Rockefeller Center

Living sustainably – changing light bulbs, appliances, car, lowering and raising the thermostat, buying locally, taking mass transit (and of course, it’s going to take more than this).

Survival – having a place to live, food to eat, water to drink, neighbors, or family, or government to help.

I’m guessing, like so many other things, if I have thought this, others have:

Sustainability is not the same idea for everyone.

It seems to me this one notion sums up the relative significance of: green thinking, and populations coping. There is a range – from privileged, to much of the world just looking for enough to eat. And it is interesting that from either perspective (vantage point, viewpoint), the other is not so easy to see, or for that matter, to understand.

It is necessary to survive to be sustainable, but not so necessary to be sustainable to survive.

In fact, sustainable for some is already too late, for some it has always been too late. For those who still have something to lose – a home of some kind, possessions, discretionary income, some leisure time (you know, the “world” that many others want a share of) – living sustainably is an option, if a luxury. A luxury, that as time goes on, will become more of a protected one – via immigration enforcement for example.

So I feel more comfortable with this as a starting point in a conversation about sustainability – if you have resources, you have options. And if you have options, in my view, you will have several issues to face. Some of these issues, obviously, are complex, others perhaps more stubborn than challenging. Here’s three.

1. How will different societies/cultures manage to stay “sustainable,” while others “less fortunate,” continue to be less sustainable? How do we see those “less sustainable” than us? Are they worth “saving?”

I like to remember that sustainability and survival are essentially the same. I know there are those who treat the sustainable subject as sacred, i.e. it’s the birds, the bees, and the hunk of rock we call Earth they are concerned about, but that’s privileged thinking – they have the physical strength to think that way.

Another meaning of “sustainable,” is the ability to continue feeding, housing, and having fun, for all the world’s people – and, of course, that includes themselves (and me).

Is the “developing world” less sophisticated (and therefor less valuable) because they have fewer toys with which to sustain?

And a persistent question – do they have the right to have the toys others have?

And what if they knock on our doors wanting to play with our toys? Do we help them have, or not have them?

2. When we run out of time to turn the whole thing around, will we know it?

Remember, for some people, it is already too late – increased severe weather, soil depletion, desertification, food scarcity, economic and political instability (due in no small measure to resource depletion) – and for others, the borderline is approaching.

Plan A: governments wake up and institute long-range effective planning that address the issues head-on, and this does not cause significant economic or social stress; individuals scale back on acquiring goods that unstresses the sustainable system; the planet’s populations and ecosystems negotiate a livable balance.

Assuming the world’s physical and social environments continue to change at our current rate (like, global warming, peak oil, resource depletion, baby boomers retiring, middle class disappearing), at some point, living sustainably can become, living to survive. I’m not speaking of anarchy and killing our neighbors for food (that’s already happening on lower levels of production).

What exactly are the signs of collapse?

3. Plan B. Once you find out we can’t turn this unsustainable momentum around in time to avoid world-wide…difficulties, how will your thinking and behavior change?

There was a time when learning about an environmentally sound life made the most sense because we all needed examples of how it could be done. And living that way still does make sense, only the educational component has shifted to mass markets – media and manufacturing. That much (something) is being done. The #3 issue is, what’s left for you to do?

Where will you live?
What will you do to make a living?
Who will you be able to depend on (when times are…difficult)?

I began writing thinking this would be about integrating independent personal lives with community, with sustainable ways to make a living. And really, that’s where this ends – with a model for sustainable survival – people living in shared housing, some involved in operations, some not, some working in cooperatively owned recycling businesses, some not. All for one, and one for all kind of thing.

The example is a real place, called Ganas.

It’s in Staten Island, and it’s not the best or worst place in the world, but it’s a start. As I said, it’s a model for how groups of individuals can live in separate houses, learn how to communicate effectively, manage shared expenses and practical things like maintenance, and for some living there, operate recycling businesses.

Here’s a very brief description of how it works, or how it might look in the average neighborhood.

Bring a group of neighbors together for the purpose of sharing certain housing and/or living expenses (remember, this is a living to sustain life arrangement). Next, meet every morning and evening for planning sessions, five days a week. Invest in a commercial building or two, and start recycling items that people need – clothing, furniture, and brick-a-brak are good starters. Consider cluster housing, cohousing, and connecting pathways.

