Upstream - Spiritual Ecology with Satish Kumar

Episode Date: April 10, 2016

In this interview we hear from Satish Kumar: former monk, author, editor of Resurgence & Ecologist Magazine, long-time peace & environmental activist, founder of Schumacher College, and TED Talk alumnus. We spoke about going upstream, the fallacies of economic growth & consumption, the principles of Buddhist and Gandhian economics, what a real sharing economy looks like, and dream time. This episode of Upstream was made possible with support from listeners like you. Upstream is a labor of love — we couldn't keep this project going without the generosity of our listeners and fans. Please consider chipping in a one-time or recurring donation at www.upstreampodcast.org/support If your organization wants to sponsor one of our upcoming documentaries, we have a number of sponsorship packages available. Find out more at upstreampodcast.org/sponsorship For more from Upstream, visit www.upstreampodcast.org and follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and Bluesky. You can also subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.

We are currently fundraising for this project, so if you like what you hear, please visit www.economicsfortransition.org to make a donation. Thank you. You are listening to an Upstream interview, which is part of the Economics for Transition project. Today we're joined by Satish Kumar, a long-time peace and environmental activist, the author of several books on spirituality, activism and ecology, the editor of Resurgence and Ecologist magazine, and the founder of Schumacher College. Welcome Satish. Pleasure to be with you.

Is there anything else you'd like to say by way of introduction? I think what you have said is perfect. One of my background in economics is that I was inspired by the economics of Mahatma Gandhi. And I worked in the Gandhian movement in India. So I have some Gandhian and Buddhist background. And so there is a field called Gandhian economics. Yes. What does that mean for someone who's never heard of it?

What does that entail? Gandhian economics is economics of permanence, like permaculture idea. So economics which does not go linear from taking, using and throwing away. But economics which is cyclical. So it's a lasting economy. Economy is not only for 50 years or 100 years or 500 years. Economy should be such that it can last for millions of years. If you have to have something which lasts for millions of years, it has to be a permanent economy. So economics of permanence, that is the kind of phrase which Mahatma Gandhi used. And there

was a wonderful economist called J. C. Kumarappa who worked with Gandhi and he also wrote a book called Economics of Permanence. So basically like the economy of nature, the economy of nature is that you have a soil and out of soil tree grows and from that tree you get thousands of apples. But then in the autumn and the winter, leaves fall back and even the apples fall back. Those which are eaten by humans, fine, or birds, fine, but rest go back. Nutrition of the soil is maintained. And then wintertime is a bit of quiet time, time of austerity and

time of using less and then in the spring and summer and autumn the economy furnishes. So it's a kind of cycle. So Gandhian economics is to learn from nature, economy of nature and practice that in human economics. And how have you used or taken this theory of Gandhian economics into your own life, into the work that you do? I try to bring three things in my economics. One, a place of beauty. So whatever products we make,

they should be beautiful because we are going to use them whether it's a chair or shoes or a house or food. Whatever we use, it has to have aesthetic sense. So economics without beauty is kind of oppressive and so you know to

make it friendly and enjoyable economics you need to bring beauty. Then beauty alone is not enough because we need beauty but we also need to use things so we need clothes to wear, food to eat, chairs to sit down, houses to live, vehicles to move like bicycles or cars. So economics with beauty, products with beauty should also be useful. But then I say that that's not enough because you can use it and throw it away and that's not enough. So you should include the third element in economics and that is durability what is nowadays called sustainability I prefer the word durability so something which you make shouldn't last so when you are making make it so well and so good that it is not going to run out or destroyed or go away. Like we make

kind of plastic cups or plastic spoons or paper cups. You use for once and throw away. Many, many places you go and have a little paper plate. That paper plate you have made is made from trees. And those trees have taken a long time to grow. And in the machine, we make those huge amount of trees into paper plates or paper cups. And then you use them for five minutes or 10 minutes or two minutes and then throw them away. That is not durability.

