PDF The Simpler Way Collected Writings of Ted Trainer 1St Edition Samuel Alexander Ebook Full Chapter

The Simpler Way Collected Writings of
Ted Trainer 1st Edition Samuel

Alexander
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-simpler-way-collected-writings-of-ted-trainer-1st-e
dition-samuel-alexander/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Collected Uncollected Writings David Foster Wallace
https://textbookfull.com/product/collected-uncollected-writings-
david-foster-wallace/
The Danish Way of Parenting 1st Edition Jessica Joelle

Alexander
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-danish-way-of-parenting-1st-
edition-jessica-joelle-alexander/
Existential Psychology and the Way of the Tao:

Meditations on the Writings of Zhuangzi Mark C Yang
https://textbookfull.com/product/existential-psychology-and-the-
way-of-the-tao-meditations-on-the-writings-of-zhuangzi-mark-c-
yang/
Urban Awakenings Disturbance and Enchantment in the

Industrial City Samuel Alexander
https://textbookfull.com/product/urban-awakenings-disturbance-
and-enchantment-in-the-industrial-city-samuel-alexander/
Just Enough is Plenty Thoreau s Alternative Economics
1st Edition Samuel Alexander
https://textbookfull.com/product/just-enough-is-plenty-thoreau-s-
alternative-economics-1st-edition-samuel-alexander/
The Collected Translations of the Sanskrit Epics 1st

Edition Valmiki
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-collected-translations-of-
the-sanskrit-epics-1st-edition-valmiki/
The Collected Poems of Esdras Parra 1st Edition Esdras

Parra
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-collected-poems-of-esdras-
parra-1st-edition-esdras-parra/
The Collected Works of Filler Bunny Vasquez Jhonen
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-collected-works-of-filler-
bunny-vasquez-jhonen/
Always Reaching The Selected Writings of Anne Truitt

1st Edition Anne Truitt
https://textbookfull.com/product/always-reaching-the-selected-
writings-of-anne-truitt-1st-edition-anne-truitt/
The Simpler Way:
Collected writings of Ted Trainer
Edited by Samuel Alexander and Jonathan Rutherford

The Simpler Way: Collected writings of Ted Trainer
Published by the Simplicity Institute, Melbourne, 2020
www.simplicityinstitute.org
Copyright © 2020 Ted Trainer

Cover design by Andrew Doodson © 2020
Proofread by Antoinette Wilson
Layout and typesetting by Sharon France (Looking Glass Press)
Typeset in Hammersmith One and Stone Sans
All rights reserved
ISBN (paperback). 978-0-9942828-7-3
ISBN (ebook). 978-0-9942828-8-0
No part of this work may be reproduced, recorded, or transmitted in any form,
whether in print or electronically, without the express written permission of the
copyright owner.
Contents
Editors’ introduction iii
PART ONE: Overview 1

The Simpler Way: An overview 3
PART TWO: The global predicament 13

Why this economy must be scrapped 15
The ‘limits to growth’ analysis 42
The marvellous market:
The main cause of our fatal problems 78
If you want affluence, prepare for war 84
Social breakdown and quality of life 103
Third World development:
The Simpler Way critique of conventional theory and practice 128
Social responsibility:
The most important, and neglected, problem of all? 156
PART THREE: Mistaken solutions 185

But can’t technical advance solve the problems? 187
Can renewable energy power the global growth economy?
An outline of the negative case 214
PART FOUR: The Simpler Way vision 221
The alternative society: The Simpler Way 223
Your delightful day:
The benefits of life in the Simpler Way 261
‘Education’ under consumer-capitalism
and the Simpler Way alternative 276
Feminism: The Simpler Way perspective 287
The Catalan Integral Cooperative:
The Simpler Way revolution is well underway 301
PART FIVE: The Simpler Way transition strategy 315

Simpler Way transition theory 317
Friendly critical thoughts on other transition strategies 342
What should we do? Some thoughts on practical action 365
PART SIX: Challenging questions 385

A conversation with Ted Trainer 387
ii
Editors’ introduction
Samuel Alexander and Jonathan Rutherford
In the decade we’ve known him, and as editors of this volume, we

have enjoyed developing a close intellectual and personal relation-
ship with Ted Trainer. It is safe to say that our joint email exchanges,
discussing every aspect of Ted’s ‘Simpler Way’ perspective, would con-
stitute another entire book. While at times we have challenged and
disagreed with him, we have always appreciated Ted’s openness to crit-
ical feedback and his evident intellectual integrity. Beyond our mutual
friendship, we also believe his writing deserves far wider dissemination
and debate – especially among those concerned about sustainability
and social justice issues. This is our motivation for working with Ted to
bring together this anthology of some of his best essays and articles –
all of which, in one way or another, argue for what he calls ‘the Simpler
Way’. Most of these essays have been recently edited by Ted to bring
them up to date with his current thinking and the latest empirical data.
The Simpler Way is an ‘eco-anarchist’ vision of a world where self-gov-

erning communities live materially simple but sufficient lives, in
harmony with ecological limits. Central themes discussed in the fol-
lowing pages include a radical critique of consumer capitalism; the
need for fundamental system change; and a transition theory based
on building a new society from the grassroots up. Trainer also pres-
ents detailed descriptions of the Simpler Way society; explains why
frugal but sufficient material living standards are necessary to live
within planetary limits; and shows why technology alone is unable
to resolve environmental problems. He also shares strategic advice on
how to contribute positively to societal change, while also critically en-
gaging some green and left strategies. Far from involving deprivation
and hardship, Trainer argues that a Simpler Way society would enable
liberation to a much higher quality of life for all.
iii
Ted has been tirelessly putting the case for the Simpler Way since at
least the publication of his 1985 book Abandon Affluence. Before being
published, the manuscript was rejected by 60 publishers, but eventu-
ally gained some international recognition as an important statement
of the radical deep green perspective, which was emerging particular-
ly following the publication of the 1972 ‘Limits to Growth’ report and
the subsequent increase in awareness of environmental issues. Since
then, Ted has gone on to publish 12 books and a great many academic
journal and popular articles, while teaching courses on the Simpler
Way and related themes at the University of New South Wales (UNSW),
Australia. Over his career he has also been involved in a number of oth-
er more specialised academic fields. For example, he has made a major
contribution advancing the public debate around the potential limits
and costs of renewable energy, having published numerous influential
technical papers in leading energy journals. Demonstrating his wide
breadth as a thinker, Ted did his PhD in the field of moral philosophy
and has written a book on meta-ethics.
For both of us, Ted’s message is greatly enhanced by his deep personal
commitment to practising what he preaches. His bush homestead in
Sydney’s east is called ‘Pigface Point’, named after the plant that was,
for a long time, the only thing they could get to grow in the site’s poor
soils. Ted lives there along with his wife Sandra, his son Jamie and a few
on-site caretakers, and for decades they have been quietly living out the
Simpler Way philosophy. Throughout his career (he is now retired) Ted
worked four days a week at the UNSW and the rest of the time his family
has practised a rough and ready homesteader lifestyle, applying prin-
ciples of self-sufficiency, frugality and ecological restoration. Since the
1940s the family has planted hundreds of trees around a once barren
house site, creating a beautiful bush block located within 95 ha of envi-
ronmentally protected forests and wetlands. In the 1980s Ted was part
of a small community group that helped to protect this area from urban
re-zoning proposals. Almost unique among modern academics, Ted
rarely travels – he has never gone further west by land than to Bathurst
(i.e., 200 km), and has flown on aircraft only five times, and never for
leisure. This tends to baffle modern ears, given that travel is now widely
viewed in terms of the positive opportunity it provides for personal and
cultural discovery. For Ted, in a world characterised by resource scarcity
and global warming, travel by plane or car is morally problematic. Given
iv
that there is so much interesting and important work to be done in his

locality, however, Ted does not feel that giving up long-distance travel
is a hardship or sacrifice. Ted demonstrates that one can live a full and
diverse life within one’s bioregion.
Importantly, Ted has not been developing Pigface Point merely for
personal use. Rather, he has worked hard to develop the site as an educa-
tional resource designed to promote the Simpler Way philosophy. Over
the last few decades he has taken thousands of groups on free educa-
tional tours of the site, attempting to educate the public about global
problems and the need for a Simpler Way. This is another impressive illus-
tration of Ted’s willingness to live in accordance with his own creed – as
you will see, one of Ted’s core points is that it is not enough for us to live
in alternative low-consumption ways as individuals. Instead, our practical
efforts to live simply and cooperatively must become the tools we use to
educate people around us about the need to embark on a radical tran-
sition away from consumer–capitalist society and towards some kind of
simpler way. For Ted, education lies at the heart of transitional strategy.
And yet, despite these noble efforts, and perhaps unsurprisingly, Ted’s
message has struggled to find a mainstream audience. After all, he pres-
ents a bold and, in many ways, confronting case to affluent cultures
immersed in the comforts and conveniences provided by consumer
capitalism. In no uncertain terms, he condemns the ecological insani-
ty and injustice generated by consumer capitalism – a social system in
which most of us (at least in the Global North) are the material, if not
spiritual, beneficiaries. Ted insists that the overlapping global problems
we face as a species cannot be solved within capitalism because they
are being generated by the fundamental systems, structures and he-
gemonic values of this society. Instead, he challenges us to engage in a
long-term process of education and activism aimed at slowly building a
radically different system within the shell of the old. But while Ted’s mes-
sage is no doubt a difficult pill for many people to swallow, we believe
he presents strong logical and empirical grounds for its basic validity.
We invite you to carefully consider these claims as well as their implica-
tions – after all, as most people now recognise, the situation is urgent.
Importantly, Ted’s message is not just critical or negative. Much of his

writing is concerned with persuading us that the Simpler Way offers a
viable and attractive alternative which we can work on today, starting
v
now in the cities, towns and neighbourhoods where we live. In this

