When I talk about energy, I am not just talking about Electricity.  I am also talking about fuels to run vehicles and machinery, and to heat homes and businesses.  Yes, some, if not much, of this can be produced locally, but could it be enough to adequately and reliably serve the needs of any sizable population.

If there were a sufficient amount of natural resources like coal, oil, and/or natural gas, I guess the needed infrastructure could be created to utilize those resources.  But not all areas have those resources in any appreciable quantities.

That means that alternative resources have to be found.  Yes, wind and solar can be used, but they can be unreliable at best. If there were a way to store the produced electricity for any appreciable amount of time then maybe they could be a more viable option.

Biofuels are an option for fuels, however, at the present time, utilizes resources that are best left for their intended uses.  Saying that, there are a myriad of technologies being developed that will allow biofuels to be created from waste material, weed trees, and even algae that will produce better yields and varieties than what is currently produced from feedstock like corn and soybeans.  However, theses are either years away or are proprietary at the present time.  This means we would have to wait or rely on others for the technologies.

Now one can say that do we really need these types of energies to survive?  The answer is no, but are people willing to go back that far in time (even though it is really only about a century since much of this has been available to the populace).  In most cases, I would say it would be a resounding NO.

In conclusion, if the natural resources were available, then I would say that, yes, there is a greater possibility of creating a truly local society.  If there were not, I would say it would be hard, but not impossible, for those who are willing to go without.

There are other reasons that it would be hard to “go local”, but those are easier to overcome and subjects for future entries.

Right now, I am looking for ideas to aid in the development of a Distributist society.  One of the themes that run through both Distributism and the Catholic Land movements is that self-sufficiency. In Distributism, it is the ability of the person or family to earn a living that is not based solely on the state or working for a corporation.  In the Catholic Land movement, it is providing the basic needs of the family from the land as much as possible.

This got me to thinking that most of us do not even have even the basic skills, or even the knowledge, to provide even the most basic of needs from the land.  This gets me back to the topic of bookstores.  One of the genres of books I have been looking at is how to raise various crops and animals.  However, it has not stopped there.  I have also found books on how to produce almost everything one needs to survive off the land.  This include almost everything including how to generate you own energy and fuels.

Where I am going with this is simple, since Distributism and the Catholic Land movement put a premium on self-sufficiency, I am wondering how far should one go in this self-sufficiency.  The answer is all the way, but not in the sense that you may thing.  Yes, we should individually become self-sufficient as much as possible, but   community self-sufficiency should be more of the ultimate goal.  That is, the community must have the ability to be self-sustainable as much as possible without any outside help.

I believe that a community that is based on Distributist principles can, and must, develop all the skills possible to as self-contained as possible.  This skill-set must include everything from food production, to energy generation (heck, I even saw one book that showed how to make your own methane) , to health care, to education.

However, this does, and must not, mean that the community be separate from the world.  Far from it.  We must continue within the world to be an example on how to live.  Our Lord said:

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.  Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” (Mt. 5: 14-16)

We must be that light not only to our community, but also to the world that is sorely needing of that light.

First, these types of zones are limited in scope.  They are, for the most part, either business or residential in nature.  They seldom look at the complete picture.  Even when they do look at both, it is not as a community, but only parts in an incomplete picture.  There is a no sense of true and complete community being developed. A Distributist Community Region would be a complete community that could sustain itself with very little, or no outside, help if the situation would arise.

The second is area affected.  I chose the term “Region” instead of zone because it denotes a larger area.  Usually, a zone is limited to a neighborhood, maybe two, at most.  A region denotes a much larger area and would include not only the residential and business areas, but also the surrounding agricultural area.  This expanded area also adds to the independence and sustainability of the community.

Finally, and probably most important is the region must adhere to Distributist principles which has its basis Catholic Moral and Social teachings.  That is, we must get back to a time where the God and family was the basic societal-economic unit.  With a family, one first learns social interaction and God provides the moral foundation for everyday life.  This has to be the basis for any type of community.  The “zones” mentioned about purposely leave out both.