So we must make everything which will last lifetime, if possible. If not possible, at least 20 years, 10 years, 5 years, lasting thing. So beauty, utility, and durability. These are the three aspects of economics that I embrace in my life. And so I call it the BUD principle. B-U-D. Beautiful, useful, durable. So that BUD principle is the principle which I embrace in my life. So whatever I make or use,

I'm saying, is it beautiful? Is it useful? Is it durable? If these three criteria meet, then I will use those objects. So that's my personal take. So this project is called Upstream. And the idea of it is that the metaphor is somebody is by a stream and they see people drowning in the stream. And eventually they're going in and they're helping them get out. And eventually they want to go upstream to figure out why people are falling in in the first place. Yeah.

So the metaphor is about our economic system, that we see these things like, just like you're saying, waste or nature being used for paper plates that are only used once, and not beautiful, like you said. So in your view, if we go upstream and we look at our economic system, what are the core fundamental problems in maybe the values or the view of how we're seeing the world that are kind of causing these downstream problems? Yeah. So if you go upstream, upstream is not polluted. When you go to the source of a river like

River Thames in England or River Ganges in India or River Missouri in the United States or Hudson, if you go to the source it's very pure, it's very clean, it's very refreshing. So when you go upstream, you realize the purity, the clarity, and also the smallness. Small is beautiful. The rivers are small. And then small getting together, stream after stream after streaming, the tributaries make the river big. But they all come from a small.

So the purity is the upstream. So I would say always go back to the source. Return to the source and see how we used to do, how we used to make. In time, you can go upstream as well as in space. And so we used to make things for use and beauty but also making itself has a spiritual fulfillment. When you make something beautiful, you have woven a beautiful piece of tapestry or a carpet or a beautiful shawl. My mother used to make shawls and with embroidery

and the mirror work. So in itself, it's very satisfying. Now the downstream is mechanized, industrialized, wasteful, polluting. So the factories produce waste, goes into the stream. And factories produce things, so there is never any moment when you can say, now factories are tired, let them have rest. You want 24-7 continuation of production. So the machines are hungry for material.

So whether you need it or not, you have to go on producing, producing, producing. In order to produce, you have to use natural resources. Natural resources are finite and the hunger of machine is infinite. So finite resources, infinite hunger and then you manufacture these millions and millions of shoes and clothes like in China or smartphones or computers or whatever you are producing in the millions and millions. Then you want to push them, sell, sell, sell. And so buying and selling and producing has become an autonomous act

it's not relevant to human need of fulfillment and aesthetics and beauty and not relevant to the availability of resources so you are always trying to encroach more and so human life becomes so dominant downstream that all other lives are taken away. Because we say there's no room for any other life, just a human life. We have to go on and on. But when all the rainforests have gone, when all the kind of fish of the oceans have gone, when all the kind of cotton is used and when all the soil is depleted, how much chemical can you put? So in the end, this system cannot last.

This is why Mahatma Gandhi said we have to have economics which is continuously coming back and renewing itself. And therefore, going upstream is frugality. Going upstream is simplicity. Going upstream is purity. Going upstream is not more but better. The quality becomes more important at upstream. Quality of water, taking the upstream river, quality of water is better upstream because it's not polluted. And so you always go for the quality

of products, quality of your furniture, quality of your computer, quality of your shoes, quality of your clothes, quality of your houses. Everything must be qualitative, not quantitative. That is the meaning of upstream, in my view. And so there are some folks that would say to cut back on production, to cut back on consumption might lead to less growth, economic growth, less GDP, and that this could cause people to lose their jobs or their livelihoods. What are your thoughts on this need for growth and this idea that if we cut back or if we're more frugal that this could hamper development? No, there's a misconception, total and utter

misconception. In nature there are 80 million species from elephants and tigers to earthworms and even smallest of the small insects. And in nature there is always growth and decay in dance, in balance. So growth and decay must go together. The tree gives you growth and gives you thousands upon thousands upon thousands of apples and pears and mangoes and bananas and crops. But the winter comes and you stop growing and you go back into the soil, you go back and rest. And therefore nature's economy tells you that there is no shortage of work, there's no shortage of development, there's no shortage of anything. You can have beautiful colour, you can have beautiful poetry,

you can have beautiful music, you can have beautiful dance, you can make lots of arts, lots of friendship, lots of relationships. All those growth areas are growth areas. They are all diminished. Just we are 9 to 5 going, working in a factory,

producing, producing, producing, getting money and no life. So we want growth in well-being. We want growth in imagination. We want growth in relationship. We want growth in happiness. And what is good of economics if it's not making people happy, joyful, artistic, imaginative, creative?