Ted draws partly on his own experience as a homesteader, which gives
him the confidence to know that it would be easy for us to design and
run small settlements that are highly self-sufficient, sustainable and
delightful. Aside from his own experience, Ted draws on the practices,
ideas and wisdom of a diverse range of individuals, groups and social
movements around the world who, in a variety of ways, are seeking to
build alternatives to consumer capitalism.
But readers beware! Against the grain of a post-modern and cynical

age, Ted is prepared to make unfashionably universalistic claims. He in-
sists that the Simpler Way – if not in all the specific details he describes,
then at least its basic framework – is not merely one potential pathway
among many. Rather, he argues, something like the vision he describes
is the only broadly viable alternative if humanity is to avoid catastrophic
breakdown and descend into a new dark age. For Ted, another world is
indeed possible; but it is also an urgent necessity. He challenges all of us
who are concerned about eco-justice to work hard to realise it.
In this monumental task, he offers strong strategic proposals for ac-

tivists to consider. A great merit of his work is his willingness to offer
recommendations and guidelines for action, in order to give us the
best hope of success. As you will see, his ideas on how we might suc-
cessfully transition to the Simpler Way explicitly challenge many of the
ideas which prevail within both the political Left and mainstream en-
vironmental circles today. But again, it is precisely because Ted makes
such bold and challenging arguments that we feel this volume is crit-
ically important. We encourage you to think hard about his strategic
proposals and their implications for your own activism, especially if
you agree with his basic diagnosis of our global predicament.
The material for this book derives from a range of sources, including:
peer reviewed journals, informal website articles, extracts from Ted’s
published books and the ‘Simpler Way’ website that Ted maintains (see
http://thesimplerway.info). It should be noted most of the material has
been revised and updated by Ted specifically for this publication. This
means the present anthology is best interpreted not as a collection of
Ted’s old and new writing, but rather as an up-to-date statement of
his most important ideas and arguments, especially as they relate to
vi
the Simpler Way. While claims and arguments are supported with ev-
idence, the primary purpose of this volume is not to weigh the reader
down with references and citations but to introduce the reader to a
radically new way of seeing the world and our place in it. Further evi-
dential support and more details on the vision can be accessed at the
link provided above.
We also note that there is some deliberate repetition of issues in plac-

es throughout this book. We defend such repetition on two grounds:
first, so that the essays can stand on their own, meaning that readers
can follow the essential lines of argument whichever order they read
the essays (although front to back is recommended); secondly, the
repetition of unsettling and controversial perspectives can help disrupt
conventional thoughts and assumptions, which is required in order to
understand why radical conclusions are often drawn about the global
predicament and the nature of any coherent response.
The arrangement of this anthology has been organised as follows. Part

One provides a short overview of the Simpler Way perspective. The
remaining essays in the book then flesh out this perspective in greater
detail. Part Two is made up of seven essays which outline the nature of
the global predicament and the major global problems being gener-
ated by consumer capitalism. Part Three consists of two critical essays
which call into question dominant ‘techno-fix’ approaches to resolving
global problems. Part Four contains five essays outlining the alterna-
tive Simpler Way societal vision which Ted proposes. Part Five contains
a selection of Ted’s writing on the question of transitional strategies
and his critical analysis of existing theories and practices of change. Fi-
nally, in Part Six, we have included an interview with Ted, in which we,
as editors, ask him some challenging questions about his perspective
that may also occur to you as you read this book.
We hope, like us, you are challenged, provoked and inspired by Ted’s
writings.
Samuel Alexander and Jonathan Rutherford

Editors
December 2019, Melbourne, Australia
vii
PART ONE
Overview
The Simpler Way: An overview
We cannot solve the alarming global problems confronting humanity

if we continue to be committed to affluent, consumer lifestyles or to
economies driven by market forces and economic growth. The case
for this conclusion has been overwhelmingly convincing for many
decades, but it has been almost impossible to get people or govern-
ments to attend to it.
There is a workable and attractive alternative society, the Simpler Way,

but it requires a huge and radical shift from consumer society. There
are two major faults built into the foundations of our existing civilisa-
tion. The first concerns unsustainability; the second concerns injustice.
This opening essay provides a short overview of these two concerns,
raising issues that will be developed throughout the book.
1. Unsustainability
The way of life we have in rich countries is grossly unsustainable. There
is no possibility of all people on Earth ever rising to rich world per
capita levels of consumption of energy, minerals, timber, water, food,
phosphorous etc. These rates of consumption are generating numer-
ous alarming global problems, now threatening our survival and the
survival of other species. Most people have no idea of the magnitude
of the overshoot – of how far we are beyond sustainable levels of re-
source use and environmental impact. If all the estimated 9.8 billion
people living on earth in 2050 were to consume resources at the pres-
ent per capita rate in rich countries, world annual resource production
rates would have to be about eight times as great as they are now.
For instance, the ‘Ecological Footprint’ analysis indicates that the

amount of productive land required to provide one person in Australia
with food, water, energy and settlement area is about 6.6 ha (Global
Footprint Network, 2019). If 9.8 billion people were to live as Australians
3
do, approximately 65 billion ha of productive land would be required.

However, the total amount of productive land available is only 12 bil-
lion ha. If we assume one third of this should be set aside for nature
(see, e.g., Baillie Yang, 2018) the amount available for humans might be
about 8 billion ha. In other words, our rich world per capita footprint is
about eight times as big as it would ever be possible for all of the world’s
people to sustainably share.
Figures for some other items indicate much worse ratios. For instance,
the top 10 nations consuming iron ore and bauxite (from which we ob-
tain aluminium and steel) have per capita use rates that are respectively
around 65 and 90 times the rates for all the other nations (Wiedmann
et al., 2015). Mineral ore grades are falling. All people could not rise to
present rich world levels of mineral use. The same case can be made
with respect to just about all other resources and ecosystem services,
such as agricultural land, forests, fisheries, water and biomass.
These simple figures clearly demonstrate the impossibility of all people

ever having the material ‘living standards’ we have taken for granted in
rich countries like Australia. We are not just a little beyond sustainable
levels of resource demand and ecological impact – we are far beyond
sustainable levels. Rich world practices, systems and ‘living standards’
are grossly unsustainable, and can never be extended to all the world’s
people. Again, few people seem to grasp the magnitude of the over-
shoot. We must face up to dramatic reductions in our present per
capita levels of production and consumption.
1.1. Now add the absurd commitment to economic growth
The main worry is not the present level of resource use and ecological
impact discussed above, it is the level we will rise to given the obsession
with constantly increasing the amount of production and consumption.
The supreme goal in all countries is to raise incomes, ‘living standards’
and GDP as much as possible, constantly and without any idea of a lim-
it. That is, the most important goal is economic growth.
Consider the implications. If we assume a) a 3% p.a. economic growth,

b) a population of 9.8 billion, c) all the world’s people rising to the living
standards we in the rich world would have in 2050 given 3% p.a. growth
4
– in that scenario, the total volume of world economic output would be

20 times as great as it is now and doubling every 23 years thereafter.
So even though the present levels of production and consumption are

grossly unsustainable, the determination to have continual increase in
income and economic output will multiply these towards absurd and
impossible levels in coming decades.
Why analyse in terms of 9.8 billion rising to rich world levels? Because
a) it is not morally acceptable to assume that they remain much poorer
than we are, and b) that’s what everyone aspires to, so we had better
think about whether it is viable.
1.2 But what about technical advance?
When confronted by global sustainability problems most people just

assume that technical advance and ‘green growth’ will solve them,
enabling us to go on living with ever-increasing levels of affluence.
They do not realise that the magnitude of the problems rules this out.
The core ‘tech-fix’ faith is that resource demand and environmental

impacts can be ‘decoupled’ from economic growth, i.e., that produc-
tion and consumption can go on increasing while resource demand
is sufficiently reduced. This is extremely implausible (see Part Three
of this anthology for more detail). How likely is it that the world’s
amount of production could be multiplied by 20 while resource use
and environmental impacts are reduced by, say, 50% – i.e., a factor 40
reduction? None of the thirty or more reports over the last 20 years
show any global reduction at all; they all show that as GDP rises so do
the impacts. The recent review essay by Hickel and Kallis (2019) pro-
vides a powerful critique of ‘green growth’ (see also Ward et al., 2016).
1.3 Global problems should be seen in terms of ‘limits to

growth’
The ‘limits to growth’ perspective (Meadows et al., 1972) is essential

if we are to understand the most serious global problems facing us:
• The environmental problem is basically due to the fact that far too much
producing and consuming is going on, taking too many resources
5
from nature and dumping too many wastes back into nature. We
are eliminating species mainly because we are taking or ruining so
much habitat. The environmental problems cannot be solved in an
economy that is geared to providing ever-rising production, con-
sumption, ‘living standards’ and GDP (see the next essay, ‘Why this
economy must be scrapped’, for more detail).
• Third World poverty and underdevelopment are inevitable if a few
living in rich countries insist on taking far more of the world’s re-
sources than all could have. The Third World can never develop to
rich world levels of consumption, because there are far too few re-
sources for that. (For more detail on this issue, see the essay ‘Third
World development’ in Part Two.)
• Conflict and war are inevitable if all aspire to rich world rates of
consumption, and if rich countries insist on limitless growth on a
planet with limited resources. Rich countries now have to support
repressive regimes willing to establish policies that enable our cor-
porations to ship out cheap resources, use Third World land for
export crops, exploit cheap labour etc. This means we must be
ready to get rid of regimes and to invade and run countries that
threaten to follow policies contrary to our First World interests.
Our rich world living standards could not be as high as they are if
a great deal of repression and violence was not taking place, and
rich countries contribute significantly to this. If we are determined
to remain affluent, we should remain heavily armed! (This issue is
developed in the essay in part Two called ‘If you want affluence,
prepare for war’.)
• Social cohesion is deteriorating and quality of life is being damaged.
This is so even in the richest nations, because the supreme goals
are raising business turnover, incomes and the GDP, not meet-
ing needs, building community and improving the quality of life.
(Some details of this decline in quality of life and the benefits of an
alternative way to live are discussed in Part Four.)
2. Injustice
We in rich countries could not have anywhere near our present ‘liv-
ing standards’ if we were not taking far more than our fair share of
6
world resources. Our per capita consumption of items such as petro-

