go..... Each transaction I make, I ask, "Could I do this without money?" And, often I can.
Our family is far from living a money-less lifestyle. However, we are now co-operating more with friends and neighbours, giving things away, rather than selling them, buying less and using resources that would have gone to landfill.
We are also the recipients of delicious meals, assistance, useful resources and much, much more; and all free of money exchange. We are in transition.......
I would ask the critics of the Freeconomy, to perhaps just give it a go, in a small way, to experience the feel-good factor of a 'no money involved transaction'.......Go on, what have you got to lose? It won't cost you a penny!
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ Robert Howes - The question I posed wasn't intended to suggest I know more than you about it - in fact the contrary. It's very easy to say an emotive one-liner such as "this isn't going to help the poor billions?", which implies you know how to save the starving children of the world. It's easy to criticise in this way, as you don't have to outline an alternative solution. I also think you avoided the question, so I'd still be interested in knowing what you see as the roots of poverty in the developing nations. This is an important question if you want to put depth on the criticism.
You've told me a million times about your plans,and I've heard it from a third party, and it's not a solution I agree with so I cannot promote it to members here. I applaud you for wanting to follow what you believe in, and really encourage you to go for it, but that's all I can do. If it is a solution you'll not have any problems finding the people to help in time.
There's a problem with your car, as I see it. It requires fuel. Constant fuel. And it needs 4% more fuel every year. And its this fuel that is destroying the planet. So whilst I agree that you could have a much better relationship between driver and passenger, the fundamental nature of the car means you must burn fuel or it stops.
How do I plan on saving the starving billions? I'm not, I've already said that. What I am trying to do is show a model of truly sustainable living in practice, so that anyone in the UK or similar climates and cultures can then replicate it, and anyone in other climates and cultures can take whatever is relevant to their unique locality. This could grow slowly or exponentially, who knows what macro-economic, climatic and ecological factors will come into play in the next 10 years. To criticise that is to criticise Michael Reynold, architectural genius behind the Earthship. Reynolds has spent 30 years perfecting the ultimate home in terms of sustainability. Anyone can now replicate that, anywhere in the world. The fact everyone hasn't yet isn't his fault, all he can do is create a solution and then spread the word on it, and that is what he is doing. I will be building an Earthship as part of the first real life freeconomy community.
@ wishface - Vandana Shiva, an Indian quantum physicist and in my opinion the world's leading environmental activist, who is a keynote speaker at almost every major environmental conference, says the best thing we can do to help the 'poor' people of the 'developing' nations is to stop trading with them. This isn't coming from a middle class white westerner, she lives with these people everyday and she understands what they need much more than anyone else.
We are going to run out of oil soon. How do you propose we continue shipping food across the world then? Will trading with them then seem like a good design for society to be building now? And if we continue with a food system responsible for over 30% of all carbon emissions, then climate chaos is going to affect them also, not just us westerners, the people who have mainly caused it. That will just make their situation even worse.
@ Sandie - THANK YOU! Sanity prevails. That, I have got to say, is COMMENT OF THE YEAR!
You hit the nail on the head in my limited perspective. Much respect for all that you are doing, I think it's fantastic. This is exactly about a transition to a way of life that will eventually be harmonious with the ecology of the planet and all that dwell on it, human and non-human alike.
@ The Jordans - Yes a friend just showed me that article yesterday, I usually don't read them, but this one I loved, mainly because I feel we give children so little credit and suppress all the natural instincts to be, well, kids. Each one of them is a little symbol of hope.
The Question comments ...
So then money isn't the problem is it. We are talking about reducing waste and consuming less. That's all. That's nothing new or even really that radical. Most people would agree with that, I think. So again, money per se isn't the issue, the distribution of resources, their consumption and waste are. So then, why bother trying to do away with it altogether: isn't that a tremendous waste of one's own energy?
Wishface comments ...
@Mark Now it seems you are against trade. Ok, you won't want to trade with the third world. I suspect the issue there isn't trading per se, it's the corruption of government - the distrubtion of wealth.
Your society is going to be based on trade, without the means to trade internationally with anyone (because it's polluting to use planes and ships) then you are advocating people only use horses and bikes.
But who is going to build bikes with only what can be sourced locally (and not scavenged either, since that won't be an option in the world you envision). How are people going to find enough food to eat when they can only eat what can be grown locally - vegans and even vegetarians are going to have an extremely difficult time (veganism would be impossible). You will also need more land to devote to grazing of not only food animals but horse and ponies as transport and pack animals.
If you can't trade then how on earth can a society without money function? Do you not think technology can be developed to produce international transport that doesn't pollute?
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ The Question & Wishface - I respect your questions but I really have answered them over and over again in previous blogs, so I have to ask you to read before writing - please. I can't respond to the same questions from thousands of people over and over again - you've only got to respond to me, but I'm expected to have time to respond to everyone!
The questions are answered so all I am asking is to spend a bit of time reading them. Thanks.
Ytrish comments ...
If it's any help I found all Mark's blogs on Blog Archive at the top of this page and blog feed and blogs on the home page.
The Question comments ...
I've read them and can find no answer to my questions. I don't know what conclusions I'm meant to draw otherwise.
@Mark do you pay any kind of tax?
Teresa comments ...
I don't fully understand why a few people insist on missing the point here. I've followed this since the beginning and your approach seems extremely well thought through, along the lines of Permaculture I'd say, which is all about holistic design.
Anyway I know you know all about Permaculture anyway :-)
If anyone disagrees, why don't you just go and put your own beliefs into practice, Mark isn't forcing anyone to join, he's just offering another way, a way that I want to join.
The Question comments ...
How am I missing the point, and what would that point be?
The world will never give up money. How and why do you think it came to be in the first place. Thus any attempt to inspire the world to do just that is going to be an exceptional expenditure of energy. That energy, imo, could be much more productively spent on more relevant and important issues.
I think that blaming the world's woes on money per se is what's missing the point.
Robert Howes comments ...
Hi Mark,
You seem to have set your course, which you are fully entitled to do, but unlike others who are living the minimalist lifestyle you have made a big thing of it and gathered 14,000 adherents, including me. I purposely didn't say followers as I am not a follower and I imagine the other members are not either. We are each teacher and learner. We each have much to learn, and I take what lessons I can from you and from wherever else I can. You are doubtless doing good in the world by making people think about the collective mire we have got ourselves into. But you don't stop there. You take a further step that could be detrimental. You state, and I quote: You've told me a million times about your plans,and I've heard it from a third party, and it's not a solution I agree with.
***
Now I might have told you a million times (once in person, half a dozen times or so in this place) or should I say, alluded to, parts of the plan, the essence of it, certainly not enough of it for you to have a full grasp of it. But let's be generous and say you understand the plan so well, and you understand the world and the nature of reality so well that your in opinion “it is not a solution”. You dismiss my life's work, half a century of daily thinking and thousands of discussions, hundreds of books read and everything else that I have put into this with, “it's not a solution I agree with”
***
It is so damned easy to write someone off. I have asked you for a debate, and debating is a specific activity with rules, like answering each question. So I will answer your question: “what you see as the roots of poverty in the developing nations?” I can answer simply; money. Money is the root of poverty, but that is simplistic. I have been against money longer than you have been alive, and long enough to realise that we cannot get rid of it in a simplistic way. Poverty exists in many nations, not just the developing nations because money gravitates to the already rich. Rich countries tend to get richer, rich people tend to get richer, but this is only a tendency not an absolute. If it were an absolute then one person would have everything. Wealth and money are spread unevenly, but for the rich to get richer they have to have a stream of income from the less rich. The less rich have to have jobs in order to have incomes that they spend. This money goes to retail outlets (food, clothes, bicycles, cars and so on) and utilities (gas, electric, water etc), insurance and so on, and the owners of those companies, the shareholders get a percentage.
***
By you and I getting thrown out stuff we don't contribute money to the rich, but we have very little effect on this one way bias of money going to the already rich because we are few and will remain few as long as we do not facilitate greater change. Your way of addressing this problem, non participation simply takes you out of the equation, like all the others who have no income. Capitalism doesn't factor you and the rest in, except to act as a warning that if workers don't accept the situation they will finish up as badly off as the worst off, having to eat leaves or whatever. Most workers will not allow themselves to live this way, and nor should they have to. The billion or so without jobs/incomes/benefits/charity, simply die, and capitalism carries on regardless. You are against these bad effects of capitalism, and I have told you there is a way to change it, but you simply state your opinion, “It is not a solution I agree with”. You seem to be saying you are content to make insignificant changes. If this is the case then I roundly condemn you for your short sightedness. I hope it is not the case.
***
What I want to know is what you mean by “It is not a solution I agree with”. Either you know the whole idea and know that it can't work. But that cannot be true because I have never told anyone the whole idea, there has never been time. Or you think it might work but you don't care. Or you didn't think of it and you think someone else's idea shouldn't be tried by “your” supporters. Or you don't want to be held responsible by suggesting trying it. It is so hard to know what you mean unless you specify. What is it about this plan that makes it not a solution you agree with? Have you ever said so, because I only remember you saying in the past that you liked my ideas, but with some reservations. I don't remember you saying before that it was not a solution you agreed with.
***
As for you criticising my use of an emotive issue, am I supposed to keep quiet about it? Do you keep quiet about emotive issues? And yes, I do know how to save the starving children of the world. I might be the only one who truly does know. I challenge anyone to put forward a better plan. And since you know my plan, or think you do, pray tell us all why it cannot work, if that is what you think. If you can find a serious flaw with it then do me the honour of telling me so I can attempt to improve it.
***
You admit to not knowing as much as I do about the subject as I do, but as I said, we should keep ego out of it. If I know more then you should be asking for my help, which I have offered, not dismissing me. And as for your “It's easy to criticise in this way, as you don't have to outline an alternative solution.” What's that all about? I have outlined a whole plan which you claim to understand because I've told it to you a “million times”. But I will outline it again
***
You say you applaud me for wanting to follow what I believe in, and in saying that you show that you do not understand me. I have no beliefs. I have no disbeliefs. I have a plan that if followed by a small group there is a possibility that it will prove effective at creating the type of world you appear to desire, one in which there is no poverty and no need for money. You have not shown how your moneylessness is going to bring about your desires. I suggest you do yourself and everyone a big favour by starting a faqs specifically to answer all the questions that come up time and again in the blog so that we can all refer to line number x in the blog. Simple. Ploughing through the blogs is anything but simple, it is wasting valuable time that could be used far more constructively.
***
What appears below is pasted from your own site. What I am saying is that these actions need facilitating, they won't happen spontaneously. Growing our own food will remain a marginal activity as long as most of the land is not in the hands of the people. My plan will help people acquire their share of the land, in UK and every other country. Why would you be against that? Or is it that you don't really understand the plan as well as you think you do? I cannot for the life of me understand why you would put in jeopardy a plan that could work if supported by just casting it aside like an apple core, thinking it will turn into a tree with no assistance from you. You have a funny idea of people helping each other. I offer my help and all I get is rejection. I ask for help and what do I get? Rejection. And this from a caring organisation. What hope do we have?