What's the good of having growth? So at the moment there is no development. There is no proper growth. It's a very one dimensional and a very limited growth in terms of measuring a very narrow little focus and that narrow little focus is just growth in money supply. So you buy and sell more so that there's a more exchange of money. Exchange of money is not real growth. The real growth is like trees grow, like forests grow, like flowers grow, like grass grow, like imagination and poetry grow, music grow, love and friendship grow. Those are growth. Growth is not just one-dimensional money, money, money. At the moment economic growth is only growth in money and not

in life. And so the idea that a balanced, durable, sustainable economics will hamper jobs and work, that is completely nonsense because that is conditioning our mind. We have been told that by the mainstream economists, the elite 1% who have a vested interest in using us as a kind of victims of their economic system. So they can derive more and more and more power over people and a kind of sense of ego and a grandeur. I'm a billionaire. I have ten houses. One in New York, one in Paris, one in London as well. I have ten cars. I can have a private jet. This one percent is conditioning our mind. They use the media. They own the newspapers like in England Sun or Daily Mail or whatever and they condition your mind to think that only growth and development and progress is having more money.

But that is nonsense, complete nonsense. The true economy is economy which is cyclical and which is always coming back to feed you, to nourish you, to sustain you and then it's always returning back to the soil and soil is nourished and nurtured and replenished and then soil can give you more food, clothes, houses, shoes, paintings, music, art, imagination, creativity, everything is there. So the new economics of Gandhian and Buddhist economics is economics of permanence but also economics of beauty and economics of sufficiency. Not efficiency but sufficiency. Enough. Good enough. If you

have food and you eat twice a day or thrice a day, that's enough. If you eat too much you become obese and you become ill. So at the moment, our society, the way it is growing, economics, society has become obese. We are suffering from obesity of economics. And therefore, we are diseased. It's a diseased society. It's not a healthy society. Healthy economics will be enough. You have eaten enough.

You have drank two glasses of wine. That's enough. Then you can have lots of bottles of wine. You don't have to drink it. If you drink too much, you will have a sickness. So at the moment, our society is over-drunk and over-fed. And therefore, obesity and drunkenness.

And therefore, metaphorically. And so, the true economy of sufficiency, where everything is there, enough, enough for my need and my pleasure and my joy, but not for waste and not for pollution and not for discrimination and not for exploitation and not keeping some people poor so the rich can become more rich. So the economics of today

is a complete and utter kind of waste of time. But we are caught in this, imprisoned in this, because we are ruled by this 1% of very super rich and wealthy who control the media, who control the education, and they control education because they say only purpose of educating you is so that you come out of university and work for us, become our employees and make us more rich. So we will pay you, we'll build universities, we will do everything just so that we can remain rich and rich. That is a kind of unspoken conspiracy of 1%. That's not true

economy. And so for these folks, because they're, you know, they're an idea, but they're also people too, and I'm sure you've talked or interacted with some of these folks, what is it about what's going on for them that creates these actions that cause them to want to hoard money and things? And also, how can we approach or work with them? What do you see as the kind of the movement? I think more and more people need to liberate themselves from the addiction of jobs and salary and employment. That has become an addiction. If you want a true economy,

more and more people have to go and make a journey towards elegant simplicity. Where if I have five shirts, I don't need 25 shirts. If I have three pairs of shoes, one for regular wearing, another for walking on hills and so on, and another one maybe in the house as a slipper. That's enough. Why do I have to have a cupboard full of shoes? So we need to move towards elegant simplicity, less but better quality, less is more. And then also we have to move towards making.

