When we look at any aspect of what we call “civilization,” we see tangible designs, arrangements of matter formed into specific shapes. And all this shaping and forming is done by the cultural paradigm—by the worldview or philosophy of the particular culture. Does this sound abstract? Well, if you really want to experience the tangible reality of a paradigm, just try defying it. And the most direct way to defy it is to choose a nonstandard way to occupy the landscape.

More than anything else I’d like to live in what I call an “eco-home” – an inexpensive home in harmony with nature. My first preference would be a strawbale home. My second preference would be the kind of small homes made by Tumbleweed TinyHouse Company or the Four Lights Tiny House Company. My dream home would be a modest, inexpensive home built with natural, local materials. It would be very energy-efficient and not require much heating or any air conditioning. It would require far less money than a “normal” home. It would enable me to abandon the current “normal” requirement of wage slavery for an entire adult lifetime.

My eco-home is a great idea, right? Well, except that it would be fiercely opposed by every aspect of society. But how could this be? The lack of affordable housing is a big problem, and so is environmental destruction. Small ecological homes would help solve both problems. Shouldn’t they be… oh, I don’t know… encouraged or something? Why are some things legal and others not? Consider: What is “the law” other than the enforcer of the social paradigm, of what we define as “normal”?

I live in a somewhat “normal” neighborhood which includes many tidy, orderly well-trimmed lawns. So many times as I sit down to relax, I’m distracted by the racket of gas-powered lawnmowers, or gas-powered blowers, or one of those obnoxious weedwhackers. No, not “distracted”—I feel attacked, assaulted. The noise is philosophical as well as audible: I am hearing the noise a paradigm makes. When I hear a lawnmower, I’m hearing refineries making gasoline and oil for a two-cycle engine that spews noise and pollution to sustain an unnatural monocrop of shaved grass. There are 30 million acres of lawn in the United States. Mowing this much lawn burns 800 million gallons of gas per year. Seventy million pounds of pesticides are put on yards each year, polluting groundwater and sending phosphates and nitrates into lakes and streams. And this is legal. Perfectly acceptable. Any sane society would see this for the insanity that it is.

I have not tried to follow my dream of building an eco-home. I chose not to face threats and opposition and—ultimately—the destruction of my dream. I have enough self-respect and common sense to not put myself through that. So I created a fictional character to do it for me. Her name is Amy Johnson-Martinez, and she is the protagonist of my novel The Diary of Amy, the 14-Year-Old Girl Who Saved the Earth. During a visit to a rural institute that demonstrates sustainable living, she falls in love with a cute little straw bale home.

The MOST EXCITING PROJECT is the “natural building project” that makes “alternative” homes out of local materials. The one that got me REALLY excited was a strawbale home. It’s very easy to build, and VERY inexpensive! And it’s very energy efficient: The straw bales are over a foot thick so it’s better insulation than even the most expensive manufactured insulation (which is VERY polluting to make).

What a great idea, right? But Amy discovers something that shocks her naïve sensibilities:

The tour guide told me that something like EarthSage would not be legal in Portland. I asked him, “Are you saying that it’s illegal to build a home that’s in harmony with nature?” and he said, “Of course, didn’t you know that?” and I said “That’s crazy!”

Where do we begin if we want to untangle this web of irrationality, this opposition to something that should be actively encouraged? Let’s imagine that I actually attempted to build a strawbale eco-home right on the very residential street that I now live. When the neighbors took a look at it, what would they think of it? Consider: My neighbors would be seeing my home using the paradigm that produced their home. Let’s examine that paradigm. The homes of my neighbors are tidy, respectable, orderly, and, very importantly, based on Euclidean geometry of planes and right angles that is not found in nature, except in some crystals. The yards, like the homes, should be tidy, respectable, orderly. They should consist mostly of empty space: a lawn. It’s okay to fertilize and water the lawn to encourage growth, and then repeatedly cut off the growth and consider it “trash”—then put it in plastic bags out on the sidewalk to be hauled to a landfill. Dandelions are considered a mortal enemy, no matter that they look pretty and are good to eat. It’s okay to put poison into the ground to kill them.

If the neighbors saw me putting together my eco-home, what would happen? They would immediately notice the non-traditional design and the lawn torn up to plant a garden. Then the doubts would begin. If I told them about my plans—the reptile pond, the composting toilet—the doubts would turn to panic: “How can we stop this thing?” Perhaps the skeptical reader believes I’m exaggerating? I offer Exhibit A, an article published in Utne Reader by Nicols Fox, entitled The Clothesline Question: How hanging out the laundry sparked a political firestorm. The subtitle hints at what happened: our hapless protagonist innocently begins hanging laundry in the backyard when the clothes dryer breaks, and discovers the advantage of saving money by cutting down on energy use. But when the general public is informed, he was declared to be “sanctimonious” and “self-righteous”; he was accused of insulting people forced by poverty to hang their clothes because they can’t afford a dryer. Not only is a cigar not just a cigar, but apparently a clothes dryer is not just a clothes dryer. It’s proof that you can afford one.