leum is around 15 times that of the poorest half of the world’s people.
The richest one-fifth of the world’s people are consuming around
three-quarters of the resources produced. Many people get so little
that around 800 million are hungry and more than that number have
dangerously dirty water to drink. Billions live on U.S$5 per day or less
(see generally, Hickel, 2017).
This grotesque injustice is primarily due to the kind of economy we

have, that is, one which operates on market principles. In a market,
‘need’ is totally irrelevant and is ignored – things go mostly to those
who are richer, because they can offer to pay more for them. Thus, we
in rich countries get almost all the scarce oil and timber traded, while
millions of people in desperate need get none. This explains why one
third of the world’s grain is fed to animals in rich countries while hun-
dreds of millions have insufficient food. (For a more detailed critique of
the market, see the essay in Part Two called ‘The marvellous market’.)
Even more importantly, the market system is the cause of Third World
development being so inappropriate to the needs of Third World peo-
ple. What is developed is not what is needed; it is always what will
make most profit for the few people with capital to invest. Therefore,
there is development of export plantations and cosmetic factories but
not development of small farms and firms in which poor people can
produce for themselves most of the things they need. Many countries
get almost no development at all because it does not suit anyone with
capital to develop anything there, even though the land, water, talent
and labour exist to produce most of the things needed for a simple but
satisfactory quality of life.
Even when transnational corporations do invest, wages can be 15–20

cents an hour. Compare the miniscule benefit that flows to such work-
ers from conventional development with what they could be getting
from an approach to development which enabled them to put all their
labour into mostly cooperative local firms, producing the mostly simple
things they most urgently need. But development of this kind is deliber-
ately prevented, e.g., by the Structural Adjustment Packages which the
World Bank and IMF make them accept in order to get rescue loans.
These packages are now the main mechanisms forcing them to do
7
things that benefit the rich countries and their corporations and banks.
‘Assistance’ is given to indebted countries on the condition that they
de-regulate their economies, eliminate protection and subsidies assist-
ing their people, cut government spending on welfare, etc., open their
economies to more foreign investment, devalue their currencies (mak-
ing their exports cheaper for us and increasing what they must pay us
for their imports), sell off their public enterprises and increase the free-
dom for market forces to determine what happens. All this is a bonanza
for rich world corporations and for people who shop in rich world shops
and supermarkets. The corporations can buy up firms cheaply and have
greater access to cheap labour, markets, forests and land. The repay-
ment of loans to our banks is the supreme goal of the packages. Thus,
the produce of the Third World’s soils, labour, fisheries and forests flows
more readily to our supermarkets, not to Third World people.
For most Third World people the effects of ‘neoliberal’ globalisation,

which has intensified these processes, are catastrophic. Large numbers
of people lose their livelihood, access to resources is transferred from
them to the corporations and rich world consumers and the protec-
tion and assistance their governments once provided is eliminated.
These are the reasons why conventional development can be regarded

as a form of plunder. The Third World has been developed into a state
whereby its land and labour benefit the rich, not Third World people.
Rich world material ‘living standards’ could not be anywhere near as
high as they are if the global economy was just.
Similar effects occur in rich countries, where the economic system we

have mostly benefits the rich. Above all it generates obscene inequality;
in the US the richest 1% are getting most of the increase in GDP while the
wages of the workforce have seen almost no increase in 40 years. Half
of the world’s wealth is now in the hands of about ten people. These are
inevitable effects of this economy.
2.1 Conclusions on our situation
These considerations of sustainability and global economic justice show

that our predicament is totally unacceptable and cannot be solved in
consumer capitalist society. This society cannot be fixed. The problems
are caused by some of the fundamental structures and processes of this
8
society. There is no possibility of having an ecologically sustainable, just,

peaceful and morally satisfactory society if we allow market forces and
the profit motive to be the major determinant of what happens, or if we
seek economic growth and ever-higher ‘living standards’. Many people
who claim to be concerned about the fate of the planet refuse to face up
to these fundamental points.
3. The Simpler Way alternative

If the foregoing analysis of our situation is valid, we must move to
lifestyles and systems that allow us to live on a small fraction of present
resource consumption and ecological impact. The argument in this
book is that there is an alternative way that would solve the major
global problems, would work well and would be attractive and enjoy-
able (see Part Four for more detail). The basic principles must be:
• Far simpler material living standards, which does not mean

accepting hardship or deprivation.
• High levels of self-sufficiency at household, national and especially
neighbourhood and town levels, with relatively little travel, trans-
port or trade. There must be mostly small scale, local economies
in which most of the things we need are produced by local labour
from local resources.
• Basically, cooperative and participatory systems, enabling people
in small communities to take control of their own development.
• A quite different economic system, one not driven by market forces
and profit, and in which there is far less work, production and
consumption, and a large cashless sector, including many free
goods from local commons. There must be no economic growth
at all. Indeed, there must be large-scale degrowth of materials and
energy, which will mean far lower GDP. The basic economic deci-
sions must be made cooperatively by local communities, not left
to market forces. However, most production could be via privately
owned small firms and farms.
• Most problematic, a radically different culture is required, in which
competitive and acquisitive individualism is replaced by frugal,
self-sufficient collectivism.
9
Key elements within the Simpler Way include:

• mostly small and highly self-sufficient local economies with many
little firms, farms, forests, ponds, animals throughout settlements
• participatory democracy via town assemblies and committees
• neighbourhood workshops
• many roads dug up and planted with ‘edible landscapes’ provid-
ing free fruit and nuts
• being able to get to decentralised workplaces by bicycle or on foot
• voluntary community working bees
• town meetings making the important development and adminis-
tration decisions
• many productive commons in the town (fruit, timber, bamboo,
herbs etc.)
• having to work for money only one or two days a week
• no unemployment because we make sure everyone has a livelihood
• living among many artists and crafts people
• strong and supportive, caring communities.
Simple traditional alternative technologies will be quite sufficient for

many purposes, especially for producing houses, furniture, food, pot-
tery and much of our clothing. Much production will take place via
hobbies and crafts, hand tools, small farms and family enterprises. How-
ever, many useful modern/high technologies can be used extensively
where appropriate, including IT. The Simpler Way will free many more
resources for socially useful purposes like medical research than are de-
voted to these at present, by phasing out many wasteful, unnecessary
and luxurious industries and reallocating some of these resources.
There could be many small private firms, and market forces could have
a role, but the economy must be under firm social control, via local
participatory processes. Local town meetings would make the import-
ant economic decisions in terms of what’s best for the town and its
people and environment. We would not allow market forces to bank-
rupt any firm or dump anyone into unemployment. We would make
sure everyone had a livelihood. If problems arose the town would have
to work out how to adjust its economy in the best interests of all.
10
Because we will be highly dependent on our local ecosystems and on

our social cohesion, e.g., for most water and food, and for effective
committees and working bees, all will have a very strong incentive
to focus on what is best for the town, rather than on what is best for
themselves as competing individuals. Cooperation and conscientious-
ness will therefore tend to be automatically rewarded, whereas in
consumer society competitive individualism is required and rewarded.
The crucial importance of integration of functions and systems must

be stressed. ‘Wastes’ from one operation can become inputs to an-
other close by, with no transport energy cost. This includes social and
psychological functions. If facilities for care of aged and unwell people
are in the middle of town beside the main community garden, the
people in them will be able to interact and observe and be involved,
reducing the need for professional ‘carers’ while improving their expe-
rience, and the gardeners, in turn, will benefit from their ideas.
Advocates of the Simpler Way have no doubt that its many benefits
and sources of satisfaction would provide a much higher quality of life
than most people experience in consumer society (see the essay ‘Your
delightful day’ in Part Four).
At this point in time the chances of achieving such a huge and radical
transition would seem to be quite remote, but the crucial question is,
given our situation, can a sustainable and just society be conceived
other than as some form of Simpler Way? The argument of this book
is that, in view of the limits and overshoot outlined above, there is no
alternative.
4. Transition strategy
Over the past twenty years many small groups throughout the world
have begun working to build settlements and systems more or less of
the kind required, many of them explicitly as examples intended to
persuade the mainstream that there is an alternative that is sustain-
able, just and attractive (for detail on one such experiment, see the
essay in Part Four called ‘The Catalan Integral Cooperative’). The fate
of the planet will depend on how effective these movements become
in the next two decades. When these alternative, local systems become
11
recognised as the key to solving global problems of sustainability and

justice, people will develop the capacity and demand to put control
over the national economy and the state into the hands of the people,
via thoroughly participatory arrangements. (For more detail on transi-
tion strategy, see the essays in Part Five.)
Those who wish to contribute to the transition to the Simpler Way

should firstly work hard at getting this perspective onto the agenda
of public discussion. Most important, however, is helping to establish
aspects of the Simpler Way here and now in the suburbs and towns
where we live – ventures such as community gardens and workshops,
local cooperatives and community supported small farms and busi-
nesses. Our goal must be to eventually develop these towards being
the new cooperative, self-sufficient local economies that people can
come to join when the mainstream runs into increasingly serious
problems, such as petroleum scarcity or financial crisis. However, just
creating more community gardens etc. is not enough; we must do this
in order to raise consciousness regarding the need to scrap consum-
er–capitalist society and build a very different one along the lines of
the Simpler Way.
References
Baillie, J. and Zhang, Y-P. 2018. ‘Space for Nature’, Science 361(6407): 1051. DOI: 10.1126/
science.aau1397
Global Footprint Network, 2018. ‘National Footprint Accounts 2018’. Available at:
http://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/ (10 February 2019).
Hickel, J. 2017. The Great Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions.
London: William Heinemann.
Hickel, J. and Kallis, G. 2019. ‘Is Green Growth Possible?’ New Political Economy.
Published online 17 April 2019: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964
Meadows. D., et al. 1972. Limits to Growth. New York: Signet.
Ward, J., et al. 2016. ‘Is Decoupling GDP Growth from Environmental Impact Possible?’
PLOS One 11(10): e0164733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164733
Wiedmann, T., Schandl, H. and Moran, D. 2015. ‘The Footprint of Using Metals: New
Metrics of Consumption and Productivity’, Environmental Economics and Policy
Studies 17(3): 369–388.
12
PART TWO
The global predicament

Why this economy must be scrapped
Most of the planet’s extremely serious problems are directly due to the
kind of economic system we have. It is fundamentally flawed; it cannot
be reformed to avoid generating the problems. They are being caused
by the normal working of the system.
Many very different kinds of economic system can be imagined and

have existed. It is important to realise that the one we have is not the
only possibility or inevitable or ‘natural’; we could choose another kind.
1. What should be the purpose of an economy?

