Press "Enter" to skip to content


  1. Pat
    Pat January 31, 2012 5:27 am

    Is the glass half-full or half-empty? Both articles say essentially the same thing.

    Both choose to opt out — opt out of “politics”… opt out of the agribusiness mentality… opt out of the global picture… opt out of the rat race.

    And opt in to their community… opt in to their basic needs… opt in to what’s best for the land and the individual.

    More and more people are turning inward for their nourishment (literally and figuratively); that’s heartening. The big farmer will never make it when Big Brother reneges; the little farmer will.

    (As a sad adjunct to this subject, I was reading this A.M. on sheep farmers who want to expand into “feedlot mentality” I always thought sheep were ranched, not “farmed”; I can see where this “flocking together” will lead. Move over, cattle, you have company in your final hours.)

  2. Oilman2
    Oilman2 January 31, 2012 9:09 am

    My family is changing the way we think, based on what current societal thinking is. We do not want to grub after money, but it is needed until the ‘house of cards’ collapses. Once that is out of the way, even if it doesn’t happen rapidly, there needs to be a better way. The Arcosanti project was a start. Localism is a start. The requirement to be smart and able to handle life is to realize tomorrow might not be like yesterday.

    Greed is the basis for a lot of what ails us. I posted in the “opting-In” blog that my new motto might be “Live, Give and Love”. I feel this, for friends, for family and for good people in general. I think there are more good people than there are bad, and many bad are simply without direction.

    Change is coming – it will provide direction We all see where not to go, because we are there already. What we need to do is provide direction and other options than are available to many right now.

  3. Scott
    Scott January 31, 2012 10:14 am

    A great many of my family never really “opted in”-living in very rural areas,and really sort of jack-of-all-trades. If you couldn’t do something, probably someone nearby did. And vice versa. They knew all their neighbors, and the businesses and some folks in the relatively nearby town. If a neighbor got into a bind, they helped. If someone was just lazy? Sorry about yer luck, chuck.
    Most lived into their 80s and 90s, healthy and active right up ’til the end..They didn’t have a lot,and didn’t really want a lot of stuff. They had what they needed..I think Oilman2 has it right.

  4. Matt, another
    Matt, another January 31, 2012 2:26 pm

    Opt out. Opt In. Two points on either end of a continuum. What’s in the middle?

  5. naturegirl
    naturegirl January 31, 2012 2:31 pm

    I think most peoples’ impression of the “upcoming impending doom” is very “materialistically related”….many tend to think of what they are losing even tho they are overwhelmed with keeping up with that to begin with…..and yes, most of that is tied to money in many ways…..

    Maybe a simpler, more core values, lifestyle is a better/happier/easier way to live…it could just turn out that when many material things are lost in whatever crash it is that takes it all away, we are left with an improved way to live afterwards….or the chance and choice to make it improved “our way” (with meaning for ourselves)…..

    At least I like to think that’s an option along with the other scarier options that could/might also have to happen….both require a complete teardown of what there is now, first…..

  6. Claire
    Claire January 31, 2012 5:42 pm

    Matt, another. What’s in the middle? How ’bout you tell us what the middle would be for you?

  7. Matt, another
    Matt, another February 1, 2012 2:28 pm

    The middle for me is opt-out as much as practical, without rendering harm to oneself or family. Inconvenience is okay, sacrifice is okay, but often a line has to be drawn. I actually think that was what the opt-in point of view was trying to explain.

    Opting-out can occur in myraid of small ways, but opting-in is still required for many people, so the opt-outs have to be chosen wisely. Moving to a retreat in the country might be a great opt-out, but not if it removes yourself or loved ones from needed medical care. Opt-in might be growing your victory garden for self sufficiency (and opt-out activity?) but in accordance with local ordinances so as not to attract unwanted attention from authorities.

    Opt-out might be move to the hinterland to live as a hermit, but maintain an internet connection for blogging etc. Opt-in might be keeping probably surveilled internet, but opt-out using tools to avoid the surveillance.

  8. Pat
    Pat February 1, 2012 3:57 pm

    I think this is what both of them were saying — living as conveniently (for themselves and their families) as possible within society, while staying under the radar to the best of their ability. TOTALLY opting out or opting in might not be an OPT-ion; a compromise is. (A Ghost, perhaps? Or even a Mole or Activist?)

Leave a Reply