Back to the potential neighbors of my eco-home. They would see a threat; a rat-infested jungle; a hazard to hygiene; an affront to tidiness and order; a cheap home of sticks and mud… Wait… did someone say “cheap”? Ah, now we’re getting to the heavy-duty opposition. Amy discovers this when she talks with a housing developer who is sympathetic to the idea of an eco-home, but has to stay “in the closet” with his ideas. He said there’s a “silent conspiracy” to make homes as expensive as possible. Homes have a “required minimum size” so it’s against the law to build a small home! And the building codes say you have to use expensive materials made by big companies.

When Amy starts getting some traction in the promotion of her strawbale demonstration home, she is shocked at the swift reaction of the housing industry. There is a TV commercial playing all over by some organization called “All the Real Estate and Builder Associations Put Together.” It starts with a scene of a typical oversized suburban home and a fake family like from an old sitcom. Then a narrator says, “You deserve this. But some people want you live like this.” Then the “home” becomes pile of sticks and the family is wearing rags. The dad says, “Well, I’m off to work to hunt rats for dinner so we don’t starve to death.” And the daughter looks at the camera and says, “At least we’re living sustainably.”

The government is in total agreement with this view. Amy discovers this at a City Council meeting about changing the building codes to allow affordable eco-homes.

I can’t believe that the City Council meeting was not to ENCOURAGE affordable sustainable housing but to BAN it! The mayor said it’s not just about sustaining businesses, but about sustaining government. He explained that property taxes pay for lots of city services, such as schools. So if people started living in affordable housing, tax revenues would go way down. Then the mayor said, “We have examined this issue very carefully, and have reached the conclusion that we can’t afford affordable homes.”

People generally belive that building codes are about “safety” in the sense of structural integrity, fire prevention, etc. That’s true to a degree, but the most important “safety issue” is to protect the continued profits of the construction, real estate, and banking industries. How do I know this? Simple: There are all kinds of alternative homes that meet the first criteria of safety, but aren’t allowed because they fail to meet the second criteria of “safety.” So we can blame big business for all of this, right? Amy thought the problem was just greedy business people. But later at the City Council meeting there was a shocking incident:

I explained that making sustainable housing super-affordable is great for people, because they wouldn’t have to work so much. I was shocked when a woman yelled out, “LIKE H*LL IT IS! Do you have any idea what affordable homes would do to my property value? My husband and I didn’t put up with 40 years of jobs we hate to have our profit wiped out by some hippies tearing up the lawn to plant tofu!” She explained their house was recently appraised at 10 times as much as they bought it for. I said that this means a lot of people can’t afford a home at all, and the ones who can afford it are stuck with a huge financial burden. A man who works for a bank said, “Woo-Hoo!”

There’s one more reason to keep property values and income levels rising. If we don’t, the entire economy will collapse. Everybody knows that our economy is addicted to economic growth, right? (To explain in detail would take too long, but Amy herself explains here.

E.F. Schumacher wrote, “No system or machinery or economic doctrine or theory stands on its own feet: it is invariably built on a metaphysical foundation, that is to say, upon our basic outlook on life, its meaning and purpose.” So what is the “metaphysical foundation” of our current paradigm? As far as I’ve been able to discern, it consists of the following:

It all adds up to a “metaphysical foundation” devised by and for the benefit of the human ego. Our interactions with the rest of life are based on whatever bolsters our ego at the expense of nature. This foundation explains why it’s legal to pour poison into the air and soil, to use genetic engineering to create unhealthy and damaging food, and to obtain energy via fracking. It explains why there’s mercury in our fish and pesticides in our produce. And it explains why it’s against the law to build a home that can exist in harmony with nature.

How do we fix this interconnected series of problems? Individuals come and go, but the same problems continue because the ideas we base our society upon are adopted and perpetuated by succeeding generations. In other words, it’s the paradigm’s fault. But who can possibly change it besides us? So here is my conclusion: The paradigm is in charge – but we’re in charge of enforcing and adhering to the paradigm. We’ve become accustomed to winning at the expense of nature. What will it take for us to realize that this false “win” makes us both lose? What will it take for us to “subvert the dominant paradigm”?

15 Comments on "A Home in Harmony with Nature? Why, that’s illegal!"

Plantagenet on Tue, 3rd Dec 2013 11:55 pm 



If Orlov wants to live in a straw bale home, why doesn’t he just buy a piece of land in the country and build a himself a straw bale home.