How did we get this idea that we are consumers? Who told this? This is 1% who own the media and education and universities. We are not consumers. We are makers. We take pleasure in making. We take pleasure in building a house for ourselves. We take pleasure and get pleasure in making clothes, making beautiful furniture, making beautiful pots. So we need to minimize the mechanistic economics and mechanistic production, robotic production and humanize it. Human economy is not robotic economy. Human economy is not mechanistic economy or mechanized economy. Human economy is

where human beings take pleasure and joy in cooking, in gardening, in pottery, in making beautiful instruments of sitar or guitar or violin or piano and making beautiful chairs and funny, making, not consuming, consuming the byproduct. Consuming comes by the way. I cook, that's a pleasure, and then eat it, of course. But it's not just that I can go anywhere and factory will produce food and sandwiches will be ready and I just buy and eat. That's not real pleasure of eating. But when you have prepared the meal and then you eat it. So we have to free and liberate ourselves from the idea that we are consumers and we have to move towards being makers and taking pleasure in less but better and have more time for ourselves. For time, be time rich and

goods poor rather than goods rich and time poor. At the moment people are time poor. They have no time to walk, no time to meditate, no time to read, no time to write poetry, no time to paint pictures, no time to dance, no time to write poetry, no time to paint pictures, no time to dance, no time to see their older parents, no time even for their husbands, wives, they're all working all day, they come in the evening exhausted, watch television, go to bed. Is that good economics? That's a bad economics. Good economics should be economics of relationship where we have time for ourselves, and time for our friends and family, and time for gardening, and time for walking, and time for reading, and time for making.

That is my vision of economics. In your own life, you have written so many books, and you are the editor of Resurgence and Ecologist magazine, and you come and teach at Schumacher College how do you keep yourself from not being time poor because I'm sure that many people would love to spend time with you and learn from you and work with you so how do you kind of set kind of parameters around your time or what's your attitude with your kind of schedule in your time? No, I am not aiming to have lots of money. And when I'm not chasing more and more money and doing jobs for money, then I'm liberated.

So I only do things which I enjoy. I take pleasure. And so I do gardening at home. I cook. I cook at Schumacher College. So if anybody wants to see me or wants to have me, I would say you can have me only after I have done my cooking or after I have done my gardening. Or the same with editing. I enjoy editing and writing. I've written books and enjoy the editing of the magazine. But that is not in place of making or cooking or gardening. That is in addition. And so you have to use your common sense. But unfortunately, common sense is no longer common. So we have to talk about these things. But you have to use your common sense that for your body, you need activity. If you do not have activity, then body will feel it.

Because body is meant to be dynamic and not static. Our modern economics making our bodies static, that's a kind of antibody. We are going against the nature of body and so you are required to stand on a conveyor belt in a factory or sit in front of a computer for hours on and work can work on a computer, my body is not moving. So I like to keep my body moving. And when I'm gardening or cooking or making something, I'm moving, walking, I'm moving.

And so that's the nature of body. Body is made to be dynamic and not static. This is the sedentary economics where people are required to sit in front of computers or in the offices or in shops and just stand there. That's not in front of till or something. That's not natural body. So I keep that balance between practical, physical and intellectual work. And that way I maintain. So I have plenty of time.

Time is not in short supply. Time is always coming. Time is not running out. I'm in the present moment. What is the shortage of time? Time is eternal. Time is limitless. It's a dream time, not a clock time. Clock time is only a kind of technical or practical or useful help. I say okay from 12 to 1 let us meet so that's a kind of little little helpful thing but you are bound by clock time you are you go transcend from clock time

and going to eternal time or the dream time where there is no lack of time so when God's made time they made plenty of it time is coming years and years and years coming and if I cannot achieve something in this life, there's a next life. I believe in next life. And so I'm set adrift To sail across the hardwood floors Blinded by my body knows

To the backyard In the dark, hear the dog bark. Falling rapid fire, I am the flow Watching in this hour As the streets change Filled with people What's the hurry? What's the hurry? What's the hurry?

