John Afele's comments, below, are worth some serious thinking. There was a
community biogas project in a developing country. When the gas lines were
installed in the homes, they were pressure tested with water. The women were
so happy to have water, they didn't want the water turned off so that the
gas could flow. There are many stories of the best laid plans of social
change agents where the intentions and the ultimate outcomes were different
and, may I suggest, unanticipated and unable to be anticipated. Ecotourism
is another area of recent concern and there are many in the area of
agriculture, and biology, not all of which are attributable to the
transnationals and GMO's
Choice, which John so carefully documents, is often far from "free".
Coercion is not always with force as Jerry Manders and the Adbusters folks
are quick to point out. Remember that someone's "information" is another's
"propaganda" For example, isn't it interesting that the United States has
included tobacco in its food for the poor programs outside the United
States?
What is "good"? what do we mean by "doing good"? Does the end justify the
means? Does good intent justify bad consequences? What is ethics in a cross
cultural world? Is it really easier to just do it and apologize later?
Where does philosophy belong in this discussion?
thoughts?
tom abeles
John Afele wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I have been following the various thoughts and presentations of projects
> from all over the world. There are many good things happening. Tom
> Abele's was most interesting for me. This is my slant:
>
> Every group would be defending their own schemes as the best fit model.
> This is what we might already be aware of:
>
> There would be many groups offering something in knowledge networks;
> they would compete; the weak would fail; the fittest would survive. The
> "fittest" would be the programs that met peoples' needs. This is the
> reality of virtuality; as we have seen in the contraction of the dot.com
> market in the advanced economies, so would it be in the developing and
> transition economies. This is because the poor pay for all they have and
> access - health, education, water, electricity, ... It is the rich that
> get subsidized most. The poor walk several miles to make a phonecall,
> which they pay for (no privilege of calling from the office); the poor
> do not have health insurance from their employers or state; some have to
> bribe their way to the nurse, and more for specialist clinics;
> Therefore, they would choose wisely. The small and the big groups
> offering knowledge products and services would be subjected to the same
> scrutiny and product assessment - ideas would triumph over size. And the
> majority, with their pennies, would be evaluating all connectivity
> programs, not some who think this is their birthright. All that needs to
> happen is the education of the poor so that they would make their own
> choices but we could be consoled by the fact that with or without formal
> education, the poor may still make wise choices; as an example, they
> take very little from earth and leave very little residue (pollutants).
>
>
------------
***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership***
To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type:
subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd
Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at:
<http://www.globalknowledge.org>
