A pipe is leaking in three million different places. Do we:

  1. Replace the pipe.
  2. Patch up all 3 million leaking points and any more that may spring up.
  3. Endlessly mop up the leakages.

The following activities generally come under method 3, endless mopping:

  • Governments raising taxes and spending them accordingly.
  • New technologies being developed to 'mop up' problems.
  • Getting loans to invest in development projects.
  • Charitable activity - volunteer work, donations etc.

The following activities generally come under method 2, arduous patching:

  • Policy change.
  • Protesting or lobbying in favour of policy change.
  • Electing a different party in order to enable broader policy change.
  • Initiating direct action in order to encourage policy change.
The following activities generally come under method 1, replacement:

  • Revolution.
  • Total collapse and re-building of society.
  • Transition initiatives (analogous to replacing each part of the pipe separately) - i.e. the localisation of energy, food, currency etc.

Method 3 doesn't even attempt to solve the problems. What about method 2? Will it ever succeed? The answer to this question hinges on how we view our society. Do we think of it as:

  1. A bucket of clean water that has got majorly polluted? (Essentially good but in need of purification.)
  2. A bucket of mud that contains some nuggets of precious metals? (Essentially bad but still containing many beautiful things.)

If option 2 is correct (whatever that might mean), then the second methodology (patching up) is not viable, because you would never remove any mud in the process of patching it up, and it is the mud that is causing the problems. If option 1 is correct, then the second methodology might work, but it would be very, very difficult (identifying the location of all the impurities and a way of removing each of them). Even if option 1 is correct, the first methodology (replacement) still works. In other words, if we tip out the contents of the bucket and replace it with clean water then we have solved the problem regardless of what was in the bucket.

As it happens, we probably don't need to tip out the contents of the bucket (i.e. destroy the world) because the problems are so severe that it will drive the world to collapse anyway. What we do need to do, however, is to ensure that we are prepared for this collapse. Transition initiatives that focus on relocalisation will help, but we should also establish working models of post-collapse communities from the ground up. These are called intentional communities, and nowadays they are virtually synonymous with the concept of the 'eco-village'. The aims of these communities would be:

  • To survive the breakdown of society.
  • To act as a model for others to follow.
  • To be the first operational embodiments of the way that society will work - the first in-pourings of clean water into the metaphorical bucket.

See the IC website and the Global Ecovillage Network.

What does the 'clean water' look like? What would the world look like if it were free of all the gross problems we currently face? Well, to remove the problems, we need to remove their causes, and so we can see that the new world will be on a small community-focused scale with a connection to nature and no pressure for growth. This does not mean that we cannot have technology; it just means that technology will come down to a community-manageable scale. And this does not mean that we can't have global communications and transport to complement the local scale of operation. Apart from these general stipulations, there is in fact a great variety of different ways of life and community structures that could co-exist while still remaining free of the problems that currently stress us.

The new world will be one not just of stability and happiness, but of creativity, diversity and beauty. Such a world is possible, and I want everyone to be able to experience it.

If you're interested, read the accompanying essay.