The beat of a quieter drummer

A couple of months ago, it started to pour with rain while Isabella rode my shoulders in a backpack-like contraption. There were, surprisingly, plenty of available taxis that day on 6th Avenue, but No Impact means no taxis, so I did my best in a wind-torn wrestling match with our umbrella and I started the trudge home.

Isabella started crying. I tried tilting our umbrella so that it covered her more, but she only cried harder. Then a gust of wind blew the umbrella over, rain poured over both of us, and Isabella quieted. I wrestled the umbrella back over us, and she cried again. It took me a couple of blocks and about umpteen times through this cycle before I finally got it. Isabella wasn’t crying because she was getting wet; she was crying because she wanted to feel the rain.

Another day, I planned to take her to the park. She waddled along beside me. We hadn’t moved half a block, when she stopped. She hit a little chain hanging from a fire hydrant with her hand so that the chain swung back and forth. I tried to push her along, and she started to cry. I relented and she went back to the chain, watching it till it stopped swinging and then hitting it again. I wanted to rush so we could get to the park and start having fun. Why did it take me so long to realize Isabella was already having fun?

There are two rhythms playing here in New York City. First, there is the natural rhythm: the one where you get wet when it rains, and it take a long time to get places because you walk. Then there is the faster rhythm of elevators and subways and delivery boys and cell phones and never have a minute to think. It’s the difference between the beat of classical music and techno.

To live in the No Impact experiment, giving up the cars and machines that make life more "efficient," I’ve had to say goodbye to the faster beat. Sometimes I forget, but what my little rain-loving Zen master Isabella reminds me when she slows me down is that I’m not left without music. It’s just that to hear the quieter sounds of the classical, you have to give up straining to hear the techno.

Comments

[Justin Simoni]

There is something to be learned from a rainstorm. When meeting with a sudden shower, you try not to get wet and run quickly along the road. But doing such things as passing under the eaves of houses, you still get wet. When you are resolved from the beginning, you will not be perplexed, though you still get the same soaking. This understanding extends to everything.

- Yamamoto Tsunetomo

[jamie]

hey! i like techno! it is hard to make acoustic techno, though, i grant you that.

[jennifer goodnow]

i glean two things from this posting:
1. you're getting in touch with a lot of spirituality by doing this experiment.
2. you're living an amish lifestlye in nyc!

[Jennifer]

Hey there, No Impact Man! Let me first say that this will be an entirely friendly and well-intentioned comment.

I learned about you and your experiment last week, and have been thinking a LOT about it all since. My husband (47), son (9), and I (45) are your pretty typical white, middle-class, college-educated (well, the boy is enrolled in private elementary at the moment) family, living in a suburban-rural area west of Boston. Mark us down as another family trying earnestly to turn the tide on our own consumerism and big-fat-footprint-ism, sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing but always thinking.

My biggest ponderance for you (for which I really don't expect an answer, unless you have one ultra-handy?) is about the collision, if you will, between the extreme no-impact path you're forging and living in THE city. No no no, I'm not saying you have to leave Manhattan blah blah blah to be "legit" -- I think that we all, regardless of where we live, need to save the planet. Now. But what I'm struggling with is an idea that comes from one of my favorite children's books -- If Everybody Did, by Jo Ann Stover. Huh? Well, if every New Yorker decided to walk or bike or scooter instead of ride public transportation, the impact on the city would be horrific (there isn't room on the sidewalks or streets to accomodate every morning commuter this way) -- public transportation is within the infrastructure and a very efficient way, really, to move millions of people around a small island daily. If every New Yorker gave up private cars, and used public transportation religiously and taxi cabs sparingly, now that would be wonderful -- wouldn't it? Would it help the NY transportation system put money into, say, electric buses or other lower impact, environmentally friendly systems and become even more efficient because of the income from all the riders? Am I making sense? -- that because of the size of the city, there are behaviors that may seem on face environmentally responsible, but because of the scale actually could do damage? I'm thinking, too, of your composting toilet (and admit to being no expert). But, from a health/sanitation perspective, could the city really support all that composting, ah, stuff? Isn't the public sewer system designed to be a healthy improvement for that many people living that closely together? I don't know. And I am thinking you probably know by now how many people just stop reading (or caring) after the whole no-toilet-paper thing. Wouldn't it be as good (or better, from a health/sanitation perspective as well as from a getting-more-people-on-board perspective) to make the more *reasonable* switch to recycled products only for TP, while effectively getting every piece of junk mail out of your box? If instead each and every New Yorker used water resources responsibly, wouldn't that be the better thing? I'm thinking about how you couldn't remove toilet paper from public restrooms, for example -- and I'm thinking about polio because I have this notion in the back of my head that lack of indoor plumbing had something to do with its spread early last century, but I could be making that up....

