I was having lunch on Monday with a super-crunchy friend who does good work renovating old, worn-out buildings and making them re-usable for commercial purposes. He was asking about our old bungalow. He said, "You know, you probably don't want to hear this, but you should think seriously about moving to a newer, more energy-efficient place." He went on to explain that in the years to come -- and not too much longer in the future -- the price of heating and cooling is going to skyrocket, making older, energy-wasting houses like ours money pits.
I can't quit thinking about this. It would cost a phenomenal amount of money to get our old place into proper energy shape, if it could really be done at all. Our house was built in 1914, and it's a model of coolness in the summer, with lots of windows for cross-breezes. Trouble is, the windows have been sealed for crime prevention for decades. We've had a relatively cool summer in Dallas so far, owing to all the rain, but our electricity bills are still well over $200 a month. Today is a more normal Dallas summer day, and it's in the mid-90s, and humid.
Once again, reality is biting, and my karma is crashing hard into my dogma. We had to abandon homeschooling because our school-age son had learning challenges that we simply couldn't meet at home. And now the thought that we might not be able to afford to live in our cozy little old house is pretty depressing. But I can't let my romantic sensibilities end me up in a situation in which keeping the a/c running is driving us to the poor house. My friend loves old houses, and knows how fond I am of this one. He's a smart guy, though, and this is his business. I take his advice seriously.
Thoughts?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Seriously, is there a more fascinating subject than how the South got on before air-conditioning (not to mention modern energy-efficient houses)?
Amazing. And yet, they did. One of the reasons its great to watch old movies set in the South. Everyone's sweating, all the time. Amazing.
Having lived in both the winters of the North (the Twin Cities and Syracuse) and summers in the South (Dallas), I'd say a hot, humid summer is worth suffering through so as not to freeze in the winter. Then again, I've never lived in India--but a lot of people seem to call that place home.
Remember Percy's "Love In the Ruins"? Not to mention Kunstler's "The Long Emergency"? Life is just getting more apocalyptic. Soon there will be wolves in Cleveland.
In all seriousness, one thing that I still feel needs to be better addressed in Crunchy Conservatism is whether the true "crunchy" lifestyle in all its essential aspects can really be lived in our contemporary neo-liberal mass-produced techno-dependent culture.
Flee to the hills...I don't know if if I'm saying that just yet, but....
To Irenaeus and Rod re "a good society is one in which it is easier to be good":
Don't be of utter despair. I think that the interest in living crunchy is increasing at a rather speedy rate, among individuals, corporations, and governments. The market will respond to this demand. It will become easier and cheaper to live the crunchy lifestyle.
Rod, I loved Crunchy Cons, read it on my honeymoon last year. Love your bread recipe too. The book and the bread changed my life. Maybe you should publish a book of recipes. I would love to see an Essential Crunchy Con Reading List too.
I think that, finally, you (we all) have to recognize that you're dealing with the contingent realm and that here there are no absolutes. So, how do you make your decision? I would say: consider the situation while keeping your most fundamental principles in mind and let these take precedence over the less fundamental. I certainly agree with you that things (e.g., houses) well made and beautiful are preferable to things poorly made and characterless, but other principles may make the latter a better choice in certain circumstances. The following may not seem directly related, but I think it sheds some light on the question: although the world is indeed good and reflects and offers something of God, it is not God, and thus even in our enjoyment of its goods we must keep a certain interior distance, i.e., recognize their contingency. We must not give ourselves wholly to these goods, but must give ourselves wholly only to God. All best wishes in your decision making.
Rod, it's not my intention to be unfair. But what are we to do with passages like this:
"To understand why our modern residential landscape leaves so many of us with a vacant feeling, it's useful to see our houses and neighborhoods in the way I've come to thing of as sacramental. What ideals do they convey in their physical reality? How do these habitats make those who live in them feel? What kind of life is possible here? What does living in such places teach its residents? How does it shape their character and outlook?...Your typical conservative will scoff at [these questions] defensively, but he can only dismiss these questions if he is determined to ignore human nature, and the way the built environment both expresses humanity's deepest longings and aspirations, and the way it shapes them." (Crunchy Cons, paperback ed. pp 100-101)
My question, and it is an honest (and respectful)one, is how can we see the reality of something like architecture as being fraught with sacramentalism and deeply imbued with transcendent meaning, and at the same time say that it's perfectly acceptable to live in a bland and boring modern suburban home if it's more energy efficient? These are conflicting concepts, aren't they? If the defining quality of being a crunchy conservative is always and everywhere to elevate the authentic, transcendent and sacramental above the artificial, expedient and convenient, then fast food, bland homes, facile education and the like become the enemies of the people: so how is any compromise with these things really possible for a crunchy conservative?
"If the defining quality of being a crunchy conservative is always and everywhere to elevate the authentic, transcendent and sacramental above the artificial, expedient and convenient, then fast food, bland homes, facile education and the like become the enemies of the people: so how is any compromise with these things really possible for a crunchy conservative?"
"Crunchy conservatives" haven't been around long enough to have clearly defined qualities. So far, the emerging quality is a passing fascination with the same things that environmentalists, hippies and other progressives have been talking about for decades now. That, and flip-flopping ambiguity on US foreign policy.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.