Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
If it is all in our genetic fate, why we bother doing anything? We should go for rape and pillaging, that will make us again blissfully sustainable? What's your point? We are human beings and at our best we can consciously control all of our behaviour - when we are aware of all the conditions that may influence our thinking. We have every chance to behave totally to contrary to any expectations, and with a bit of luck - we will eventually. Our only choice is to go for this chance, rather than capitulate to a barbaric new-dark-age you have such a faith in. There is no god-module, we survive well without deception, all we need is a society where we may become whoever we want to be, without all the present constraints. Eva This endless minting of excuses is simply part of our genetic propensity to deceive ourselves. It makes us better liars. Jay -- www.dieoff.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Entropy and economics
This is a more articulate response to the 'we should live as fascistoid hippies otherwise we lose entropy' of Mr Dieoff. Could someone examine the following text and tell me if the laws of thermodynamics are used correctly. I don't think so... I think the Earth is not a clesed system. thanks, Eva Your assessment is correct. From: "Jay Hanson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are out of date Eva. I am not borrowing terms from physics. The laws of thermodynamics are now part of the sustainability literature at all levels. Here is clip from one a new book I just bought: This poster, and the author of the article below, *are* borrowing terms from physics. And using them inappropriately. THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF GROWTH by Douglas Booth; Routledge, 1998 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415169917 [snip] Economic circular flow and the environment Anyone who has taken macroeconomics is familiar with circular flow analysis. Households purchase commodities produced by businesses, the expenditures of households become the revenues of businesses, and businesses use those revenues to purchase productive services (labor, capital, and natural resources) from households. The incomes of households in turn sustain expenditures on purchases from businesses. In the opposite direction, commodities and services flow from businesses to households and the factors of production flow from households to businesses. Commodities and money flow in an unending circle that never runs down, and, with continuous investment in additional productive capacity, the flow can be ever expanding. I'm not sure what is meant by "factors of production flow from households to businesses" but in any case it's a side issue. This perception of the macroeconomy is misleading because it ignores scientific laws that place constraints on the flow of inputs into the economic system from the natural environment (Daly 1991a: 195-210). The flow of energy and matter through the economic system is in reality linear and unidirectional, not circular. Some is circular, most not. Some recycling returns material to manufacturing which then reprocesses it. Energy and matter flow from the environment to the economic system and waste matter and heat flow from the economic system to the environment. The flow begins with the depletion of energy and material resources and ends with the pollution of the environment with waste matter and heat. As Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly have gone to great lengths to demonstrate (Georgescu-Roegen 1971, 1973; Daly 1991 a), economists have failed in the construction of their macroeconomic models to recognize that the laws of thermodynamics dictate an absolute scarcity of energy and matter. It is this absolute scarcity that in turn negates the macroeconomic concept of circular flow. There is no absolute scarcity of energy and matter, at least not in practical terms. Ultimately, solar energy and nuclear fusion can supply energy, and that energy can re-shape matter to our desires. It will be billions of years before these energy sources run out. The essence of the first law of thermodynamics is that energy and matter can be neither created nor destroyed. In other words, the stock of matter is fixed in availability, as is the maximum flow rate of energy. The first law of thermodynamics says nothing about the flow rate of energy. And strictly speaking, the stock of matter is not fixed in availability since energy can be converted into matter, although it is not practical to do so. Thus there is an absolute scarcity of both. There is a fixed amount of both, but a scarcity? If we assume an unlimited technological capability, then there is enough matter and energy in the universe to last us some 100+ billion years, until the last stars burn out. If energy and matter could be infinitely rearranged without loss, then this law would matter little for economic activity. The disordering of matter created by consumption could simply be compensated by the re-ordering of matter through production. Perpetual circular flow at a constant or even growing rate would indeed be possible. The problem is, whenever energy is used to re-order matter, something is permanently lost. This is explained by the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics won't be a limitation on us for billions of years. The second law of thermodynamics basically says that when used to perform work, energy is converted to a more dispersed, less useful form. To put it another way, whenever energy is used, some of it is given off in the form of waste heat. The entropy of energy increases. This is a misstatement of the 2nd law. The entropy of the *system* increases. No energy-using process is 100 percent efficient. Entropy is the amount of energy in a system that is not available to do work in that system. Wrong. Entropy is the measure of disorder in a system. An automobile burning petrol
(Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Entropy and economics
Just to be fair, this is an other response from skeptics, note: it does not say that the task of sustainable future is impossible. From: "Jay Hanson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are out of date Eva. I am not borrowing terms from physics. The laws of thermodynamics are now part of the sustainability literature at all levels. Here is clip from one a new book I just bought: Since two predictable responses have already been sent, I'll take the contrary view. Indeed, there are several economist who have been making the point that economics habitually ignores the laws of physics (and math), and are attempting to bring such considerations to the table. I'm not sure about the ``sustainability literature'' (or even what that is), but there are those who are attempting to complement economics by ``closing the loop.'' This effort has a 20 or 30 year history, but so far has had little effect on the Nobel's economics committee. It is, so far as I can tell, sound science and nothing to raise ones skeptical hackles. (That's not to say any particular writer without a sound science background won't misuse terms in a way that will upset a physicist, only that the sources from which they draw are not woo woo.) For example, you may want to check out Garrett Hardin (e.g., Living Within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos, Oxford University Press, 1993), or Albert A. Bartlett (a physicist, if I recall correctly). Both are wonderful curmudgeons who keep hammering home the point that exponential growth is faster than most people realize, and that when you take a resource from the environment it is, essentially, gone. (Aside: Hardin likes to point out that money does not grow, only debt grows. That is, compound interest is a growing debt on somebody else, and it is illogical to expect it to grow forever. He documents the case of a man who left several $1000 accounts set to mature in 500 or 1000 years. The result will be more accumulated debt than available in most national treasures. The courts upheld the accounts after the banks challenge---a violation of the laws of mathematics. So, sometime in the next 500 years or so bank's holding these accounts will have to find a way to go bankrupt---the historical method of handling compound debt.) THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF GROWTH by Douglas Booth; Routledge, 1998 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415169917 [snip] Economic circular flow and the environment ... As Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly have gone to great lengths to demonstrate (Georgescu-Roegen 1971, 1973; Daly 1991 a), economists have failed in the construction of their macroeconomic models to recognize that the laws of thermodynamics dictate an absolute scarcity of energy and matter. It is this absolute scarcity that in turn negates the macroeconomic concept of circular flow. Hardin tells of a 1970's world economics conference attended by a variety of scientists. The scientists kept pointing out to the economists that their plans violated the laws of thermodynamics until, in exasperation, one of the economists says ``well, the law of thermodynamics might change.'' The second law of thermodynamics basically says that when used to perform work, energy is converted to a more dispersed, less useful form. To put it another way, whenever energy is used, some of it is given off in the form of waste heat. The entropy of energy increases. No energy-using process is 100 percent efficient. Entropy is the amount of energy in a system that is not available to do work in that system. An automobile burning petrol converts energy in a concentrated form into motion and waste heat. The automobile moves, but some of the energy is converted into waste heat unavailable for work. As noted, there is a lot of matter and energy sitting around, and the earth is not a closed system (but it does take in finite amounts of new energy), and that indeed efforts to recycle attempt to reuse material, etc. Ah, yes, that's the entire point of ``sustainable growth'' (scare-quotes because Bartlett calls sustainable growth an oxymoron). You take and use in a way that allows the system to keep running, with the available energy input. Currently, we are rapidly converted finite resources from a usable to a less usable form, and doing it by generating energy accumulated over a billion years in fossil fuels, with the expectation that we can do this in an exponentially increasing way forever. Maybe, just maybe, we will be clever enough to find new sources of raw material and energy, or new ways to make use of waste material, and do this in a way that does not collapse the ecosystem or accelerate the next mass extinction. Maybe not. We are betting a lot on our cleverness, and so far nature has shown itself to be more clever by half. Anyway, I don't find anything overtly wrong with the review, or find in it any reason to not read the book---where
Re: FW Instead of workfare
