Author: jennynazak

When I was 13 or 14, I found bunches and bunches of tiny shells on the beach in Massachusetts (a beach where we would go when we would visit my grandparents – Mom’s side). The shells were inside of these interesting-looking strings of gray-yellow translucent casings that I saw and got curious about. I broke one open, and found that each little chamber would have like 50 or 100 tiny shells in it!

I allowed the little shells to dry out, and then very patiently strung them on thread using a fine needle. The resulting double-strand necklace has held up surprisingly well and was one of my favorite necklaces for many decades.

Well, fast-forward almost 50 years later, I find out that what I had assumed were empty shells were baby whelks. Little tiny baby whelks. I’m sorry, little babies!

How I found out: Recently, after all this time, I got curious and searched around on the web and found this article. (“Whelks and whelk management” from the mass.gov website.)

I haven’t felt like wearing the necklace since then. But, I’m trying to do my part to share information about these little guys.

“The species range along the east coast from southern Massachusetts to Florida. Massachusetts represents the northern geographic range for these species and the animals are generally confined to the waters south and west of Cape Cod. This includes Nantucket Sound, Vineyard Sound, Buzzards Bay and Mount Hope Bay. Movement is thought to be limited with only small scale seasonal migrations of less than several miles. …

“Based of field observations, whelk tend to spawn during the late summer period. Males directly fertilize the females and more than one male may fertilize a female. Females then develop their egg casings overtime. When spawning begins, the large casings are released in strings by the female whelks and anchored to the sediment. Whelks then hatch about nine months after the egg strings are deposited. There is no larval period for these animals.

“Stock Status
“DMF considers channeled whelk to be depleted throughout their range within the waters under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. A 2018 stock assessment of channeled whelk within Nantucket Sound showed this resource to be overfished with overfishing occurring.”

Fun tidbit: A blogger who grew up in Massachusetts wrote this nice detailed post about Barneys Joy beach & surrounding area. Took lots of great photos too. (Fun fact, that hurricane of 1938 was what prompted Grandma’s family to move a little bit back from the beach. Not sure, but I may be the first member of my family since then who has moved to live in walking distance of the Atlantic Ocean.)

Paul Wheaton (of permies.com fame) wrote this gem of an article where he delves deep into a student’s question, “How do we get permaculture apples into Safeway?”

Along with enjoying learning details of growing and marketing apples, I appreciated his words regarding the pitfalls of focusing on financial wealth:

When you spend any time understanding the world’s problems you get that horrible feeling of “that could happen to me!” followed immediately by “how do I add safety to my life so that won’t happen to me?”

The first piece is “if I had a million dollars I could make safety for me.” – in time, I think most people start to come to the conclusion that that is a poor type of safety – you would need to buy just the right things, and without knowledge, you could buy the wrong things, or not install the right things correctly. And then as you start to learn all the things to make the million dollars be safe …. I think (and I’m sure a few billion people with have different thoughts) all roads lead to permaculture and homesteading.

So if a person has a head full of homesteading and permaculture, a solid home, their energy needs are itty bitty, and they are growing four times more food than they could ever eat … and they have $4,000 in the bank and $10,000 hidden under the mattress …. maybe that person now has more safety than the earlier person with a million dollars in hand.

Now, as I have often commented, the “homesteading” mentality has its shortcomings.

For one thing, a lot of us in the permie movement are unintentionally causing gentrification and other suffering by trying to have too much land. We should be occupying the minimum amount of land possible, and if we have extra, we could be returning surplus by sharing the land with other, less-fortunate people.

Personally, I’m not going to lie, but I find even my 1/10 of an urban acre way more than a handful to manage. Granted, I’m not trying to grow all my own food, but I wouldn’t be trying to do that alone *anywhere*.

Or we don’t have to be buying extra land; we can be buying old commercial buildings in blighted downtown areas and letting young people launch their businesses there. Now, the reality is I don’t personally know very many permies who are in a position financially to do that. I’m just pointing out that if a person has extra money, just buying up land and letting it sit is not the regenerative thing. That said, it is better than parking money in a mutual fund and supporting corporations.

(Many of us don’t believe in land ownership, and that’s a whole separate conversation. I would like to live in a world where people can have security of residence without needing to own land.)

Anyway, go read Paul’s article about apples; it’s a real treat. And, I don’t think I’m doing a “spoiler” by telling you that in the end it’s really not about getting your hyperlocal apples into Safeway or any grocery-store chain at all! It’s about reexamining our whole mentality around the food-supply chain.

And, if you apply it to your own life and situation, you might find Paul’s advice is applicable to other “crops” (both physical and intangible) besides apples.

BTW you don’t have to create an account on permies.com to read the posts; they are public. But, creating an account is free and then you get to participate in quite a variety of worthwhile conversations.

As is the case with other homesteading circles I know of, there is a lot of emphasis on the “growing food” aspect, but there are plenty of conversations about invisible structures and home economics as well. I particularly enjoy following the “threads” about sewing.