As space permits, allow others (anyone reasonable) to rent rooms or apartments – they may or may not apply to work in the businesses, that’s up to them and the needs of the moment.

What this does is allows for an exchange of new information, and a continued connection to the surounding comunity – necessary to offset stagnation, and to insert new and interesting life-experiences into the mix.

New faces help to keep a cultural mix, and also a reality check on process, egos, and consensus monopoly.

This is a lot of ideas in a small space. Needs more work, and time to settle in.
To be continued.

Consider for a moment, the phrase, “Think globally, act locally,” and also those (multinational) masses who currently suffer in wars, floods, fires, disease, starvation, etc. Also, consider, or imagine, a privileged lifestyle, my own for example – middle class New York City suburban.

Next place two images side by side (you know, a guided visualization) - mass flood victims, and a small group sitting cross-legged in a yoga class.

It’s just an exercise. But it’s strange, those struggling to survive certainly are living in the present, as,  presumably, are those practicing yoga. What is strange, at least to me, is that “living in the present” is something that is practiced.

I wonder about, and in some way place in the same “yoga” category, ipods, Twitter, wine drinkers, meditators, sky divers, collectors and hobbyists, television, and religion – are they all not, one way or another, just enabling humans to be somewhere else, other than where we’d be if we were not doing…whatever? OK, that’s true of everything. Everything not directly connected to survival is, in some way, a mere distraction. So wherein lies the distinction?

It’s in the context. It’s in the “relief” experienced by the practitioner at the moment of distraction. For example, my distraction, at this moment, is in thinking about distractions. And it is a relief. If I did not have this, or myriad others, I would be forced to consider my immediate environment, and my relationship with that. And be faced with the fact that either I have no options, or what options I do have to consider.

I would be faced with the prospect of change, or no change possible. And either of those may push me right back to writing because frankly, most of the time, I either don’t like the options I have, or do not want to confront them. And so I wait it out. I have the luxury of a privileged life – I can ignore my environment, and my options. Postpone life.

What luck.

In our lives and in the world we/I live, what we now anticipate will happen fast, will not change, and what we are not considering now, will change, and fast.

I believe that people speak to each other to, and from, behind masks, that what gets said gets inside no matter what – and that we receive messages that at the time, we do not acknowledge, unless and until at night, we dream. I believe the dreams we receive interpret who we are, and what everything else is, using our own symbolic images.

Dreams match our life and bring together everything that happens, in front of the mask, and behind. Masks are not real, dreams are. I look back at my past few years and find a relationship I could not imagine failing, failed. And bees dead. And an oil well shouting, “Everything will die,” the “revolution will not be televised.” The revolution will not be imagined, it will be what we cannot see. It will be what it will be, whether we can see it or not.

We, or many of us, look ahead to the next ten years, but we don’t really - that’s the mask. Behind are the conversations we have with ourselves, bringing together all our hopes, lies, facts, and whatever else anyone tells us, true or not. We then look ahead through lenses blurred and transformed by intellect and fantasy. It’s a trap. We know it. And we don’t.

I don’t know what will happen in the future, but I don’t want to imagine the world will become what the unimaginable suggests might happen. That would be unbearable. However, I do imagine the realization of the unimaginable is familiar to, among many others:

Vietnamese
Afghans
Nicaraguans
Chinese
Ugandans
Haitians
New Yorkers, on Trinity Pl. and Liberty St., 2001.

The point is, I’m not prepared to be surprised, but I know I will be. Too many tracks are no longer parallel, they converge somewhere in the future. Things like global warming, soil degradation, ocean death, and deforestation, the disappearance in the U.S of the middle class. At this point, something seems unavoidable, and I should be headed to a plot of land sufficient to cultivate a years worth of food stuffs.

Still, I’m thinking about my lost love, my friends and my immediate problems, my aged mother, my job, my bank account, suffering people in Darfur, an interesting story I’m reading in Permaculture Activist. Relatively speaking, I lead a privileged life, one that affords me the luxury of thinking about the future, and the facility to do something about it. I think, but I don’t really know. I look, and at times see myself looking outside my mask.

My dreams seem real.

I confess, this goofy looking guy is me holding the door open at the 2010 Clearwater Festival, while a very good natured friend snapped the pic, and those waiting to get in thought god knows what.