Again, please know that I am friendly and interested -- not here to criticize. I'm just thinking that somehow "no impact" in a major city is different from "no impact" in the 'burbs or elsewhere, and that you *might* gain more support and more converts if your experiment reflected that. Meanwhile, all our kitchen scraps get composted in our back yard for our garden (good) while we still own and watch tv (bad), and we work each week, all three of us, to think of ONE thing we can do differently (or add to our list of new habits) to make the world a better place.

[Lou]

Thanks for the lovely insights. While you and your wife may occasionally feel deprived with low impact living, I'm sure Isabella never shares this feeling.

Children are more intimately connected to both the natural world and, I believe, heaven. If we're thoughtful parents, they give us a glimpse of these worlds also.

Yes, it requires slowing down-- not so much to a child's pace per se, but to a more reasonably human rhythm. Daily life becomes about process: taking time to shop for fresh food, prepare meals, take walks and naps, read stories.

As you are discovering, the most basic found objects--a swinging chain!--are Isabella's favorite toys. Better than educational TV, Mozart tapes and video games are the four elements--children delight in playing with dirt, wind, water and fire--the latter with adult supervision, naturally!

(Ever notice how kids adore playing with candles, poking stick in campfires and burning leaves and twigs? A wise Waldorf teacher pointed out that today children have a fixation with fire perhaps because in the 21st century they have so very few opportunities to play with this transformative element.)

More for their well-being than as an ecological experiment (I'm embarrassed to admit) we raised our children without TV, computers and video games. We even limited audio recordings preferring--as you do--to make our own music and tell stories from memory.

My in-laws were horrified that we kept our child in a school that didn't teach reading until 3rd grade--teachers in Waldorf schools tell wonderful, linguistically rich stories from memory almost every day in the class room.

Friends jokingly (or not) called us Amish and Luddites.

Behind the humor was a genuine concern that we were depriving our children. I wonder if you feel any such concern from others.

If so, I urge you not to worry. From my own experience I assure you that your daughter will be as academically, socially, athletically and musically prepared as her peers--perhaps more so. I believe she will be more sensitive--and perhaps more intelligent--for not being assaulted in her tender years by technology.

You are giving her the most wonderful childhood possible. She is far more privileged--with her plain toys, second-hand clothes and loving parents--than many poor/rich children in our consumerist culture.

[Sara]

Great post...I often find myself hurrying along my 3 year old as well, only to realize that she knew what to do better than I did! I love going at toddler speed. I've really enjoyed your blog so far...keep it up! You make me feel like less of a freak for living green, smaller, and lighter :)

[Levi]

Jennifer,
If the experiment were feesaible for everyone it would not be remarkable. Yes not everyone can live this way, however one person proving that we can do without should go a long way in helping us all realize we can at least reduce our consumption

[nex0s]

Jennifer - It's not New Yorkers that bring most of the traffic into the city - it's the people who commute IN to the city to work who drive! Most New Yorkers who live here do NOT have cars - and those that do house them in garages because the parking laws are so crazy. They use them to go OUT of the city - not commute IN the city. Or they will use them to go to the outer boroughs.

Most NYers use public transportation religiously, because to do anything else is a hassle.

Now, if commuters would use the MetroNorth & PATH systems more stringently, our streets would be safer to ride/skate in.

N.

[lily]

The first 4 years of my life in the 1970's were spent without electricity on a rural farm. It was the most magical and happiest time of my life. We had no indoor plumbing (we used an outhouse) and water for bathing was heated on the propane stove and poured into a big galvanized tub in the kitchen. My mother would prepare dinner while it was still light, because at night the darkness was all encompassing. Kerosene lanterns were our only light. Heat came from the wood stove. No streets lamps, no traffic noise, only the sound of wind and frogs and birds. In summer our garden provided a bounty of fresh produce. I was barefoot and naked most of the time — as happy to play with sticks in the dirt as anything. My childhood taught me that there is a vast difference between what we think we need and what we actually need. Those years were the richest of my life — rich, not in things, but in experiences. We were rich beyond measure. If it sounds idyllic — it was. I only hope that I can create something of that magic for my own children.