What's the hurry? What's the hurry? Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh. That was Watchdog by a Million Creatures. You're listening to Upstream, and we're talking to Satish Kumar. So you mentioned Gandhian economics, and then you also mentioned Buddhist economics. How would you describe Buddhist economics? Buddhist economics and Gandhian economics actually have quite a lot in common because Gandhi and the Buddha both come from the same soil of India and therefore the Indian

traditional culture is so the Buddhist economics will be the economics based on need and not on greed. And so in the same way, Mahatma Gandhi said that there is enough in the world for everybody's need, but not enough for anybody's greed. And therefore, Buddhist economics is economics of right livelihood. So right livelihood has three basic criteria. Number one, your work should not bring any negative impact on yourself. No violence to yourself. Second, your work and your economic activity should not bring any harmful damaging impact on your fellow human beings. So that's the second.

And the third, your Buddhist economics, your economic activities should not bring any or minimal damage or pollution or harm to natural world so personal social and natural these are the three levels of Buddhist economics right livelihood so so if I am engaged in a livelihood I'm making something I take from nature of course we have to take something from nature but I take it not as of right that nature is there for me and I can do what I like I can cut down the trees I can mine the mining for coal or gold or whatever I can do what I like nature I own nature so Buddhist economics says you cannot own nature there is is no ownership. You can only have relationship with nature.

So you are related. So you take from nature with gratitude and in humility and say, thank you nature for providing me. I'll only take what is my need and I'll return back to you once it is finished. So everything goes back into nature. Like tree, I gave you example, the leaves fall back into nature to nourish the soil.

And even the apples fall back to nature to nourish the soil and nourish people. So whatever we are taking from nature, take back. So it's a kind of recycled and composted and put back. So the nature and soil is replenished. And so that's the Buddhist economics that you do not take something from nature of right. Rights of humans has to be in balance and in harmony with the rights of nature. Because nature and humans are not separate. Nature and humans are an integral part of each other. And so modern economics has separated humans from nature. And therefore nature has become a resource for the economy.

But the Buddhist economics say nature is not a resource. Nature is a source of life. Nature is life itself. So you cannot separate yourself from nature. So Buddhist economics is economics of need and not greed, economics of humility and not arrogance, and economics of relationship and not ownership. These are the qualities of Buddhist economics and right livelihood. You mentioned violence in the idea of Buddhist economics and you know when I think about Gandhi I think about non-violence. So how is violence and non-violence related to Gandhian economics?

Actually Gandhian economics and Buddhist economics meet on this level of non-violence because Buddhist principle of non-violence is one of the most supreme principle of Buddhist tradition and Gandhi took that from the Buddhist tradition as well as Jain tradition as well as Indian tradition in general and said non-violence of thought, non-violence of speech and words and non-violence of action. Again, three levels. And so if you have idea that you can do what you want to do to nature, there's a violence of thought. You are already putting nature down and using nature for your narrow egotistical benefit. So there's a violence of thought.

egotistical benefit. So that's a violence of thought. So caring, compassion and love for nature is non-violent in the mind, even in your thinking. You should have a love and compassion and kindness and caring for nature. And then the words, we have to have words which use in such a way that we speak of nature with reference and respect and not with kind of exploitative way and then action nonviolent action so do no harm do not do to anybody what you do not wish them to do to you so this no harm principle of minimizing harm or doing no harm, that is nonviolence. So at the moment, our economics is economics of violence, economics of war. We are, because of the ownership idea, we want to control resources, oil for example, and therefore we go to war in Iraq

or Syria or Saudi Arabia or we bribe or we do not speak the truth when it comes to Saudi Arabia. We do not speak the truth because we think we are compromised. No, no, we have economic economics. We need the oil and we need to sell them our arms. And so modern economics is economics of violence. Violence to nature and violence to people. People who are working in factories, they have violence to nature as well as violence to people. Because people are exploited, they are paid poor wages.

