While I think I understand your admiration of the kibbutz culture, it takes
a stongly ideological person to participate and make it work. I knew one
person who had been part of the kibbutz, and while one data point doesn't
constitute proof of anything, he gave me the feeling that he would be a good
communist if he was so inclined, as his ideological fervor was almost
religious in intensity. By contrast, the majority of people I come across
in the North American context seem very unwilling to share, and although
most pride themselves on being "good people", there is very little
enthusiasm for restricting their own freedom (to do, to consume, to enjoy
the fruits of their labor) in support of the common good. Part of my work
involves getting into peoples' heads to understand how and why they make
various decisions (purchase of goods, selection of a service provider,
deciding how to earn their living), and I am continually amazed at the
mental gymnastics many make to justify their attitudes and positions (this
applies to all positions on the political/economic spectrum). Over the
years, I've come to the conclusion that if an incentive system doesn't offer
immediate gratification, it has little chance of success. Yes, there are
always exceptions to the rule, and I've met many fine, principled and aware
individuals who do the right thing, but they are unfortunately in the
minority. It's not to say that the rest are "bad" people, but they are not
convinced that the reduction or denial of their desires will bring about a
better overall situation.
So to answer your question, until it is in the immediate interest of most
people to stop fouling the environment, taking the necessary steps (choices)
to do it won't happen. Why should anyone give up their fun and enjoyment,
when the whole mass culture is reinforcing the notion that "consumption" is
good, and even necessary. Those who don't buy into this concept are
abnormal, by definition. I'm OK with being different - it gives me the
freedom to see things from a different reference frame.
I noticed that you were admiring the system in Norway. I spend some time in
Sweden and the culture there is tangibly different from North America.
There is much more focus on "family" and "community", and by extension the
environment. On the other hand, Sweden has been a relatively homogeneous
society until recently, and the influx of immigrants with very different
social values has created strains. A similar view is also apparently
occuring in Holland, with people less willing to put up with the
non-assimilation of immigrant populations.
Ultimately, as a believer in democracy, we need to elect the right leaders,
who can then start steering the ship of culture in a different direction.
There is yet other aspect to consider. We talk as members of the western
culture, but the majority of the world's population do not belong to this
group. The effect of China, India, Russia, the countries of Africa and
South America will have a tremendous impact on the well-being of the
environment. It is true that the majority of energy consumption is by
"western" nations, but the others are trying very hard to catch up, and even
if we all stop doing bad stuff in North America, it may not be enough to
save the planet. Again, it appears that technology will have to be the
saviour, in providing cheap, non-polluting power to all. No, it doesn't
exist yet, but when the pain becomes acute enough, necessity will provide
incentive to invent. And if we fail, ... guess we weren't as smart as we
thought we were. In that case, the world will have another example of an
over-specialized species that couldn't cope with a changing environment.
I better get out and enjoy the waters with my family. And while we're at
it, pick up some garbage.
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
PG wrote:
The problem with most (political) revolutions is that they end up
devouring
those who start them. The chaos caused by the deliberate break-down of
old
rules is used by the opportunistic (and ruthless) to seize control of the
movement and install their own power structure. Elimination of those
with
principles and morals usually quickly follows. These are the true
predators.
Not necessarily true. Remember, America is the fruit of one....
Well, maybe that's the wrong example. 
But how are you going to jump start the dinosaur into action? Who's
going to stop the onslaught on the environment?
As for the person who needs 260 HP to have fun, that's not a predator,
that's a sheep with vision problems. The cure for that is in the works.
With the price of a barrel of oil spiking towards $100 per barrel (not
there
yet, but soon), a lot of consumption-oriented expenditures become
discretionary. I share a waterway with many boats and it brings a smile
to
my face when I think of how much someone is spending to propel themselves
from point A to point B with no purpose other than to "have fun". Of
course, there is always the idiot boater who is drunk and can't figure
out
where they are going or what they are prone to hit, but the same idiots
are
also driving their trucks and endangering other peoples' lives on land as
well.
Even in the kayaking world, we have the whole spectrum of those who are
perfectly happy in a stubby plastic rec boat, and those who disdain
anything
that isn't kelvar/graphic fiber with a 30 lb. net weight. The latter
group
is just as consumeristic as the ones who drive SUV's or big boats. The
same
situation with cyclists - there are those who are happy with a
single-speed
upright and those who drill out their magnesium/titanium derailers. You
can
put a consumer mind into the most environmentally-friendly transport
system,
and they will still be consumers. Heh, but that's humanity for you. :-)
The kibbutz solve that consumeristic drive the simple way: SHARING. In
our case, it could be 5 kayaks for 150 people say.
I'm I getting too political? Please see...
Going back to the coops, here are some good reasons why many people
would join them if given the choice...
"Most people are living on Kibbutz Arava for two reasons: 1.) to be
able to work for themselves [no politician, no bureaucrat, no boss, in
other words, no lion], and 2.) to be able to raise their children in a
safe and comfortable environment [in other words, no jungle]. In a
world whose cities are increasingly becoming more polarized and
violent, these basic wants/needs are synonymous with life on a kibbutz.
Internally, Kibbutz Arava functions rather communally and ecologically.
There is a central dining room and commons area. Food that is eaten in
the dining room arrives as bulk, wholesale crates, thus eliminating
retail wastes such as packaging and plastic wrappers. The kibbutz is a
pedestrian community. People are able to walk and ride their bikes to
any kibbutz activity. In fact, there are only five leisure cars
available for the 130 adult members. On kibbutz, people don't throw
much away. When things break, they are fixed either by the garage,
carpentry shop, or laundry. Things are not easily thrown away, as items
are scarce. There are public commodities, such as a coffee and tea
lounge, a pool, an entertainment area, a computer and fax room, a music
studio, and a horse stable. By offering these amenities, the kibbutz
eliminates the need for everyone to have their own TV, computer, etc
[no consumerism, which feeds the lion]."
kibbutz... http://www.objectsspace.com/encyclop...ex.php/Kibbutz
Behind Consumption and Consumerism...
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRel...onsumption.asp