[L.L. Barkat]

I do this thing where I go outside every day and sit under a pine tree which is an excuse-for-woods. Lately, I've been amazed by all the sounds. Music everywhere... the pine tickling the dry leaves of the tiny oak, the low trill of the mourning doves, the white noise of the wind. It's not that I would want to give up the music in my house... the classical from our piano or the radio, but if I had to, I know there would still be music all around.

[Doug]

Just because a child likes to get wet in a rainstorm does not mean it's a good idea to let her get drenched. Just because a child is having fun playing with a dog-piss covered hydrant chain does not mean it's smart to allow her to continue.

You are the parent/adult. Despite your desire to single-handedly save the world Mr. Quixote, you still must make smart decisions regarding your family.

Would you let you daughter ride in an ambulance to the hospital or force the EMT's to push the stretcher down the sidewalk? Would you require the firemen to leave their truck behind or only deal with policemen who walk a beat?

While I understand your enthusiasm, the energy you are putting into this lifestyle could be better spent. Why don't become an engineer so you can design more efficient cars, appliances, homes, etc.?

In the end you lifestyle is not helping at all. It is not a matter of removing oneself from the world, but figuring out new ways so the world can operate without destroying itself.

[Kerri]

Jennifer,
On your question about city living:
I know it seems a bit contrary to instinct, but city living actually has a lower impact on the earth than country or suburban living. Start reading up on sustainability and green urban planning and it will start to click. Some top-level points are simple: Closer access to all resources means less transportation (oil/carbon/pollution) to both go places and to get things. High-density building means destroying less land. These are just a few examples.

In fact, one of my own personal major moral dilemmas right now is my desire to move to the country vs. my desire to live a greener lifestyle. It is necessary to consume so much more when not living near a city center.

[Doug]

Kerri,

Urban living is less impactful? What dream world do you live in? A city requires thousands of trucks and trains to come in every day just to feed the people. Every building must be heated which requires oil, coal or nuclear energy. People have to get to work.

The only way to limit your impact is to live as sustenance farmer.

What you are trying to do is legitimize city living because it is a hell of a lot more enjoyable then doing the old early to bed early to rise break your back in the field living.

[H. Spencer Young]

"Isabella wasn’t crying because she was getting wet; she was crying because she wanted to feel the rain."

One of the more beautiful things I've read lately. (he says from his blackberry)

[Christine Cassidy]

The first year I moved to San Francisco was also one of the rainiest. Like New York, and my home city Boston, San Francisco has a fabulous public transportion system and I never owned a car while I lived there. I also don't remember using an umbrella. Without having to wrestle with an umbrella it was easier to get on buses and I could put my hands in my pockets. What I do remember is having a great, long raincoat, the perfect rain hat and tall rubber boots that let me splash through the deepest puddles. I loved walking in the rain and being nice and cozy and dry when I arrived at my destination.

[SKG]

Somebody yesterday asked my question again: how do you clean selves/house with local ingredients? (I also would like to know how do you fabulize your epidermi without Kiehls?) We still out here waiting for the good news, maaaaan.

Doug, how are you getting to the hospital from idyllic green BFE when you cut your calf in half with your sickle trying to get in the cattail harvest? On your deflatulated mule? Or are you going to apply a healing mud poultice? People all together in one place is better than people spread out all over the place because among a million other things when they're spread out all over the place they burn way more petrol to get over way more ground. It's not better for the people, you understand. But it's better for everything else.

Furthermore, Doug, getting rained on does not cause disease. Neither does touching dog-pee hydrant chains. What causes disease is close contact with diseased members of one's own species. So if the toddler skips hanging around the snotted-on toddler park to paddle in dog pee, the toddler is better off. Dang, read some science or whatever.