It is better to light a candle then to curse the darkness (unless you live in a straw bale house—then you had better be pretty darn careful with those candles.)

csatadi on Wed, 4th Dec 2013 12:30 am 



He wants money for his books and not a straw house. 🙂

rollin on Wed, 4th Dec 2013 1:01 am 



The insanity and incongruity of modern life in developed countries is rampant and omnipresent. It comes from a basic abhorrence of nature, a dose of anal mentality and a large portion of governmental control.

Property laws,zoning and construction codes will be a major blockade during any collapse since it inhibits or blocks a resilient response to change.

DC on Wed, 4th Dec 2013 1:30 am 



/Q “We have examined this issue very carefully, and have reached the conclusion that we can’t afford affordable homes.”

LoL! Too true! Another excellent article by Mr Orlov. The ARSE ‘economy’ Automotive-Retail-Suburban-Expansion is essentially the biggest ponzi-scheme of all. Makes Bernie Madoff look like a bush league huckster running a shell game for quarters by comparison.

Like just about everyone here, I too live in a ‘respectable’ home, not entirely by choice. The concept of choice, as in the ability to chose not to live a auto-oil sprawl dependent community basically does not exist for me. And I lack the millions of unencumbered dollars to ‘buy’ my way out of the sawdust, matchstick and PVC paradigm.

And Mr Orlov to his infinite credit recognizes this here right at the start:

Q/Well, if you really want to experience the tangible reality of a paradigm, just try defying it.

I have some sense of this. In the condo unit my mother lives in, she is on the strat council.

Her ‘job’?-Privacy councillor.

What that does entail exactly? Mainly spying on other people to ensure they are in compliance with the stratas numerous restrictions. IE: the no bicycles or laundry on decks regulation. Among countless others.I pointed out the irony of calling her a ‘privacy counselor’ when she mostly just spies on people. She thought it was kind of funny the way I put it, but naturally didn’t change one thing about her little volunteer job.

One of the main ‘role’s of the ARSE economy is the as all corporate priorities. Eliminate ALL possible alternatives until nothing is left. It is not about the ‘free market’ or competition, but eliminating any possible threat to the ‘standard’ business model.

Dimitry understands people and the culture perfectly, Which is why guys like Plant cant tolerate his views and makes pointless snipes, completely missing the point he is so clearly making.

alokin on Wed, 4th Dec 2013 1:55 am 



I loved the piece,it touches so much more than just housing. But for the housing, unless you really build just a house with sticks – as soon as you put electricity in or running water – it is far more ecologically sound to stay in your suburban house rather than building a new one. Other than the hut made out of sticks it needs transport for the material, screws, wires, water pipes, guttering, waterproofing, strawbale or not. And you won’t transport the strawbales on a horse back.
We have enough houses there is no need to cover more of the earths surface with houses. Stay in your house, dig up your lawn, front and back, plant your stuff and hang the clothes on the washing line.

BillT on Wed, 4th Dec 2013 4:12 am 



I designed custom homes for over 20 years, and you would not believe the number of regulations and restrictions you have to obey in the US. I could cover a pace here with just a brief sentence on each one. But, here is a list of just the items that needed to ‘meet code’:

Set-backs, building height, size of rooms, size of doors, size and type of windows, dimensions of stairways, steps, risers, landings, slope of ramps, insulation types and ratings, framing, ceiling heights, hurricane chips, footer dimensions and materials, and many more, not even touching on plumbing, heating, electric, and A/C, all of which have lists even longer than those for the house itself.

And, ALL of them must be met if you want to be allowed to build the house. I understand that now, many places also require a registered architect to approve the design and sign and seal it. Someone who could lose his license if the plans do not meet codes.

Regulations will prevent any meaningful change in most areas of life in the West. Even here in the Philippines, you need to meet codes in many areas, but they are logical and only for safety. Only in cities and large towns are they enforced, and even there squatters build ‘homes’ with recycled
materials. That is our future as a race …

GregT on Wed, 4th Dec 2013 4:21 am 



alokin,

Digging up my lawn and planting a garden, as well as hanging laundry on a washing line, would land me in a heap of fines, and trouble. I believe that this is exactly the point that Orlov is trying to make.

Norm on Wed, 4th Dec 2013 7:33 am 



You could build a one room cabin, with a fireplace in it, like 200 yrs ago. Bet you wouldn’t want to live in it.
Strawbale home might cave in on you. Leading crusader of alternative building methods was killed by a cave-in (un-rated timber log as main beam broke in half, killed him).

