Economic growth can thus be in conflict with sustainable development. Many other conflicts are obvious! Western society emphasizes producing for the market and using the money gained for survival. This extreme position is based on accumulation rather than on distribution of wealth. However AT emphasizes producing for increased self-sustainment and marketing a surplus in order to provide for no-self-provided services. In the extreme, we can think about still existent Maya systems in which the agricultural family provides for its own food, fiber and shelter, but needs to trade part of its particular produce (specific crafts, etc.) in order to buy salt, lime, etc.

On the government side, the production of rice (for the Guatemalan market) is promoted, and we learn that the farmer sells that rice for 20 cents a pound to the city. After transportation, hulling, polishing, packing and transportation, it comes back to this farmer, in a plastic bag, for 60 cents a pound. But the healthy bran has been polished off, so in fact the consumer loses even more. His poor family now gets cheated by having to buy its own rice back at a much higher price, though the nation's economy, as measured by growth of GNP, does well. Indeed, more monetary activity, though essential to economic growth, implies by no means a more just distribution, or economic growth for the pro- ducer of the raw material. This is a conflict of high inten- sity. Close MCC workers produced, and actually taught the farmer how to produce a simple rice- huller, enabling the farmer to at least hull for his own provision.

The remainder of this chapter provides more evidence of how conscious AT conflicts with conventional economic and power biases.

INVERSION

First, we easily forget historic processes and that limits our understanding of today's reality. Two hundred years are enough, though speaking the same freedom language, to have forgotten about Thomas Jefferson's ideal of an agricultural society growing from his recognition of the negative consequences of industrialization in Europe. But we forget even in shorter time periods, from grandma and even from our own school days.

• Fifty years ago ice cream was mainly made in the winter because the ice and snow to cool it were available. Can we think of refreshing products that could be made in the summer with materials available then?

• An AT student "could not write a letter" because he did not have a computer with him, and another could not draw with a ruler and pencil because he had only learned to draw on a computer.

• After my Guatemalan experience, I am still not used to the big lawns in the U.S. suburbs. I think about putting an animal on my lawn or planting corn or harvesting herbs on it. But the need for ongoing mowing is what actually disturbs me the most, and it does away with my previous appreciation of "a beautiful lawn." I would rather sit with friends on the porch enjoying a smaller lawn as well as higher and more abundant wildflowers or herbs, than get irritated by the repeated job of violently mowing the peaceful grass. The machine heats the environment with its engine and friction, while the grass cools the environment through color and evapotranspiration. The machine is noisy, while the grass silences noises. The machine contaminates the air and climate, while the grass purifies and oxygenates the air. The machine uses up unrenewable fuel, but the grass grows eventually into useful biomass. Keeping the lawn cut makes fertilizing necessary, claiming resources which at the same time are destructive. The machine is only used a few hours per week (during the summer); no producer would ever consider installing machines with such low utilization efficiency. However, many cities actually obligate residents by law to keep their lawns shaved, which shows how easily law and ecology conflict. It is time to rethink the issue.

• One church friend added, upon my critical reflection; "But Jacob, if I sit on my deck I really enjoy that beautifully shaven, uniform carpet of lawn." Even theology reinforces our conflictive technological progress; did God indeed create this kind of uniformity, of did He expect that we'd prefer lively herbs?

• Let my position be clear; a lawn has advantages, but I suggest not having more lawn than a healthy person can mow by using a push mower.

If a society's first priority is defined as economic growth, then establishment of self-help groups, mutual ownership, etc. can be defined as subversive. These models do not add value to the GNP, because they encourage neighbors to help each other just like neighbors do, for free, for a vision of community. This is a major reason for trouble in Central America and it is a major threat to community-oriented AT work. As AT struggles to help the poor to live better with less, that same message sounds at least equally urgently for those who are not poor, but again, that does not add to GNP. As we see in the case of the lawn, looking for ecologically sound alternatives can bring conflict with the law, hence it is subversive. One will say, "Try to talk about it, but keep mowing in the meantime." But such an answer will not suffice among the poor: "Try to talk about it, but keep up with the fact that your children die because of preventable disease (of which malnutrition is one)!" Not mowing our lawn is a nonviolent action because it pays tribute to the silent defenseless grass and other herbs and the miracle of small wildlife. In the same way sharing wisdom with a community is a nonviolent action when it cares for defenseless young, who are potential sources of creative life. Yet, in many cases community health workers have been killed by authorities just because of this. Sharing themselves and their knowledge in order to give life, they have been accused of being dangerous subversives. Where sharing of noncommercial lifestyles is considered to undercut economic progress, AT will be called subversive and, as a matter of fact, it is so for many establishments!

POLEMIC

Once a member of the Dutch parliament accompanied us for a couple of days into the indigenous mountains of Guatemala. There was time for thinking and talking. Shortly before farewell she told us what had impressed her most during these days: to several of her questions we had responded "we have to think about it." She, because of her public duties, had become so accustomed to the race of public debate and TV interviews that she had forgotten how to give time to a question.

She mentioned two other aspects which particularly harm Western public opinion and debate.

• First, there is not much room for nuances. If somebody opposes war then (s)he needs to act as a complete pacifist. If we oppose chemical agriculture then we are supposed to have an alternative system already in place.

• Second, decisions are made too conditional. One evil is justified with another; for instance, if U.S. bases in the Philippines harm the interest of the common people, then it is argued that once the poor become independent (because the United States pulls out), they would start fighting against each other. There has always been tribal fighting all over the world, but that does not justify the minimal effort to work out real democratic rule.

As far as this paper is concerned, I am not calling for sudden revolution, but I encourage the reader to exercise faith in exploring real freedom in individual decision-making. That was basically our work in oppressive Central America, and the reward was that we learned to live with risk and that we met many encouraging people. Hope and vision are found only if the limits of freedom are carefully explored. This will only be possible if we learn to move our own physical survival out of the very center of the universe. I think that is the gospel.

THE POTTER'S OTHER WAY

I recall my friend, Dona Chaya, an older Qakchikel woman, who is a potter and also a very respected medicine woman and midwife. One of her special gifts is massage, and I wonder if that explains her ability to shape clay. For our improved cookstoves we needed chimneys to guide the smoke away. But being so close to the fire, the sheet metal chimneys burned, so we thought ceramic pieces (in which we could also introduce a valve for regulating the flow) would solve the problem. We went to Dona Chaya and asked her to make us a cylinder of clay. She had never made or seen a cylinder so could not imagine what we meant. Then we suggested making a pot without a bottom. But that was also hard to figure out. Then we decided to make this cylinder together. She prepared the clay and as she was ready to start, I was amazed. She did not coil the clay and had no turning wheel. She put the clay block on the floor and by walking backwards in circles, stooping over the pot, she turned it nicely. I thought of my sim ple restricted mind which could only envision doing pottery by turning the piece in my hands. Never had I considered the piece more important than myself, thus I never thought of turning my body around the pot.

AT, (and this Occasional Paper) is inspired by people who do not put themselves at the center of importance, but rather share that importance with community and environment.