As global warming, honey bees, AIDS, Darfur, global economic crash, and ocean oil leaks, present dramatic and dynamic challenges to human health, so does nitrogen use. And urine must eventually become part of any…solution.

Keeping this simple – nitrogen, an element, is in the air we breath, but we humans don’t use it that way. Plants need it for growth (in compound form), and large-scale industrial farming obtains the necessary nitrogen by manufacturing it using hydrocarbons, either oil or gas.

Problems with this, besides relying on these sources of fuel are several. So-called chemical fertilizers give plants much but not all of what they can use, and using fertilizer from a container, rather than via natural sources like composting with earthworms and plantings like Alfalfa makes it much easier to over fertilize – it’s labor-intensive if you keep coming back with other (small) doses, vs. compost and plantings that mature over time and integrate into the soil more effectively.

The main problem with overdosing plants with nitrogen-rich fertilizers is the runoff into ground water, and the leaching into air of N2O (nitrous oxide). The polluted water can and does run into lakes and oceans, causing plant life to increase growth, and when they die, to use much of the oxygen in the water as the plants decay (oxygenation). In the air, it attacks ozone.

To review: nitrogen – necessary for plant growth, a major component of manufactured chemical fertilizer (industry lobby association), a major cause of ocean and lake dead zones, a source of air pollution, greenhouse gasses, and ozone depletion).

Urine – has a lot of usable nitrogen (one small example), and is often removed from the biological loop contributing to pollution. Except in Sweden. (Many other examples in case the above link disappears)

2005 thesis, Urine processing for efficient nutrient recovery and reuse in agriculture, from which this drawing is taken.
Original source material testing safety from pathogens.

Example of Swedish-made urine separation toilet:

Above drawing taken from a Swedish manufacturer user manual – I don’t think any “double entendre” was intended (“Funny,” putting the words double entendre in quotes, don’t you think? And this in parentheses!).

How to use urine thereby killing two birds with one… Anyway, first, collect it. Then save it for a while, how long depends on reaching a temperature that will kill off any remaining pathogens. Next, apply it to plants – this will require some research as one would not want to overuse thereby contributing to the problem one is trying to avoid – overuse of nitrogen. 

In terms of large-scale utilization, it’s the collection and processing (holding in tanks at a high enough temperature to assure sterility) that needs to be worked out. One place to begin, that would not require modification of housing infrastructure, would be utiliation of portable out houses.

These collection devices only need the addition of a second tank. From there, processing and dissemination issues could be worked out – in the U.S., at least it would be a start. Perhaps a subject for another time.

George Carlin. Man of many words, and I will  not speak to any of them, but I will borrow this quote, and add it to a Billy Joel song, “Angry Young Man.” For me, it raises the question of, why am I alive? And the answer of course is only mine, for me. And it goes like this:

Eritrean–Ethiopian, Irish Republican-Protestant, Bosnian-Croatian, Palestinian-Jew, Chinese-Tibetan – Protracted conflict. I am not representative of one of these groups so I have never had to choose between aligning myself with one side, or facing the consequences. I should say, aligning, or not, and facing the consequences. I am privileged. I live where there is a functioning legal system (relatively speaking), and a functioning economy with abundant resources. I also live in a country with, and of, many cultures, so I have never had to choose sides (except on election day).

I have the luxury of non-involvement. Should I choose, I can stay on the sidelines of many things. Actually, living in the US, I can sideline myself from almost everything, as of this date (2010). Concerning myself with “solutions” can stay an issue I apply only to obtaining food and other necessities. If I “play my cards right,” no sides, just strategy.

So what. So in my position, global solutions – anything not addressing my basic needs - can be an elective. I have a convenient position being able to distance myself from many of the issues of survival, others face on a day-to-day basis. Instead of “Think globally, act locally,” I can ”Think locally, act locally.”

But George Carlin did NOT say, “If you work toward a solution…” Or, “If you hope there’s a solution…” He said, “think.” Which for me means being a bit obsessed about the whole idea of there being, “a solution.” It assumes you are walking around always talking about how we WILL solve the world’s problems. So that’s a good way for this progressive to look at this statement. Also considering I love the works of George Carlin and Billy Joel.

But there’s a second part to this phrase. “…, you’re part of the problem.” What problem? (Other than the fact that it’s a beautiful day outside, and I’m inside thinking too much.) (Actually, I think that’s the problem.) Actually, I think that’s the problem – it’s a, “Life is what’s happening while you’re busy making other plans” kind of thing (adding John Lennon to the notables). 