Recently looking at job-advertisements I was amazed to see the number of (managerial, well paid) jobs in the voluntary sector while the volunteers ofcourse get some miserly expenses at best. If these jobs need to be doing, why can't they be done for decent money? If there is enough money for the managers, why not for the workers? It is an insane society where the socially responsible jobs have to rely on haphazard charity and the interconnectedness (crony) ways of the nomenclature... Eva Sally Lerner wrote: I'd be interested in commentsto this list on an idea that some of us feel would be far better than the coercive and punitive Ontario Works Program. It's very simple: find people on assistance who *want* to work and/or train. Then help them find volunteer work positions (and provide 'work readiness mentoring' if needed) and help them find funding for the training they need/want (not surprisingly, most people on assistance don't have money for training courses.) I agree very much with this approach, although one of the problems I see both with Workfare and with this approach is that unless there is some realistic expectation that there may be a job at the end of it...then it really is just make-work and another form of blaming the victim ie. the reason you are unemployed is because you lack job readiness "life"etc.etc. skills or whatever the HRD buzz word of the day. This may be true but no amount of life skilling/job readiness-inging (sp) is going to do much in the absence of real employment opportunities. Now those employment opportunities could come from the public sector--as us FWers know, there is a lot of "work" to be done even if there aren't paid jobs to wrap around them, but (IMHO) only transitioning (other-wise employable youth) or de-classe middle class folks are going to make very much out of short term, contract "social" sector employment (anyone else remember Opportunities For Youth and the "counter sector that it resulted in). I think what Sally is suggesting works, for example we have made it work with some ex-TAGS (transitioning ex-fisher) folks here in Nova Scotia but it didn't just happen by creating a program... it took a lot of money time and effort at creating contexts out of which real employment/employment opportunities were able to emerge. Governments looking for quick fixes/magic bullets don't have the patience to put that kind of investment into the mix. No verdict--possible but unlikely regs Mike Gurstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Demodernizing of Russia (fwd)
I think the USSR would have imploded under the weight of imbacil burocratism, inefficiency maffia-bribery, - a lack of openness and the lack of democracy - even without the outside propaganda and military pressure. Similar causes are the making of the US disintegration. The weakness was demonstrated to me in the inability to take advantage economically of the east-European disintegration. And the latest insanity is just unbelievable. Eva ... The "net": We strangled Communism in a way that was even cleverer than anyone imagined. The whole thermonuclear arms race was either a brilliant plot by or an incredible stroke of good luck for the West, in that it accomplished the evisceration of the Soviet economy *from within* that we could never bring about vis-a-vis a country so rich in natural resources and people willing to sacrifice without limit for "mother Russia", that no blockade from without could make it happen. God blessed America \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: It's a brainstorming list.
I agree. REH Jay Hanson wrote: This is by far the best mailing list I have been on.It's a brainstorming list. The free flow of intelligent ideas and interesting, reliable information really sets this list apart from the others. This is the internet at its finest. Jay
Re: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Entropy and economics
I would also recommend At de Lange's original writing on the application of entropy to human systems under the thread "Essentialities and experience" at http://www.learning-org.com. I would peruse the last three months or so for his discussions on how the concept of entropy has progressed into the present and is being currently applied to the human systems of business.I've tried to get him on this list but thus far he is too busy writing his books. But his ideas are interesting and his discriptions are fascinating. REH Jay Hanson wrote: Could someone examine the following text and tell me if the laws of thermodynamics are used correctly. I don't think so... I think the Earth is not a clesed system. thanks, Eva Now that we have a world of free information just a click away, there is simply no excuse for not learning basic energy concepts. I just found a good discussion of the entropy law. Here is a snip: "Unfortunately for industrialized cultures, the second law is one of the most universal of all scientific laws and may prove to be our downfall if its implications are ignored for much longer." THERMODYNAMICS: THE SECOND LAW (originally published by the Energy Educators of Ontario in 1993) http://www.iclei.org/efacts/thermo.htm Jay -- www.dieoff.com
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
Eva Durant wrote:
I saw one estimate that behavior was 1/.3 genetic, 1/3 family, and 1/3
culture. The point is that if we are ever going to solve these problems, we
are going to have to stop making excuses and start dealing with people as
they really are: animals.
If it is only one-third genetic, then only 1/3 animal.
Back to the conscious control of the social/economic
environment that determines the family and the culture...
[snip]
I think the question is: Which side and society and the
family on? Are they preflective ethnicity which, for
all practical purposes is as natural as genetic
inheritance, and which -- as long as we're into metaphors --
looks a lot like a semiotic virus which infects persons
to perpetuate itself ("social customs", from FGM to the
Free Market, etc.)?