I have purposely not provided any type of detail or blueprint here.  Just a basic vision I have.  Maybe, with the help of others, we can bring this vision to reality.

This got me to ponder, are we too dependent on modern technology.  In my opinion, the answer is most definitely.  Many of us would be completely lost without the modern conveniences.

The scary thing is that is a very recent phenomenon.  It was not too long ago, only a couple of decades, that computers had little or no presence in every day life.   Go back a decade or two further and computers are non-existent.   Yet, energy was generated, cars operated, manufacturing occurred, banks were open, and stores were stocked.  We have come to a point where we are so dependant on computers, most, if not all of this, will cease to exist.

This gets me to the point I am trying to make.  We need to look at everything in our lives and see where we can, if possible, find alternatives to our current way of life.  If available and viable, we need to reverse the technological trend in products (i.e. cars), production (i.e. robotics), and even retail (i.e. computers for cash registers).

Even in our everyday life.  We need to be ready, or even replace, with alternatives that rely on electricity and computers.  We do not need “smart homes”.  We can get by with manually turning lights on and off.  Have, where possible, alternative for heating, cooking, and lighting and use them.  In addition, have the ability to generate electricity via solar and wind, even it is for minimal usage, that do not rely on computers to regulate the flow (I know this is possible but not how to do this).  We must learn how to grow, process, and store our own food.  Heck, with the right ingredients, we can make our own soap.

I would also go as far as to say, it might be advantageous to set up whole communities that are as far off the grid as possible as available sanctuaries in case of such a catastrophic event would occur.

What I am saying is that, we need to evaluate and wean ourselves out of the technology age as much as possible in order to be able to survive.  Even if it does not happen, the simplification of one’s life will be an improvement over what we have now.  And this is coming from one who is in a computer related career.

I am an active member on Facebook and one of my friends posted Nine Steps Towards Family Food Security by Robert Waldrop from the ChesterBelloc Mandate.  In the entry, the following nine suggestions are made:

1. Grow some of your own food.
2. Eat with the season.
3. Buy directly from farmers.
4. Learn to process foods.
5. Learn many things. Practice many skills. Teach others.
6. Make your own snacks.
7. Help the local food coop’s reach even more people.
8. Work together with neighbors and friends.
9. Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.

I modified #7 since it referred (along with #3) to a specific food coop.  However, what is contained there could be applied to other food coop’s in your area.  Mainly, the solutions are practical ways to modify one’s life to not only be more self sufficient, but also help the local economy.

I heard one such broadcast today and the person, Dr. Edward Sri, was discussing his new book, The Bible Compass: A Catholic’s Guide to Navigating the Scriptures, which is to be published next month.  The book was not of interest to me, it was his life story.  Like myself, he was (I still am) out in the business world for a number of years before he went back to study theology and started teaching and writing (his book is on my “to buy” list).

This is something that I have been thinking of doing in some capacity for a number of years.  Being single, and having no desire to get married, the options for me are much broader than for him.  I have contemplated everything from the Priesthood (Religious Order mainly), to the Diaconate, to teaching and/or writing.  I have ruled out the first two for a number of reasons, but am still thinking of the third option.

On teaching and/or writing, I would love to get a degree in Theology concentrating in Moral Theology and Catholic Social Teachings.  I feel that is where there is a void, especially on the laity side, in the teaching ranks today and it is an area that I am very interested.  However, my desired goal is not to stop there and just teach Moral Theology and/or Catholic Social Teaching.  I would love to apply that to some aspect of life.   This is where my second area of interest would come in.

As you can probably tell from other entries on my blog, I am interested in three Catholic movements: Catholic Workers Movement, Catholic Land Movement, and Distributism.  It is these three that I think I can combine with the Catholic Moral and Social teaching to create a framework to apply them to aspects of everyday life.  I already have a business degree in Computers with a minor in Finance.  However, to apply it the way I want to, I have a feeling I would need to look into one other area of business and that is Economics.