“If we grew our own food, we wouldn't waste a third of it as we do today. If we made our own tables and chairs, we wouldn't throw them out the moment we changed the interior decor. If we had to clean our own drinking water, we probably wouldn't defecate in it.
If we could see the child working under military presence in a sweatshop, we would probably think twice about buying that new pair of jeans on the High St. If we could see the face of the mother in Iraq as her child lies dead from a cluster bomb, we'd probably think twice about going on an oil-guzzling cheap flight for the weekend. If we could see the size of the landfill sites where our 'stuff' goes, we would probably have a lot more respect for what we have and use.”
I can fully understand why you see money as a bad thing, but can you understand that if used correctly in a transition to a moneyless economy it can prevent a whole lot of suffering? You seem to have the same blind-spot that the Zeitgeist Movement and many other organisations have, and between you all you are doing a great disservice to humankind whilst pretending to be doing only good. You ignored much of what I wrote above including the part about exponential growth. You state: “How do I plan on saving the starving billions? I'm not” You quoted me as saying: "this isn't going to help the poor billions?" What I said was something quite different. I was talking about getting from a low number, you and me, up to everyone on the planet joining in.
***
But to answer the question: How do I plan on saving the starving billions? Simply put: a co-op or numerous co-ops that use money only as and when necessary, like for buying land (as you plan also to do) and for buying all that we cannot make, but acquiring the means, through money, so that the more means of production that we collectively acquire the less we need to use money, but the more people we can involve and the more wealth we can create for the world to share. In other words to use extant money to facilitate all that the Freeconomy Community stands for but cannot do without money. This is no longer an emotive one-liner
***
As for not trading with the poor, I can understand what you mean, but are you saying we should not create jobs for them so that they can earn a living? Just let them starve? My plan will create millions of jobs if anyone will help me do what I cannot do alone. It took 400,000 people to put a man on the moon. All I need is 25 volunteers for one year to indicate whether or not there was anything at all in my plan. Is that too much to ask? What's a year? What are billions of lives worth? Do we not need to prevent global warming? Is your earthship going to protect you when everything falls apart? I think not.
***
I wasn't going to answer the following, but I will: “There's a problem with your car, as I see it. It requires fuel. Constant fuel. And it needs 4% more fuel every year. And its this fuel that is destroying the planet. So whilst I agree that you could have a much better relationship between driver and passenger, the fundamental nature of the car means you must burn fuel or it stops. “
***
It was an analogy, but yes, capitalism does need fuel, and fossil fuels are due to run out in decades for oil and gas, centuries for coal, but we are not limited to fossil fuels. All the solutions are in my plan, and they could be in yours too. There are no difficult problems, not really, but the solutions that will create a money free society cannot be free until we have a freeconomy, which we don't have. We simply need to get on with using the knowledge we have coupled with the wealth we have. That is, in simple terms, the crux of the matter. I am here, ready, with money, land, machinery and so on, and of course a very well thought out plan. Who else can say the same? Jacque Fresco cannot, he admits to not having a fully worked out plan, yet he has far more members than you, and it is all down to marketing of simplistic ideas. It is only my opinion, but I think we need something more. Do you not agree?
comments ...
If anyone wants to learn more about the plan they can email me at robertcircle1@yahoo.co.uk
Or join my two forums. I plan to start other forums to cover the wide variety of necessary subjects, but please join those two for now
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/csofarming/messages
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/cautiousforex/
Thanks,
Bob
***
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ Robert Howes - I really really respect what you are doing, I am sorry if it comes across as if I don't, I think your intentions are great.
But am I wrong in thinking you do Forex trading - oil, currencies and the like? If so, its not for me (or this community, as it is far outside its aims) and I have to ask you once again not to use this website as a platform for it. If I am wrong, please correct me, and I'll be the first to apologise.
Thanks Bob, and best of luck with it all, I really mean it.
Robert Howes comments ...
Mark,
Means and ends are not always the same. My forex site is to warn people that they will lose hard earned money if they try trading unless they are incredibly lucky or knowledgeable. I am hoping that I can encourage those with money to invest to use it in the service of all, not just self.
***
Also, forex does not invest in oil or anything, it is gambling, like horse betting without the horses. The winnings for one come from the losses from others. It has no influence on the market as such.
***
Money circulates and we are all tainted with it unless we never use anything created with it. I don't see money as a one dimensional thing, money simply facilitates trade so that people can get what they need but can't produce. We can wean ourselves off it but not all at once, this year or next. It will be around until we start using it to create a better society. We have no real choice in the matter.
***
Once started, the new society will be able to direct money to where it is needed prior to coming off it altogether. It must be a steady process, not cold turkey that as with coming down of drugs too quickly can kill you, giving up money suddenly (if that were possible, which it isn't without the consent of the majority of world governments and people) would disrupt all trade and we would all suffer terribly.
***
World trade and manufacture is only robust as long as one of two conditions prevails. The present condition and a future condition that we have to move very cautiously towards, but with as much haste as we can muster. If we either do nothing to facilitate real change or we disrupt the system, people suffer. The many who suffer and die daily are not helped by complacency. We have a massive task before us that we have not begun to address.
***
If you want to remove the forex link, go ahead, but please leave the other information.
Thank you,
Bob
***
Ytrish comments ...
I think if anyone has such different solutions they should put them into practice , be the change they want to see, perhaps start their own blog about good change ? Rather than circling round and round uncomprehendingly. The latter seems such a big waste of energy !
A quote from unknown author :
" Where there is love there is no fear,
Where there is fear there is no love. "
So fearless love, people !
Cheese comments ...
Very eager to help in anyway i can towards the freeconomy community.
whos that berk using a lighter in the video? surely he should be using a magnesium bar of some kind and spend an hour getting it to light!
Wishface comments ...
@fearless love?!?
What does that mean? This guy wants to try living in the real world and walk a mile in the shoes of someone who really is struggling and not play at lets pretend poverty. This is getting beyond a bloody joke now.
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ Cheese - great to hear from you, feel free to link to the video!
@ Wishface - You say '"lets pretend poverty" - I'm not playing poverty at all! I don't feel even slightly impoverished, in fact I've never felt happier.
What is the 'real world'? Do you believe I exist in a different world to you? There are 6.5 billion versions of the real world going on right now. I worked 35hrs per week to put myself through full time education. I work 7 days a week now, where I look after my own needs, waste, food, heating, transport etc. Is that not the 'real world'? Am I only living in the 'real world' if I buy my food from the supermarket and live in an overcrowded city? The question must be asked, who is in the real world, and who is in some sort of unsustainable fantasty land? I'm not saying I know the answer, I am just asking the question.
I feel for everyone who is impoverished. All I am trying to do is create a model of living which gives these very people a support network. I get emails everyday from people who are on the breadline who say Freeconomy has been invaluable to them.
I can sense from all your comments over the last few months that you don't like me, and that's fine. I haven't forced you to join this. Find a solution that works for you. Your more than welcome to be part of this, but it doesn't sound like you do, so I am not sure why you joined.
If the normal consumerist society is what makes you happy, why not just keep continuing with it?
Wishface comments ...
I think you're frankly taking the piss. There really are people living on nothing and they would do anything to get out of that. You're a slap in the face to everyone struggling in this system that you think your subsidised lifestyle is any solution or that it is even close to what you claim it is. You make me sick; i've struggled for years to find things you were given for nothing. I've come to this community thinking maybe, just maybe, i might find them. But no, this community isn't close to what you think it is. There's no sharing. It's just a bunch of idealists without any idea.
I'll tell you what the real world is: struggling to survive on the pittance the state hands out as doel money while being dehumanised by a media that keeps people down. Struggling to find a decent work experience that pays enough to live on, never mind trying to live in caravan on someone else's land. Meanwhiel hoping the jobcentre decide to be reasonable next time and don't just stop my benefit leaving me to starve while I'm stuck in an expensive and small community I cannot afford to live in. No free land for me; no caravan for me.
You've had all your means to live without handed to you on a plate and you think that's any kind of template for society? Absolute nonsense. There's no option to cycle to the shop for me: I don't even have a bike and the shop is far too far to travel - never mind lugging massive heavy bags of paid for food. Food I couldn't get anywhere else that I have to eat because I have hypoglcyemia. Where would my prescription glasses come from living in a caravan? The freeconomic opticians? Where are they then?
I don't whine about my lot and I don't air my lot for the approval or disapproval of others, but for you to parade your lifestyle as some kind of ideal when it's nothing more than poverty tourism (regardless of how impoverished or otherwise you feel) is an affront, and this freeskilling/freecycling/pay it forward website is so far from the ideal it's not even funny.
Wishface comments ...
Edit: if you think that I enjoy the consumerist society then you really haven't understood any post i've made at all. Not only that you've neatly avoided any answer to any question i've asked. How you can expect to be taken seriously I don't know if you cannot even back your beliefs up.
I don't have an opinion on you personally; I question your beliefs as they are misguided and disingenuous. You are patently, demonstrably and provably not living without money. How you can go forward from that false premise with any kind of credibility while dodging every question i've asked and expect to be taken seriously I don't know.
And don't give me this 'my website' bollocks either; you wanted a community you've got one. Just not a community of happy clappers and wannabes.
comments ...
@mark, thanks, I know you're busy but please stay in touch!
Hey all, please have a look at my video about Mark and discovering his way of life, please leave your comments i would love to hear what you think
The Freeconomists film
Cheese comments ...
@mark, thanks, I know you're busy but please stay in touch!
Hey all, please have a look at my video about Mark and discovering his way of life, please leave your comments i would love to hear what you think
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/2224/The-Freeconomists
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ Cheese - yikes, I forgot about that beard, I look like a black sheep. Of the family perhaps.
@ nelly - if you need some help / tips email me at the address in the blog
Sandie comments ...
@ Wishface - Re: your quote 'happy clappers and wannabes': Clear, constructive criticism would be far more useful, to this debate, than insults.
Georgina comments ...
About - Robert Howes & wishface. R you wrote "acquiring the means, through money, so that the more means of production that we collectively acquire the less we need to use money"
In a way this could work because of the situation we are in due to what Wishface wrote, although yes slightly nasty, but we all express ourselves differently when faced with threats about the way we live from those in authority who can control us. Yet a community can only be pure if the seed is pure in the first place. And those that stay positive always reach their destination because they focus on what can be done. And in a way I'd like to think that everything posted here is constructive criticism. Because all too often, language can cause circular thinking, therefore action gets laid off. So when 'in your face' comments are thrown at you, and you may feel offended, it's just a reminder to stay focused :)
Wishface comments ...
@Sandie I have tried to engage in a debate by asking questions and pointing out things, but Mark refuses to answer them. He claims he has already answered these questions, as if these questions need and will only ever be asked once, but even then when asked for a link...nothing. So there can be no debate.
I've asked for help from this community on numerous things, nothing more unreasonable than anything it's creator has asked for or received. Yet the same process yields nothing. How can that demonstrate a working community? I don't have a caravan, bike, wifi, laptop, land, skips, food, or even the money to buy a solar panel. So what do I do?
And even then, if you aren't paying taxes, you are depriving yourself of a pension so in later life you are potentially storing up trouble. Is that wise?