Most people would agree that the purpose of an economic system
should be to organise production, distribution, exchange and devel-
opment to enable a society to provide itself with the things it needs
for a satisfactory quality of life for all. This should be done with a min-
imum of work, resource use, waste, stress etc., and in ecologically
sustainable ways. In a satisfactory economy we would tackle the main
decisions in a cooperative and rational way, with control in the hands
of society as a whole, so that we could all discuss and work out what
seemed to be the priorities and best arrangements.
But the economic system we have is nothing like this. What it does is:
• Allow a few very rich people to own most of the productive capac-
ity in our society – the factories, mines, farms and corporations.
• Allow these owners of the productive capacity to decide what is to
be produced simply in terms of what will maximise their profits. In
other words, we do not say, ‘What do we need?’, ‘What should be
produced?’, ‘Let us organise our productive capacity to produce
those things.’
15
There is a vast difference between gearing production to meet needs

and organising it to make as much profit as possible for the few who
own capital. When you let profit determine what is produced many
needs remain ignored, especially the most urgent needs that are ex-
perienced by the poorest people, and the needs of ecosystems. This
is because the best profits are never made by producing what poor
people need, or what the environment needs, or what is necessary
for social cohesion. You always make the best profits producing what
middle and high-income earners want and are willing to pay for.
2. The market
In other words, we have an economy which allows the market to be
the major determinant of what is produced and who gets it. People are
free to decide whether to produce or buy, and at what prices. This is
claimed to be the most efficient way; the market is supposed to make
the best economic allocations.
But the market actually makes the most appallingly bad allocations
and investment decisions! The market does some things well and in a
satisfactory economy there might be a large role for it. But if it is the
major determinant, it will never allocate a fair share of output or scarce
resources to those in most need. Nor will it protect the environment
and do what is best for social cohesion. This is because in a market,
things go to those who can pay most for them. As a result, the rich get
most of the valuable resources and goods. For example, one third of
the world’s grain production is fed to animals in rich countries every
year, while 800 million people are hungry. Why? Simply because that
is the most profitable thing to do with the grain.
Even more importantly the development that results from market forc-
es is inappropriate; the market develops the wrong things. Investment
will not go into what is most needed by poor majorities, or by the en-
vironment. It is always much more profitable to develop the factories
and infrastructures that will produce to meet the demand of richer
people, especially those in rich countries.
These fundamental faults cannot be overcome without a great deal of

regulation. A sensible economy would have to be under social control;
16
i.e., the society as a whole would have to be able to decide how pro-
duction, distribution and development were to be carried out. The best
way to do this is of course problematic. Few of us would want it done
by a big centralised state bureaucracy. However, it could be done in
ways that were quite democratic and participatory, in the mostly small
localised economies of the Simpler Way. (For more detail on this alterna-
tive vision, see Part Four of this volume.) Such an economy might have
many goods produced by private firms and for markets, so long as these
operated within guidelines and rules set by society.
The market economy enables and legitimises the process by which

richer people take things the weak need, and in many cases take from
them things they once had. For instance, people in rich countries take
scarce resources poor Third World people need, including the land and
forests they used to have, simply by being able to pay more for them
in the global market. Corporations can take the sales or markets little
firms had, just because they can produce more cheaply and therefore
whole industries and regions can be devastated when some foreign
corporation comes in and undercuts their production costs. Wall-Mart
routinely destroys the economies of many small US towns, by under-
cutting the prices they have to charge and driving them bankrupt
– that’s alright in this economy. Yes Wall-Mart can sell at lower prices
but that should not be the only factor determining what happens. In
a satisfactory economy we would prioritise making sure everyone has
a livelihood, that is, the opportunity to produce and contribute some-
thing valuable, even if that would not minimise prices.
This economy makes the individual’s fate depend on competing in the

market. Some who are energetic or talented or who work hard (or
who have great wealth) can be big winners. But many who are not
are dumped into unemployment and poverty. A good society must be
primarily collectivist; i.e., concerned with the public good and making
sure all are provided for.
3. Growth
The growth paradigm is the biggest fault of all. To conventional econo-
mists, growth is unquestionably good – indeed, the supreme goal. There
is never enough producing, selling, investing, trading and consuming go-
17
ing on! The goal in all nations is to keep the GDP growing for ever. But
continual economic growth is not just absurd, it is now suicidal. We are
depleting world resources and destroying the environment because we
are already producing and consuming far too much. There is now a vast
‘limits to growth’ literature showing that the world is far beyond levels of
resource use and production that could be sustained (see the essay ‘The
limits to growth analysis’ in this volume). The degrowth movement is
working to get people to realise that a sustainable economy must have per
capita levels of resource use far lower than they are in rich countries today.
But growth is crucial for a capitalist economy. Those with capital invest
it to maximise their profits, so at the end of the year they have more
capital than at the start, and then they want to invest it all in order to
make as much money as they can next year. This can’t happen un-
less there is constant increase in the amount of producing and selling
going on. Capitalism’s biggest problem is to find more investment
outlets for all the capital that is constantly accumulating. This force led
to neoliberal globalisation; i.e., the elimination of the protective and
regulatory barriers that previously restricted corporate access to many
markets and resources.
Consider the absurdity of pursuing growth when we in the richest

countries already work much longer hours than needed. If we designed
a sensible economy, we would do far less producing, resource con-
suming and work. Yet we have an economy in which the top goal is to
constantly increase the amount of producing going on, with no limit
ever. Obviously, the damage being done to the ecosystems of the planet
is due to the amount of producing and consuming going on. The claim
that technical advance will enable these amounts to grow while the
damage is eliminated is contradicted by a large literature (see Part Three
in this volume for more detail). And now economic growth is being
accompanied by a falling quality of life, as measured by various scales
such as the Genuine Progress Indicator. As Herman Daly (2011) has been
pointing out, growth is adding more costs than benefits.
4. Inequality
Inequality is extreme and becoming worse. One-fifth of the world’s
people are getting more than 85% of world income while the poorest
18
one-fifth are getting only 1.3% of it. Oxfam (2017) recently estimated
that a mere nine people now possess about half the world’s wealth. A
great deal of critical literature shows how the neoliberal triumph has
been responsible for the greatest wealth transfer in history, prompting
enormous conflict and social breakdown in regions it has devastated
(e.g Chossudovsky,1997).
This economy inevitably makes inequality worse. It is an economy

which attends mostly to the rich, and further enriches them, for in-
stance because the market mostly produces and sells what richer
people want. Investment obviously goes where profits can be maxi-
mised, so little or none of the available capital goes into the poorest
regions most in need of development. Over time the rich get more
influence over the political process – for example, they can contribute
to parties likely to adopt the policies the rich want. They get to own
the main media and can reinforce the ideas they want people to hold.
4.1 Trickle down
A key assumption underlying the economy is that if there is growth

then the increased wealth will in time ‘trickle down’ to enrich all. The
claim is that the best way to solve problems such as poverty and unem-
ployment is simply to encourage more business turnover, as distinct
from taking deliberate action to redistribute wealth and jobs.
There are a number of reasons why this claim is offensive. Firstly, there
is usually very little trickle down, and often just the reverse. This is
most obvious in the Third World, where there is often rapid growth
resulting in accumulation of much wealth by the rich while the poor-
est people actually get poorer. It is also evident in rich countries like
the US, where tax cuts for the rich have often been put through on a
trickle-down rationale and result in little or no benefit to anyone but
the rich. Over the last 40 years US GDP has more than doubled but the
income of almost all workers has not increased at all.
Even if it did work, trickle down would be an extremely inefficient way

to meet needs. Worldwide, we urgently need more cheap housing and
more hospitals, but instead our economy allows those with capital to de-
vote it to whatever will maximise their profits, on the pretext that this will
generate more jobs and incomes, enabling the government to collect
19
more tax to devote to important tasks – when all of the available capital
could have gone directly and immediately into meeting urgent needs.
Then there is the fact that if trickle down worked it would take a very
long time to make a difference. Anthropologist Jason Hickel has shown
(Hickel, 2017) that at present growth rates it would take at least 100
years for the average Third World income to reach the present rich
world average – and by then rich world living standards would be lit-
erally more than 50 times as high as they are now, and the ecosystems
of the planet would have long since disintegrated.
Finally, it is obviously morally unacceptable that the rich are allowed to