When you get your goods made in China or Bangladesh or Vietnam, poor country, you pay them kind of peanuts, slave wages and this exploitation is violence. It's an institutionalized structured violence. So economics where you are not treating nature and treating humans with respect, with compassion, with kindness, with equality, then it is economics of violence. Therefore, everybody, whether you are a doctor or a prime minister or a lawyer or a tycoon, a business leader, we all must participate in making something for ourselves because we need food. So we need to participate in growing food. We need clothes. We need to participate in making clothes. We need houses. We need to participate making houses or doing something. So those who sit in the

offices and smoke cigars and drink wine and become billionaires, 1%. And 99% of people in China and Vietnam and so on and so on, and even poor areas of Britain, in kind of factories and inner cities and so on, exploited. That's the economics of violence. Violence is not only bombing Syria, which is violence, or killing somebody or hitting somebody or a kind of using knife or gun that is only a crude form of violence but

non-violence of Buddhism and non-violence of Gandhism the Buddhist economics and Gandhian economics of non-violence is a subtle form of violence. So if you are using other people for your ego or your comfort or your need or greed then you are being violent to other people. All human beings and further more than that all living beings have equal status, equal rights, equal opportunities and every human being and every other living being should be treated with the same respect. When you reach that level of economics then it's an economics of non-violence. At the moment 99% are economics in economics of war, economics of violence, economics of war economics of violence economics of control control

is the word for violence when you want to control somebody's a subtle form of violence and at the moment society is controlled and people are controlled and nature is control people want to control all other people that's violence so Gandhian economics and Buddhist economics has a great ideal and it's possible because in nature there is no violence so much. Although the Western scientists have interpreted nature as red in tooth and claw. But that's a completely wrong interpretation of nature. In nature, life is sacred and life maintains life. So life gives life to maintain other life.

So a lion, when it's hungry, can hunt and eat a deer. And once it is satisfied, finished. And the deer can eat something else. So when we eat food from the ground, that is violence you can say, but that's not violence because violence comes from your attitude, mental attitude. This is why I started with non-violence of mind and speech. What is the motivation? If you have ownership and a right to take and grab, then it's violence. But if you take it with a gratitude and return it back to replenish the nature, then of course life is sacred. Sacred means to sacrifice. And

so soil will give you food, tree will give you apples to eat. And that's not violence. So non-violence is not just about death or even killing, hunting. That's natural. I would say for example old hunting gathering societies of the indigenous communities, I would not call them violent communities. They took only what was their need and with gratitude and thanks. If you do that way economics is non-violent. So our modern economics is very violent. And the way we treat our animals in factory farms, and the way we treat land and soil with chemicals and fertilizers, all violence.

And the way we overfish the oceans for our fishing markets and business, it's all very violent. Pollution is violence. Waste is violence. That's a subtle form of violence. And our economics is very much pollutant and wasteful. So I've asked myself this question around, if we all share this kind of oneness in spirit or kind of one mind, is there a quality to this

mind? Are we inherently good, but we've become delusional with greed, hatred, and delusion or violence? But there are examples of people, yeah, who are violent. And so when we come to the source, are we inherently good but we have been clouded? Or is this, or do we need to cultivate compassion and kindness and good? Because I know that you spent many years as a monk. Do we need to spend time to cultivate this practice?

Yes, yes. We are not inherently either good or bad. We are what we are and everything is in us. A little bit of anger, a little bit of violence, a little bit of fear. So that is there and we cannot be completely free of them. And I would not call them bad. There's our shadow side and the shadow side is not very natural. But what is wrong is to institutionalize and idealize violence. So for example, police

force, criminals, prisons, courts, army, nuclear weapons, factories, fishing with big ships. That is what has gone wrong. If it was a natural system, there will be a little bit of good and bad together in balance, in harmony. A little bit of bad, I mean in 24 hours maybe for five minutes I might get fearful or angry or in my if I use 10,000 words maybe five words may not be as perfect as I wanted. That kind of little salt and pepper, a little bit of negativity is part of our human nature. We are humans and we cannot like in our body maybe once in a year we get headache or once a year we get a flu or sometimes we get upset tummy but that's not natural for all the time. What is natural is occasionally.