The Question comments ...
Let's talk about Haiti; how would a moneyless economy have been able to help these poor buggers. It couldn't. Money is the quickest way to get help on the ground and source resrouces where they are needed. Without it you would have only been able to rely on packaging up food and clothing which then has to be internationally shipped (something Mark is against) to the danger zone. This is both impractical and grossly inefficient - to say nothing of dealing with perishables such as medicine. Money on the other hand can be transacted instantly from people who want to help to experts who can use it.
There is also a grotesque conflation of issues that is happening with this moneyless crusade. Issues of conservation, environmentalism, and trade (and probably more issues besides) are all being mashed together. That's totally the wrong way to proceed.
Living without money won't immediately heal the ambitious heart of society. All it does is replace money with resources; you will still get the same problems. What happens when one region is more powerful than its neighbour because the land is inherently richer? People will just lord their resources in the same way they lord money at the moment that Mark finds distasteful.
Running off to live on the charity of another in a caravan with a paid for solar panel doesn't begin to address these issues.
Caroline and John comments ...
Wishface, we live in Bristol also and we use this site almost every week. Caroline even had her hair done on it last week! We're on low incomes too and its been a godsend to us.
I think if you started to be nice to people you may get a better response. We seen your pretty shitty emails you sent out to all members about another member who was offering help, and I must admit we made a complaint to the admin of this site. Sorry, but you were out of order and the guy was just being really kind.
We got an email back from Mark in admin saying he appreciated the heads up but that he didn't want to ban you as he said you may need it as it sounds like your on low income too, like us.
And then all you give him is grief on here mate. Please take a tip - be nice to people and you'll probably have much more luck. Simple rule of life, no?
Wishface comments ...
But I don't live in Bristol. Never have.
Your reading of the issue with the guy giving away the computers (who i did NOT identify for obvious reasons) is completely wrong as is your reading of my comments here.
I am criticising someone because they are selling themselves (literally, in the case of writing a book about it) under a false premise. Would you be happy to pay for a cookbook if you found the author was, for example, using someone else's recipes as his own?
I have asked a number of times questions that haven't been answered and made numerous points about this lifestyle that get ignored. It's one thing to choose to live a certain life; that's entirely fine. I have no problem with that. It's quite another to pass it off as the solution to society's various and unrelated problems and to blame all the world's ills, quite mistakenly, on money. It's a fundamentally ridiculous position to take.
And if people want to offer goods and services - free or otherwise - they should do so with courtesy and fairness. Not by messing people around that are interested. I don't mind if someone decides to give their computer to someone else, that's their choice. But I do mind when they can't even be bothered to tell me they have done so mid way thorugh a conversation about those computers.
To then be told to be responsible in your freeconomics is entirely reasonable in my opinion and was done so anonymously and politely. It was the other party who decided to air his grievances publicly. That's his problem; i just don't care to be mucked around on a site that purports to be for helping people.
Kieron comments ...
as the old saying goes: "Those who say that something can't be done, should shut up and get out of the way of those who are actually doing it"
Or at least it goes something like that anyway.
Sorry if this has already been said, didn't have the time to make it through all the previous comments.
Sandie comments ...
@ Wishface
Re: your quote "What does that mean? This guy wants to try living in the real world and walk a mile in the shoes of someone who really is struggling and not play at lets pretend poverty. This is getting beyond a bloody joke now."
Why so much hostility?
Benito comments ...
In my short life I've been told and learnt that to self sufficient you need some land, with a water source and a community willing to share the load of big jobs that arise along the season. This I know now is the life stile of most indigeneous people or peasants cultures. But all start with community access to the land. I was lucky enouf to grow in such life style and unlucky to see It destroyed by the cosumerism forces(progress, scintific and socials).
The community gave all to preserve that and one of theyr solution was access to the land for everybody, no more private landownership.
Dear Mark your lifestyle and your foraging, the freeskilling like to make a willow bascket is not possible without land access. Where do you get the willow, park the caravan, build a earthship, a bender.............whatever.
Is the solution write a book and with the profit buy land? Do a shitty job pile the money buy the land?
Ansawer me to that.
When I point this to people of this community the ansewer I get is: Sorry but this is an apolitic group etc....
Now tell me what is what you're doing if its not politics. If I remember well my dictionary tell me that all we propose is politics. Isn't good get out from this negative idea of "politics" and get really inside it using this instruments that our ancesteurs fought for to really change somenthing.
I apologise for all the spelling mistakes but I havent had a good education like most of this community, I'd a simple pratical one where 1+1=2 without access to the land you cannot do it simple as that.
I think you have a real good heart, and you do a lot of compromises to get your message across unlike others, and this is where your success comes, hope those compromises will not take over you and wash all yor soul.
Allan Tierney comments ...
Your example should be followed, certainly not attacked. ;-)
Robert Howes comments ...
Am I allowed to do a blog here Mark? You said you would allow others.
Cheers,
Bob
***
The Question comments ...
@Allan Without money, I would like to know, how would you help the people of Haiti?
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ All with questions - can I ask that you bear with me with the questions, I've got some urgent deadlines to work to at the moment and the answers are not just one liners. I do think there are some fundamental misunderstandings though, and if you could find time to read previous writings then you will find the answers in them.
@ The Question - Money does not create anything. It is a means of exchange, of rewarding people for work done. This is a vital starting point.
More children (not including adults) die every 10 days from starvation than died in the earthquake. One of the big issues here is debt and the roles of the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank in that. They're crippled by debt. Which at the end of the day comes down to our greed, here in the west, for more and more. Do you think that nobody dies because of the economic system we live in today anyway? Haiti pales in comparison to the deaths caused by the economics of insanity that we are actively engaged in today. And if we continue with lifestyles that continue to make the tides rise and the climate chaotic, human catastrophes such as Haiti will be a regular occurrence.
I'd also like to know what your design for society would be. How would it all come together? A holistic approach please, considering everything. You also talk as if the society we have today will go on for ever. What is your societal design for when oil runs out and when we have depleted our natural assets? I'd also like to know what your background is, what your experience is in, as this is relevant to the credibility of any argument you propose. I am not having a go at you, I just think that when criticising one way it becomes a stronger argument if you outline your own solution and you have proof of many years experience in the field.
@ Wishface - I'd also like to know how you see society in the future. How are you going to manage the world's natural capital? How will you get all the things you've become used to when oil becomes really highly priced, before running out? Again, please feel free to propose your own solution, it is too easy just to criticise, and if I hear a better thought out design than my own then I will happily change my opinion, I am by no means set on it. Again I'd like to know what experience you have in the fields of economics, ecology, sustainability etc to base your opinions on - this is an essential starting point in serious debate. Otherwise anyone could come on here and have their say, without any proof that they studied the issues involved over a long period of time.
Thanks guys.
sbradley comments ...
For the detractors (if that's a word), have you ever heard the expression 'Catch yourself on'?
Well, it appears to me that this site was founded by the ingenuity of Mark Boyle. Whether or not he 'paid' for any of the services of any other individuals is surely beside the point. Is not enough that it has made accessible, to an increasingly wide audience, a forum upon which western values and assumptions can be questioned?
I would suggest that rather than nit picking, those of you who criticise on trivial grounds should gain further perspective. I'm not saying everything Mark is doing is great, however, I feel it has the potential for much more positive change in the world than negative.
Happy Valentine's all!!
Robert Howes comments ...
Hi All,
I too would like to know if any members have (reasonably) detailed plans for making the world a better place for us all.
Cheers,
Bob
***
The Question comments ...
@Mark Now you are dodging the question. Your previous writings don't address the questions at all and you are avoiding the question of how people wanting to help disaster efforts such as in haiti can do so without money.
You are dodging issues left right and centre. You re conflating economic systems with money which you freely admit is a mere means of exchange.
Do you not think that a resourec based system would be open to the same abuses that money can suffer? In fact a monetary system is more efficient and more flexible; just because there are plenty of examples of how money is badly used it doesn't change that fact. That's the point about helping in Haiti.
Your own methodology is flawed. You are intent on brushing my quetion of Haiti aside because more people die (apparently) because of wealth distribution (which is a completely separate issue to money). What kind of debate is that? It's not a competition: who can suffer the most!
Lara comments ...
@The Question
Your arguments are hypocritic. Taking Haiti as an example: The aid given to Haiti is not only for the good of the people of Haiti. At the same time it is the attempt to gain political influence on the region. A comparable effect you have with so called "development aid" which also creates or provides structures of dependency.
Do you really think that nobody could have helped the haitian people if the societies of the world would have tried to live at low expense, wasting as less as they can and taking care of their own instead of exploiting other people? Because if you do so, I would really like to know what made you think so and on what it is based.
Btw. it is useless to argue the world will never give up money, as money is theoretical just a word for an object that value had been applied to, combined with the idea of ownership. Anyway, in most cases when people think about and act on money they are not thinking of it in a philosophical but in a rational and practical way, that is money as "potential" you can gain and gather. Money theoretical is just a sort of communication of ownership but practical it can be only ownership, it can be power, it can create dependencies...and it does. It is also useless trying to criticizise Marks ambitious and idealistic plan with the argument people will never do this and that, because this is eventually what idealism is about: doing something, even if it is about to fail. Idealism does NOT mean reaching a point but struggeling for it. In the meantime Mark's way of living inspired a lot of people, maybe not changing their mind entirely but highlighting ideas about life that are important to him. This is already a huge profit and probably changed much more than fellows like you that try to tell the people what they can NOT do.
Robert Howes comments ...
Hi All,
People here are getting a little tetchy. I suggest a cooling of heads. Money is the problem that Mark is trying to find solutions to. We would all like to find solutions to problems but this is the daddy of all problems and it will be the hardest to fix. I know how to fix it and I think Mark is being a little naïve. No-one enjoys criticism but criticism is part of the process of learning so it is best done in a friendly way in which we can all learn what we need to know in order to make progress.
***
For the record I will say that I am quite certain that humans can globally evolve a way of living well without money but that there has to be a process that enables everyone to develop at their own speed. I can understand why some members are frustrated at Mark's approach, I am one of them. He might well be thoroughly pissed off at my approach. He might even ban me from here for challenging him, but I feel that I have the right since I've been at the game for so much longer than him.
***
Until I get banned I want to say a little about money. It has been in use for so long and our system has developed in the way it has because of money, so it won't just disappear because some people don't have it whether through choice (as in Mark's case) or circumstance. I think I know enough about people to know that generally they have their price. Humans can be nasty and brutish and deprivation can bring out the worst in them. Deprived people see money as the cure for their ills and they will in certain circumstances beg, borrow or steal.
***
Will they stop doing so because Mark has set a good example? Of course not. Those who join Mark and give up money will be those who find it spiritually fulfilling to do so not New York street muggers. There has to be another process for the rest of us. What percentage of the readers of this blog or of the Freeconomy Community who would like a moneyless world would turn down money offered to them? I want a moneyless world but I know that is going to take a lot of money used correctly to bring that about.
