Intolerable Beauty. Photos by Chris Jordan & Chris Dunker

Technically, "Intolerable Beauty" is the title of the first group of photographs only, but I thought it fit both so that's what I called the whole post (to be fair).

Photographs of the awful scale of our waste. Click on "Intolerable Beauty" after clicking here.
Thanks for the tip Caleb!

Photographs of the awful scale of our industry. After clicking here click on (in this order):
1) mouse over the "di" logo
2) click "Gallery"
3) click "Industrial"
4) click "Geneva Steel"

Geneva Steel was a short drive from where I now live. A man's life was not worth a dime there. Good riddance.

Specialization of populations

Great interview on KUER's Radio West about the phenomenon of choosing to live with people who think/believe/vote the way we do and the damage it has done to our nation. Click here to listen. (The player is on the top left hand side of the web page).

Undeniable intangibles

CD's and mp3's are to vinyl albums as airplanes are to trains. These are aspects of scale which don't have to do with size, but a graduated series denoting levels of simplicity and speed. I argue that a vinyl album sounds and feels far better than their digital counterparts not just because of the sound itself but also because of the fact that we can see and understand what's going on as the sound is generated. They don't leave us behind technologically. If a belt drive on a turntable breaks we can rig up a new one with a long rubber band. If we hear a pop in the middle of a song we can work to gently clean the impurity off with a little fluid. This intangible element preserved a sense of pride of ownership, a sense of stewardship. You could tell a lot about a person by looking at his record collection, totally aside from the music they contained. Back when CD's began to take over I remember the vinyl die-hards talking about the "warmth" of music played back on records which resulted from the fact that the full sound was recorded on the disk and not just a tinny-sounding sample. They were absolutely right. Because record albums are so simple technologically, they are more approachable, more participatory. In other words more humane. Is it any wonder they seem to be making a comeback?

Likewise with trains as compared to airplanes. Because they travel more slowly, trains seem to be at one with the landscape and the small towns and large cities they criss-cross through. People develop real feelings for trains because they exist at a more human scale. In spite of their shear engineering muscle there's a sense that trains are a kind of humble servant, like an old friend. In contrast airplanes have become a kind of brutal taskmaster. In a plane, gone is the sense of history, rumination and unfolding geography. Maybe because it preserves these things, train travel seems to do a better job of preparing a person emotionally and spiritually for arrival at their destination. Perhaps in the same sense that the needle of a record expresses every detail of the music, a train doesn't abbreviate the terrain or the necessary richness of the journey. (Maybe jet lag is the body's attempt to make up for in dreaming, what was lost in wakeful experience). Instead all that remains in airplane travel is the schedule, the evaluation of service, amenities, etc. What a shame. Who knows, maybe train travel will make a comeback, too.

Standardization in retail and restaurants

I probably don't have to tell you that you can go practically anywhere in America and find many of the same stores and restaurants. This stinks. Of course, this phenomenon is the result of massive scale. By tuning our tastes to narrower and narrower possibilities these giants have removed much culture, surprise and fun and generally made life worse for Americans-not to mention fed us pure trash. Sadly some people prefer it this way. Ever notice how people rarely gather at chain restaurants? (with the possible exception of bored-out-of-their-mind teenagers) Real neighborhood establishments attract locals and become a place for them to hold court. This is an important part of their character. My brother travels for work much of the year and has a policy of only eating at mom-and-pop establishments. Fortunately he can still do this without starving. If more of us did, I think we could reverse this awful trend.

Standardization of spelling and grammar

The champions of massive scale have also promoted the standardization of spelling and grammar. They do this to help ensure that new language as it evolves is unpopular. The way they do it is by con-vincing people that "proper" language comes from books rather than from families and communities. As a vehicle for this misinformation they have established mass-schooling (and associated texts) with the help of government. By subjecting people to artificial ideas about what is correct, they reinforce divisive and inhyewman concepts of class hierarchy by making it possible to readily identify those who aren't educated in a certain way and exploiting people's natural clannishness in order to encourage a system of self-perpetueighting, contempt, discrimination, exclusion, etc. Doo partly to a lack of this kind of education, the lower classes are unhindered creatively and become a fountain of new expreshun - full of color, spontaneity and feeling. This is particularly true among the youth, who develop, pick up on and spread new language up through the social ranks until the society as a whole is influenced by it. This is because of the innate ability of children who, in the absence of adult teaching actually create language from scratch. Also, by the age of 5 the average child knows more grammar than has ever been recorded in any textbook. These phenomena are a natural threat to the insecurity of power. By engineering a top-down orientation, those in power hope to stifle innovation and democracy in order to protect their own insidious intrists. As an alternative, I have decided to pepper my writing with nonstandard spelling. I have found it to be an unexpected source of creativity, fun as well as a way to infuse my thoughts with more meaning, not less. I highly recommend it!

