There are deep historical and cultural roots to current energy consumption patterns. No surprise. But I don't mean just the past few decades, or even the post-WWII era, or even the twentieth century (typical answers to the query, when did all this glug glug glugging begin?) I want to point to the Jeffersonian roots of energy over-consumption.
I don't do so by way of blame or culpability (no, we can't make a causal connection, fun as it would be, to a single source) but to note the depth of the cultural configuration of energy patterns. Urban planners recognize what I'm getting at in their dense and multi-use developments, where homes are clustered, open land is spacious and surrounding, and the very need for energy (cars, as the most easy example) is reduced. A commenter at the blog once noted that we need more energy production because how else will Asian countries get power for their fridges? We are better to think about the matter as one of, why do Americans rely on their fridge's so much more than other cultures? Well, we live far away from the grocery store, we don't get there very often, and so we need to carry and store food for long periods of time. Go to Spain, or France, or China, or wherever non-Suburban and get your daily bread and fruit at the market on your street. Your fridge there is smaller than our Sears behemoths. Your energy needs are less.
Which is all a long-winded set up to show a few overhead views. The first is of farmland in Indiana. The second is of farming villages in France. The ones below that show 18th century conceptions of American land distribution.
.jpg)
br>
And here is how that plays out -- Jeffersonian Republicanism has at its core the bottoms-up production of governance. Start at the A-B-C-D-E boxes; then go up to the 1-2-3-4-5... boxes; then to the First, Second, Third Ranges..., then to the State of Ohio. Locals agree upon matters of common importance together (in boxes A-B-C-D-E), before then deciding on issues of common importance to the next level of squares up (in boxes 1-2-3-4-5...), before moving up again, and then onto congresspeople and senators, and then onto Federal government. It has as its base the value and primacy of individual land onwership and work, and it has as its environmental foundation the division of land into geometric, rationally conceived, individually identifiable, parcels of land.
- Log in to post comments
The first two pictures are marvelous, in how they demonstrate that technological choices (here represented in land use patterns and modes of inhabiting space) *naturalize* themselves, and become the context in which future choices are made. If energy consumption becomes a problem, then we have to deal with the production of energy; to do otherwise threatens more than just what we buy, but how we define ourselves (imagine uprooting the farming community in the top picture and suggesting a pattern similar to the next picture - why that there's communism feller - and we don't cotton to that round chere).
So, what's worth noting is the "becoming true" aspect not just of how we live, but of who we are - how readily arbitrary choices (bracketed by politics and power and caprice) become inscribed as natural human needs.
BTW, is it possible to move to Assenisipia?
Except that France has a long tradition of, well, independent small farmers. One of the main implications of the Code Napoléon was that your inheritance would be split up between your kids, rather than going to your firstborn.
True, Alex, though I'm not clear about what "except" is in exception to. And lwn, go back to Russia. And take your Arendt with you.
The whole piece is just a cheap rhetorical trick. The author has some problem with individualism in American culture so instead of any substantive questioning of this aspect of American culture a mindless appeal to environmentalism as some sort of super-authority is invoked as a cheap way to squelch debate. It is on the same level as appealing to the Bible or comparing your opponent to Hitler. I could just as easily write an article saying that American individualism is the key to solving our environmental and energy problems by citing the many people who have voluntarily chosen to live off the grid and find their own creative solutions to their energy needs, or in the numerous entrepreneurial projects underway in alternative energy, organic produce etc.
Can anyone honestly think that French agriculture, whose roots are in feudalism and only exists today because of exorbitant government subsidy (that simultaneously keeps African farmers in poverty) is a valid solution? The simple arithmetic is that the larger the farm plots, the fewer the number of people living in the countryside involved with agriculture and the greater the economic incentives for investment in technologies that save energy expenses. In a developed economy more people = more energy consumption and a greater impact on the land.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what part of the blog post BWV read. I think the main point here is that land use patterns impact what gets perceived as need. To that end, need is not a natural requirement of humanity, but a value-laden and culturally specific construct. And by calling it a construct, I don't mean to cast aspersions per se, but rather point out that such needs are themselves not necessarily the premises for a larger debate, but subject to debate themselves. I think the tenor of BWV's response, in using words like "just" and "simple," seems to miss the overall call for complexity inherent in the original post.
Just my simple thoughts.
Interesting article, but some perspective.
That land use in France could have ancient feudal origins, and may not be energy efficient if you have to drive to your little plot of land every day. I live in a US city with a spoke design and it does not make for efficient travel. It is pretty easy to work your farm if you are in the middle of it.
However, my main comment goes back to my experience doing land surveying. The French system was used in a few islands in Michigan. (You can also find it in Quebec, of course.) It is a nightmare to work with. If it had been applied to that example in Ohio or Minnesota, you would see narrow plots of land defined along the river with the boundaries fanning into the interior. River access for transport was crucial, so each homestead got some, even if it was only 50 feet. This would not be efficient for modern farming (a 50 by 50000 foot farm?), but it worked OK for trappers.
The roots of our exceptional energy use is more likely to be in the design of suburbia than in the design of farmland. Farmland now has a very, very small proportion of the population. Sure, the design of suburbia is influenced by the section/range grid, but the ideals of the suburbs--every house having its own garden space--has its roots in 19th century England. These ideals are what drive the low density housing where a large bulk of the population lives; concentrated housing could be incorporated into the section-range grid as well as distibuted housing. The fact that the U.S. saw a huge surge in settlement at the same that trains and automobiles made low-density housing feasible has a lot to do with our energy use. Europe was already pretty "settled" in its land-use patterns before these technologies were common.
Farmland now has a very, very small proportion of the population.
The range of interpretations possible for any given post is immense, and I accept that. Even so, I'll point to 'lwn' above as having pretty much followed the point I was suggesting. In no way was this a plea to farm like the French. Nor was it even really a post about farming. Rather, as through 'lwn' and my text, it's about thinking of how historical cultural choices can lead to (and/or constrain) contemporary cultural choices. It's no secret Americans consume energy in far greater amounts than anyone else in the world. There's a lot to that; I noted but one angle on the issue, and one I found particularly crisp, through the imagery.
Crisp, eh? Like a potato chip?