With a greater knowledge of Economics, I could really apply the Catholic Social and Moral teaching to develop and or enhance the Catholic movements mentioned above.  This is especially true for Distributism.  Up to now, Distributism has been mainly, with a few minor practical applications, a theoretical economic mode.  With knowledge of both Economics and Catholic Theology, I would be better able to combine the both into a practical and coherent economic model that could be more readily implemented.

I will be studying my options in both in the next couple of months.  I know I can get both at the Masters level where I now live.  Beyond that, I may have to explore outside the area for, at least, one of the degrees.  At this point, I have no desire to move out of this area, but that is far enough down the line that I do not have to consider that at this time.

This path that I have set for myself is challenging.  The thing is, can I balance work, school and other activity without burning out or going crazy.  That is another thing I will need to consider as I go along.

For those who are unfamiliar with cooperatives, they are:

An autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise. It is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit.

A couple of the more familiar types of cooperatives are credit unions and agricultural co-ops.

Now I know that under some types of co-op systems, one is not independent but worker-owners of the cooperative.  The best  known example of this type of cooperative is the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation.

This, however, is not the type of cooperative that I am looking at.   The Utility cooperatives, Agricultural cooperatives, Cooperative banking, and Business and employment co-operative can best describe the types of cooperatives I am looking at.  In these types of cooperatives, individuals pull their resources to either provide goods or services to the members (i.e. energy or banking) or allow individual business to group together to market their goods and obtain raw materials needed at better prices that they would of gotten by working independently.  In addition, these type of cooperatives can also supply new and/or start-up businesses with needed capital and resources.  In the case of the latter, they could be considered associations as well as cooperatives.

What I am saying is co-operatives would allow like minded people to come together, pool their resources, and gain a level of buying and/or selling power while essentially keeping their independence in true Distributist fashion.  Essentially, gaining the power of larger businesses while staying as small or family businesses.

The first of these articles “US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive” appeared in the Telegraph in June and described the plight in Flint Michigan. In the article, it describes the following proposals:

• Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.
• Mr. Kildee estimated another 3,000 needed to be demolished, although the city boundaries will remain the same.

It goes on about how the group proposing this would like to “concentrate on 50 cities” from a Brookings Institution “study” for the same type of proposals.

The second article I would like to quote “Is right-sizing the right fix?” appeared today in the Detroit Free Press and proposed the following:

• Create a new city master plan, a blueprint for future development and the regrinding of the landscape.
• Identify which parts of the city are most suitable for habitation and development.
• Develop an execution plan that acknowledges any right-sizing will take 25 to 50 years and should be done in 5-year increments to accommodate budget constraints.
• Take a full inventory of all city-owned parcels and develop a plan to clear, clean and assemble them into usable shape.
• Establish state and federal alliances with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Reserve Board to pursue block grants that could be used to relocate residents.
• Build a partnership with private investors willing to support Detroit’s future.

Both of these schemes seem to be the brainchild Dan Kildee who is the chairman of the Genesee County Land Reutilization Council.

Although, the proposals sound nice, they do not do one thing and that is shrink the cities. In both of the scenarios, the areas of the cities do not change at all. If they want to “shrink the cities” they have to break up the cities.

In many areas of the country, city populations have grown not by the influx of people, but by the growing of the city through the incorporation of surrounding areas into the city.

If they want to “shrink” the city, they should “shrink” the city. This means the footprint of the city must shrink, not necessarily become useless “green space”. Each neighborhood must have the right to self-determination. That means they must have the right to vote on whether they want to stay part of the city, become independent, or become part of an adjoining community. In addition, the residents should have the primary say on what use any abandoned land should be used for.

“Shrinking” the city’s actual footprint mean less resources for the “shrinking” tax base. Yes, the burden is shifted but, in many cases, the burden you are shifting to people who have a stake in the success or failure the area. In addition, by breaking into smaller units, the actual bureaucracy could be, at least on the local level, less than dealing with a large city government. Furthermore, keep the Federales out of this.  They will screw it even more with their useless regulations and onerous conditions. Let the cities sink or swim on their own.  That is the only way I see localities learn fiscal and social responsibility.  If things get bad enough, they will be out of office and power. What I am saying is that, the era of big government could be broken with these options.