***
I don't intend to be patronising towards Mark but he has the luxury of youth in which to experiment with different ways of living. At his age I was doing similar stuff. It is how we learn. We keep trying different things to find out how useful they are. Mark will find out for himself what he needs to know over the next few years. He could have kept quiet about his moneyless living, but by telling us all he has invited comment. He might find some comment useful. I hope he does. And if I said that I was certain he would have gone back to using money in ten or twenty years he might decide to show me by sticking to his guns until he is a hundred. So I make no prediction.
***
Mark set up the Freeconomy Community to facilitate change in our behaviour. To make it possible for us to offer our free labour or ask others for their free labour. It's like LETS without the money substitute systems that LETS uses. It is in competition with LETS and an experiment that I would like to see succeed. But I can see why it might not. We do not have to wait to see if it will work or not. It is there, we can choose to use it or not whilst we try to learn lessons from it and try other things.
***
Some of the replies here suggest that there are those amongst us who are finding life difficult with too little money. I might be able to offer some useful suggestions to help them. I can be contacted at: robertcircle1@yahoo.co.uk so if you tell me your circumstances I'll try to help.
The Question comments ...
@Lara ordinary people and independent organisations/charities that are helping in Haiti are able to do so because of money. Without that money help would be all but impossible. It seems ridiculous to suggest that the donations made by ordinary people, such as at their local post offices, giving what they can, are done so for political reasons. You want to talk about idealism but respond with conspiracy theories such as this.
Talking about living with less is not the same as talking about living without money altogether. That's a completely different issue.
For money to be removed woudl require all the world's governments (and in most cases the will of the people to put such governments into place) to agree. How likely is this? Why not then expend your energy to achieve something more prqactical and desirable. It is not desirable to see money done away with precisely because it is only a means of transaction. A very effective one.
Discussing living without money would also require that someone advocating it actually do so.
I don't care if people want to live in caravans; that's their business. But when they advocate radical change on the basis thereof to the point of courting the media and publishign a book (a process involving paper and money), then it's something else.
I have yet to see any practical solutions to anything offered by way of doing away with money. The lifestyle Mark lives is entirely dependent on the society he wishes to escape from.
The Question comments ...
@robert Money isn't the problem. The control of the majority of wealth by the few and it's distribution are. That is a separate issue and it is also an issue that will affect any economy regardless of what it's based on. If you want to trade the execess of bread you've baked on your earthship you better hope that the society you want to trade with needs it otherwise you might as well go back to money.
which is why money got invented in the first place. this whole debate seems counter productive and based on a retrograde philosophy.
sbradley comments ...
for bob,
You don't mean to be patronising yet you reckon you have the solution(s). You criticise a site that is by any standard meeting an objective of awareness raising yet don't see the irony in your trumpet blowing?
Sure, it's one thing to have a different opinion but it's another to try and shove it down people's throats. Your distrust in Mark's virtue is apparent even if you try to dress it up with words and rhetoric.
Mark has opted to go without money and so may have little to offer financially to the people of Haiti or elsewhere, even financially constrained members of this site. However, the point you continually miss is that for change to take place at any level it first requires changes in mindsets where 'money talks.'
Money may very well continue to be used as a means of exchange but as pointed out above by others, it is the distribution and importantly the control of that money wherein the problem lies.
Yes, I agree that Mark's actions are in some way a luxury, as in many millions have no choice but to go without money, but Mark was born a westerner and to make a commitment such as this, for however long it lasts, is evidence enough for me at least that he is an individual of exceptional bravery and a shining light in a tunnel of materialism and consumerism.
Ytrish comments ...
To The Question
As just another member on this, the Freeconomy website, I wonder why you are so hostile and seemingly determined to miss the point of anything that has been written on the blogs or in comments ?
You've had only very courteous and good natured replies and yet you come over aggressively.
Seems you're just interested in sparring rather than serious debate .
Do you know of the Transition movement ?
Ways of changing over from one way of living to another.
Worth a look and research if you're genuinely interested and are not familiar with it.
And if you liked, you could suggest different solutions yourself ? (as Mark and others suggested you do).
So far you have given no solutions or answers yourself, just derision !
And about Haiti.
Apart from being a recent disaster, it is interesting that you choose Haiti because its current population is descended from the kind of slaves which were recognised as such..
And it is another, less recognised form of slavery - monetary slavery - that Freeconomy is proposing to do without.
Haiti was already in a very impoverished way, both ecologically and economically. It is 98% deforested. And has few resources for anything like making earthquake proof buildings as for example, Japan has done.
And that is all about money - Haiti has always paid the price of being the first country to free itself from slavery which you may know it did by means of a very determined uprising. That price was in the first instance a massive and crippling monetary debt to France. Now, thankfully, a lot of the world is scrapping Haiti's foreign debts.
At this time, where we have a world which functions with money, the way the world understands how to get all the many things which Haiti needs is with money.
The things themselves could as well be donated if that was how our societies functioned. This also has already been said here.
We are in the Transition phase if we choose to be as many of us on here do.
The way of life that Mark is proposing is, in its complete form, is FOR THE FUTURE, something to change over to. He himself is living a lot of it now.
Mark is following what he sees as the best possible way and giving to those who agree the opportunity to participate and ultimately to join him.
If people disagree they need not join .
Transitions are made gradually. So we do what we can to live and make those changes within the current system, many many ideas for which are on this blog and elsewhere.
Haiti, for example, would, as it rebuilds, benefit very greatly from a system such as Mark's :-)
Robert Howes comments ...
@sbradley I either do have the solution or I don't, how will you ever know? The same goes for you or Mark or anyone. If you have your own plan then it deserves to be evaluated. I want to know who has a solution or thinks he/she might have so that we can compare notes.
***
When someone starts a website and criticises the monetary system and purports to have a solution or a part solution and explains part of it then others can ask questions. I have asked Mark questions. I haven't yet had answers to some of the more difficult of those questions. I don't mind if someone admits to not knowing the answer. We are not expected to have all the answers. And yes, I think I do have enough answers to take things to the next stage, that of testing those solutions to see if they work. Test, evaluate, formulate, test, evaluate, form...you get the drift.
***
Mark is testing out living without money. He's showing it can be done. All I am asking is that if you are not willing or able to go down that road, there are other roads, and I don't mean the road to Hell. There are other options.
***
How many plans are there? Are there thousands to choose from? I don't know of many. Jacque Fresco has a plan. I have a plan. And I'm talking actual transition methodology. If you can point me to any I'd be grateful. I found one on the Internet from 1997 that is very similar to my own apart from a couple of import differences, one of them being that it needed a trillion dollars seed money (and apparently almost got it). It was going to fund 100 communities per annum of 100 members each every year in perpetuity. But that would have been linear growth of 10,000 per annum which would do little good if there were no other growth mechanisms built into it. Every plan that falls short points to a possible better way. All I am saying is we should never be satisfied until everyone in the world is satisfied. Doesn't that make sense?
Cheers,
Bob
***
Alf comments ...
I think it is admirable that Mark has chosen to get to the heart of the issue in a real and demonstrable way. Money may be just a means of exchange, but our attachment to it stop us from sharing our time, skills, resources etc., with others, whether locally or abroad.
What is excellent about the Freeconomy idea is people sharing again, on so many different levels. This is why the movement is growing, because it is tapping into something so innate and needed in each one of us: gift economy, paying it forward, remembering the beauty in giving and the fact that we receive numerous more times from doing so.
I believe that it is why we do something which is so important, whether this is because we feel we need to don a suit to earn our bread in the City, or whether we choose not to share some of the produce from our small farm in rural Kenya (which is where I'm writing this now). I don't think we need a water-tight theory to change the world. I believe it just takes one individual who chooses to change their attitude, motivation and priorities, that has the knock-on effect that is required.
I believe there will come a time when every person on this planet will be given a choice of whether they are willing to relinquish everything that ties them to the money-driven economy/society, or not (quite possibly, when enough circumstances/conditions have been created to deceive people into believing that the Verichip, or a similar device, is needed on a global scale). At this point, whether we are in rural Britain or rural Kenya won't really matter. The question is, will we continue to look for ways to use our resources, skills, knowledge and everything else to help out (and if so, we WILL find that our basic needs will be met). Or, will we say that we can't live without money and that trying is folly?
I agree with those individuals, including Mark, who can see that it is impossible to change the problem from the inside, or with the "remedies" the "problem" creates to perpetuate itself. Only by confronting the root of the problem head on in our lives, and finding that we don't need to work for it, or be dependent upon it, can we be free, and free others as well.
'A Long distance Friend'
The Question comments ...
What exactly is the issue? There are so many being conflated here.
Robert Howes comments ...
@The Question asks what is the question? It is about living without money. Mark has proved that any one of us can live without money. The more important question is whether we all can live without money. Also it could be about the transition. It won't be simple if people resist. how do you convince them to make the change? Also, will the world necessarily be a simpler one? Asking the right questions is where change starts.
Cheers,
Bob
***
The Question comments ...
Mark hasn't proved that at all, since he isn't living without money. I'm amazed that people refuse to see this. You cannot just set up a bunch of circumstances, such as paying for a solar panel, and then say you are living without money. That's patently not living without money.
Sure it's 'possible' in the strictest sense of the word, to live without money, since humans did that thousands of years ago. But why anyone would want to do away with it is quite beyond me. Money is NOT the problem; distribution is.
Getting rid of money will only shift the problem elswhere. What will you do when the same issues of distribution and control of resources arise in a society based on barter of resources which itself is doubly as fraught.
Nevermind that printing and publising a book about living without money requires...money.
keyur comments ...
Hi Mark, I respect you views and your work. thank you.
I feel pitty for those who criticise your work or someone else's work. I feel so because I think it's not their fault. It's way they have been brought up. They have never learnt to do something selflessly and when they see someone else doing it, they feel insulted, loll. Just because they can not do it they think that no one else should do it and if they do it then it is wrong. I read somewhere in psychology text that there is this disorder in which a person thinks 'I can do no wrong and you can do no right'. something like that :)
A also remember a very nice story about Gautam Buddha. This short story illustrates that every one of us has the choice whether or not to take personal offence from another person's behaviour.
It is said that on an occasion when the Buddha was teaching a group of people, he found himself on the receiving end of a fierce outburst of abuse from a bystander, who was for some reason very angry.
The Buddha listened patiently while the stranger vented his rage, and then the Buddha said to the group and to the stranger, "If someone gives a gift to another person, who then chooses to decline it, tell me, who would then own the gift? The giver or the person who refuses to accept the gift?"
"The giver," said the group after a little thought. "Any fool can see that," added the angry stranger.
"Then it follows, does it not," said the Buddha, "Whenever a person tries to abuse us, or to unload their anger on us, we can each choose to decline or to accept the abuse; whether to make it ours or not. By our personal response to the abuse from another, we can choose who owns and keeps the bad feelings."
Sandie comments ...
Perhaps some critics are, in fact, challengers vying for position?
Picture the sun dried African savanna; a pack of lions lay in the shade of an acacia tree.
Wandering in the distance, lone male lions prowl; seeking opportunities to challenge the pack's alpha male.
So, it is for you to decide; is your criticism constructive or is it maybe just a challenge?
Sandie comments ...
And yes, before anyone points it out; lions live in prides not packs x
Robert Howes comments ...