All these words because I wanted to show off a composite photograph I made a few years ago. It shows my good friend Igor, carrying his then (almost not) baby girl, conspicuously dropped onto a beach. Walking, while a speed boat goes by, Igor focuses on carrying his load while his daughter looks back and notices a butterfly.

And my friend Igor still works too many hours in a day. “Stop and smell the roses.”

When I was a young kid I remember playing a kind of game with my friends. We didn’t have a name for it, but it could have been called, “Pushed to the Limits.” It’s not as serious as it sounds, but it did have meaning. The game went like this – each kid would try to outdo the other by creating a dare of such intensity that the challenged kid would not know how to answer.

It goes like this. The challenger says, “There’s a robber pointing a gun at your mother, and you know he’s going to pull the trigger, and the only way you can stop your mother from being killed is to step in front of the gun. Would you do it?!?

Now the kid being challenged has three options. He can say, “Yes.” He can say ”No.” Or, as sometimes happened, he could say something like, “Oh yea, well your mother and your father are fighting, and your mom’s gonna shoot your father, and the only way you can stop it is to shoot your mother. What’re you gonna do about that!?”

It’s about morals, responsibility, and consequences. And reactions. It’s relatively easy to understand the morals, responsibility, and consequences piece of this scenario, but the other aspect brought out (and not really explored by kids) is that of reactions, what someone decides in the heat of the moment.

You may not really know how you will react in extreme situations until and unless you are faced with one. Life is unpredictable – a hero is born; a fear is born out. Run in front of the “gun,” or run away.

And whether or not we want to look at it, there is a rational component to this – is my “mother” worth my life, at this moment, at her age, at my age, etc. We humans make ethical choices all the time, sometimes not even realizing it, and along with the choices come various issues – is it worth the sacrifice or not.

And sometimes we have time to think things over, and sometimes we do not. Or we don’t take the time.

Reactions. Ever make a decision and days later realize it was the wrong one? That what you did at the moment was react emotionally and if you had thought it over, would have made a different choice? Ethics, morality, or reaction. And time to think.

War.
9-11.
Invasions.
Over 3 thousand Americans lost their lives in those 9-11 events. More have died since in reaction to those events. Whether or not you believe the sacrifice worth it or not, it’s a fact. It’s a decision – jump in front of the gun, or go the other way.

British politics is dirty and noisy since who knows when. That’s the Brits history, and that’s their problem. The problem with US dirty politics is that it:

1. Drives up costs for candidates.
2. Has the potential to drive away capable potential candidates.
3. Confuses the hell out of everyone so we no longer know what the issues are, let alone what the arguments are really about.
And 4. Make it possible for complete idiots, who have money and know how to play the game, to win.

And isn’t it interesting that, although it sometimes seems as though everyone hates this sorry state of affairs, nothing ever changes. And in fact, it gets even worse.

Except something does change.

In part because we’ve had so much practice at throwing dirt, and in part because electronic media technology has made it easier to throw, we’ve turned the volume up so loud that the only way to be heard is to:

1. Saturate the environment with electronic media.
2. Throw as much dirt as one possibly can.
3. Find something catchy to oppose, then run with it – government, taxes, social programs, gun control, abortion – it almost does not matter.

We don’t educate and negotiate, we bring people together by getting them angry and then rally around a cause. For one purpose only – to win the next election. Continue this cycle of rallying around emotional statements in order to attract the most press and the largest donors, and eventually you train citizens to accept two things:

1. The important issues are – few, and simple.
2. Polarization.

“Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” If just one film could possibly save a government from itself, this is the one: incorruptible idealist, single-handed takes on dirty Washington politics. In the film, he wins a battle. In real life…well in real life, there is no Mr. Smith.

Question: Why does it seem that few, if any, fair-minded, honest, clear-headed, straight-shooter, Congresswomen/men appear to get much notice? Assuming there are some. You know, down-to-earth, hard working, maybe even middle-class, or God forbid, working class Joe, The Plumber types, without the prefabricated agenda. Who are they? Where are they?

Just for fun let’s reverse the film plot and create a Washington populated entirely of Mr. Smiths, all honest, idealistic, dedicated, and intelligent. Now let’s see how we can corrupt it, see how these things start.