Personally, I would love to see blighted/abandoned neighborhoods, especially if they are large enough, be returned to a rural/small town state/usage. Unfortunately, most neighborhoods are not large enough for to accomplish this completely on their own. Maybe, if a number of adjoining neighborhoods would secede from a major metropolitan area, it could happen.

Cities need to “shrink”. However, they need to “shrink” in the right way.

I am one of those who, although grew up in a housing plan, spent a lot of time in rural Western Pennsylvania since where we lived bordered on farm county.  Although I could not become a farmer by trade (and definitely not raise animals for food), I would love to find a plot of land somewhere and do enough growing to not have to buy the overpriced stuff at the supermarket.

Where to do it, it another thing all together.  Due to finding a parish that I finally feel comfortable in due to its orthodox Catholic Teaching and reverent Mass, I would prefer to stay in this area.  Another reason to stay in the area is that the priests that run the Confraternity of the Holy Guardian Angels are also stationed at my parish and one of them is my regular confessor.

What I will be looking for is about 10 to 20 acres that far enough out that I would have my  privacy but close enough to where I work and my parish.

1. Pollution – There is not refuting that the pollution in urban areas is much worse than smaller towns and rural areas.  And where does that pollution go? Yes, right into our bodies.   Oh, people will say that cities are going green with more parks, but the pollution is still there.  And that is only outside.  They say that indoor are is even worse. And where do most people work in urban areas? You guessed it, in buildings.  Yes, there is pollution in rural areas, but there is, for most cases, a lot less.
2. Sedentary Lifestyle – One of the “advantages” advocates of city living tout is the various “activities” people can do.  Yes, there is a lot to do, but the majority of it is not “active”, it is sitting and watching other people.  I do not call that active.  In addition, everything is nearby or you have to drive to it.  Little exercise there.  And again, there is work.  Paper pushing for the majority of urban dwellers is not work.  Yes, people say they exercise, but that may be for one hour a day, in dirty air.   Kind of negates the possible benefits.  In rural area, much of the work is outside (especially if you live on a farm) and that is also your exercise.   Yes, there are people who work indoors in rural and small towns, but many of those people go home and do work around the yard or even tend a small (or even larger) garden.
3. Poor diet - This kind of goes with #2, but I decided to separate it.  Another of the “advantages” advocates of city living tout is the variety of foods one can eat.  Yeah tight, most of it is either fast (i.e. fat) food or, if it is more upscale, is made with rich sauces or in portions not meant for one meal.  Yes, there are restaurants in rural areas.  In fact, I have a distant cousin who runs one, but restaurant dining is much less frequent.  You cook your own food, much if you may grow or raise yourself.  I know when I cook myself; it is a lot healthier and a lot less fat.
4. My final point in this diatribe is kind of related to point #1, but it is a different type of pollution. And that is Diseases. With the close proximity of people to each other, diseases (both viral and bacteria based) spread more easily.  You see the effect of that in offices. One person comes down with something and soon it spreads to the whole office.  In addition, it seems that once one catches something, it lingers for much longer and you are liable to catch it again and again due to mutations in the strains going around.
   .
   This is exceptionally troubling with people talking about the Swine Flu “pandemic” going on.  It is not even flu season and this thing is spreading.   Would it spread as much is people were more spread out?  I am not a doctor, but I have a feeling the answer would be no for a couple of reason.  The first is obvious; the close proximity makes it spread faster.  The second is that, in my opinion, people are relatively healthier in rural and small town settings due to the combination of the first three points

I heard on the radio that most big cities are experiencing a resurgence of population.  This does not bode well for a large portion of the human population.   All it will take is some pandemic worse than the current Swine Flu “pandemic” to cause mass deaths.  And, with the increase global interconnection of society, this pandemic can easily spread from one urban area to another.

Yes, moving to a rural area is not a panacea and will not completely protect one from every ill that plagues urban society, but one will probably healthier in the long run.