@The Question doesn't understand the sort of society that can live well without money because it hasn't yet been created. I could write a book about the ill effects of money, a very large book, but I agree that we shouldn't only see the negative side of money. It is real and we have little choice right now. We all use it or its products. But really they are the products of human labour. As you say: "Sure it's 'possible' in the strictest sense of the word, to live without money, since humans did that thousands of years ago.”
***
OK, starting from that point, I think what you are saying is very close to what I am saying. As to why anyone would want to do away with money, it is precisely because of all the bad effects that they perceive to be caused directly or indirectly through our reliance on a system that allows gains to be made at the expense of others who you will never meet and therefore do not need to think about. And I agree that distribution is a problem, but money is part of that problem. If enough food is grown but the poorest people have no job and therefore no money then the food suppliers will not supply food to those people.
***
How can enough jobs be created so that everyone can eat? Jobs can be created in the building of a new society, but more of that below. In a well run moneyless economy in which all land and resources are shared everyone would get fed. There is enough to go round. But this begs certain questions about how such a society would limit its numbers or even reduce them over time, and about a realistic transition to get from the present day society to the desired society. It seems simple to me, but I'm sure there will be problems along the way that we'll have to solve using the stuff between our ears. We aren't usually called upon to use our brains in this way, only to get on with living inside the box. Thinking outside the box then reporting our findings to those who are still firmly inside the box is not easy.
***
Living without money is a demonstration. It is a call for others to think outside the box. Problems can arise from those outside the box thinking that others are still inside the box when they are not, if you get my drift, which is why those outside the box need to co-operate and set up more demonstrations of living in different relations with each other to show how much change is really possible.
***
I'm hoping to work with Mark on this in the future when he has more time and for that matter when I have more time as I am very busy just now since my store of many tons of materials was burned down (for the second time) by vandals and I'm having to clear everything out of there. There were many tons of steel in there and I'll be using some of the structural steel to build a new store away from the other one to where I live.
***
The old store cost me £6,000 in 1989. If I get planning permission to build residentially on that site I'll be able to sell it for £40,000, and that money can be used for better purposes, helping us to start creating a society that relies more on co-operation and less on money. A transition over many years is necessary but much good can be done in the transition. Many jobs can be created in the process so that many people can be lifted out of poverty along the way. And some will be able to give up using money.
***
A moneyless life need not be based on having no wealth. It can be wealth based in that if places are built for the very wealthy and they pay vast amounts to join, and that money goes to the workers who build such places then the new owners can live in great luxury without the need for money because they already have everything that money can buy. Or at any rate all they need to be happy and fulfilled. If the poor can get the rich off their backs in this way then everyone benefits, especially if the poor organise themselves and build the best societies they can collectively afford rather than just handing money to those who will not spend it wisely.
***
Although we don't all squander money, there are those who will use it to buy things that are very bad for them. This couldn't happen in a moneyless society. Who would create and distribute harmful substances in a no money no barter, free access society? Everyone would help create and distribute necessary items, such as food and clothing, it would be in their interest to do so. And for those who don't like physical work there will be organisational work.
***
Right now though we all need to start pulling in the same direction, those in the Freeconomy community and in the other organisations that want to create a society without casualties. The present society creates millions of casualties. In a sense we are all casualties of the system, but we don't know how to change it. All we really need to do is see that there is a problem and be determined to find solutions to that problem and work together. In working together we'll find out what works best. All our theories might need revision along the way, we shouldn't cling to ideas that are past their sell-by date, as it were.
Cheers,
Bob
***
RIFFHEAD comments ...
This site / discussion / forum proves one thing.
We all speak the same language but no one understands each other.
Robert Howes comments ...
@RIFFHEAD Any suggestions as to what we can do about that?
Cheers,
Bob
***
RIFFHEAD comments ...
@Robert Howes
I believe that the human species is the same now as it was thousands of years ago. OK, a small percentage of earth's population takes a shower at least once a day, shaves, picks the kids up from school , plays a sport of some sort once a week etc etc. However, we are still animals, aggressive, territorial, without pity, we are one of the very rare species that kills for pleasure. (George Bush was voted into power buy those very clean shaved sporty types). We are also capable of great acts of kindness as we are of bombing villages were we know there are likely to be innocent women and children. My point is, money has nothing to do with this. Gandhi, Hitler, Jesus, Bush, Thatcher, the guy I saw distributing hot pizza to homeless people from the back of his 50000 pound Range Rover. I think everyone on this forum has good ideas, no matter how big or small. We all just have to be kinder, helpful, fair and just to one another. Little things can make a big difference. Stop eating at MacDonalds and give the money you save to sponsor a child in a country were maybe the mother has to walk 40 miles a day to fetch dirty insect infested drinking water to her already sick children. Keep your car if you want but ride your bike to work, again with the money you save, spontaneously buy a meal or two for someone that needs it.
I live in Europe (France) water flows out the taps, I could eat myself to death if I wanted to (some people do).
My point is asking someone who has a life of luxury how to save the starving millions ( I have a job and a council flat, I do not earn enough money to be taxed, 1500 € per month, for a family of 5 but I consider myself extremely rich and comfortable). Is like asking the queen of England or George Bush what to do about it.
We should be asking the people that dont have the choice, that dont have any drinking water, that boil stones in a casserol so the starving kids are tricked into thinking there going to eat soon. I dont think theres many of us here that have the faintest idea what real poverty is. Your very quick to say you spent this and that and it cost this much, what do you want, a pat on the back, well done Bob, heres a medal.
If actions are the weapons of a mans heart
Then words are the empty sound of them.
p,s I apologize sincerely in advance if I have offended anyone that does know what real poverty is, I admit that I do not. I also think that what mark is doing is fantastic as a form of protest and as a "Nursery of good ideas." He genuinely inspired and inspires me. Respect for someone that walks the walk and doesn't just talk the talk!
ga67 comments ...
are you interested in doing something practical that could free a lot of people,are you a do,er or a talker.ga67.
i have limited use of this computer so here is my email gcheshire3@googlemail.com we need to use the system to take back the power.
crowsashes comments ...
human kindness is much like a virus, 'infect' just one person with it and they are more likely to go on and do the same for another.
the same goes for negativity, it is true that negative thoughts and actions can breed negative thoughts and actions.
so effectively one man (or woman) can make a huge difference either way.
Robert Howes comments ...
You might all like to listen to Ralph Nader on this MP3:
http://www.sevenstories.com/book/?GCOI=58322100712790
Avvitt comments ...
Go on Mark, fairplay mate...I get it totally. I myself am yearning to live more like how you describe. Resource and distribution...as to rely on a value shown by a piece of paper, metal, plastic or numbers on a screen seems, frankly, insane to me. When really that just gives the person with the most power to take the most as we have seen through history, where abstact value was put in front of the value of life be it plant, animal or human.
Something else bothers me...we all have one commodity to trade with where all the units maintain their equal value by the holders and traders alike...that is the measure we call time. I think I would be pushed to find someone, with a reasonable education or at least enough confidence to value themselves and to know what they think, who would say that their hour is worth less than my hour or their lifetime is worth less than mine...yet we all allow others to evaluate us on what we own or are paid. That is why I feel the only way to manage this is on a resource and distribution ideaology. There really could be hospitals and schools wherever they are needed if financial profit was not the aim. Basic living essentials granted to all, award and reward for those who go the xtra mile for life and planet, opportunities open to all and no more elitism as we have known it!
Also, the free distribution of relevent and current info would be a great way to level the playing field, i.e educational equality!
We are the ones we are waiting for!
Joanna Cahill comments ...
I admire what you are doing--and the fact that you are actively getting the word out there. In doing so you are offering inspiration to everyone who comes in contact with your story and letting them know that aborting their consumption based lifestyles is actually a real possibility. Keep it going--I'm picking up on your momentum!
Planet Collective comments ...
We can create and share enough resources for the human race to become sustainable on this planet. If we consume less and share more we can evolve past this static state of dependence.
We can build a resilient community where people communicate and share with each other out of kindness and for the good of us all.
We can become resource sufficient and achieve a natural relationship between the human race and planet earth.
Before we can do this we need to evolve past our current state of society and learn to share unconditionally as we are all one family sharing one world.
We must adapt to our changing climate and become resource sufficient. We must learn to share abundance and overcome scarcity by uniting as a species in harmony with our environment.
The current system of monetary exchange for goods and services has ran it's course and will soon be obsolete. A new economy will develop that doesn't involve trade or barter and does not promote competition and selfish profiteering.
We will create what we need for survival and prosperity and we will share it with each other, eliminating scarcity on a global scale.
Can we produce and share enough resources on this planet for our species to evolve naturally. Can we learn to consume less and give more to achieve a truly symbiotic society?
The Question comments ...
That's very nice rhetoric, but why is money obsolete. What better system is there?
Robert Howes comments ...
Why do you guys hide behind made up names? I agree that we need to progress towards more sharing, but conditionally at first. Conditional on reciprocation. When we can do that it will become second nature. Unconditional sharing is rare, mostly occurring within the family. One step at a time. Let's build something solid and real.
Cheers,
Bob
***
The Question comments ...
If i told you my real name, it would mean nothign more than the name used here.
Why is it that all people can do is talk and not answer questions.
Why do you think sharing and money are mutually exclusive? There's no such thing as unconditional sharing; that's an oxymoron.
I haven't heard a single credible reason why we should do away with money at all.
Planet Collective comments ...
The Question, human civilization is mutating. The global economy is just one aspect of our mutation. The monetary system worked well once but evidently it has ran it's course. We will reach a point where our only option for survival as a species will be to become resource sufficient through the act of sharing. Community will be our only way forward. We either realise we are a human family and strive to evolve together or we compete against each other and die. Monetary exchange, trade and barter will be replaced with a resource sharing global community creating enough resources collectively and sharing them amongst our human family. The manufacture of scarcity will be over and the production of shared abundance will thrive. This is natural selection.
Bob, I agree with you, this will not happen over night but the most prominent form of evolution is mutation. We have no power of this. All we can do is strive for our fellow man, learn to create and practice the act of sharing. The question we must now ask ourselves is not, 'What is in it for me?', but, 'What is in it for us all?'. Like it or not we are all connected. We are all made from the same stuff. A legacy of the sun. The sooner we all realise this the sooner our 100th monkey will evolve.
The Question comments ...
So, again, why is money bad? You, like most other people, avoid the question. How would resource sharing have helped the people of Haiti, for example, as I asked earlier. How, again, would someone live a vegan lifestyle in a country like Britain which doesn't have the land capacity to support its population alone. How would a resource system be protected from the kinds of abuses that give rise to your abhorrence of money.
let's actually have some proper answers for once.
Robert Howes comments ...
What I would like is to start by sharing names. You wouldn't hide your names from your friends. I would like to start a reply by saying Hi John, or Hi Jenny. I'd like to be able to Google your name and find out what else you have written on the Web that I might be interested in. By the way, try various combinations of my name, including robertcircle1 and robertcircleone and keywords like vegan and you should find hundreds of my messages.