Only when family and culture teach the individual to
adopt a critical/reflective stance vis-a-vis themselves
(and everything else...)
do they rise above the unaccountable
anonymity of the Unconscious to true selfhood which
is the capacity to give(and the passion for
giving...) an accounting for oneself:
"Yes, we have raised you. But that doesn't mean we've
done what's right. You must scrutinize this social
world in which you find yourself, and see how far you find it
truly good, and you should seek all possible outside
perspectives to help you get as rich a possible
basis for your critical evaluation of us. Of course
we hope you will approve of how we have treated you, and
that you will want to contribute into the continued
development of *our* society. But we'll try to be
more suspicious of your compliments and more
receptive to your criticisms. And, so long as we can
afford it, we'll try to work with you if you don't like
how we've treated you, for you had no choice where
you were born and reared, and, now,
there may well be nowhere better for you to go. Of
course such tolerance must have its limits, but it
is the role of power to dispense largesse, not of
weakness to be made even weaker in the service of power."
*We* will keep trying, and we hope you will choose
to help"
Well, how many "cultures" address each child and
worker that way every day? Those that
do have either risen above animality, or ennobled
animality to a new height, however you wish to use
words. Mens sana in corpore sano is a delight
for both self and others.
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
---
![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
Jay Hanson wrote: From: Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] If it is all in our genetic fate, why we bother doing anything? We should go for rape and pillaging, that will make us again blissfully sustainable? What's your point? I saw one estimate that behavior was 1/.3 genetic, 1/3 family, and 1/3 culture. The point is that if we are ever going to solve these problems, we are going to have to stop making excuses and start dealing with people as they really are: animals. Ah! Bue what *kind* of animals? Like our closest relatives, the peaceable pygmy chimps who hold their society together with liberal sexual gratification of just about everybody by just about everybody else? Cuckoos who avoid having to parent by depositing their eggs in other birds' nests and tricking the other birds into raising them as their own? Over-sized beavers whose dams drastically modify the natural ecosystem? Horses, who, even though vegetarian, are alert and active? Cows, who are eponymously "bovine"? Clear-sighted and high flying eagles? Or blind burrowing moles? Or maybe that animal we uniquely are: the being for which its being can become a theme of disciplined and sustained mutative inquiry over generations? Shall we be weak animals like Darwin and Stephen Hawking, or strong ones like Mike Tyson and OJ? Shall we protect the week, or "expose" them (or maybe *eat* them?)? Yes man is an animal (I have sores in my mouth, which surely are an index of animality -- minerals don't get them, e.g.). I do not find the man-is-an-animal metaphor (self-conceptualizaton) very rich or enriching -- unless we're perhaps talking about reorganizing social life and genetic engineering so that everyone would have a body in which they could always take delight. Others may like comparing what they do on Wall Street or on the tennis court to dog fights, dogs sniffing each other's behinds, etc. But, please, if you do, don't think I've signed up to participate in *your* fantasy. \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: chimpanzeehood and human nature
Eva, how do you justify your opinion about all women everywhere as property with the fact that in most Native American communities the women owned the property and could put the husband out of the marriage by simply putting his shoes in the door? Power was vested in the clans and in the clan mothers who chose and still choose the members of the council. Only they can depose a leader and in my nation only the "beloved woman" can declare war. In my two divorces the wife got all of the property and left me only with what they didn't want. It is not easy being in a traditional marital arrangement. That is why we so rarely leave them. You seem a bit Eurocentric here. REH Durant wrote: (David Burman:) On the contrary. The evidence strongly suggests that our original foreparents were egalitarian in their practices, with agricultural surpluses and advanced cultural development, but with no signs of fortification that would suggests the need for defence from others. This contradicts the commonly held patriarchal assumptions that agricultural surplus was the necessary and sufficient condition for domination and war. These societies valued the feminine power to create life over the masculine power to take it. I wonder on what sort of evidence such assuptions are based. There is some evidence that climatic changes in central Asia precipitated a gradual change to sky god worshipping, male dominant and dominating modes of social organization. These changes are thought to have been associated with loss of agricultural productivity which resulted mass migrations and ultimate overrunning of the peaceful populations they encountered, while taking on a modifyied form of the cultures