News

Radiant Future

Our suburban lifestyle is doomed by the energy crisis

Comments (6)
Thursday, February 28, 2008

In the docudrama Radiant City, written and directed by Gary Burns and Jim Brown and just out on DVD, one scene captures the mess made by our "way of life." Author and critic James Howard Kunstler is standing on an asphalt path for bikes and jogging; the path is affixed to a brand new subdivision that resembles a moonscape with houses. Traffic whizzes by Kunstler on either side of a fence, barely five feet away. As the wind from the SUVs blows his necktie to and fro, Kunstler tries to explain why this pathetic little amenity — slapped onto the landscape by some designer in an office cubicle hundreds of miles away — is an "assault on your neurology" with the "ambiance of a prison."

And, of course, Kunstler is correct. We are in a prison of consumption and desire, trapped by urges and, up until now, America's ability to supply even the most frivolous knickknack 24/7, including 2,000-square-foot homes with five-car garages. Kunstler is articulate, funny and passionate, which is why he's marginalized by the conventional wisdom shapers. But consider what he is saying in Radiant City, things like "80 percent of architecture now on earth was built in the past 50 years" and "most of it is brutal, depressing, ugly, unhealthy and spiritually degrading. ... Potemkin Village malls with parking lagoons and Orwellian office parks." All of this, however, has a "tragic element" beyond mere aesthetics.

That is — and here's the scary part — in the "energy scarce future," these same suburbs to which people have "escaped," with their measly bike-running paths and bucolic names that bear no resemblance to anything on the landscape ("Oak Grove"? Show me the oaks, please, show me the groves), are in serious trouble. Furthermore, the financial shell game — zoning laws that favor sprawl, the spreading of people farther from public transportation hubs, the destruction of our rail system — is on the verge of collapse.

 

As Kunstler says on his provocative blog Clusterfuck Nation, "This is not so much financial bad weather as financial climate change. ... There has been too much misbehavior and it can no longer be mitigated. We're not heading into a recession but a major depression, worse than the fabled trauma of the 1930s. That one occurred against the background of a society that had plenty of everything except money. Back then, we had plenty of mineral resources, lots of trained-and-regimented manpower, millions of productive family farms, factories that were practically new, and more than 90 percent left of the greatest petroleum reserve anywhere in the world. It took a world war to get all that stuff humming cooperatively again, and once it did, we devoted its productive capacity to building an empire of happy motoring leisure."

He calls the new Depression "The Long Emergency." It is, he says, the logical end result of a society that has squandered all of its oil, torn down its factories and outsourced jobs, leveled family farms as well as "Main Street" shopping areas and "trained its population to become overfed diabetic TV zombie 'consumers' of other peoples' productivity, paid for by 'money' they haven't earned."

A harsh dose of the truth is hard to swallow. Whether one accepts what Kunstler says may be beside the point, too. The handwriting is all over the walls of Radiant City.

Send your comments to

editor@hartfordadvocate.com

Comments (6)
Post a Comment
The population is growing. Where is the proper place for people to live? I'm asking this as an honest question with no ill will. Is is wrong for people to want a house and a yard? I agree it's not sustainable to for every family to have a 2000 square foot house, but is an energy efficient 1300 square foot house okay? where should we draw the line?
Posted by Chad on 2.28.08 at 10.12
tax policies to discourage one from having anymore than 2 children. a single person could sell a child credit to one that wants to have 3 children. yes a 1300 square foot house is ok as well as it being required to be energy efficient.
Posted by jimbo on 2.28.08 at 19.20
You'll get no argument from me about the need to curb human population. If we don't do it voluntarily it will occur as part of the natural processes: too many organisms, too few resources, bingo, problem solved.
Population growth does play its role here, but it's the distribution of population on the earth--the sprawl--that exacerbates the problem the most. New development ideas are being used here and there, but none are mandatory and most developers are eager to cut corners, save money, screw the communities where they build (but never ever where they live). A good primer is LAND Code: Guidelines for Sustainable Land Development by Diana Balmori and Baoury Benoit (John Wiley).
Also, read Kunstler's The Georgraphy of Nowhere, which explains how this mess was made and offrers some ideas about how to fix it.
Thanks for your ideas, Chad and Jimbo.
Posted by bisbort on 2.29.08 at 4.16
I think that tax policies that discourage people from having more than a certain amount of children is not a good idea in the U.S. It would simply not go over well with the populous. In addition it would go against the religious beliefs of some in this country (people who don't believe in birth control).

Modern industrialized countries typically take care of themselves as far as population control is concerned. Take Japan and most of Europe with there declining populations as an example. The real population growth occurs in developing countries. This is because it is traditional to need many children in an agrarian society. However, when agrarian people move to cities, they still continue the tradition of having large families. Also, this occurs when the same people immigrate to industrialized countries.

People in countries with high population growth should be gently encouraged with education about birth control and the empowerment of women. This will lead to a smaller population over time.

I think efficiency will is the best idea. More energy efficient houses, cars, consumer products, and industry could easily cut our energy and resource requirements in half.

Also educating people about the problems we are facing will help a great deal. Right now living "green" has become in vogue and I believe this attitude will only increase in the future.
Posted by Chad on 2.29.08 at 5.42
Sorry for the spelling and grammatical errors in my previous post, I was in a bit of a hurry typing it.
Posted by Chad on 2.29.08 at 5.45
I believe taht if there is an increase in efficiency, then there most definately be an increase in concumption. As soon as prices drop, more people will be able to buy. And this goes for mostly everything too.
Posted by Colin on 3.4.08 at 8.08
Leave this field empty Name*:

Email*:

URL:

Comment:

All comments must adhere to our Terms & Conditions of Use.

Find it Here:
keyword:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

The Devil in the Details
Sure, Lieberman pissed off liberals by killing the public option. But there’s more to the story. Here’s the whole truth and what it means for Connecticut.
Immobilized
A pre-schooler in the West Hartford public school system is made to wear a weight vest for being too wiggly
No Sex Offenders
Greenwich ponders restricting where registered sex offenders can go
Nightmare Memory
A witness to Eugenio DeLeon Vega’s slaying says she didn’t say what she said
Cuffed in Pittsburgh
A former Army medic says police stripped him of his insignia and patches during the G-20 summit
Freegan Out
From second-hand clothes to foraging in fields to grabbing dinner out of trash bins, freegans try to take as little as possible from the consumer world
Water World
Will the new expanded bottle deposits mean more money flooding into the state? Critics doubt it.
Crime and Punishment
Round-up of local crimes