So occasionally something little bit of negative is not bad. Good and bad if you want to create good and bad, it goes through every human heart and we are a mixture of the two. But when you institutionalize bad and greed is good, waste is good, pollution is good, exploitation is good, becoming rich is good and institutionalize it and promote it through your media, through your education, that is where things go wrong. Otherwise, in a normal human existence, a little bit of everything is okay. So what I'm really struggling to is to challenge the institutionalization and idealization of violence and idealization of greed and idealization of idea that human beings can

stop doing everything we can just do nothing and everything will be produced by robots and machines and we can go on using nature and nature is unlimited and there is no end and we can just go on exploiting that's the kind of conditioning of the mind which is very modern in the last two, three hundred years that we have developed this kind of thinking. And so my hope is that in the next two, three hundred years there will be a turnaround and we will evolve in a different way and we will evolve in a more universal values where humanity and nature and personal life are in better balance. Do you see that that evolution is already happening? It's already happening and there's a new awakening, particularly among many young people.

Even in schools, I meet lots of school children who are very aware that what are we doing to our planet Earth? We are destroying it. And the recognition that global warming, climate change is a human-made phenomena. And we have to change our lifestyle in order to stem the global world. That's a kind of good recognition. in favor of peace and ecology, whole food, alternative and herbal medicine, yoga, meditation, spirituality, Buddhism, Dalai Lama, when he speaks, 10, 15, 20,000 people gather. That's a sign of new thinking and change.

More people now are interested in these things than people interested in politics or whatever. And so evolution has already started. And so we can go and move forward towards that evolution with hope and confidence. I had a conversation recently with Peter McFadden, who's the former mayor of Froome and a council member there. of Froome, a council member there. And he's been talking to some people about bringing the idea of Bhutan's gross national happiness index to the town strategy of Froome. And so he's interested in this. And you mentioned that we need more growth and happiness, not in more production. And so he's thinking about how to bring this idea to this town and a couple of issues are coming up one is

it's this idea is is from Bhutan which is a Buddhist country so how do you kind of bring this idea that comes from Buddhism comes from spirituality to a town and the other the other thing is that it's already starting to cause a little bit of gentrification meaning like some some houses are getting more expensive as more people want to move there because they're really creative and inventive. In Froome? In Froome. Okay. And some people are feeling left out or alienated from the experience.

Like their town is no longer theirs. It's actually become a town divided. So I'm curious if you have any kind of thoughts or suggestions for both how to bring this idea of gross national happiness to a more secular environment, and also how to make it help all the people. No, that is possible only if you have the notion of sharing economy. At the moment, when people come into town,

like Froome and Totnes too, and do not share, but just because a trendy, fashionable, comfortable, a small and nice old town and therefore all rich people want to come and stay there without sharing anything. So sharing economy, economy where everybody has to have or majority of people have to have this notion that town is for everybody and not just for the rich and well off. So we are all together in this town and make sure that nobody is homeless, nobody is hungry,

nobody is uncared for. If there are old people, they have a caring system. If there are young people, they have a caring system for education. So sharing economy rather than this grabbing economy so if people in room want to come from outside they have to make sure that yes we will come but we'll make sure that we are not taking houses and places which are um which are uh for uh poor and less well off. So sharing economy. Happiness comes when you share. When you just take your food or take your house or take your clothes and just for me, me, me, me.

You think it's for you, but you will not be happy. Happiness comes when you are kind to other people. Happiness comes when you are sharing with other people. Happiness comes when you are sharing with other people. Joy is in togetherness when you share with your children, with your family, with your neighbors, with your town people. So the whole of Frome, the whole of Totneso should be felt like a home and everybody living there is one family and therefore you cannot keep some members of the family down, out, homeless, hungry. And other members of the family very rich, very comfortable and very well off.

So sharing economy, gift economy. Charles Eisenstein has a very good book on that. Gift economy, sharing economy. And if you have that,'s a plenty there's no shortage of housing but houses are sitting empty big big houses one or two people living there just they think ego i have a big house but if you're sharing economy your ego can be i share i feel happy so i think we need to install the notion of sharing economy. Along with that, so I'm from San Francisco, and San Francisco has gotten increasing.