PS. Wherever you live, I encourage you to partake of your local fruits. Learn their seasons, learn to grow them if you can, and make them a regular seasonal part of your diet. Right now, for example, extremely delicious passion fruit are ripening in our area. I have never been able to grow them, but that doesn’t matter because there are vines overhanging the sidewalk at an empty house nearby. (A lot of people say they don’t like fruit trees etc. because they “attract rodents.” So basically I am doing those people a favor by grabbing fruit off the ground haha.) Also, a couple of friends on my local social-media feed have access to prolific vines, so if I wanted to I could probably trade something. I haven’t had to buy any fruit in 2 weeks!

YES to housing for homeless vets ALSO. It should not be an either-or.

This type of housing is good for many segments of the population. Young people, seniors, couples needing a starter home … the list goes on.

And no one should have to join the military. We have seen the damage that war causes to people and societies. Only the defense contractors keep getting richer.

Robin Greenfield’s recent Facebook post, showing his all-natural, handmade-by-him capsule wardrobe of 18 pieces, drew the expected ooohs and ahhhs from many of us who have been following him for years.

Although my approach is different, I respect Rob’s approach, and admire the well-thought-out background information that he supplies for all of his choices. If you want detailed FAQs about an eco lifestyle, I recommend you bookmark Rob’s website.

An interesting plot-twist happened when someone shared Rob’s post in the Non-Consumer Advocate (a private FB group).

Most of the people commenting on the shared post were not previously familiar with Rob and his work. Accordingly, people were understandably put off by what came across to them as a request for some internet stranger to hand-knit a sweater for him for free.

What he was saying, though, is that he could not afford to pay the $500 that a hand-knit sweater would cost (he already has the yarn), but that he is willing to barter services.

When he posted that on his own page, the audience mostly understood the background. But when it was shared in a group, a bunch of strangers were unfamiliar with the background.

In response to the post on his own page, he actually got several offers to knit a sweater for free. Many people felt that he had contributed greatly to their own well-being as well as to the planet, so for these people, the request did not feel out of line.

In the NCA group, on the other hand, the post came across to many as indicating entitlement and privilege.

I can certainly see both sides of this. $500 is actually a very conservative estimate, given that many experienced knitters said a sweater would take them 60 hours to make. But, given that a lot of us are engaged in an ongoing effort to weave a parallel economy that is independent of the consumers money economy, there is an invitation to consider bartering.

A couple of people provided a live demo of this, when one person says they would be glad to trade some of their fresh eggs and other farm produce for a handmade item that another person produced. The fact that this felt OK and fair to both people is an indicator that we are seeing the inherent value of our work, independent of the monetary prices defined by the capitalist/consumerist financial economy.

I have no doubt that Rob will get his sweater, and that he will provide great value in exchange one way or the other.

My personal preference would be to find a wool sweater at a secondhand shop, or, as so often happens, a sweater that is literally being thrown away. But Rob has his carefully-thought-out reasons for pursuing an all-handmade wardrobe.

My personal wardrobe approach, in general, is to look to the waste stream first. Thrift stores, spoils of decluttering gigs, and so on. Also, for me, clothing made of synthetic fabrics that will not break down as easily in landfill are the top choice. Since clothes made of synthetic fiber will not as easily break down in landfill, I feel that we do the planet a service by wearing these clothes down to rags. (Literally! As I have often mentioned, as my clothing wears out, I down-cycle it into a “cascading hierarchy of household rags”). That said, I fully understand the attraction of natural fibers.

So vast is the waste-stream of clothing, that a person could potentially have a vast wardrobe even just doing waste-stream diversion, possibly embellished with their own sewing and embroidery skills. Thus even the person who craves a lot of variety and novelty in their wardrobe can indulge their craving in a low-footprint way.

Another topic that came up when Rob’s post got shared in the NCA group was the idea that such a wardrobe made a person look homeless, and would never fly in the corporate work culture.

But, it’s easy to tailor and embellish clothing so that it looks appropriate for different settings. And, some rather famous personages been known for basically wearing the same clothes every day — a uniform, in essence.

Many people have pointed out over the years that Rob can afford to live his unusual lifestyle because he doesn’t have a family to support or whatever. Rob makes no bones about that; he has written extensively acknowledging his privilege.

And, as I see it, it’s precisely those of us who can afford to live an alternative life (those of us who don’t have a “job” to lose; who work at the margins; or who might have a little financial leeway etc.) who need to be doing so and showing the way. As more of us outliers are living our our “alternative” lifestyles and sharing our tips and successes, we pave the way to make it easier and more feasible for others to do so.

Right now, many people would suffer financially — and also be socially ostracized — for trying to wear a very limited handmade capsule wardrobe to work. But, norms change over time, and we can help shift the norms.

Here are some ways I’ve noticed, most of which I have tried myself, of making a lower-footprint wardrobe.

• Very limited number of high-end basic pieces. Advantage: looks classy. Disadvantage: expensive.

• Very limited number of basic pieces, bargain-brand version. Advantage: looks classy but for less money. Disadvantage: wears out quickly; also fast fashion is bad for the planet.