Specialization in "food" products

Specialization in food could more accurately be described as reductionism. For example, at some point in history people decided refined food was more prestigious. It probably had to do with the fact that eating refined food meant you could afford servants to refine it for you. Fast forward to today when technology has replaced human servants. Good for the human servants, but still just as damaging to the served - as it breeds dependence, unrealistic expectations and a spoiled sense of entitlement. Add to that poor health. Refined food is only one example. The proliferation of this royal attitude causes us to decide we like one part of something and toss out the rest in many, many cases. Or concentrate one part and put several times the normal amount into something. And thus are born a million food fads. I always cringe at a radio ad that plays here a lot recently. "You could never drink enough green tea to get the benefits of just one serving of ______. It would be physically impossible!" Take something as every-day as juice. We would rarely if ever eat the amount of fruit that goes into making a single glass of juice. Yet we have serious health problems because we over indulge in sugar and a big part of it is juice and "juice drinks". Fruit comes balanced right off the tree. Not just because there is fiber, too. There are relationships between all the ingredients that food scientists don't study very much. Why? Because the more you do to something the more scarce a commodity it becomes (funding for studies often comes with the promise or hope of a marketable product at the other end). Few studies are conducted on foods and plants as they grow in nature and the health sustaining relationships of the ingredients as they interact in their natural and pristine state. Why do that, when people would just end up going down to their local nursery and buying a potted plant or vegetable start for $2 (or a pack of seeds with a few dozen for the same price)? Who would get rich from that when they naturally reproduce themselves? Better to make a $4 processed food product or better yet a $30 or $500 prescription drug using a secret patented process.

In my freshman biology class at Brigham Young University, they tried to erase any question about the superiority of reductive science in our minds by giving us two papers to read. One was a peer-reviewed paper about some new cancer treatment and one was a magazine article featuring testimony about the health maintaining properties of the herb fenugreek. The material we were given to help us understand how to judge between the two was scornful of the latter, to say the least. I consider what our professor, and no doubt other professors as the course was a university-wide graduation requirement, did as third-rate brainwashing, designed to program our assumptions by implying that we would be socially and professionally ostracized for believing that fenugreek and other herbs (not to mention overrule the very idea that testimony is a valid and valuable means of evaluating options - a basic tenet of LDS doctrine. In addition, by promoting the supremacy of air-tight science they undermine another indispensable Mormon doctrine and the experience of thousands, if not millions of Church members - that of faith healing) have medicinal value. Did I mention that they also implied that doing so could be dangerous, even though fenugreek has been used to spice food for hundreds, if not thousands of years? The fact that they would assume that our minds would be in a state of readiness to fall for such nonsense amounts to a ringing indictment of our school system as a whole, but that's another subject.

Reductive science has made it's way into our food supply and into our stomachs, filling our doctors/dentists offices and hospitals in the process. (Don't believe me? Try kicking refined foods and see how often you get sick or have a cavity) Again, this comes from the faulty philosophy that things are simply the sum of their parts. In actuality, foods eaten as close to the way they are found in nature are by far the healthiest. Not only do they not make us sick, they keep us from getting sick as well and can even reverse existing health problems. Another beautiful thing about it is that it saves work because less is done to it. Like many things in modern life, if we actually did the sensible thing we would destroy jobs in the food industry (two words that should have never been placed side by side) and bankrupt the healthcare industry. I say we get to it.