A lot of people move to San Francisco, and it's gotten really expensive, and it's had this problem of gentrification. And one of the issues that I'm seeing is that because people are so mobile, they can move whenever they want, and people live in many places throughout their life. People kind of move towards one place when it seems really cool, but then you have so many people in one area. How do you create an environment that is inclusive, inviting, and not exclusionary? You know, especially right

now we have refugees, you know, climate refugees and war refugees coming. How do we, you know, am I thinking of space as scarce, but it's not? How do we create the space or the abundance for everyone who wants to be in the place? Or should we be spreading out more or staying in more local areas? Or what's kind of your view on that? I think frugality. When you are in a city like San Francisco, if you live frugally and you use your space, your houses, your food, everything you use without wasting and frugally, then I think you can create wonderful communities and not just one, not just San Francisco, not just Froome, not just Totnes. Every community can be as good as any other. Every town, every city, if people share

and live frugally but more beautifully and create good ambience, good quality of life, then I think, because this idea of too much moving, I don't approve that. I think you can move once or twice in life, but somewhere you need to have a sense of place where you can see I am going to be rooted like a tree. It's rooted in a place. I mean, we can be like birds, but we are not like birds. We are not all the time. You can have a community of nomadic people. That's different.

But this idea that I live there for five or ten years, and then I move on another five years, then I move on. I do one job for five years, then I move on. I do one job for another ten years or two years, I move on and another five years then I move on I do one job for five years then I move on I do one job for another 10 years or two years I move on this kind of unsettled frantic fragmented kind of mood and mind for me personally I think that's not very economical and not very sustainable you need to feel that whatever wherever i am i will make this place as beautiful as possible i'll share and i will contribute to make this place beautiful sustainable enjoyable happy rather than say this is not now good i'll go somewhere else and then after five years you spoil it or something and then'll go somewhere else. And then after five years, you're spoilt or something, and then you're somewhere else.

I don't think that's a good idea. Same with job. If you are doing one work, I mean, I've been at Shimahagori for 25 years. I've been editing resurgence for 42 years. I like to do one job, and through that job, I can embrace the whole world. I don't need to always say,

five years, I've done enough, I'll go somewhere else. I think this kind of unsettled mindset is not very economical. Traditional villages, people lived there for whole life. So I think being rooted in a place, having a sense of place, making that place fertile, beautiful, sustainable, so that when next generation come, they, oh, what a wonderful gift we have. Somebody lived 10 or 20 or 50 years and made this place so good that we can enjoy the fruit of it.

So I think that basically what I'm saying is having a sense of place, sense of rootedness, and wherever you are, make that place beautiful for a longer period and not be too frantic. So last question. Are you working on any projects or books or anything right now? I am working on a new book. What are you working on? It's called Elegant Simplicity.

So we fit in very well with your project. Thank you, Satish. Thank you very much. Nice to talk to you, Bella. You've been listening to an Upstream interview, which is part of the Economics for Transition project, and we've been speaking with Satish Kumar. Thank you for listening. Spookies rising in the hallways Flowers blooming from our boats that break

Into the morning we run To shoreline Calling us to speak of sin Waves under the earth and coast Casting ghostly shadows, tall like nylons As we set fire to the sea As we set fire to the sea As we set fire to the sea Snowgates rising in the hallway

Flowers blooming from our boats that break Into the morning we run to the shoreline Calling us to speak the sight Plates under the earth and cross Passing mostly shadows Tall like giants As we set fire to the sea As we set fire to the sea As we set fire to the sea As we set fire to the sea The fire to the sea The fire to the sea The fire to the sea

The fire to the sea The fire to the sea The fire to the sea The fire to the sea The fire to the sea The fire to the sea The fire to the sea The fire to the sea

The fire to the sea The fire to the sea Thank you. Thanks for listening. If you like what you heard and want to support this project, please visit economicsfortransition.org to contribute to our current fundraising campaign. Thank you.