So, here we see Mr. Smith, and instead of defending himself in Congress, he is surrounded by fellow believers in fair-minded political discourse, working out some legislative detail with bipartisan participation (a difficult sentence to even write).

In the film, Smith was appointed, but eventually he runs for office, opposed by Mr. Jones who, wouldn’t you know, is equally honest, idealistic, dedicated, and intelligent. But wants to be elected, maybe a little more than Smith (Smith after all, was appointed).

In a campaign, all sorts of things motivate a candidate – financial contributors, loud constituents, hot issues. Dirty politics being the end of a journey, starts when a candidate takes a first step – away from Mr. Smith, and closer to trying to win, above all else. When politics is dirty, citizens who then become politicians, eventually appear dirty.

Several generations later, Mr. Jones’s relative, or maybe Mr. Smith’s relative, has learned how to respond to pre-election aggression by being more aggressive than his opponent. This may sound a bit Darwinian, but eventually, the little fish (citizens) teach the big fish (politicians) how to go fishing. Generations later, the new Jones’s will think, “I’m going to (radio, TV, Blog) a (negative) partial fact about my opponent just days before the election so he won’t have time to challenge my statement.”

Congress has become almost completely polarized on every major issue, according to party. Which means, Congressmen/women have all taken sides even before each side has stated a rational for a position: ALL Republicans vote one way and ALL Democrats vote another. Sheer coincidence that each intelligent independent representative just happens to vote the same way as all the other intelligent independent thinkers in their own political party – Not.

Once you know the other person is going to throw everything they possibly can at you during a campaign, or vote in Congress, the reflex action is to go on the offensive. And so, becomes the cycle, quick to throw more dirt, and band together tribe members until clear lines are drawn.

That is what we want, isn’t it? Clearly defined distinctions between two opposing sides? It is what we want – we’ve been trained.

Stupid, mumble, dumb, mumble, mumble… Well, no less average terrorist citizen than the likes of: Bruce Ivins, Timothy McVey, David Berkowitz, Ted Kaczynski, or Mark Chapman…mumble, mumble. This is news?! But it’s the comparison that gets to me.

Attempting to define anyone according to the political, academic, or military context a person is found in, is like saying a walnut is a different walnut because of the location it was found. A nut is a nut. To me, it’s the same as saying a person is a different person depending on where that person is when we make the definition. THAT’S nuts. And in this case, I believe how we classify nuts has real impact on how we see ourselves as citizens, and how the rest of the world sees our actions, as a government.

What’s happened to the word, “insane?” Can’t we just say that the TS bomber (Times Square) was just insane? Don’t we believe his actions merit that?

Let’s lay all the cards on the table – I believe all the aforementioned folks, including the TS bomber, at the time of their actions were insane. If that makes sense, so the guy was nuts, so what? What useful purpose does that serve? And here I’m going to skip all the legal-punishment arguments – insanity vs. terrorist convictions – life in prison vs. the possibility of the death penalty. I don’t need the aggravation.

My question is, why do we want to label the TC bomber actions as “terrorist,” instead of ‘insane?” Even as we see that it is getting much more difficult, if at all possible, to distinguish the “terrorist” from the “average citizen.” I think there are three possible answers: accountability, strategic investigations, reasonableness.

1. Aw, he’s just insane, does not sound as decisive or impressive as, he’s a terrorist. “Terrorist” is more newsworthy (better headlines, more money), it commands more political respect when a politician “takes on the terrorists,” and it appeals to our pack-animal instincts – it’s them or us.

2. It sure must feel helpless for the FBI/CIA to find out that, regardless of address, appearance, and status, almost anyone can terrorize. But at least if we can hang on to a definition – terrorist – we can keep some hope that by using deductive reasoning, we can figure out who these guys are and catch’em! And it makes for better TV – e.g. 24 Hours, Sleeper Cell – that reinforces the idea (in all of us) that the FBI, CIA, and Interpol are on the right path.

3. Hey, to begin with, if these bad people can carry on a reasonable conversation, they can’t be “insane.” They’re not babbling verbal salad, they carried out a strategic plan, and can even give you reasons for doing so. Not insane by reason of reasonableness.

So what’s insanity? Big argument amongst professionals in the field of psychology/psychiatry. And like the legal issues, I’m going to ignore the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” and skip over this aggravating argument. But – I will say that just because you are reasonable does not mean you are not insane.