***
Mark's name is known to you all. my name is known to you all. What are you afraid of? I have also expressed my views about money. Money and people don't mix happily. Some grab more than their share of what money buys, land, houses, cars, fuel, the list is very very long, so less is available for the rest of us. I have bought a little more land and a few more houses than my share so that I can try to help others. Our share is about three acres of land plus accommodation, but the money system sees to it that most are sold short, and a billion or more live in absolute poverty and many of them die before they are even five years old. This situation is a consequence of the money system. Does anyone disagree?
Cheers,
Bob
***
Robert Howes comments ...
Haiti was a disaster waiting to happen. They rebuilt it after the last earthquake in such a poor way that another earthquake was bound to kill a lot of people. Earthquakes don't kill people, buildings do. Rich people can afford to build earthquake resistant buildings, poor people either cannot or are so ill educated about the threat that they do not. It took Japan a long time to go from paper houses to modern earthquake resistant buildings. Many Japanese died along the way. In a sharing economy like the Amish, for instance, they help each other to build fairly safe homes. In future I hope we can do better and replace all unsafe homes. It is most unlikely to happen in the money economy. There is never enough money to do everything needed, because there is so much waste. Please Google my name and search the Internet for my other, more detailed answers.
Cheers,
Bob
***
Planet Collective comments ...
The Question. Where did you read in my comments that money is bad? And where did you read that I loath Money?
I will take as read that you don't have any reading disabilities as you write so well, so maybe you are creating an illusion for yourself to carry an argument.
I am sure you are intelligent enough to realise that the global economy is under collapse due to fiat currency, credit abuse and the mechanism of control that was created by a small group of bankers called fractional-reserve banking. It isn't money that is bad, it is the way it is created that is criminally insane. Our economy and the monetary system has been hijacked and virtually destroyed by selfish profiteers creating money from thin air, money that doesn't represent any resource what so ever, then loaning this money out with interest that has also been created from thin air causing inflation and the inevitable collapse of monetary exchange.
As our natural resources on the planet are finite and due to the current consumption rate, running out at an excellerated rate, the current economy under the monetary system can not sustain itself.
2% of the world have claimed 40% of our resources forcing the majority of the planets population into poverty. This was done through the great money swindle, manufacturing scarcity so the rest of the world compete for the resources that inherently belong to the human race. By creating fractional reserves, this minority have accumulated enough fiat wealth to enslave the entire population.
So my friend, you must understand, that to answer your questions, you must first know what it is you want answering.
The Question comments ...
Amish society isn't what it is because they don't use money, it's because they adhere to their values. If we all lived without money there wouldn't be a commensrate change in people's attitudes at all. All we would have is a greatly less efficient system for exchange reliant on coincedence and just as open to exploitation. I'm frankly astounded that people cannot see how efficient a monetary based system is. It is the best system we have and the problems we have are not because of it, but because of the people who abuse it. People who would abuse a resource based system. I've already asked questions about how you deal with problems therein and still no response.
The reasons for the earthquake and the poor building work in Haiti etc etc are not relevant to the question. A resource based system would mean peopel living here couldn't help the people in Haiti (or any other international crisis; Palestine, Ethopia etc). Money can.
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ Everyone - I agree with Robert Howes, I'd love to see people use their real names on here, that is what this project is about for me. But I understand completely if you don't. I think we act differently when we use usernames and I'd like to be able to say @ Mike or @ Jenny instead, its more personal. Ans it's just a bit less virtual, don't you think?
LUIZ CARLOS TANAKA comments ...
The way of life preached by MARK BOYLE strongly ressembles the ideas and ideals of HENRY DAVID THOREAU -- so admired by GANDHI !!!
Congratulations, MARK !!!
Trish Young comments ...
Ytrish is Trish Young and I'm really pleased to be on here, especially as myself !
Sandie comments ...
'Sandie' is Sandie Roach from Perth, Western Australia. I'm really enjoying these discussions and the sharing of such great ideas.
Gary comments ...
@Phil - planet collective.
Nice one, I agree, mutation or Darwinism, whatever, but it's real, scientific and evident that's what's happening.
ps, Very intelligently and eloquently written.
Gerrybaby comments ...
I am a single mum with two kids who joined the Zeitgeist Movement in Novemeber last year, we have Zeitgiest Day on March 13 with events all over the country. My point is i have become the PR media rep for the Scottish grouup and have send lots of media releases. I have been worrying about the critiicism, the misrepresentation and the personal attack. I am glad i read your blog, we have a link to this site on our site and now i know why. You lifted the vibe of concern for me, took it to a more "mental" level rather than a physical response to the fear and intrepidation. We can share as a group discussing with any media as a group and take our time to be prepared. Thanks for helping me think differently about predjudice against our beliefs and thanks for sharing your own experiences.
Phil comments ...
Thank you for your comments.
On the Haiti question.
In a resource shared economy, the planets resources are shared amongst all of earths inhabitants. They are not owned, stockpiled, and sold back to the people, as they are in a Monetary economy as we believe that the human race should be the natural inheritors of these resources and not just a select few.
If we look at our situation from a clear perspective, we are forced to work so we can earn enough money to buy back the resources that are naturally ours. This system benefits 2% of the worlds population and is truly insane.
In a resource shared economy, there would be no poverty and technology would advance on a global scale to benefit everyone, so when an earthquake strikes we would all be ready for it. Those buildings would be strong enough to withstand the earthquake and the death toll would be zero, there would be no need for monetary aid as treating the symptoms is useless, treat the cause and there are no symptoms.
In a resource shared economy Haiti's standard of living would be th esame as the standard of living in California, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, UK ... everywhere because the resources are shared, we strive together we don't compete against each other and we build a global society that we can finally called human civilization, as so far, we are yet to become civilized.
The Question comments ...
"On the Haiti question.
In a resource shared economy, the planets resources are shared amongst all of earths inhabitants.
They are not owned, stockpiled, and sold back to the people, as they are in a Monetary economy as we believe that the human race should be the natural inheritors of these resources and not just a select few. "
This is meaningless and utterly impractical. Why would these things necessarily be undesirable? Without stockpiling of resources you woudl go without when resources dry up and you would have no means to store surpluses. No surplus means no trade and without trade societies would whither and die.
I'm also at a loss to understand how you think that a resource based system would not be open to abuse. Without money resources take their place with the same potential for corrupting people because it's the person not the resource/money. Do you mean to tell me that beforemoney wasn't invented that sort of behaviour didn't take place?
"If we look at our situation from a clear perspective, "
I am looking at the situation clearly. I'm not blinkered by a view that money per se is wrong.
"we are forced to work so we can earn enough money to buy back the resources that are naturally ours."
If people were forced to live off the land, half the world's population would starve to death.
It isn't as simplistic as buying resources back either. We have evolved to divide up the gathering of resources because it's more efficient to do so. We then use money as a uniform means of recognising the worth of a product and enabling transaction to acquire resources. If we decided to leave everyone to rely on self sufficiency there would be disaster. How would the elderly and infirm support themselves? Where would the land come from? What would regions with poor natural resources do?
"This system benefits 2% of the worlds population and is truly insane. "
The issue, as I have already stated, isn't money; it's the distrubtion thereof. A problem that would exist with a resource based economy since the world cannot support the billions of people living on it, all over the world in all manner of climates. If money didn't exist, it would be invented.
The idea that a resource based economy wouldbecome a plentioful paradise of caring and sharing is misleading in the extreme and following that ideal is dangerous and ignorant, blind to the real problems with wealth distrubtion.
"In a resource shared economy, there would be no poverty and technology would advance on a global scale to benefit everyone, so when an earthquake strikes we would all be ready for it."
How, exactly?
This is pure fantasy. How would a research team, a production facility, a resource gathering facility, fund itself to make the technology real? How do you propose to meet the individual and unique resrouce requirements, constantly over time, of every single member of staff as well as meeting the requirements for the resources needed for that technology?
"Those buildings would be strong enough to withstand the earthquake and the death toll would be zero, there would be no need for monetary aid as treating the symptoms is useless, treat the cause and there are no symptoms. "
So no one would ever die in an earthquake if we did away with money?
You are liviing in a fantasy, a very dangerous fantasy.
"In a resource shared economy Haiti's standard of living would be th esame as the standard of living in California, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, UK ... everywhere because the resources are shared, we strive together we don't compete against each other and we build a global society that we can finally called human civilization, as so far, we are yet to become civilized. "
If money isn't shared equally what on earth makes you think that anything that replaces it will be?
Robert Howes comments ...
@The Question, I understand what Phil is saying, and you might understand that a society based on intentional communities could evolve gradually away from money as each person learned how to fit in with the rest so that everything got done in that community.
***
Likewise, communities could learn to fit in with the rest of the network. In the transition they could also trade using money or goods with the money world.
***
If your community mostly exported apples to a hundred other communities, they wouldn't need to grow apples. If one of them made nuts and bolts, you wouldn't need to as they would give them to you.
***
What none of us knows is how well this arrangement might work for the millions of different products that we benefit from daily either directly or indirectly.
***
That is why we need to grow the communities so that we learn by doing. Certainly there will be less perceived need for corruption in a world that provides everyone with everything they need to live the good life and all you have to do is work your socks off at something you enjoy doing. How many hours per week we'll need to work we don't know, but because of the efficiency of such a system it should be less than now.
***
It should be our job to get the answers as we carefully build the new system, using money when we have to, and for luxuries too if that smooths out the process and people will not co-operate otherwise. We have to be realistic, in my opinion.
Cheers,
Bob
***
The Question comments ...
Where will the land come for grazing animals? What about their other needs such as winter feed and medicine etc?
Robert Howes comments ...
@Q, No animal grazing necessary if we do without domestic animals, but we should create a natural habitat (if that isn't an oxymoron) for wild animals. Grazing is already here, there and everywhere. What we and later generations will need will be billions more trees. A trillion more in fact (in my opinion). And the only place most of them can go is on grazing land and fodder crop land. If we do that and create billions of acres of new forest it should mimic natural forest as closely as possible as it is the food and habitat of many wild species of plant and animal etc.
Cheers,
Bob
***
Phil comments ...
Thanks for your criticisms, I will try and explain some of the issues you have raised.
"Without stockpiling of resources you woudl go without when resources dry up and you would have no means to store surpluses. No surplus means no trade and without trade societies would whither and die."
This is completely untrue. Many societies have flourished in a gift economy. We don't need trade in post scarcity society as we have the technology to produce and distribute for global abundance.
We will not trade, we will share.
You are living in an illusion, so it is hard for you to see out from your little box, and I don't mean to patronise you when I say this. It is difficult to recognise the truth when all you see is what you think you know. What you fail to understand is for such a system to flourish, we have to change the structure of society itself from the bottom up.
Technology is so advanced now that we can produce what we need in abundance without a 'supply and demand' model of delivery. If you do some more research into this subject, you will realise that the world's economy favours the vested interests of the few by manufacturing scarcity for maximum profit.
You also misunderstood me on the 'stockpiling' subject. Resources are stockpiled by corporations to create an increase in demand ... and in turn, profit. When a resource is produced in abundance, it loses it's monetary value, as the more that is in circulation, the less we have to pay for it. So the corporation hoards the resources it produces and claims the resource is scarce to increase it's value. This is the illusion of scarcity.
