Laura: Having said that, I do quite agree. While schools do introduce students to some things they might never have experienced, they are for the most part just a mold into which minds must go to be kept back from astounding the world.
Do you think that a more liberal or interest based school system would be better? So that natural curiosities would shape the mind?
Kim: Well, now that we’re on the subject of education, I guess I’d just like to say that I think a formal education is highly overrated. In the first place, not all of us were meant to work with our heads. And in the second place, there is nothing quite so destructive to young minds than the business of forcing one to study what it does not want to study. For most kids, that’s how we kill their love of learning; they may complete their tour of duty in our schools, but they do so for all of the wrong reasons; and by the time that they land their first job—which they also do for all the wrong reasons—their passion for learning is long gone. It’s sort of like forcing freedom and democracy on people at gunpoint.
Personally, I believe that we would all be a whole lot better off if we just sank a tremendous amount of time, money, and energy into providing learning centers for those who would take advantage of them. Compulsory education should be limited to the elementary years, where the focus would be on reading and math.
What works for one does not necessarily work for everyone. For those of us who truly want to learn something, getting an education requires little more than curling up under a warm blanket with a good book. And let’s not forget that there are a lot of us who are perfectly happy, in fact passionate about our work, which requires little or no formal training at all. So, why is it that we should all be subject to spend the first third of our lives studying the same old misinformation as everyone else? It doesn’t take a PhD to know that a certificate on the wall, in itself, does not really mean anything. Einstein said that “Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.
Laura: Do you do any charity volunteer work, or anything towards going green and helping the environment?
Kim: Okay, now you’ve finally struck a nerve in me. To answer your question categorically, no, I’ve got no desire to do any charity or volunteer work. I generally do not believe in the social benefits of charity. And as far as volunteer work is concerned, I guess you could say that I consider my writing a sort of volunteer work, since I work on it day and night, and I still live in poverty by traditional standards. I believe each of us gives the most to this world by taking care of ourselves, and doing what we love to do most.
Now, on the matter of “going green,” you’ve hit upon the central organizing principle of my work as a whole. Regardless of all the hype about CFL light bulbs, hybrid automobiles, solar panels, and windmills, etc., the cold, harsh reality is that none of it will make a difference unless we learn to live on less. Among other things that I learned from the experience depicted in Warming Up, is that the extent of our environmental impact may be measured in terms of affluence, that in the long run nothing else really matters.
Just put yourself in my shoes, for a moment. I went from earning eighty thousand dollars per year to living out of the backseat of my car, in a matter of weeks. I’d been given an opportunity to see the world from either end of the economic chain, almost all at once; and, among other things, I saw that, after all, I really did do a lot less harm to the environment in my new life. Of course, there’s a lot more to it than that. In addition to the narrative account of my experience, Warming Up introduces the following:
“I=E”
A personal economic and environmental impact theory:
I = E, where “I” represents the amount of a person’s income, and “E” represents the extent of negative impact one’s activities have on the natural environment.
The reason this formula works—and, so far as I know, it has not been refuted—is because while one person may purchase an environmentally friendly product, for example, ten others who work at the plant that produces the environmentally friendly product may not spend their paychecks so wisely. Put your money in a bank, and the bank will likely loan it out to some fool who wants to build a factory for the purpose of manufacturing widgets.
In other words, “I=E” represents the problem of man verses the environment reduced to its lowest terms.
Of course, the most common argument to “I=E” is that there is a big difference between spending your money on a quart of oil, for example, and spending the same amount on a bag of organic potting soil. In terms of environmental impact, it would seem that the oil would do the most damage. And, in fact, that would be true, but only in the immediate sense. ... “I=E” considers the long-range impact of what you did to earn your money in the first place, the effect of your having stimulated the economy with your purchase, and what happens to your money once it has fallen into the hands of the next person in line to use it, and so on.
Ultimately, the solution to the problem of man versus the environment will not come from government or technology; it must come from individuals making better, more conservative, responsible choices regarding how they live.
So, I’m doing my part by learning to live on less. And a large part of my work is about convincing others to do the same.
Laura: Do you have any organizations or a cause you support, or would be interested in learning more about?
Kim: No, none in particular. However, I am indebted to those working to raise awareness to our looming environmental catastrophe.
Laura: Do you have any political views you would like to share?
Kim: Well, I probably shouldn’t share my most passionate views, because I wouldn’t want to be visited by the Secret Service. Freedom of speech only goes so far, these days, you know, since we’ve abolished the Constitution.
I won’t lay the blame entirely on President Bush, though. He’s been the worst president in history. He should be strung up by the balls, for crimes against humanity. But such a large part of what America is all about has been with him all the way. It all started a long time ago, when our ancestors came here from across the water and started raping and plundering the indigenous peoples. The newcomers must have seemed friendly enough, at first, and then they ended up taking everything, gobbling it all up, all the way to the Pacific. To this day, our government is in the business of raping and plundering other nations, so that we may continue to live beyond our means. “Freedom” and “democracy,” of course, are merely code words for “consumerism” and “capitalism.”
As you may have guessed, I lean a little to the left on most issues. The main thing I care about has nothing to do with left versus right, though; it has to do with the way we live, and how that affects policy making decisions at all levels of government.
Laura: What is your take on our newest addition to the White House?
Kim: I’d have a lot more to say about what’s leaving the White House, of course. The new Administration has certainly got its work cut out for it, in cleaning up a really big mess. But the worst thing is, I think, is that the public has such high expectations for Obama that he’s almost certain to fail. The problems we face, even those overseas, have mostly to do with the economy, and even Obama does not understand that fully, I am afraid. It’s all about fighting over resources; and using “imaginary money” to prop up troubled economies is a disaster of planetary proportions just waiting to happen. Sooner or later, the shit’s going to hit the fan, and we’ll all be learning to do without some things. To me, it looks as if most of us will be learning the hard way. And I do not believe that there is anything that Obama, or anyone else, can do to stop it. In essence, we’ve all been living on credit for about the past 250 years, and the environment is calling our debt.
Laura: What fuels and drives your writing?
Kim: A burning desire to be heard, I suspect. That hasn’t changed since the day that I first set pen to paper many years ago. But more recently—I guess that you could say I have reached that stage in life when one begins to count the remaining years and consider what needs to be done before one’s time comes. I’m fifty-three, and in addition to a revision of Warming Up, I’ve got two other books in progress. I work slowly and methodically, so … you never know.
Laura: I’ve heard you use the term nonconformist in your self-description. What qualities would make that word descriptive for you?
Kim: Stubbornness, I guess. At least, I like to think that I have always gone my own way and lived by my own sense of right and wrong, even though that has gotten me into a lot of trouble over the years, you might say. To put it bluntly, I believe that every truly independent thinker must make his or her own laws. I do not subject myself to any governmental whim. To me, the world does not consist of laws but only natural and logical consequences. I conceal my unlawful activities, if necessary, but I always try to follow the Golden Rule.
Laura: Do you have any ambitions from your youth that were extended into your present?
Kim: Only my writing, ever since I was told that it was a waste of time.
Page 1