The more i study it, the more i think the 2×4 ‘stick’ construction (square box made of 2×4, heavier lumber where needed) anyway thinking it IS the minimum cost construction method.

Don’t see what so horrible about fiberglass insulation (pollutes? says who? just melted beer bottles is all it is).

Extreme amount of regulations make everything unaffordable.

Probably dirt-cheapest living is an old motor home.

Subterranean houses can get closest to zero energy consumption.

Saw a website for a type of home, that was a home within a home. The shell space between the two formed sort of an ‘inside walkway’ spacious and enjoyable. Idea was like one gigantic storm window over the whole house (house within a house).

Claimed to be close to zero energy consumption.

etc.

or just live under a bridge with a trash barrel fire. problem solved.

agree the government regs are killing the ordinary home.

IMHO the dirt cheapest house is the A frame tall triangle, 2 story. built of dimensional lumber, can be legal, can meet codes. It uses the least wood for the most accomodation. However, the upstairs rooms have goofy tilt walls.

guess i will go back to paying on my 30 yr mortgage. nuts.

Beery on Wed, 4th Dec 2013 9:38 am 



I like the ancient Viking turf houses like those at L’Anse Aux Meadows. They really blend in with the landscape, and I bet they’re really cosy.

DC on Wed, 4th Dec 2013 9:46 am 



Thats right BillT, I have no doubt the regs went on and on. But a natural question arises.

Did all those regulations make for quality, durable long-lasting structures? Or was there real purpose to standardize the home construction regime as much as possible? All the highly regulation-compliant homes I saw a few years back the last time I was in Phoenix looked a little shabby for being practically new-but deserted of course. I know we both agree, our ‘homes’, new or old, rich or poor, are all basically crapstick shacks. So what role do all the regs play in this? Dimitry is quite correct. The current system exists to turn homeowners into car\oil\debt-slaves.

I can also say that none of the mountain of regulations prevented the leaky condo crisis in the lower mainland-at all. Cost: Est. $1.0 Billion(Can)-likely a lot more.

For those not familiar with the term. A primer.

Its a depressing read. More so if you were actually affected by it. This site understates the# of affected units. It is actually closer to 90,000.

http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/concept/concept000060.html

BillT on Wed, 4th Dec 2013 2:00 pm 



DC, most homes built in the last 20-40 years were built to the minimum standards to keep them affordable to the average family. Most of the regs are really for safety and to allow the sale of off-the-shelf components. But some are really just to make the sheep pens look alike. When I was growing up in Pennsylvania, a home garden and clothes on the line was the norm. It still is here in the Ps. Americans claim that they are ‘free’, when,in reality, they have so many collars and chains on them that even a donkey would complain.

ghung on Wed, 4th Dec 2013 2:50 pm 



@Plantagenet: “If Orlov wants to live in a straw bale home, why doesn’t he just buy a piece of land in the country and build a himself a straw bale home.”[?]

Orlov didn’t write the article. It was a guest post by Scott Erickson from the point of view of “Amy”, a 14 year old girl. Orlov lives in a boat.

As for moving to the country, I live in the country and there are fairly strict building codes; some pretty silly; others, not so much. In our area (at least when I built) their enforcement tool to get a CO was the electrical service permit. No final electrical inspection, the power company won’t hook up the power. When the inspectors realized that I never intended to hook to the grid, they were willing to work with me a bit.

While I agree with the concept of “A Home in Harmony with Nature”, there are some modern materials and techniques I feel should be utilized, despite their ‘unnatural origins’. No sense throwing out the babies with the bathwater if you want the home to last. Without such things as treated lumber, the termites in our area would be feasting on your structure in no time. I also prefer the boric acid treated cellulose insulation (R-60) I blew into our ceilings to piling straw up there or somesuch. Our poured concrete foundations, if maintained, could last centuries. Anything worth building is worth building to last, IMO. Our final result is a near net-zero energy home with very low maintenance. I still managed to use a lot of local and recycled/salvaged materials, saved $$.

One big constraint is banks and building loans. Banks won’t generally tolerate taking six years to convert their construction loan to a mortgage. Best to do it without the bank and take your time; get it right. I doubt many banks will finance a straw bail home. It took several years to get into our home because we did the pay-as-you-go thing.

J-Gav on Wed, 4th Dec 2013 7:56 pm 



Oh, they’ll keep us all on our toes for a roof over our heads and a crust of bread, you can count on that, for as long as “Progress is defined in strictly material terms.”

GregT on Thu, 5th Dec 2013 3:46 am 



J-Gav,

Bread AND Circus. Don’t forget about the ‘all so important’ distractions.

markh on Thu, 5th Dec 2013 9:56 am 



http://www.earthships.com