Parts don't make a whole

A truth that architect Christopher Alexander called attention to is the idea that in nature, parts don't make a whole. Rather, the whole gives birth to the parts. Think of a tree for example. It's not made by stacking a trunk on top of the roots, followed by branches, stems and leaves. The whole comes first, which in the case of a tree means the earth itself which nourishes a seed and so forth. What does this have to do with scale? In creating and participating in human organizations and industrial systems designed to perpetually grow, we behave as though the parts come first and that each part has value only as it contributes to the whole. Without special design consideration in harmony with the example found in nature, the larger an organization becomes the smaller the parts (people) feel and the harder it is to manage. Some enshrine our economy as an exercise in self-interested cooperation which is an oxymoron. We use the fact that it makes money for people to justify it as a kind of pinnacle of human achievement. Yet, as we specialize ourselves in the breathless pursuit of money, without respecting our intrinsic wholeness (either as individuals or as a society), we make ourselves sick, both mentally and physically. We're indoctrinated to be self-interested which is in direct opposition to the concept of cooperation. What's more, our training is so technical and our outlook so narrow that we often don't have time to consider the big picture that we contribute to, or even the other departments we work interdependently with. This sickness comes because specialists are not what we were created to be. What we do to ourselves and each other is analogous to saying to a group of flowers "Ok, you flowers just be colorful, you over there just smell nice, etc. and together we'll all make one big superflower!" It doesn't work that way because every flower was made to be a whole flower, just as every person was made to be a whole person. The minute we raise our heads and look around and see things as they are--to look at the relationships and interconnectedness--and act appropriately, we begin to be generalists. Other skills immediately come into play that cause us and our organizations to begin to heal. Our self-image improves and we submit less to exploitation. That's an important word because specialization reduces us to commodities (The "framers" of our economy saw to it). That might be good for slash-and-burn economics, but in time it is bound to fail. The more responsibility we take for our own selves (and the less we rely on large-scale markets, corporations, etc.), as we live closer to the land, the more well-rounded we become simply because a variety of skills are needed to produce a living on nature's terms. In addition, our involvement with other living things softens us and makes us more aware of the needs of other people. Fortunately, in addition to the hard work involved we receive understanding about who we really are--whole people eager to express ourselves along with the rest of creation.

Scale and our incomprehensible economy

One of the reasons why small scale is so important is because it keep things things comprehensible. One thing the economic downturn has revealed beyond any argument is the fact that no one understands our economy. The scale is too large and there are too many things going on as a result. How do I know this? I know this because every time an expert speaks he doesn't agree with the last one. It's clear from how the government is reacting (and how fast people are changing their minds) that we are in uncharted territory. There are many economic theories that are being tested and are coming up short. We are so full of ourselves we think that the shear scale proves we are something special. We're not. It may finally be coming to an end. In any case, it's time to move to a community based economy. Two great ideas are LETS (Local Exchange Trading Systems) and local currencies like the one in Ithaca, NY

Bigger isn't always better for business

This is a great piece I heard recently on public radio's "Marketplace". Click here for the web page with the audio. Here is the transcript:

CHARLES HANDY: Americans think big. This has helped make them the most powerful nation on Earth, but bigger is not always better, either for our bodies or, I suggest, for our organizations. If I were to visit a symphony orchestra and ask them about their growth plans for the future, how would they respond? They would talk about their plans to extend their repertoire and to bring their work to new audiences, not about increasing the number of violinists. The same holds true for a school or a hospital. Once they get to the appropriate size, they strive to be better not bigger.

Why should it be different for business? Why does almost every business that I know seek to grow in size, year after year, in fact, as if there were no limit? Why can't they be content with doing more with less? I ask because large organizations are not usually, or even often, nice places in which to spend the best part of our lives. Humans are most comfortable in clusters of 10 to 12, family-sized groups. Put them in armies of hundreds and thousands and they cease to be individuals, but only human resources, just numbers in jobs. Humanity too easily yields place to bureaucracy.

An executive in the project I am working on at the Drucker School in Claremont, California calls the business he created a "bonsai" organization, after those small Japanese trees. These trees need to be trimmed and reshaped, but they don't grow beyond their ordained size. So it is, he says with his organization, and if you really have to be bigger, then maybe the challenge is to create woods of bonsai trees. This way, the economies of scale and the personal ambitions of our leaders won't run up against the constraints of human nature, because if we aren't careful, organizations can become the prisons for our souls.

Another thought on the "Farmer Boy" excerpt

One more thought on the "Farmer Boy" excerpt from two posts ago. Somewhere along the line, the desire for simple freedom that brought many immigrants to this country has been replaced with the "American Dream" of economic opportunity. The former is far nobler than the latter. I suspect a connection between this phenomenon and the decision to leave the farm. Freedom is best realized and experienced as the "free and independent" farmer Mr. and Mrs. Wilder describe. As our economy has changed to one based on shopping and excess, we've done nothing less than trade our freedom for bondage.

Another Moment of Decision (1997)

The first "moment of decision" I posted is here. I found this in "The Plain Reader", edited by Scott Savage. It is a book of articles from Plain Magazine, a publication of the Amish and other "plain folk". It's about one family's choice to decentralize themselves so to speak, to spread back out. To reclaim their sense of security from market forces and put it back in their own hands and the hands of God. By way of contrast with the first:

Author: Robbie L----
Date: 4/16/97 9:19 A.M.
Priority: Normal
Subject: Taking a Flying Leap into Space

Effective May 16, 1997, I am terminating my employment with ________. This is my thirty days' notice.
Jerrie and I have felt the Lord leading us away from the Corporate Scramble for some time. We actually ignored this urge for several years, but only in the last year have we had an inkling of where we were to go. We are moving back to Oklahoma, among most of our relatives, to locate an acreage on which to homestead.
"Homestead," not as in the legal definition, but as in raising our own food (plants and animals) and making a life, instead of merely making a living.

