GRIFFIN wrote:
>
>
> ---It's the very structure of the economy that must be transformed
>
> I'm all for it! How do you propose that we accomplish this?
>
> -gwendolyn
I believe we need to work individually and in cooperation with others.
As individuals (or families), we can grow some of our own food, we can
eat less (or no) meat, we can buy locally whenever possible and reuse
items instead of throwing them away, we can shop for clothes at resale
stores or learn to make our own, we can walk or bicycle instead of using
our cars, etc. etc. And we can talk about these things with our friends
and coworkers, tell them what we're doing and why. Nothing particularly
revolutionary there, but it counts, because we're learning to live our
principles, and we're getting the word out that people do have choices.
The real structural change comes when we work in cooperation with
others. Check out Lee's sustainability website -- it's packed with
constructive ideas for building sustainable local economies. It's very
inspiring! Also, we can work the political process, get people elected
to office who support our efforts (or run for office ourselves), and
work with others at the national level to change laws that give
corporations the same "rights" as people. (Check out Corporate Watch at
www.corpwatch.org and Rathaus at www.ratical.com for some specific ideas
on this subject; also, anything by Noam Chomsky).
There's a lot being done right now that we don't hear about. One of our
tasks is to publicize the successful efforts going on worldwide, so that
people don't just shake their heads and call us Utopians. I agree with
the person (was it Helen?) who wrote that education is the key. Lots of
people want things to be different; they've just been laboring under the
misperception -- supported by the current masters -- that There Is No
Alternative.
Zanne
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 2 09:03:38 1997
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 10:05:07 -0500
From: PS Pirro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: making an anarchic ecofeminist society
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>Small, sustainable communities will not make it as
> long as global politics continue to allow environmental devastation all over
> the planet. Global warming is only one example of what has to be stopped,
> and we can't stop it without political involvement.
>
> If there is anyone out there who agrees with me, I would welcome a
> discussion of the best way to participate politically.
>
Nancy,
Have you checked out the Greens? In my limited experience with them I
found them a bit mired in process, and they weren't exactly enlightened
in terms of gender politics, but to their credit, they work hard to get
candidates elected, and they had a couple significant victories last
fall, including one in Northern California. I also know people in the
New Party, and they seem dedicated to social and economic
transformation. It's a little early to know how effective they'll be,
but they're worth a look.
Working with either one isn't likely to make much of a dent in global
politics, though, at least not right away, so I think we need to look at
ways to bring the despoilers, i.e. transnational corporations, under
control. Direct action ala Earth First! is one way, lobbying Congress
to change laws regulating corporations is another, and there are all
kinds of things in between, including organized boycotts of companies
and products, and running for office ourselves.
I don't know that there's any one best way to participate. Personally,
I've worked on political campaigns, written letters, gone to protests
and demonstrations, given money, joined organizations. Most of the time
I feel like a mouse biting at the heels of an elephant, but there's
power in numbers, and we DO have the numbers.
Zanne
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 2 13:16:15 1997
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 14:15:01 -0500
From: "Melanie E. Napoleon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More re: agression
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> My point exactly. The idea that the vast majority of inter- and
> intra-species interactions in the world are NOT aggressive is not "liked" in
> a culture for which high levels of aggression are the norm, and the idea is
> hotly opposed.
I think that it is important to keep in mind that applying human
morality to the non-human animal world is wrong. We could
anthropomorphise all these behaviors to death, but it still wouldn't
change the fact that the chance to reproduce is the number one driving
force in all that animals do. In monagamous animals (such as the Canada
goose) agression would be counterproductive in almost all cases, simply
because each male and female pair up, and unlimited access to mating is
implied therein. Both sexes stick around for the rearing of the
offspring, and a high reproductive success is realized. However in
species where males mate with multiple females (polygyny) or where
females mate with multiple males (polyandry) intraspecific agression is
much more pronounced. Each individual is looking out for itself and not
acting for the "good of the group". This group selection theory had
been discredited long ago.
Conversely, these behaviors in non-human animals should not be applied
to humans as a justification for our behaviors. I feel that it is poor
science to deny our biology as an influence on our behavior. However,
we are different from other animals in that we can decide what it right
or wrong and can modify our behavior accordingly. We may be influenced,
but certainly are not trapped by our biology.
Behavioral ecologists have observed male mallard ducks raping female
ducks. We may look at this with disgust and anger(and I often shoo
these male ducks away when I'm on a walk by the pond in springtime), but
ducks are _not_ humans, and we cannot apply a "human" reason to why they
behave this way. Nor does it justify male humans raping females humans
just because it happens in the "natural world". Rape is WRONG in
humans, can we say the same thing for ducks?
the formerly lurking,
Melanie Napoleon
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 2 15:00:41 1997
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julie Alessio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: plutonium
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
does anyone have any thoughts on the shipment of plutonium scheduled to
head for saturn in October?
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 2 17:03:05 1997
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:05:29 +1000 (EST)
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 08:59:36 +1000
From: Lee Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: making an anarchic ecofeminist society
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes I agree. These points are also made in my webpages (and I should
mention here that I didn't write the material that I'm referring to; it
is the life's work of Ted Trainer of the Social Work department at the
University of New South Wales), that it is the global economy that is
causing the majority of the world's problems, that individuals dropping
out of society won't help the cause a great deal if they don't spread
the conserver society ideas amongst the mainstream. We all do what we
can.
Actually Trainer was rather discouraging in his original words of people
wanting to make little changes in their lives such as starting compost
heaps. He seemed emphatic that this would not help one bit unless they
lectured to everyone they met on the reasons for the compost heap. I
actually modified (edited) this viewpoint in my pages because I believe
that if people see their neighbours making "green" changes, it instantly
becomes more socially acceptable, given the herd mentality. I also
believe that intentional communities springing up all over the place
will be a major step towards the change. There is a sentiment that this
was all done away with after the 60s had a little experiment, that it
simply isn't practical or possible now. If it can be shown that this is
the lifestyle that a number of people are successfully opting for, the
movement will snowball.
And given previous points made about the male approach to life and
politics, I think it's important to vote for women from the student
council to the presidency. There's a fair chance that some of these will
be facsists of one sort or another, but the more women there are in
power to communicate with one another on the important issues, the
better chance they have of bringing about change. One woman here and
there in a sea of men will find it more difficult to be effective. I
posted such a recommendation on a woman's forum and my comment was
countered by a post that followed with the statement that "I'm not in
the habit of voting for women just for the sake of it; I vote for who's
most qualified".
I left it there at the time, but I think I'll go back now and ask "On
what grounds do we currently vote in our men of office? On the basis of
their pre-election promises? Their educational or vocational history?
Their family background? Their overall media presentation? And are we
generally satisfied with the job they perform after their election?"
What credentials should we be looking for in choosing our leaders? I say
we need people who give a damn, people who have wisdom, common sense,
people who are flexible enough to allow change, people who have a record
in caring for the benefit of others. Vote for mothers, I say... And as
many childless career women who run for office after that, followed by
sensitive, intelligent men, with the aggressively male buffoons way down
the bottom of the list.
Having said all that, I'd like to hear your ideas on the subject, Nancy.
Lee.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I agree with Helen and Lee, with one addition to what we must do.
> Besides
> building our own sustainable communities, we must participate in
> electoral
> politics and independent grassroots political organizing.
--
Conflict between separated parents
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/ncpreport/
\|/ \|/
. .
/|\ /|\
Live simply...we're killing the planet
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/globalcrisis/
Sustainable Future Webring
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/globalcrisis/webring.html