With resource sharing, we can produce to the needs of everybody and not to a market geared towards profit margins. We can set a consumption rate that is sustainable and produce enough resources with the responsible use of automation to feed and house the human race without a price tag.
"I'm also at a loss to understand how you think that a resource based system would not be open to abuse. Without money resources take their place with the same potential for corrupting people because it's the person not the resource/money. Do you mean to tell me that beforemoney wasn't invented that sort of behaviour didn't take place?"
You are absolutely right, if the incentive to manipulate the system for selfish benefits is still there, then people will take advantage. This is the nature of greed and power. This is why society must be reorganised from the bottom up to eliminate the cause of greed and power abuse. We need to overthrow selfish tyranny and create a society where social status is not measured on how much we receive, but valued on how much we share with each other.
"I am looking at the situation clearly. I'm not blinkered by a view that money per se is wrong."
No, your opinions are clearly biased. You can not see beyond your veil of illusion.
"If people were forced to live off the land, half the world's population would starve to death."
Another untruth. You are looking at the current situation and you have no vision of how things can work with an advancement in applied technology.
"It isn't as simplistic as buying resources back either. We have evolved to divide up the gathering of resources because it's more efficient to do so. "
There is no cause to buy anything. We can produce in abundance. If you truly believe that division and ownership is efficient and you really believe that claiming the worlds resources to manipulate the populous into slavery is evolutionary, then I fear you will have the capacity to survive in the transition and this is why you defend your status quo with such pugnacity.
"If we decided to leave everyone to rely on self sufficiency there would be disaster. How would the elderly and infirm support themselves? Where would the land come from? What would regions with poor natural resources do?"
We support those who can not support themselves. We are a global community that share what abundance we have with each other. No one starves, as those that have, share. There will be no need to divide and conquer as we will evolve to become one big human family, creating and producing for each other.
I can understand that all this is difficult for you to grasp as you only see what you know from within your own perspective of life. I value your criticism as we all must learn from each other, but before you criticise further alternative views, I ask you to step back and think about why you defend a sinking ship so boldly instead of learning how to build a lifeboat.
I have no more time to answer any more questions today but I will endeavor to do so in the near future.
In unity.
ANGELA comments ...
I have read your blog and can understand about the name calling, ive been called some in my time,yet things i can get for free for either myself and my family and friends has saved me loads of money and them, for example the other day saved cash totalled to £80 pounds , the item i got free which not only stopped it going to landfill but it was something needed , yet if you tell people where u get these things they call you names such as tramp and skank and look down their noses, i loved your blog and thought it was an absolute great read, thankyou
The Question comments ...
@Robert I think you are disaplying a complete lack of understanding of basic farming. With respect it is going to become impossible to discuss these issues with that being the case. Grazing simply means the process of animals, such as cows, eating the grass they eat. No land for them to do so means no animals. You just turn all such land into wild land, growing tress on it and what not. Where will silage come from? What happens if the land doesn't produce silage rich enough to eat? You need proper land suitable for the animals that we will use. You cannot expect people just to live in forests on nuts and berries that's impossible and unreasonable.
Robert Howes comments ...
Is there a link to:
http://voluntaryist.livejournal.com/ ?
I just came across this site. Check it out folks.
Cheers,
Bob
***
Robert Howes comments ...
@Q. You can think what you like. I spent years on a farm (Brookfold Farm, Godley, Hyde, Cheshire, UK.) as a child (age 6 to 15 and occasionally since then for the last 45 years) and also another farm, and I've run market gardens myself. I now disagree with using animals for food. I've been vegan now for 40 years and at almost 62 I am in good shape. Animal farming is no longer necessary and can gradually be phased out over much of the world over the next few decades. But that doesn't mean meat eaters have to give up meat. With the extra trillion trees there will be lots of forest animals for those willing to kill and prepare them. As money becomes a thing of the past when we don't need it any more (gradually diminishing in importance) then not many hunters will be so willing to hunt for others, so you might have to do your own hunting or give up meat. Yes there will be many nuts in the forest. Nut roasts are nice, and there is no screaming or blood and gore when picking and processing nuts. As for the rest of it, assume you know me all you like, we don't even know your name. If I knew your name I would invite you for a visit. How can I invite a question. Well actually, I do. I invite all the questions you want to ask. Silage? I don't need it. Cows? I don't need them. Slaughter houses? I don't need them.
Cheers,
Bob
***
hollie comments ...
been following your blog for a while now. i feel much the same, its been hard to adjust to a lifestyle different from the norm. even more so when the criticism is from family rather than complete strangers.
but thats the one thing that is driving me to continue with this.
im my son's 'teacher' and i dont want him to be seduced by the current world where a sunday roast usually involves poorly treated animals, hard working farmers ripped off by greed and chemical soaked vegetables.
i want him to realise what the world really is and how it can be if we shake off our indoctrinated beliefs that there are things that are worth fighting for.
theres nothing better than seeing him running around eating food straight off a plant climbing over trees and being fascinated by everything around him rather than staring at a tv set ( and i freecycled mine because of this.) if im honest the best therapy ever is doing everything he does, try chasing a spider around the house with a 2 1/2 yr just because you can!
thats how i think life should be every day. we should be able to stop and take notice of the little things, we shouldnt have to work all the hours in the day just to provide a basic meal.
i did that and got sacked for donating a hot cup of tea and a few sandwiches to a rough sleeper that were destined for the bin! its not a world i want to be a part of anymore.
we need drastic change but first we need to change ourselves
if nothing matters, theres nothing to save.
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ Robert Howes - I couldn't have said it better!!! I couldn't agree more. I live in a valley that, to most people, looks stunning - and it is. But its a monocrop, and it is used to inefficiently rear cows for milk.
Not all of it is arable, and I agree, that which isn't shouldn't be used for dairy, it should be used for trees. To avert the worst of climate change we need to grow lots more local veg, have literally millions of more trees, and less carbon heavy meat and dairy. We can't have local milk and beef and a country covered in the appropriate amount of trees, it is simply impossible. Simon Fairlie speaks a lot about this and he is undoubtedly the expert in his field, pardon the pun. So it is a choice. Forestry, or dairy.
If we managed the forestry well (and I mean real forestry, not just tree farms), then we could also be communally sufficient for fuel, and not have to pipe it from Norway or ship it from war torn Iraq. Thanks Bob.
@ hollie - you sound like a fantastic mother, I am full of admiration for you. Much respect to you and never lose heart. Lots of love! xxx
Harry comments ...
@RIFFHEAD:
'We should be asking the people that dont have the choice, that dont have any drinking water, that boil stones in a casserol so the starving kids are tricked into thinking there going to eat soon. I dont think theres many of us here that have the faintest idea what real poverty is.'
One point to make...if you have never lived in real poverty yourself, how do you know how much of a difference it would make asking people who have? You don't need to ask someone to know that someone starving or being in unnecessary pain is wrong. Anyone who has had some sort of pain or suffering in their life knows that it's not nice, and whether thats times twenty or a hundred times worse than your suffering, it's still suffering and if it doesn't need to happen then it doesn't need to happen.
Harry comments ...
P.s.! What you said is also contradictory because you talk about humans using 'we' like we all make up one giant creature called Humanity, that we all have the same instincts and same weaknesses. I wonder if each human being is a seperate species to the next. I don't kill for pleasure (though that could change if something caused a drastic change in my personality), but another human being might do that every weekend. But if you think we are all similar, then you should be able to understand someone who lives on the other side of the world? That they will behave in the same kind of way that you do ultimately? I find it irritating this culture of guilt we have in the west of apparently being whiter, wealthier, less wise, less righteous in some way. People are people, not necessarily where they come from, all with different thoughts and motivations. There might be some certain basic things in common, but they might not be the things you listed, and we all go different ways. You say you don't understand someone who lives in poverty, who has a different life to yours, but then you are including them in your understanding of humanity as a whole. In some ways to many people, their luxuries or apparently better lives are balanced out with guilt that comes with it, unrealistic desire, complication, flatness, failure, pressure of a different sort. Poverty is just one form of suffering. Having money can also cause another form of suffering. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but this is a response to what I've taken from it.
What do you think?!
'I believe that the human species is the same now as it was thousands of years ago. OK, a small percentage of earth's population takes a shower at least once a day, shaves, picks the kids up from school , plays a sport of some sort once a week etc etc. However, we are still animals, aggressive, territorial, without pity, we are one of the very rare species that kills for pleasure.'
The Question comments ...
Living as a vegan (even a vegetarian) only off what grows in the forest that all open land will be transformed into would be unsustainable only - and at best - for a few. The land here couldn't sustain it.
Burning trees for fuel would also produce carbon, especially in the amoutns necessary for industry.
there are genuine issues that do need to be addressed. Taking a massive step back down the evolutionary ladder seems to be the absolute worst response.
Robert Howes comments ...
@Q,
You are reading a lot into what I have said that simply is not there. I have written my ideas about how we might transition from a money system to a moneyless system here and other places in quite a lot of detail. Seek and ye shall find.
***
Burning trees only puts back the same carbon as the trees took out in the first place. Less in fact because the roots will still be in the ground and the leaf-mold on top of the ground. My preferred method of extracting fuel from wood is pyrolysis. In this way we get gas and liquid fuels (hydrogen, methane and methanol) plus a whacking great bonus of charcoal that is almost pure carbon that we can use in our veg patch to make it lighter and better in a number of ways. It's not a fertiliser, we'll still need to compost our kitchen wastes and human wastes and use urine and even hair and finger and toe nail clippings to put back all that we take from the ground. But putting the charcoal into the ground will make our energy economy carbon negative. Just planting billions of new trees will take the carbon out of the atmosphere, but using trees in the future as a source of energy instead of fossil fuels will mean we are not adding more carbon than we are taking out. Please study these things Q.
***
Any plan that is worthy of the name must promise sustainability, that's the name of the game. Each vegan requires around a fifth of an acre of land on which to grow sufficient food. Twice as much to grow enough to build up a stock for the future, in case of bad harvests. There is around 3 acres per person in the world, and the rest of each person's three acres that isn't needed for food will be needed for fuel and to keep the planet healthy. As and when fossil fuels become too expensive or are deemed unacceptable due to climate effects we will need to fill most grazing land with trees. It is starting to happen, but fossil fuels are still cheap enough for most of us to afford. As petrol prices go up they will cross certain thresholds that will trigger investment into other fuels. And if we don't do what we need to do, the big boys will turn fields into plantations of single varieties. If we let that happen it'll be our fault. I don't want anyone to feel guilty, I just want us all to join together and use what resources are available to us to make it happen.
***
As for your genuine issues that need to be addressed, go ahead, you have the floor. Over to you Q.
Cheers,
Bob
***
RIFFHEAD comments ...
@ HARRY
I see your point. (I don't kill for pleasure (though that could change if something caused a drastic change in my personality), but another human being might do that every weekend.)
However, how do you explain these figures and stats...
At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening.
The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.
According to UNICEF, 25,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”
Source; http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
............................................................................