• Very limited number of basic pieces, thrift-shop or landfill diversion diversion. Advantage: earth friendly, and inexpensive or free. Disadvantage: harder to serendipitously find pieces that go together.

• This one is for people who really can’t stand to have a limited wardrobe. For these folks I would recommend having as many clothes & shoes as you want, but mostly rescue them from the waste stream, and the rest you get from thrift shops. Advantage: free or cheap, and much more planet friendly than having a huge wardrobe of newly store-bought closed. Disadvantage: having a huge wardrobe is an organizational burden, and you will end up with clothes that are forgotten or damaged or moldy from being crammed in closets and such. One way to mitigate this downfall is to periodically sift through your wardrobe and allow things you’re not using to flow back into the thrift stream/waste stream as treasure for someone else to discover.

• Very limited number of basic pieces, accessorized with (for example) scarves and earrings. This is the approach I am taking for the past few years. Almost all of my wardrobe is now rescued from the waste stream, and I then do aftermarket things with needle and thread. And, I make a variety of scarves and have a good number of earrings. I have necklaces too but not as many necklaces.

There’s an “OK Boomer”-worthy post going around, sharing cranky-toned Grandma advice about household conservation.

(Late-edge Boomer here): My parents and grandparents taught us all of these things growing up. But without the mean, shaming voice.

So as a result, we learned that we had a lot of choice and could save a lot of money. And we carried that practical knowledge into adulthood. By needing less money, we reduce the amount of leverage that a boss etc has over us.

The more economically/financially independent we are; the less dependent we are on centralized conveniences and electric appliances — the less anyone can force us to stick with toxic jobs, living situations, relationships, or other not-healthy gigs.

Also, there is a direct connection between fossil-fuel dependency (and dependency on consumption in general) and supporting war; propping up fascist regimes.

Plus, line-dried laundry just smells good. And, a weird but true fact I’ve noticed in my various side gigs cleaning houses over the years, having a washer + dryer just seems to induce some people to have more clothes and do laundry more often. I know it doesn’t make sense but I’ve seen it repeatedly.

The tone and manner in which something is delivered makes all the difference. And for what it’s worth, if you hear Boomers still saying this, then a lot of them are going against this advice — because a lot of my fellow Boomers are now totally dependent on AC and all that other stuff mentioned in the post.

PS. One thing I discovered almost 20 years ago is that since I don’t use air conditioning, I don’t need hot showers in the summer. And that led to not needing hot showers in the winter (since I live in a climate of mild winters).

Some seemingly minor but actually major things I would like us to free ourselves of. List is ongoing and in no particular order.

1) Bottled water

Seriously, there should be a special place in hell for an industry that has:

1) systematically undermined public trust in the public water system;
2) undermined the political will to clean up the public water supply where necessary;
3) drained springs and aquifers;
4) created endless mountains of junk plastic; and
5) convinced the most economically vulnerable households that they need to buy its product.

#RefuseBottledWater — Our resistance is more powerful than we think.

BTW if you haven’t already, Google to find all kinds of studies showing that the quality of bottled water is not significantly different from the quality of tapwater. Same with the taste, in blind taste tests.

2) Spending hours pulling “weeds”

I’m only 61 and already my back and shoulders protest loudly, so when I see people 15-20 years older than me spending hours pulling weeds, I am torn between being envious of their fitness, and wanting to save them from this drudge work. There are many ways to put an end to this drudge work.

1) Learn the names and attributes of the so-called “weeds”; many are free food and medicine, as well as supporting butterflies and other

2) Grow your desired plants closer together. Nature abhors a vacuum; she doesn’t plant plants with big areas of mulch in between. Neither should we.

3) When the occasional unwanted plants spring up, just cut them to the ground with scissors. This is called “chop and drop.” The cut vegetation nourishes the surrounding plants, and the root that remains in the soil supports the teeming microbial life of the soil and helps prevent erosion. Healthy soil absorbs more stormwater and acts as a filter.

These are three abbreviations I just made up this morning, in the course of going about some domestic kaizen.

The abbreviations stand for:

Just What I Want; Not Good Enough; Barely Good Enough

I have noticed out there in the world, observing people, that oftentimes, the JWIW thing degrades rather quickly into the NGE thing.

This, I believe, is due to a combination of two things:

• the creeping dissatisfaction instilled in us by industrial capitalist consumerist society / supremacy culture;

• and also, on a positive note, the natural human urge to engineer and improve upon things.

So, when making something, or setting up a process or system in my household, I have taken to starting with a BGE version. (This is analogous to the business concept of MVP, Minimum Viable Product.)

And, using the BGE version, I then make incremental improvements over time as I feel drawn to.

This approach has the advantage of radically reducing cost and labor. It also fosters creativity and resourcefulness, as opposed to feeding into that old familiar creeping dissatisfaction.

As always, I welcome your thoughts! If you have tried something like this, or if you have noticed this kind of thinking pattern, how is it going for you?