develop whatever further enriches them while very large numbers of
people suffer deprivation. The trickle-down rationale is no more than
a myth perpetrated to legitimise a system that allows the owners of
capital to gear the economy to their interests.
5. Globalisation
Conventional economists are happy to see movement towards one in-
tegrated global economy and the passing of the era in which national
economies were largely independent and in control of their own affairs.
Now the fate of any country or town depends on whether it can survive
in competition with all others in the world, finding something it can
export more cheaply than any other, in order to be able to pay for the
crucial imports from the global economy it is now dependent on. The
supreme and sacred neoliberal principle is that there must be minimal
interference with the freedom of enterprise, investment and trade. Cor-
porations must be free to invest in whatever will maximise their profits,
and to close their factories and move somewhere else if it suits them.
The most powerful corporations are free to come in and take over (buy
up) a country’s firms, markets and resources, and a country is not able
to ensure that its own productive capacity can be put into meeting its
people’s needs. Corporations are free to put that capacity into produc-
ing for exporting into the global market. One consequence is that some
of the hungriest people live in countries that are huge food exporters.
Critics of conventional economics argue that the top priority now is

to turn against globalisation and develop small-scale localised and
20
self-sufficient economies which enable people to provide for them-

selves most of the basic things they need, using local resources and
labour. This frees a country from having to devote its resources to ex-
porting frantically in order to have the money to import everything it
needs. Above all it enables a country to take control over its own fate,
and to directly apply its land and labour to producing what people
most need. Hickel (2017) is among the many who point out how for
centuries the rich countries have fiercely opposed and prevented such
‘nationalist’ development. They oppose regulation and insist on ‘free-
dom’ of trade and investment, because they want resources, labour
and markets everywhere to be accessible to them.
6. Labour
Conventional economists treat labour as just another commodity or
‘factor of production’ that can be used or ignored in order to maxi-
mise profits. However, labour should not be treated as just another
commodity or input into production. Labour is people. It is alright to
leave a brick idle or to scrap it. It is not alright to leave a person unem-
ployed and without a reasonable income. Often, we should plan to
keep people in jobs even though this would be ‘inefficient’ in conven-
tional terms. In the present economy, whether or not people have jobs
is determined by whether the few with capital want more labour in
their factories. It is wrong to let profit maximisation determine whether
people are unemployed.
Unemployment is unnecessary, morally intolerable and easily elimi-

nated. We could simply develop arrangements whereby no one was
unemployed. If only a limited amount of work is necessary to produce
simple but comfortable lifestyles for all then we should just share that
work between all who need work.
Unemployment provides a good illustration of how the rules of this

economic system suit the owners of capital far more than they suit the
rest of us. And the fact that unemployment is taken for granted and
accepted as normal illustrates the dominance of capitalist ideology –
which conventional economic theory reinforces.
In this economy there is constant effort to create jobs, and all must
constantly strive to find work to do. However, the core limits-to-growth
21
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
proprietor will have a race of fine oaks, thus proving, to actual
demonstration, the great mistake which was originally committed, in
occupying the land with a class of trees which, when they have
arrived at maturity, are of comparatively little value.
I pass on to remark upon a fifth error. One gentleman will, from
motives of economy, stick in the plants with as little labour as
possible: another will aim at the same result, by putting in fewer, or
smaller plants than he ought to do. Both these, and indeed all the
parties, who are influenced by the same narrow and shortsighted
views, greatly err: these are not the cheapest, but the most
expensive, as well as the worst adapted, modes of planting. To
insure a healthy and vigorous commencement to a Plantation, if that
is followed up by suitable treatment afterwards, is to secure both
rapid progress, and early maturity, and by necessary consequence,
the largest possible amount of pecuniary return.
Lastly, as to modes of planting, and without ranging either party
among those who are clearly and decidedly mistaken in their views,
one class of persons will plant thickly, and another class will plant
thinly, from various motives, but both without paying due regard to
the capabilities, and adaptation of the soil, and, as is very natural, in
the absence of all calculation, both are frequently subjected to the
same result,—either a partial or complete failure of their
expectations.
It is neither my purpose, nor is it in my power, to decide, upon
paper, what is the best average distance at which the trees of a
young Plantation should be placed from each other. Many questions
ought to be previously asked, as many very important considerations
will present themselves to the mind of a practical man, before he will
decide.
In the average of cases, where planting for profit is the object, the
question is not one of much practical difficulty; but in many others,
the primary purpose, or the ultimate aim, of the planter—the local
market—the cost of plants, &c. will claim very special attention.
When the object is to beautify the Landscape, or to produce effect
in the immediate vicinity of a Mansion, it will be necessary to set
aside ordinary rules, and to depart from some of the recognized
principles which ought always to govern, in planting for profit. But
even here, nothing should be done, nothing should be attempted,
which is not in strict consistence with those general laws which the
principles of vegetable physiology impose, alike on a Gentleman
who removes a large tree upon the plan recommended by Sir Henry
Steuart, and on the practical Planter, who is professionally employed
to plant a large tract of country.
It is no part of my business to remark upon the merits of the
respective plans which have been tried by different persons, for
enriching the scenery of a Park; but I have no difficulty in saying that,
where it is well understood and properly carried out, the combination
of Sir Henry’s plan, with the judicious arrangement of small
Plantations; putting into a well prepared soil, good, stout, well-rooted,
and vigorous plants, at a considerable distance, will best effect that
object. And as I have referred to Sir Henry Steuart’s method of
removing large trees, it will not be out of place here to observe, that
the abuse of that plan has very frequently brought it into disrepute,
and given birth to the conclusion, that it was not adapted to the end
proposed: and thus blame has fallen on the ingenious, skilful, and
scientific Baronet, instead of its resting on the heads of those whose
“mismanagement” had actually invited the failures which they were
doomed to suffer.
Those who have most carefully attended to Sir Henry’s
instructions in removing large subjects, will have been most
successful; and while they will be the first to admit that the plan is
one of very considerable difficulty, and requiring the greatest
possible amount of attention; they will be the most powerful and
decided witnesses in its favour, for the purposes for which it is here
recommended.
But when Plantations on a large scale are desired, and when the
planter considers his posterity more than himself, there can be no
doubt at all, that, on certain qualities of soil, tolerably thick planting is
best. And if it be desired to have a race of fine noble Oaks, they
must be put in very thick, and the planter must not expect, during a
life of average duration, any profit at all; for, in order to secure his
object, he must, first, prepare the ground well: and next, he must
either sow acorns, or he must put in an immense number of plants—
and, in either case, he will incur a heavy outlay. He must, for the first
seven years, keep the ground clean, and he must plant along with
the Oak, a selection of those kinds of trees, as nurses, which are
best adapted to the purpose, and not those which might probably, at
the earliest period, find their way into the local market, and make the
best price when there; although these points should not be left out of
consideration.
But now, the question as to planting, or sowing, or, if the former be
preferred, that of the distance of the plants, being settled, the next
which presents itself is this: what kinds shall be planted as the
Nurses for the Oak.