I repeat we the human species "as a whole" are savage animals wearing suits ( It's an image don't take it literally).
I also think that we are like one person. And if we all started thinking like that the world would be a better place for every one, for "the" human species.
Also your point about me saying how do I know, guilt and all that. What irritates me is us lot intellectualizing on or internet connected laptops, sitting in our heated homes with our bellies full. (Me included). That's all I was saying, I think we should all remember that, that's all. And it was in response to a comment from someone asking what we should do about it all, my simple answer is "I dont know, how could I, ask the people who are suffering.
Hope that clears up my point of view.
Alf comments ...
I've got a great solution for ending poverty: we sell our possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. We also stop working in jobs for money and become volunteers, either locally or abroad, using our time, skills etc. to help people, like the poor.
It may not be the kind of 'sexy' or 'intellectual' answer a lot of people want to hear, but usually the simple things in life ring true, even if they're not as easy as we would like them to be, usually because it requires a modicum of self-sacrifice on our part.
Oh, and I told a lie, it wasn't MY idea. It's been around for 2,000 years and no points for guessing who was responsible for living it out and exhorting others to give it a try too (Luke 12:33).
In case people are wondering, I sold all my possessions back in 2002 and haven't worked in a paid job since. I'm currently in Kenya doing local community work. I'm not saying this to blow my own trumpet. The Source knows I fought tooth and nail against the simplicity and truth of this teaching for a long time! I'm just letting you know, that if it's possible for me, it's possible for anyone and everyone.
I don't for one second believe that world poverty is going to be solved overnight. It is going to take individuals joining the movement: each person forsaking the counterfeit in order to realise the genuine article. True wealth within: a lifetime of service.
Gary comments ...
@Alf
Blimey Alf you just nailed it all on the head. All these comments and analasys. All theses idea's.
Nice one, respect. I dont think your blowing your own trumpet, showing the way, walking the walk not talking the talk.
hollie comments ...
completely agree, its always the simplest ideas that work the best.
these are big ideas but starting small is the only way to go or well fall flat on our face.
the difficulty is getting it across to a lot of people. ive been working on getting my own family to try a different way of living, all really simple things for them such as buying second hand rather than new and even now theres the 'ewww id rather have something that only i will have used' idea.
its tough but were all in a position to 'educate' be it by gently pushing people to do something as simple as grow there own herbs instead of buying them or going all out and only buying second hand or using freecycle etc or even growing everything they eat.
ive finally after several months managed to get my mum and my 3 youngest siblings to go foraging with me instead of the use trip to the generic store of blandness! i think the blackberry jam i made last year helped but im being asked my my sister when am i next going and can she come.
also highlighting the problem with perfectly good food just dumped in the bin has changed the view of alot of my friends. i see alot of them heading straight for the reduced pile first which has to be a good thing.
i know none of this is enough but its a start and i know it gets addictive :-)
The Question comments ...
It isn't possible for everyone at all. To do community work in Africa someone has to susidise insurance, possibly training, food, accomadation, plane fare (we don't liek air travel of course as it's polluting), and of course a passport.
Selling your possessions won't alleviate poverty at all however good it might make you feel abour yourself. In the end it's not about yourself though. All you will do is have no posessions, possibly leading to your own poverty. How exactly does that help anyone.
Poverty is caused by a variety of factors that aren't simple. However selling your toys or living in someone else's caravan isn't going to address any of the issues. If peopel want to have a sensible discussion about distribution of wealth and social justice that's fine; but if people want to indulge in poverty tourism or fantasise about their own self importance then I find that rather distasteful. It won't help a soul.
Money is not the problem. Not one person on this forum would be arguing for doing away with money if everyone had enough.
comments ...
Food gets dumped in bins for all sorts of reasons. It's totally naive to just say 'nasty supermarkets are wasting food'. Do you not think they'd rather sell it than waste it? They paid for it after all, it's absurd to think they are tossing it aside out of largesse. There are health and safety rules to consider.
Foraging from skips is just hypocrisy. I think there are certainly issues to do with waste. But this ridiculous black and white view that gets peddled by people who want food for free, while complaining about waste is absurd. If everyone foraged for food, shops would go out of business. Maybe that's fine if it's nasty old Tescos, but is it fine if it's a small business run by the local community? What if the nasty old Tescos closes, that's real people out of a job. Proud of yourselves then?
This country cannot support 60 million odd people living off the land. Nor could it possibly train people to harvest all the food and grow all the crops, milk the cows, slaughter the chickens. Society has evolved with divisions and specialisations of labour for very good reasons. Money is what enables this. Take that away and society will collapse: who will provide the solar panels then?
Time to grow up a bit surely.
Deva comments ...
Hi Mark - I think you are brave and insightful. People who abuse and denigrate you are threatened by your sense of integrity, purpose and vision because it highlights their own fear, greed and apathy. I remember once when I was on a holiday in Northern NSW/QLD checking out some of the alternative communities there, I picked up a hitchhiker with her young child. She was what I guess society would call a 'feral'. Her child had a rash or some scabby thing on his face and I remember thinking very judgementally that she wasn't taking care of his hygeine/health etc. She had told me that she had chosen to not use soap or packaged things which was abhorrent to me at the time. Tsk tsk tsk! We were both pretty wary of each other at the start, as we were so completely different, then we settled into a better space after a while. She told me that her son had fallen over causing the mark on his face and she wanted to go to town to see a doctor to get him checked out. I felt so ashamed of myself for my snap judgement and then realised that if more people lived like her and of course, you- that our poor planet would breathe a helluva lot easier. I am still living in the mainstream world but like to think that I'm in it but not 'of' it. I am very conscious of my eco footprint and being as least harmful as I can but I know I get lazy sometimes and can always make just a little bit more of an effort. You inspire me! thanks.
Kelly comments ...
Hadn't come back through the blog this far but I'll out my opinion in the mix anyway :)
Mark, I think you know this seems to come with the territory of being "odd/different/weird".
I once read that hostility is a natural "pack" reaction to anything that isn't "normal", but they same pack animals call you dirty for pulling stuff out of bins?
Back a long me and my husband talked about trying to move. We live in an oil rich county, our neighbours are either in the oil industry, the meat industry or supplying to these, so you can imagine that we stand out like the proverbial.
The only place we have ever felt comfortable is Glastonbury (we used to live near there and always try to visit every 18 months or so). The people are so welcoming, mostly tolerant of others, you have witches supply shops next to christian books shops, Islamic charity shops next to crystal shops. Where I live we have Starbucks, SubWay and Tesco :(
In the end we decided to stay.
Trying to go back with no money would be horrible and in the end we would be leaving for all the wrong reasons, running away. A part of me feels like a sentinel, waiting to greet others who want to stand out a bit.
I don't enjoy standing out. I'm painfully shy (Really!) and would love nothing more than to blend in sometimes. But when you send your kids to school with vegan lunches and bring your own food to social events and cycle everywhere with your KIDS!! (Shock horror, yes they have legs too!) you can't help it.
People are polite to my face, we have a few friends, but we miss not having the feeling of community.
SO fear does terrible things to a persons mind. Maybe we are like some nasty bacteria to them..but maybe its the sort of bacteria that makes you stronger. I'd like to think so :)
Kelly comments ...
YIKES!! Just got round to reading all the comments!!
I guess some people just got up ready for a fight that morning ;)
I often wonder why people join these forums and blogs when they have only a narrow view of their opinions and actually seem to STILL harbor the sentiments that you should either be Superman and save EVERYONE or not bother at all!
@Mark, I can't believe you kept a cool head through all that!
Why is it when someone tries to do something good/interesting/initiative there's always someone in the wings waiting to shoot them down by asking the same questions over and over again!
The people who take on these personally challenges know the world cannot change over night and they will need to compromise in some area's to get their message across, but please..chill out ;)
hammo comments ...
you are the man! i feel as though this article may as well have been written by me. love from NZ!
Canuck comments ...
God Bless you brother! I admire your courage and resolve. Few people actually get to the testing of a response to the great problems of life. They think a little, become uncomfortable, and give up because the task seems unbearable. I could not agree more about solutions at a grassroot level. The more I know of politics and history the more I know that we can not wait for them to change us or solve our problems. I know it is a matter of people giving their time freely to affect change. You have challenged me to think about what is normal and why I accept it. Thank you for this gift.
Gypsy comments ...
Hi Mark! I've only started reading your blog recently and am yet to indulge in all you have to say. I think the world needs a leader, a voice. You make sense in what you are saying and what you are doing is very noble. Creating a new way of thinking. It is almost as if everybody is waking up and realising... hey... there is an alternative! But unfortunately bulk of human population are sheep... look at the animal kingdom. Leaders are created... for the rest to follow. Leaders are also created by the people. And you my friend might have bit off more than you intended. But you are handling it all very well and very 'leader-like'! I feel proud of you! I want this all to succeed and you are definitely creating a wonderful awareness and i love it. I wish i could come and have a chat with you in your caravan! But unfortunately don't have enough wisdom on 'stuff' and frankly don't have the words. But i do have the feeling. And i feel what you are doing. Keep it up Mark. And thanks for inviting us in your journey. You are leaving a legacy... ripples in the ocean... one little change can spark such great things. Hope you keep your pure heart!
Much love, Gypsy
Kate comments ...
You are an absolute legend! It's a nice way to start my day... reading intelligent musings from people such as yourself. Love your work :)
Ollie comments ...
@ The Question, I've got to tell you that I've met a wealthy woman who is interested in this transition to a moneyless world. Her interest comes from wanting to live sustainably. You've made several references that suggest you think that if everybody on the planet had enough money, nobody would be interested in a world without money. I've met somebody who disproves that.
I must also say, as others have, that you don't seem to be able to see the bigger picture. That doesn't mean that you're unable to understand difficult concepts, as I have a friend who recently completed his PhD, so he can presumably comprehend complex issues, yet he can't get his head around a moneyless society either! When I've had difficulty in understanding another person's point of view, I find it helpful to detach myself from my position, take it back to the beginning, and start all over again.
Ariella comments ...
Great idea! In fact, you're not alone. In the orthodox Jewish community we have our own freeconomy. we call them Gemachs,which is an acronym for gemilut chasadim tovim (acts of loving kindness).
One person has a tool gemach, one for medicine, one for bridal gowns, baby clothing, etc...
In a neighborhood where I once lived in Israel, someone even had a car gemach! There are many ppl there who rely on public transport but occasionally need a car. it's a beautiful way to live, and I commend you on your fantastic mission and success with it!
comments ...
(I am attention seeking, but not for myself. I just want to seek attention for the issues I feel passionate about) i feel the same way! you're good with your words. I have heard many snyde remarks from materialistic people over the last years. The ones who live their plastic life of the being hard&though mentality :( well I'm finding hard being around peoples bad comments. My best friend is nature and mother earth :)
Martin comments ...
I often ask when am giving Workshops on belief systems, what are the major reasons Govt's & business dont solve more challenges that we face and the answer is invariably because of money... Ergo..do away with money and we would do away with the barriers to real meaningful progress.. it is just a belief system, like 'We cant run a four minute mile or fly in the air or live in the world without money' Nonsense!;o)