Background (for anyone who wishes to read on):
1) Because our economic system is so organized, corporations must grow to survive, and the growth of thousands of organizations means the ultimate consumption of all natural resources. If this continues, there will be nothing left to pass on to our descendants. This is not what I want for my descendants, so I'm not helping to do it anymore.
2) Because our economic system forces competition, employees are constantly being pushed to run, run, run. My artistic blood and my conscience both rebel when we often seem to be fooling our customers into thinking that they are getting quality work, instead of taking the time to actually give it to them.
3)What keeps our economic system going? Well, everybody in the western world wants to live like royalty; travel, fine food, nice clothes, power. To live like royalty you need a large contingent of servants fulfilling your every whim. In the old days, a few people were royalty and everyone else was their slave. In the present day everyone is royalty (or wants to be), and machines are our slaves. This works in the short term, but will surely fail when (a) the energy runs out, or (b) the environment has become so miserable that life is a royal pain. The industrial age was a nice diversion, but Jerrie and I are getting back on track and going on to the future.
4) We are also unhappy with a social system that separates fathers from their children, and lately, mothers from their children, for a majority of the day, leaving children's upbringing to strangers. Homesteading and home schooling (already in progress) let us all stay at home where we need to be.
5) Sitting behind a desk day after day is killing my body. Many of you know that I constantly fight back problems. Being up and active and doing real physical work will do tremendous things for my health. And no, I'm not planning to just sit on a tractor.
6) I fear I'm missing the majority of God's gifts by hiding out in a building my entire life. I've got to check out the other side and see how much joy I've been avoiding by not immersing myself in Creation.
We aren't making this move lightly, but only after much agonizing thought, discussion, and prayer. However, things have certainly gone right for us since we made the decision -- so many things that we are certain it's God's will for us to go.
We are not waiting until I reach retirement age. We want to do this while the kids are still home, and while we are still young.
For the most part, I have enjoyed my time with _________. I have definitely enjoyed my colleagues in Computer Land (just south of Fantasy Land). Thanks for all the assistance with all the problems, the encouragement, and the laughs. I'm not leaving in a bitter mood, but with my eyes fixed on something that promises to be much better.

Catch me, Lord! Here I come!

Robbie

A Moment of Decision (1860's)

I came across the following dialogue at the end of Laura Ingalls Wilder's book "Farmer Boy". It seemed to represent, not only a moment in the Wilder family's story, but a moment in the history of our whole nation. Unfortunately, we haven't chosen as wisely as Almanzo did. Sadly, we have set a standard for the rest of the world, which other countries are all too eager to follow. As our livelihoods moved from family farms to a jobs in towns and cities much freedom was lost. It allowed business people to scale their operations up almost infinitely and society became more and more dependent on forces beyond their control for basic needs. For a contrasting "moment of decision" see this post.

(On a side note, I find it interesting the role "Mother" plays in the exchange in the preceding post. If I may generalize, I think women are often on the more sensible end of issues which, like this one, are essentially spiritual. I am disappointed that feminists seem more driven to "succeed" in the world on men's terms than question the whole paradigm for being cold, foolish and self-destructive):