[Kerri]

Doug,
First, you should know that I live in the suburbs right now, and I want to move to the woods, so I have no impetus to "legitimize" city living. I have actually, never in my life, lived in a city. Nor am I trying to eliminate my impact-- I'll admit I'm way too lazy for that. But here's the point:

Suburban and rural living require *all* the things you listed that cities require-- the difference is that every truck, train and power line has to travel that much further to fill the needs of suburbanites and rural dwellers, and those dwellers have to travel further to buy their stuff and go to their jobs. Cities are more concentrated, so you get the illusion of more resources being used, but all of those people, no matter where they live, would still require all that stuff and power... if they weren't all squished together, it would simply require even more resources to provide it to them.

It's simply a fact that a city dweller (with the same consumption habits) as a suburban dweller makes less impact. Sorry, it's just true.

I'm not talking about zero impact. I live in the real world, Doug, and realize Americans will always demand a large amount of consumer goods and use a lot of resources. I'm simply talking about *lessening* impact. City living (provided that it has a decently responsible amount of urban planning) is better for the planet.

[Sally Parrott Ashbrook]

Great post.

[Sean]

Impact or No Impact, there's a whole 'nother world out there, and it often takes the insightfulness/mindfulness of our children (or in my case, my yellow lab mix) to free ourselves from the distraction to see it. Well put, Colin, and namaste!

[Kishore]

It takes a lot of effort for adults to change their lifestyle from what they have been used to from childhood. It is easier to train children who in turn learn by example. Therefore it may take a generation or more for humans to evolve to a less impactful life. The people who are starting to think about their impacts and lessen it are to me on the forefront of this evolution, just as other important events in human evolution must have started.

Colin is like a scientist working on an experiment, ofcourse he is broadcasting his results as he is performing it. Hence he has the detractors, who are asking him why he can't do X instead of Y, and A instead of B. The detractors have to attack him to justify their own lifestyles. I find this experiment more relevant and useful than the ones done by "real" scientists. So keep it up, Colin, for pushing the limits.

[A Million Paths]

Kerri is right, especially when you realize that most people who live in rural areas don't grow their own food. Most farms grow one crop and they still have to have everything else shipped in. An Iowa corn farmer has to sell his corn and get his pig shipped in from North Carolina, his veggies shipped in from California and Latin America etc, and pay for it with cash. That's the reality of our agro-business lifestyle. Suburban lifestyles are horrible because, generally, speaking there's no downtown, houses are less dense and bigger, which means public transportation isn't really possible and the houses have a larger environmental footprint, not to mention destroying indigenous areas. There's a really interesting article on the die off of bees in this week's Christian Science Monitor that touches on this.

[Philip]

You have your eyes open. It's a great thing. I've learned so much from my kids, always. Your story here has a great parallel;

http://littlebloginthebigwoods.blogspot.com/2007/03/lightning-strikes.html

Some stuff is going to turn out true wherever you are, city or county.

[rachel]

This is beautiful, and a great reminder to enjoy our kids while they still have that sweet innocence, it's gone so soon.

[Greatexpectations]

Beautifully said! Gosh, thanks. The musical analogy is superb. I have twin toddlers who remind me every day to slow down and smell the roses (or, taste the mulch).

I believe strongly in what you are doing. I wish I could find the energy -- as you have -- to even make a few of these changes. Right now, I think I'm lucky if I've taken a shower, let alone make my own soap.

[Lena]

Ah, yes, the Babies are the closest to GOD (Nature) that we'll ever be on this earth and they seem to know, instinctively good and bad. Of course they are curious, learning how to interact safely. But, before they can walk they know a dead crab from a live one and a fresh herb from a fake plant. As mine did! Maybe they're special? So it is of no surprise that kids can lead us down the rabbit hole. The world is a curious place, full of wonder and life. But this facinating place is no good to us dead or destroyed. Overlooking all the wonder will exacerbate a slow death around us. There is something quite sad about a society of 8-12 yr. old drones, who rather sit in front of a computer at lunch instead of running around playing tag or some other sport. Splashing in puddles, Angels in Snow and Pixie dust, that's what its all about; the experimentation that leads to science that leads to advancement. Math is great. What's missing is LOVE. Love is what you teach the children so that they look outside of their egocentric selves and see they are parts to a whole universe of actions. The other day my son asked me where is GOD and I said heaven. He asked where is heaven and said in the sky and all around us. Everywhere at once. HE, the life force is omnipotent and omnipresent. The Native Americans [may not believed in the same God as me (NIM has changed this passage)] but they saw life in Nature and respected Nature--something babes instinctively know.