Interesting. I assume none of them farted the whole time.

R

Guess not! ;-)

Leigh, I'm in awe of your interviewing skills. Please understand that I am just coming out of the phase of a research study that involved my interviewing several teachers as a means of collecting data for later analysis. You are hands-down superior to me in every respect. And I know b/c I transcribed my own material. God, I sound like a valley girl next to you. I'm not just talking about your actual coherence and sexy voice, I'm talking about your thoughtful, pertinent, timely questions. And you were so neutral. One would simply not know (and one still does not know) how you feel about his project. Color me seriously impressed.

As for the content, a few thoughts:
1. I like that he emphasizes the benefits to the individuals who try his approach (or anything close). I think he's right that reminding people of the closeness and sense of resourcefulness they're missing in this high-tech society might bring them around at least to trying to reduce their consumption.
2. I also like that he realized that change starts by looking at oneself rather than pointing fingers at everyone else. I think that's true of everything, actually. It's like that Michael Jackson song--Man in the Mirror (aside: isn't it hysterical that I'm referencing him when that concept actually comes from the Bible? Apparently MJ surpasses JC in Lainey's twisted mind)--if we all just spent our energy trying to do the right thing rather than wasting it on complaints about others, however justified, we'd be in a better place.
3. All that having been said, I'm torn on his entire concept vis a vis technology. It seems that on some level, he's hearkening back to the "old days," and I'm wondering if advancing technology isn't inevitable. Living without electricity, for example, strikes me as more than just extreme; it's almost reactionary or--I don't know, but it makes me think of Ted Kaczinski, the unabomber. I'm not sure he gives adequate credit to technology in terms of safety and health around the world. And there's something about the extreme nature of his experiment that makes me think of the Dean Ornish low-fat diet that was criticized because people are so unlikely to follow it. I guess I can see why some of the newspapers you quote suggest his experiment has had zero impact. But he had a good comeback for those--insisting that it's through the power of individuals that change happens, making it clear that even small changes help, and reminding us that there is a benefit for the followers themselves, not just the planet.
4. When you were talking about his wife, Michelle, being a good sport and asking him if others could be as game as Michelle was, I thought you said, "Will others be as gay as Michelle?" and I giggled like a school girl.
5. He's right that corporations should be responsible for the externalities that they incur, that allowing them to pass on those costs to consumers in the way of pollution is corporate welfare, not true capitalism.
6. Sorry for the long response. Can you tell I'm procrastinating on something?

Lainey, thanks so much for the thoughtful listen! I'm honored.

As to my interviewing skills, there's two things you need to know. One, this is edited, and two, I've been doing this for a long, long time. It's a skill, like any other, acquired with lots of practice.

I really enjoyed talking to Colin--he was funny and fun. And his book is terrific. Go buy it everyone, and give it a try in whatever way works for you.

Ahhh-- I was just reading about this! Thanks so much for directing me to the site and the interview...going to listen now...