Here again, a good deal will depend upon the object of the planter,
the nature of the soil, and the exact arrangements which are made at
the time of planting; for it might be quite proper to plant a species of
Tree in one place, while, owing to a difference in the staple or the
condition of the soil, it would be just the reverse in another.
The remarks which I shall have to make on this subject have, in
some degree, been anticipated by the observations which I have
already made, respecting the Skellingthorpe Plantation, but a more
particular reference to a few well-known kinds, may not be amiss.
I begin with the Larch, which, from its great value to Farmers and
others, is fairly entitled to precedence.
The Larch is found, in greater or smaller proportions, in most
places where Plantations are made; and it is entirely the planter’s
fault, if he be not well acquainted with its character, as a nurse for
Oak. I say this, because it has been so extensively tested, and its
habits are so well known, that no one, having the slightest wish to
become acquainted with it, can have failed for want of opportunity.
I have very often seen the Larch where it has proved an
exceedingly bad nurse; where, in fact, instead of nursing the Oaks, it
has destroyed them: but this has, of course, arisen from
“mismanagement,” and might have been avoided. When good, stiff,
healthy Oak Plants are put in with Larch only, or but with very few of
any other sort, the Larch ought not, in the first place, to be put too
near—the exact distance can only be determined relatively to that of
the Oaks—secondly: an advantage should be given to the Oaks, if
possible, at the start; either by assigning them a portion of the soil
from the land intended for the Larch, or in some other way; after
which, if the latter are constantly watched, they will approve
themselves very suitable and valuable nurses; but if they are
allowed, as they too generally are, to take the lead of the Oak, they
will plentifully avail themselves of the licence, to the serious and,
perhaps, irreparable injury of that plant.
For large Plantations, intended for profit, it may be questioned
whether, in the first instance, any thing else than Oak and Larch
should be planted, and the distance must be decided after due
consideration is given to the quality and condition of the land.
If, however, a disposition is felt to plant other kinds, as nurses,
there can be no objection, provided that their companionship is
made fully to square with the well-being of the trees intended for
timber.
But where it is intended to introduce nothing that shall not act as a
good nurse for the Oak, exception must certainly be taken to the
Alder, the Poplars, the Sycamore, the Horse Chesnut, the Birch, and
the Scotch Fir, &c. Not one of these discovers any congeniality for
the Oak, nor any fitness for the office of nursing it; and it does really
appear to my mind, as most unaccountably strange, that trees of all
sorts should, without forethought, or calculation—and most
particularly, that no reference should be made to their suitability or
adaptation for the circumstances in which they are to be placed—be
planted at a greater cost than would have sufficed to procure an
ample number of the right sort.
Upon a suitable soil, the Spruce Fir has always appeared to me, to
be decidedly and incomparably the best nurse of the Oak. I have, for
instance, often seen, on a clay soil, a Spruce Fir, and an Oak of
twenty-five years growth, flourishing admirably, in close proximity
with each other—even within a foot and a half. I do not think that this
could be said of any other tree than the Spruce Fir; but besides this,
there is almost always a very peculiar healthiness about the Oaks,
where the Spruce has been planted and cherished as the principal
nurse. There seems to be the best possible understanding between
them—no struggling for pre-eminence—no blighting influence
exercised by the one over the other. But the Spruce Fir is not found
to flourish so well on some soils as on others: it will therefore, mostly,
be advisable to unite with it, for a number of years, the Larch, which
may be so placed as to be all weeded out during the course of
thinning, which ought to commence in a few years after planting, and
go on until there remains nothing but Oak in possession of the
ground.
In concluding my remarks on Planting, I cannot help referring to
the specimens of sowing and thick planting, which may be seen on
the extensive estate of the Duke of Portland, at Welbeck, and in that
neighbourhood. It has always been His Grace’s practice, either to
sow Acorns, or to plant Oaks, in alternate beds, having Larch
between. If the Oaks were planted, they were put in very thickly; and
although their progress was necessarily slower than it would have
been, if they had been allowed more room, it cannot be doubted that
His Grace had a great advantage in the almost unlimited choice
which it gave him, of trees of perfect form, for the ultimate crop of
timber.
The system of thick planting has been fully carried out: having
prepared the ground well, His Grace appears to have never lost
sight, for an instant, of the young trees that he had undertaken to
rear: there has been no mistaken practice—no niggardly economy—
no ruinous neglect, rendering all his previous care abortive, and
sacrificing his large outlay at the commencement. When the
Plantations have required attention, they have evidently had it.
The admirer of fine timber will see, in the Duke’s Plantations and
grounds, some of the most perfectly formed trees that can be
conceived of, and that not on a small scale, but to an extent as
comprehensive as that truly noble Duke’s genius, of whom it may
probably be said that he unites, in his mind and person, as many of
those qualities which constitute true Nobility, as any Gentleman of
his day.
It is not in the power of my feeble pen to show the immense
amount of good which has accrued to the immediate neighbourhood,
from the employment of the poor in the locality, in carrying on, and in
completing, those splendid improvements which His Grace has
originated, and which have caused the literal desert to “blossom as
the rose”: much less can I describe the area of the vast circle, within
which the most beneficial effects have been felt, from the influence
of the noble Duke’s example, while perfecting, as he has done, his
various plans for the improvement of his fine estate.
In the Welbeck Plantations will be found, as I have said, a class of
trees, most perfectly suited to the situations where they stand, and
giving the surest promise of future superiority: but what, let me ask,
would have been the quality of the Oaks, if the noble Duke had
jumbled together an incongruous admixture of various sorts, as has
been recommended by various writers of eminence, even in our own
day? I am not disposed to enter into a controversy with any of those
who have recorded their opinions in their writings, otherwise I might
have plenty of work on my hands: it will be quite as much as ought to
be expected from me, if I defend my own: but I would just quote a
single paragraph from an interesting and useful, but, on some points,
incorrect volume, published by “The Society for the diffusion of
Useful Knowledge.” It is entitled “Useful and Ornamental Planting.”
The passage to which I refer, will be found in the 43rd page, and
runs thus:
“Simple Plantations consist of one or two species of trees only;
mixed Plantations of many different species. The latter, on suitable
soils, are the most profitable: they afford an earlier, more permanent,
and a larger return for Capital than simple Plantations.”
In a book where there is so much to commend, where so many
valuable practical directions are given, it cannot but excite regret, to
meet with a paragraph so vague and unsatisfactory as the above; for
I cannot but remark, that if any planter should adopt the suggestion
which is thrown out, it will end in disappointment and loss. It will, in
my judgment, generally be best for the planter to select such trees
for nurses as are most congenial, and best adapted to the local
market; and surely these will not be the Birch, the Beech, the Alder,
or the Scotch Fir; none of which are ever found to answer the
purpose of nursing the more valuable timber trees, or of securing a
fair return for the investment of capital.
It is true that the opinion which I have quoted, is afterwards
qualified by the remark, that certain “circumstances connected with
the growth of the various species of forest trees, effectually control
the planter in his modes of arrangement, &c.” but even with this
limitation, the planter is liable to be misled, for he is not taught to set
a higher value upon the Larch, which may in almost every locality be
planted with a much better chance of profit, than the other kinds with
which it is ranked, and which ought therefore, if profit be the object,
for that reason alone, to be preferred.
In any thing else but planting, the mischief of such a mistake, as
producing that which was worthless when produced, would, in a
short time, have cured itself; but so little of science, or even of
common calculation, have been brought to bear upon the practice of
Arboriculture, that, notwithstanding the evidence which is every
where to be met with, of serious “loss and disappointment,” for want
of calculation, these matters go on very much as they “always have
done.”
Finally, as to planting, it must, in every case, be perfectly clear to
one who is competent to judge, that, whether the object be profit
merely, or the embellishment of the landscape, the land ought to be
as well prepared as circumstances will permit, and that such species
of trees should be preferred, as are best adapted to the specific
object of the planter.
The distance at which the plants shall be put in, is more a matter
of opinion than some planters would be inclined to admit. For myself,
I am disposed to think, that some advantages are lost to a
Plantation, under certain combinations of soil and circumstances,
when it is planted thickly, but I would not either rate the loss too
highly, or express my opinion, with unseemly positiveness: my notion
is, that the supposed advantages of planting thickly may generally be
supplied by early, judicious pruning, and that the progress of the
Plantation would be facilitated thereby: that, in fact, a Plantation of
trees at a distance of three feet, being properly assorted, having had
a good start, and suitable treatment in all respects afterwards, would
reach any given point as to size, and quality, in less time than would
another Plantation, upon the same soil, if the method of either
sowing acorns, &c., or planting very thickly, were adopted. In saying
this, I by no means wish to condemn the practice of thick planting; to
do this, in the face of proofs of success, such as I have described as
existing in this country, would be an absurdity of which I would not
willingly be guilty; but at the same time, I would not hesitate to range
myself among those who prefer, under ordinary circumstances, to
plant at a moderate distance, and rely upon early pruning, for
securing the object which the close planter has in view, viz., length of
bole, or stem, and clearness of grain.
I come now to remark upon the
Present mode of managing Plantations after they

