I had thought the point of the Abundance movement was that some things, such as housing and green energy, are important enough that we want to assure their abundance despite some competing scarcities. If nimbys are stopping the production of housing, that's something politicians can solve. If labor markets are stopping it, then we can either raise wages or admit more immigrants. I hate to disagree with you -- I love community -- but Abundance does strike me as politically useful.
I have found what I read about Abundance, including the banner book and many different takes on it here on Substack to be, well, flimsy. It reminds of what I used to hear from the Chambers of Commerce in the small towns I worked in. That boosterism was idealistic (good), but also naive and often poorly informed. And it could turn mean, in the specific form of becoming a call to end the conversation and "Just build it, whatever it was." I get that energy from a lot of what I read aboiut Abundance. Some of it is also, like the C of C speeches in being amazingly abstract. The boosters invoked values that they didn't think they had to explain, buzzwords like private property and free enterprise. Abundance could end up on that list. Which might, of course, mean that it is politically useful.
To me the proper response to the booster impulse that I see in the Abundance movement is the community process, the process of getting everyone in the room and working through the issues with some facts and all our relationships in mind. As you know and have seen, I've spent a lifetime trying to do that. You have spent a lot of time on community, too, for that matter, so I don't know that this as much a disagreement, as just having two different perspectives.
I love the reality that community is the operational opposite of scarcity. We live in a society in which there is no logical reason, other than barriers to community, that every human being should have access to food, shelter, clothing, meaningful work, a sustainable salary, and access to health and education. We are an overly abundant society and yet because of the barriers that exist to community, we have people going without. It makes no sense, even with the complexity that exists around making sure everyone has their basic needs addressed.
I had thought the point of the Abundance movement was that some things, such as housing and green energy, are important enough that we want to assure their abundance despite some competing scarcities. If nimbys are stopping the production of housing, that's something politicians can solve. If labor markets are stopping it, then we can either raise wages or admit more immigrants. I hate to disagree with you -- I love community -- but Abundance does strike me as politically useful.
You are always free to disagree.
I have found what I read about Abundance, including the banner book and many different takes on it here on Substack to be, well, flimsy. It reminds of what I used to hear from the Chambers of Commerce in the small towns I worked in. That boosterism was idealistic (good), but also naive and often poorly informed. And it could turn mean, in the specific form of becoming a call to end the conversation and "Just build it, whatever it was." I get that energy from a lot of what I read aboiut Abundance. Some of it is also, like the C of C speeches in being amazingly abstract. The boosters invoked values that they didn't think they had to explain, buzzwords like private property and free enterprise. Abundance could end up on that list. Which might, of course, mean that it is politically useful.
To me the proper response to the booster impulse that I see in the Abundance movement is the community process, the process of getting everyone in the room and working through the issues with some facts and all our relationships in mind. As you know and have seen, I've spent a lifetime trying to do that. You have spent a lot of time on community, too, for that matter, so I don't know that this as much a disagreement, as just having two different perspectives.
I love the reality that community is the operational opposite of scarcity. We live in a society in which there is no logical reason, other than barriers to community, that every human being should have access to food, shelter, clothing, meaningful work, a sustainable salary, and access to health and education. We are an overly abundant society and yet because of the barriers that exist to community, we have people going without. It makes no sense, even with the complexity that exists around making sure everyone has their basic needs addressed.
Thanks Andrew. Hope to see you sign on as a subscriber.