How we see the (reasonable) world around us, is the reason why it is becoming harder to tell the terrorist from the US citizen – because within the context of appearance, lifestyle, and legal status, they look just like us, which is to say, as strange as any other American. And they are just going along in their life, and POOF! Suddenly change, and for that one or two days/weeks/months, become the TERRORIST.

No…they were showing signs of insanity way before they acted, you just were not there, or did not have an eye for their particular forms of insanity – the fact that they were becoming increasingly isolated in their social behavior, or had been abused as a child and were looking to act out that learned aggression on someone in their present adult life. Whatever. They’re nuts.

They’re nuts, I’m nuts, you’re nuts – we’re all nuts, in some way, some of the time – sometimes it’s hormonal, or lack of sleep, or too much sugar (look up Twinkie defense), or prolonged isolation, or child abuse, or alcoholism, or lack of social acceptance. But sometimes we’re all insane, and can still be reasonable, and can still function in the real world, and can still manage not to kill someone – with intent.

Terrorists kill with intent, I don’t need to tell you. My point is, the deliberate nature of their act does not make it any less insane (remember, legal arguments aside). The other point I want to make is that we ought to treat them as such – insane. No, No, No, not give them psychotropic drugs until they pass some psychological test, then send them home. There are, and should be, legal consequences fitting the crime. But look at labels from a political image and strategic point of view:

US COURT COMMITS TIMES SQUARE BOMBER TO INSANE ASYLUM

Kind of stands out for starters doesn’t it? And from a strategic point of view, it kind of undermines their – whomever they are – attempts to elevate their actions. Before, they were TERRORISTS. Now they are INSANE. Pity the poor crazy bastard. Cause that’s what they are.

Meanwhile, the counter terrorist groups must shift from fighting war on a front, to scanning for, and infiltrating those who would act – as terrorists. But both still believing they are fighting a war, rather than insanity.

In a wonderful article published, March 10, 2010, in The Nation, Steven Hill lays out the benefits and history of “Europe’s Answer to Wall Street.” After a brief nod to cooperatives, Hill delivers an insightful presentation of co-determination, which I must admit, though it is found in wikipedia, I have never heard of.

The article is great, the idea is wonderful, and I have my usual naive interpretation – as follows.

My take-off point begins with Hill’s (justifiable?) dismissal of coops, “…most cooperatives are generally small-scale and thus likely anytime soon to replace the most important economic institution in modern mass economies, which is the corporation.” Hill certainly is justified in using this as a segue into a discussion of more suitable alternatives, as expressed in co-determination. Read the article about Hill’s alternatives, but I will take a different branch off the capitalist tree.

Cooperatives - in the post-environment collapse, aka, global warming, resource depletion, peak oil – are likely to take on a different meaning.

I realize this question seems a tease.

But regardless what expectations may lead us to believe, the Internet as we know it is barely 30 years old. And though you can’t see it, it is a monster to maintain, both for its size and complexity and its cost.

By not supportable I mean - in the event that several or many countries can no longer afford the upkeep of the technology necessary for high speed Internet, and either drop out or severely reduce their participation (slower connections). How could this happen?

In one respect, it’s like raising any of several issues before they have happened: How could the housing collapse happen? International monetary crisis? Global warming? Peak oil? Iceland’s volcano?

We are looking at a world whose population is still increasing, and resources still diminishing. Many countries are running huge deficits, and as always, nature still makes earthquakes, storms, and volcanoes (that cost lots of money to repair, never mind wars). Or on a more localized level, the Internet has yet to succumb to a major terrorist attack, but what if vulnerabilities are exploited, on a regular basis? Or magnetic storms?

I do not mean to say, here today, gone tomorrow – I suppose the Internet will likely remain in some form for some time to come. So why think about the possibility of such a catastrophic event? For the reason that it would be catastrophic (it’s also advisable that everyone keep a few gallons of distilled water in the event of a supply failure – because water is the one thing you can not live long without).

It raises, or should raise, the question – how would you live with no Internet? The Internet is not just another appliance like a toaster or flat screen monitor, a technology that can be fixed by you, or by a manufacturer recall. It is not even in the same category as an electric utility, managed by one company, in one country.

It is like nothing else, with an unknown future. It’s another one of those, Oh No, Oh Yes, things.