are made.
Abiding still, most strictly, by the rule laid down for myself, to deal
with every part of my subject practically, I proceed to observe, that
the instances where Plantations are treated with due regard to the
principles of Arboricultural science, are not the rule, but the
exceptions to the rule, as every scientific planter, who has looked
round him, must know.
Instead of the trees intended for timber being nursed with the
tenderest care from their infancy—instead of their being treated
according to the known and fixed laws which regulate, and
effectually control, the economy of vegetable life, whether men
attend to them or not—they too frequently meet with treatment which
is in direct opposition to those laws. I shall show this as clearly, and
as plainly, as I can.
When a gentleman has decided to plant, when he has fixed upon
the right mode of doing it, and has finished it in a proper manner; so
far he has done all that could be expected from him; but if, after this,
he leaves his Plantation to itself for five, ten, or fifteen years, he
transgresses the laws to which I have referred; and his error is one
of omission.
Again: were the same gentleman, after the lapse of ten years, or
even less, to enter his Plantation, and cut and thin very freely, he
would violate those laws by an error of commission, and in this case,
as well as the other, the Plantation would very materially suffer.
A Plantation which should be subjected, at so early a stage of its
existence as ten or fifteen years, to the ordeal of both these classes
of errors, could have but little chance of succeeding: it could not be
expected to make any more than very slow progress after such
treatment as this: and yet this is exactly the way in which many
Plantations are managed, at all stages of their growth. I have
recently met with a splendid Larch Plantation, which has never been
thinned, from the first, except by “fits and starts”; of which injudicious
treatment, I could see very serious “outward and visible signs.”
Although it is upon exceedingly weak and poor land, it would have
produced, if it had been properly managed, a fine class of Larches,
which would have yielded to the proprietor an abundant return upon
his outlay. If any one doubt this, let him look around and see if he
cannot find a Plantation of forty or fifty years growth, which is
crowded with trees—say of Larch only—and he will, upon
examination, perceive that there are two or three distinct classes of
trees still standing, all of which ought, long before, to have been
taken out; and that there is but one class of Larches, probably, which
should be standing. The other two classes which I have just
mentioned, would be found, if the fact could be clearly come at, very
nearly of the same size as they had been many years before;
inasmuch as they could not possibly make any wood, being
themselves overtopped by their more thriving and vigorous
neighbours. It is perfectly obvious too, that the injury arising to the
Plantation would not stop here. So long as under-strappers were
allowed to remain, they would, to a certain extent, have the effect of
preventing the admission of light and air into the Plantation, which
would materially affect the health and the progress of the standard
trees.
The errors of omission are both serious and numerous: those of
commission, great though they be, are not equally so. The former
are generally first in the order of time, for where one Plantation is
injured from too early thinning, there are ten that suffer for the want
of it; and this early neglect affects the vitality and prosperity of a
Plantation much more than might be supposed. Omitting to do what
ought to be done will, however, be very prejudicial to the health of
Plantations at any stage of their existence, and it is quite well known
to the experienced Forester, that they ought ever to be watched with
most tender care, until the planter is fully satisfied that he has
completed the nursing and training of a sufficient number of standard
trees, to furnish the ultimate crop.
But errors of omission sometimes admit of remedy; whereas, if
injury is committed by excessive thinning, or by cutting down trees
which ought to have remained, it is often difficult, and sometimes
impossible, to repair the mischief that is done. Both the errors to
which I have alluded, must be avoided by the planter who would
desire to have a healthy and continuously thriving Plantation.
Having considered well the following points, viz., the preparation of
his land—the selection of the species of trees that he will plant—their
size and quality—and the distance at which they shall stand from
each other, he must remember that, from the very first, they will not
only require, but they will well pay for, his closest attention. During
the first seven years, he may, probably, have little else to do at them
than to keep the land clean; but this will, in some degree, depend
upon the distance which he has chosen for them; and on the kind
which he intends for the final crop of timber. But whatever they may
be—whether the Oak alone, or along with some other species, the
trees intended for timber will demand the peculiar, the unremitted,
attention of the planter: his object must ever be to deal with all the
rest, with distinct, direct, and positive reference to the careful nursing
of those: and it must always be borne in mind, that whatever be the
fate of the nurses, those which I will again distinguish from the rest,
by calling them the standard trees, must, if possible, be kept in
vigorous health. This can only be done, concurrently with the
ultimate object of securing great length of bole, by pruning of some
sort or other. If the trees are so planted as to insure natural pruning,
no other, except of the nurses, will be required, but the first operation
will be thinning; which should be done with great care and judgment.
Where it is not so done, it is more than probable that trees will be
taken which should have been left, and the contrary. As it respects
the Oak, the principal point to be aimed at is, to spare all those, as
the thinning goes on, that have the best defined heads. This will be
an easy matter with an experienced and well-taught planter, or
woodman, and the difficulty, if any there be, will be less at each
succeeding thinning, as the heads of the trees develope themselves.
But when trees are not planted so thickly as to insure length of
bole by natural pruning, they must be pruned with the knife and the
bill-hook, and the earlier the operation is begun, the better.
I doubt not but some of my readers will stamp this advice with their
unqualified disapprobation. It may be very good and correct
notwithstanding. My own experience, as well as that of many others
whom I have consulted, convinces me that the notion, which so
extensively prevails, as to the injurious effects of pruning, is
decidedly incorrect. It may have had its origin in the evidence of
injury to timber, which has been furnished by injudicious pruning; and
thus what would have else been universally seen to be necessary,
has come to be almost universally condemned: but this is a common
error, and has been too often shown, to render it necessary for me to
expose it here. Some very valuable observations on pruning have
been published by Mr. Main, in his excellent little work, entitled “The
Forest Planter and Pruner’s Assistant.” At page 53, the following
paragraph occurs: “But the only part of a woodman’s duty which
does not appear to be well defined, or at least not generally agreed
upon by practical men, is relative to the necessity of carefully pruning
and managing the trees during the first fifteen or twenty years of their
growth.”
I quote the last member of the above with entire approbation: that
is, so far as the necessity for pruning is recognized in it: and I further
think, that the reasons which are given by Mr. Main for pruning, and
the manner in which he has illustrated his principle—the clear and
satisfactory way in which he has treated the whole subject—entitle
him to the confidence, and to the thanks, of all who are interested in
the growth of trees. But I am very far indeed from agreeing with him
in the opinion so adventurously given, that “the best methods of
preparing the ground for the reception of the plants—manner of
transplanting—the soils most suitable for each species—are all
thoroughly and universally understood.” My belief is, on the contrary,
that comparatively few planters, or woodmen, do “thoroughly”
understand these matters. If they did, their practice would not be so
extensively wrong as it is. If it were so, why have planters so widely
differed? Why is there seen such discrepancy in their modes of
management? But what does Mr. Main wish his readers to
understand by the term “practical men”? If he refer to those who
have the oversight and the direction of the practical operations
included in the “preparation of the soil for the reception of the plants
—manner of transplanting—the soils most suitable for each species,
&c.”; and if he wish to convey the idea that, by this class of persons,
these points are “thoroughly and universally understood,” I hold him
to be wholly and widely wrong: but if he only mean that scientific
men, who have well studied the subject, and who have written upon
it, and really intelligent woodmen, are agreed as to the best practice,
I do not greatly differ from him; nor do I conceive that the main point,
at which I have aimed in this publication, will be at all affected by any
concession which I make to this effect: my principal object has been,
and will be, to show that, however clearly and strongly may have
been shown, the propriety of acting in conformity with the principles
of science, in the original formation of Woods and Plantations, in the
planting of Hedge-row Timber, and in the general management of
them all, the practice of “practical men,” has been, “except as before
excepted,” so bad, that the most charitable conclusion which can be
drawn is, that they “thoroughly” misunderstand almost every part of
the subject! It seems rather to me, that instead of there being only
one point in their practice on which they need enlightenment, that
there is but one on which they may be said to agree, and that is in a
thorough contempt for all rules, all principles, all science! in other
words, that this class of persons has displayed an amount of
ignorance, (which, however, has been more their misfortune than
their fault,) and the want of a proper apprehension of the nature and
extent of their obligations, and duties, which has no parallel in the
management of any other description of property.
But this is a digression: I pass on, therefore, to the question of
pruning, on which I would again commend to the notice of my
readers, the valuable remarks of Mr. Main, as well as some excellent
practical observations from the pen of that veteran in the service,
Francis Blakie, Esq., late Steward to the Earl of Leicester, from
whose small pamphlet, entitled “A Treatise on the Management of
Hedges and Hedge-row Timber,” the most useful information may be
gathered.
Mr. Main’s is an able and lucid examination of the question of
pruning, and, to my thinking, most fully and satisfactorily settles it.
He shows that when pruning is properly done, and when it is
commenced early enough, and so managed as to secure the desired
result in fifteen or twenty years, it may not only be done with safety,
and without material injury to the timber, but that no other plan or
practice will answer so well. This he clearly proves upon scientific
data, familiarly illustrated by numerous plates, and confirmed by
practical statements.
If, however, it were only from neglecting to prune that the
Plantations of this kingdom had gone wrong, the “mismanagement”
would not have furnished a subject for remarks so strong as it now
does; but, as I have stated over and over again, the practice is, in
most cases and on many accounts, at every stage of their progress,
almost as bad as it can be.
The treatment which a Plantation ought to receive, may be
comprised in a very few words. The principals will require pruning
from an early period after being planted, and the pruning must be
continued, more or less, according to circumstances, either every
year or every alternate year, until it is from fifteen to twenty years old;
and, during the same period, a small portion of thinning will probably
be required. As to the nurses, they must be watched constantly after
the fourth year, and they must be treated with sole reference to the
prosperity of the other trees; they may, therefore, be pruned, or
lopped in any way that will best subserve that end. Of course I am
now speaking of Plantations where the trees are not put nearer to
each other than three feet, and when, in consequence, they must
have artificial pruning.
In cases where pruning begins soon enough, the question which
has been raised as to the manner of doing it—whether by close
pruning, snag pruning, or fore-shortening—will not apply. All the
principals should be close pruned with a sharp instrument, care
being taken not to wound the bark too extensively. The principle to
be kept in view at all times, when dealing with a Plantation, is, to
subject it to no sudden changes, but when pruning is found to be
insufficient, to commence a course of gradual thinning, which shall
not, in any considerable degree, at any period, disturb the
temperature of the Plantation. If this point be duly attended to, and a
sound judgment be exercised in selecting the principals, the
planter’s most sanguine expectations will not be disappointed.
So far as I have ventured to offer suggestions for the proper
management of Plantations, I have intended them to apply to such
as are not over twenty years of age; but it is well known to all who
concern themselves in such matters, that a class of Plantations
ranging above that age, up to forty or fifty, may be met with in
various localities, which stands much in need of better
“management.” In all cases of great neglect, which has been
continued more than twenty years, the nicest judgment is necessary.
The difficulty is, however, always in proportion to the degree of
neglect. Where the trees have been put in thickly, and nothing, or
almost nothing, has been done, little can be expected even from the
most judicious treatment; but still the means ought to be tried, for
one thing is quite certain, viz., that the longer remedial steps are put
off, the less chance there must be of their doing any good.
If, when the Plantation has been thus neglected, a person is called
in who does not fully understand what he is about, irreparable
mischief will be done: he is almost sure to thin too freely. A proprietor
of long neglected Plantations must, therefore, be well assured
beforehand, that the person he employs will be guided in the course
he takes by correct views, both practical and scientific, upon the
whole subject; and when such is the case, the most suitable and
appropriate plans will be adopted.
Should any one demand of me before I close, some data on which
he may judge whether or not a Plantation is in a condition requiring
unusual attention, I offer the following:
First: If, upon examination, it be found that the trees intended for
timber have not an aspect and position superior to the others which
are around them:
Secondly: If, at any period after twenty years from the time of
planting, it be found difficult to identify and point out the trees which
are to be the final crop:
Thirdly: When there are any decided indications of a want of
health and vigour, there is proof sufficient that something more is
required to be done than has yet been done. The grosser cases of
Plantations which have never been entered for any purpose, for five,
ten, fifteen, or twenty years together, need not be pointed at. Every
one who sees them must perceive the necessity of their being
relieved without loss of time. No plant, of which we have any
knowledge, can exist without light and air, and in proportion to the
extent to which they are excluded from Plantations, will be the
injurious effect produced upon the health of the trees. In fact, it may
be laid down as a universal rule, that in proportion to the judgment
and discrimination which are exercised in gradually admitting both
light and air into Plantations, of almost every description, will be their
healthy progress.
I conclude my remarks on this part of my subject by observing
that, having admitted, as I most fully and readily do, that a few
instances may be met with in almost every county where the science
of Arboriculture is tolerably well understood, and its principles carried
out, I must still contend that cases enough may be found—First; of a
want of preparation of the ground: Secondly; of an improper
selection of plants, either as to kind or size: Thirdly; of an unsuitable
admixture of them: Fourthly; of mistakes committed as to their
distance from each other: Fifthly; when they are injured for want of
early attention: Sixthly; when injury is done to them for want of, or
from imprudent, or excessive, thinning, to fully justify me, or any one
else, in bringing before the public the “mismanagement” of
Plantations.
CHAP. III.
HEDGE-ROW TIMBER.
In commencing this, the third part of my subject, I am fully