"James, what's on your mind?"
Then Father told her that Mr. Paddock wanted to take Almanzo as an apprentice.
Mother's brown eyes snapped, and her cheeks turned as red as her red wool dress. She laid down her knife and fork.
"I never heard of such a thing!" she said. "Well, the sooner Mr. Paddock gets that out of his head, the better! I hope you gave him a piece of your mind! Why on earth, I'd like to know should Almanzo live in town at the beck and call of every Tom, Dick and Harry?"
"Paddock makes good money," said Father. "I guess if truth were told, he banks more money every year than I do. He looks on it as a good opening for the boy."
"Well!" Mother snapped. She was all ruffled, like an angry hen. "A pretty pass the world's coming to, if any man thinks it's a step up in the world to leave a good farm and go to town!" How does Mr. Paddock make his money, if it isn't catering to us?" I guess if he didn't make wagons to suit farmers, he wouldn't last long!"
"That's true enough," said Father. "But--"
"There's no 'but' about it!" Mother said. "Oh, it's bad enough to see Royal come down to being nothing but a storekeeper! Maybe he'll make money, but he'll never be the man you are. Truckling to the people for his living, all his days -- He'll never be able to call his soul his own."
For a minute Almanzo wondered if Mother was going to cry.
"There, there," Father said, sadly. "Don't take it too much to heart. Maybe it's all for the best, somehow."
"I won't have Almanzo going the same way!"
Mother cried. "I won't have it, you hear me?"
"I feel the same way you do," said Father. "But the boy'll have to decide. We can keep him here on the farm by law till he's twenty-one, but it won't do any good if he's wanting to go. No. If Almanzo feels the way Royal does, we better apprentice him to Paddock while he's young enough."...
..."He's too young to know his own mind," Mother objected.
Almanzo took another big mouthful of pie. He could not speak till he was spoken to, but he thought to himself that he was old enough to know he'd rather be like Father then like anybody else. He did not want to be like Mr. Paddock, even. Mr. Paddock had to please a mean man like Mr. Thompson, or lose the sale of a wagon. Father was free and independent; if he went out of his way to please anybody, it was because he wanted to.
Suddenly he realized that Father had spoken to him. He swallowed, and almost choked on pie. "Yes, Father," he said.
Father was looking solemn. "Son", he said, "you heard what Paddock said about you being apprentice to him?"
"Yes, Father."
"What do you say about it?"
Almanzo didn't exactly know what to say. He hadn't supposed he could say anything. He would have to do whatever Father said.
"Well, son you think about it," said Father. "I want you should make up your own mind. With Paddock, you'd have an easy life, in some ways. You wouldn't be out in all kinds of weather. Cold winter nights, you could lie snug, in bed and not worry about young stock freezing. Rain or shine, wind or snow, you'd be under shelter. You'd be shut up, inside walls. Likely you'd always have plenty to eat and wear and money in the bank."
"James!" Mother said.
"That's the truth, and we must be fair about it," Father answered. "But there's the other side, too, Almanzo. You'd have to depend on other folks, son, in town. Everything you got, you'd get from other folks.
"A farmer depends on himself, and the land and the weather. If you're a farmer, you raise what you eat, you raise what you wear, and you keep warm with wood out of your own timber. You work hard, but you work as you please, and no man can tell you to go or come. You'll be free and independent, son, on a farm."
Almanzo squirmed. Father was looking at him too hard, and so was Mother. Almanzo did not want to live inside walls and please people he didn't like, and never have horses and cows and fields. He wanted to be just like Father. But he didn't want to say so.
"You take your time, son. Think it over," Father said. "You make up your mind what you want."
"Father!" Almanzo exclaimed.
"Yes, son?"
"Can I? Can I really tell you what I want?"
"Yes, son," Father encouraged him.
"I want a colt," Almanzo said....
..."If it's a colt you want, I'll give you Starlight."
"Father!" Almanzo gasped. "For my very own?"
"Yes, son. You can break him, and drive him, and when he's a four-year-old you can sell him or keep him, just as you want to. We'll take him out on a rope, first thing tomorrow morning, and you can begin to gentle him." THE END

Hearkening Back to a More Rural Existence: A National Obsession

We long for a simpler existence which is closer to the land and necessarily smaller scale/more community based. The evidence is all around us:

• Porch signs that say things like "Happy Harvest" or "Hay Rides, Pumpkins & Cider"
• All manner of faux-lk art knick-knacks and decorations.
• Misleading place/subdivision names like "Cedar Ridge", "Cranberry Hill", "Willow Brook" etc., etc., etc. - ad infinitum.
• The "simplicity" craze
• The popularity of country music
  
• Amish stars
• Cracked, weathered and worn paint effects.
• Distressed, pre-worn, bleached, etc. denim.
  
• Trance-inducing Do-It-Yourself shows from the Food Network, HGTV, Martha Stewart, This Old House, New Yankee Workshop, etc. highlight the fact that "boughten" goods leave our souls feeling empty. Not so deep inside there is a need to make things ourselves. Then we will be surrounded by stories and meaning instead a life full of errands, traffic and spending. As manufacturing has become more and more centralized we've lost (temporarily) many skills and the habit of meditation these processes encourage.
  

Once you start to notice this phenomenon you see it everywhere. Marketers have been capitalizing on it for quite some time. For now this obsession seems to take the form of decor/ambience-type applications, but more and more I see people moving toward the authentic and the practical. I see the local food trend dovetailing nicely with this, especially as people realize that even industrial organic farming is unhealthy and unsustainable. Eventually people will need to buy/trade for what they need with a local farmer or raise it themselves. Economic problems will likely speed this process.