impressed with a sense of its magnitude and difficulty; and nothing
but a thorough conviction resting on my own mind, of the truth of the
position which I have taken with reference to the present state, and
the present management of Hedge-row Timber, would have
emboldened me to give expression to views which cannot but be
unpalatable to many, however just they may be, and however strong
their claim, to the serious notice of others. I am fully prepared to
expect that censure may be dealt out by some, in not very measured
terms, but this does not move me: having nothing but a plain,
unvarnished tale to tell, I shall tell that tale as fearlessly as if I were
about to pour sweetest music into the ears of those who may read. I
know whereof I speak; and while I have as little fear of any one
successfully attempting to disprove what I shall advance, as I have
at present, I can contemplate, without a single disturbed feeling, the
liability to which I shall assuredly expose myself, of having sundry
missiles thrown at me by those who are deeply implicated in the
present “mismanagement” of this valuable property. Thus much with
reference to those who are in offices of trust and confidence, as the
managers of Woods, Plantations, and Hedge-Rows, if any such shall
favour me with a perusal. But I may not proceed any further, before I
say a few words in deprecation of the displeasure of a more
important class of persons who will, I trust, do me the honour to read
my “Remarks”; I mean, the proprietors of Hedge-row Timber. To
these—or rather to that portion of them who have hitherto paid little
attention to this part of their property—I would say, let my
observations be “weighed in the balances,” and, if they are “found
wanting,” let these be set against what cannot be called more than a
venial error—an error of judgment—the strong, the ardent desire that
I have to see introduced the correction of what I have, at least,
deemed to be, a serious mischief.
If Hedge-row Timber has been “mismanaged”—and who can
doubt it—on whom shall the blame fall? As I have more than once
said before, not on a class of men who, from their education, must
necessarily be limited to the mechanical duties connected with their
office, but on the Owners of Timber, from whom either directly, or
through the agency of persons duly qualified, such rules and
regulations ought to proceed, as would insure a better system of
management. Practices are allowed, and such a state of things is
permitted by the proprietors of Hedge-row Timber, as abundantly
prove that many of them have never either understood its value, or
given themselves the trouble to enquire whether it was under a
course of suitable treatment or not.
I have stated that I consider the question which I am handling a
difficult one. I feel it to be so—not because I have any difficulty in
proving “mismanagement” on the part of those who have to do with
the timber of our hedges—not because I can feel a doubt that my
statements will carry conviction along with them; but because I must
necessarily come into collision, both with the refined tastes, and with
the prejudices, of many of my readers. For instance: if I assert, as I
do without any hesitation, that many Noblemen and Gentlemen
suffer their Hedge-row Timber to stand much too long—where is the
admirer of the beauties of landscape scenery, who will not instantly,
and perhaps indignantly, throw down my book, and charge me with
being the most presumptuous of grumblers, and, as to taste, a very
heretic!
If to such a charge as this I plead “not guilty,” as, after all that can
be said, I really must do, I am aware that I must be prepared with a
very strong defence. I think I am so prepared. My defence will rest
on three principal points, which it will be my endeavour to bring out in
the course of my “Remarks: viz.: First; I shall show that the
magnitude of the sacrifice which arises from Hedge-row Timber
being suffered to stand so long, is disproportionate to the good
resulting from it. Secondly; that the embellishment of a landscape
does not necessarily include the perpetuity of any one race of timber
trees. And thirdly; that the present mode of “mismanaging” Hedge-
row Timber, is a perpetual offence against good taste.”
Although I have arranged my three propositions as above, I do not
intend to bind myself to take them up again, and dispose of them in
consecutive order: I have neither time nor the ability to adapt my
“remarks” to the niceties of exact logical arrangement; it will be
sufficient for me, if I shall succeed in leaving upon the minds of those
who may read them, an impression of their truth. If that result is
arrived at, it surely will be quite sufficient to draw the particular
attention of proprietors to the subject; which will be more than half
way towards securing the improvement which is so loudly called for;
and that would be as much perhaps, as could at once be reasonably
expected.
It may not be amiss to glance for an instant, at the value of the
property about which I am writing. Few people, I imagine, have any
proper conception of the aggregate amount. It is, of course,
impossible to offer more than a conjecture on the subject; but
probably it is not less, in England alone, than One Hundred Millions
sterling!
It is quite clear that a course of management which only, in some
of its details, falls short of what it ought to be, would involve, as it
affected such an immense investment, a very serious loss to
somebody. How much more serious then, must it be, if, not only
some of the minor details of management, but the entire course of
treatment, be radically wrong, as it respects a considerable
proportion, and very defective indeed as to the remainder? It would
be a waste of time to stop here with a view to argue, in proof of what
must appear to every one to be nothing less than an axiom.
That proprietors of Hedge-row Timber are not solely influenced by
considerations of taste in their management of it, is most evident to
an experienced eye; but the heavy loss, which is consequent upon
allowing it to stand so long, has, probably, never been fairly
understood by them, or some efforts would have been made to
prevent it.
If a Nobleman or Gentleman merely suffered his timber to stand
beyond maturity in the neighbourhood of his house, or on the domain
where his mansion stood, however extensive it might be:—or if he
generously spared the trees which, though at a great distance from
his residence, were so placed as to enrich, if not constitute the
principal beauty of, some splendid scene in nature, no one, who
possesses a grain of taste, would regret it, but, on the contrary,
would feel grateful for this sacrifice to one of the most hallowed
emotions of the heart, when surveying the Creator’s works, which
are all perfect; and the touches of whose pencil are all loveliness—
whether as seen in the refreshing beauty of foliage which
distinguishes the vernal season, or the mellowed minglings of
Autumn’s enchanting exhibitions: but when it is considered, that a
majority of the Nobility and Gentry, thus treat their remote and even
most distant estates, where besides, there is nothing particularly
attractive in the scenery, the propriety of the course which they
pursue may, I think, be fairly questioned. Some other reason
therefore, than a deference to the principles of good taste must be
found, in order to account for their conduct; and in looking round for
a reason I should say, a good deal must be set down to indifference,
and pure neglect. This I say, because it will not admit of question,
that a most extensive loss arises, both to themselves, and the
community in consequence; and it is not often that gentlemen wilfully
close their eyes to the importance of pecuniary considerations,
except there is some powerful and justifiable reason which leads
them to do so.
Without speculating further as to the precise cause, it is certain
that the amount of property which is thus wasted, absolutely wasted
—and in almost every case without any advantage to any party
whatever—is enormous, as it would be easy to show by statistical
details and calculations, applying to any estate where this horror of
felling timber may have existed for half a century. Were this
accurately done, there could not but be such a showing, as would
fully establish the truth of what I have advanced. There would indeed
be no difficulty in fixing upon an estate, in any locality, which would
illustrate my position, but I shall not here attempt it, for various
reasons, which will be obvious to all. It would be travelling beyond
the bounds of legitimate remark, were I to refer to any particular
estate, and any other references, however accurate in point of fact,
would not be sufficiently specific. I would rather recommend any

PDF The Simpler Way Collected Writings of Ted Trainer 1St Edition Samuel Alexander Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF The Simpler Way Collected Writings of Ted Trainer 1St Edition Samuel Alexander Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Simpler Way Collected Writings of

Ted Trainer 1st Edition Samuel

Collected Uncollected Writings David Foster Wallace

The Danish Way of Parenting 1st Edition Jessica Joelle

Existential Psychology and the Way of the Tao:

Urban Awakenings Disturbance and Enchantment in the

The Collected Translations of the Sanskrit Epics 1st

The Collected Poems of Esdras Parra 1st Edition Esdras

The Collected Works of Filler Bunny Vasquez Jhonen

Always Reaching The Selected Writings of Anne Truitt

Edited by Samuel Alexander and Jonathan Rutherford

Copyright © 2020 Ted Trainer

Editors’ introduction iii

PART ONE: Overview 1

PART TWO: The global predicament 13

PART THREE: Mistaken solutions 185

PART FIVE: The Simpler Way transition strategy 315

PART SIX: Challenging questions 385

In the decade we’ve known him, and as editors of this volume, we

The Simpler Way is an ‘eco-anarchist’ vision of a world where self-gov-

that there is so much interesting and important work to be done in his

Importantly, Ted’s message is not just critical or negative. Much of his

now in the cities, towns and neighbourhoods where we live. In this

But readers beware! Against the grain of a post-modern and cynical

In this monumental task, he offers strong strategic proposals for ac-

We also note that there is some deliberate repetition of issues in plac-

The arrangement of this anthology has been organised as follows. Part

Samuel Alexander and Jonathan Rutherford

December 2019, Melbourne, Australia

We cannot solve the alarming global problems confronting humanity

There is a workable and attractive alternative society, the Simpler Way,

For instance, the ‘Ecological Footprint’ analysis indicates that the

do, approximately 65 billion ha of productive land would be required.

These simple figures clearly demonstrate the impossibility of all people

1.1. Now add the absurd commitment to economic growth

Consider the implications. If we assume a) a 3% p.a. economic growth,

– in that scenario, the total volume of world economic output would be

So even though the present levels of production and consumption are

1.2 But what about technical advance?

When confronted by global sustainability problems most people just

The core ‘tech-fix’ faith is that resource demand and environmental

1.3 Global problems should be seen in terms of ‘limits to

The ‘limits to growth’ perspective (Meadows et al., 1972) is essential

world resources. Our per capita consumption of items such as petro-

This grotesque injustice is primarily due to the kind of economy we

Even when transnational corporations do invest, wages can be 15–20

For most Third World people the effects of ‘neoliberal’ globalisation,

These are the reasons why conventional development can be regarded

Similar effects occur in rich countries, where the economic system we

2.1 Conclusions on our situation

These considerations of sustainability and global economic justice show

society. There is no possibility of having an ecologically sustainable, just,

3. The Simpler Way alternative

• Far simpler material living standards, which does not mean

Key elements within the Simpler Way include:

Simple traditional alternative technologies will be quite sufficient for

Because we will be highly dependent on our local ecosystems and on

The crucial importance of integration of functions and systems must

recognised as the key to solving global problems of sustainability and

Those who wish to contribute to the transition to the Simpler Way

Meadows. D., et al. 1972. Limits to Growth. New York: Signet.

The global predicament

Many very different kinds of economic system can be imagined and