they conquered. The most recent of such invasions, and hence the only one in recorded history, was Mycenian invasion of Crete. From this material, it seems that the history of conquest and domination that we assume to be human nature, is really an historical blip of a mere 5,000 years. It makes more sense to me to assume, that women had more power while gathering was a more guaranteed "income" then the other activities. In flood plains where agriculture was "easy", it developed, where it was not, nomad animal-rearing, thus wondering was the norm. Both activities lead to surplus, private property, which required heirs, thus women became part of the property ever since. Conquest and domination was part of human life - as it was part of animal life. However, I agree, it is not necesserily "human nature", as human behaviour changes much more rapidly as to be possible to define it. Eva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: chimpanzeehood and human nature
(David Burman:) On the contrary. The evidence strongly suggests that our original foreparents were egalitarian in their practices, with agricultural surpluses and advanced cultural development, but with no signs of fortification that would suggests the need for defence from others. This contradicts the commonly held patriarchal assumptions that agricultural surplus was the necessary and sufficient condition for domination and war. These societies valued the feminine power to create life over the masculine power to take it. I wonder on what sort of evidence such assuptions are based. There is some evidence that climatic changes in central Asia precipitated a gradual change to sky god worshipping, male dominant and dominating modes of social organization. These changes are thought to have been associated with loss of agricultural productivity which resulted mass migrations and ultimate overrunning of the peaceful populations they encountered, while taking on a modifyied form of the cultures they conquered. The most recent of such invasions, and hence the only one in recorded history, was Mycenian invasion of Crete. From this material, it seems that the history of conquest and domination that we assume to be human nature, is really an historical blip of a mere 5,000 years. It makes more sense to me to assume, that women had more power while gathering was a more guaranteed "income" then the other activities. In flood plains where agriculture was "easy", it developed, where it was not, nomad animal-rearing, thus wondering was the norm. Both activities lead to surplus, private property, which required heirs, thus women became part of the property ever since. Conquest and domination was part of human life - as it was part of animal life. However, I agree, it is not necesserily "human nature", as human behaviour changes much more rapidly as to be possible to define it. Eva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
Re: your "next/second cut" below: Science, Religion, and Culture carry with them no certainty of moral rectitude. (Albert Teller, Ian paisley, Woody Allen ... personages most would regard as unworthy of moral emulation.) Better leave one chair for a "sixpack" at the table. Harv (an otherwise lurking "sixpack") Jay Hanson wrote: From: Eva Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's back to the game manager problem again. So who decides who takes the role of the gamekeeper and the role of animals? This is really an interesting problem and I have been thinking about it for years. I haven't found anyone willing to discuss it calmly because most people become hysterical at the very thought. Here is a very short outline of my present thinking: The problem is how to construct a global political "system" that can remain virtuous to its stated goals? My first cut at the problem is to separate what might work from what would be politically acceptable to Joe Sixpack. In other words, I assume there would be "internal" politics and an "external" politics. (We probably have this kind of system now with Ivy League elites pulling the levers in the back room.) My next cut is to divide the new "internal" system into two more parts: "administration" and "policy making". Policy-making would be done by an elite group of scientists and religious and cultural leaders. Administration would be done by computers. Obviously, working all this stuff out would take an enormous amount of effort. I haven't taken the time because I haven't seen any willingness to junk the present system. Jay
Re: Decline in Civic Association
Jay Hanson: You missed the obvious answer: cynicism. Why should people donate time and money to hold their community together so some asshole CEO can buy himself another Lear Jet? Seen in this light, "participating in community organizations" looks like another form of corporate welfare. Perhaps. But I do some volunteer work, and when I'm doing it I focus on the problem at hand and not on the CEO and his Lear Jet. Ed Weick
FW Help wanted - jobs (fwd)
Please post circulate (8/23/98) HOTEL WORKERS UNION SEEKS RESEARCHERS FOR EXCITING CAMPAIGNS THROUGHOUT NORTH AMERICA The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union (HERE) is recruiting full-time research staff for its fast-growing Research Department. Positions are currently available in a number of regions across the U.S. and Canada, with new positions opening frequently (see listing below). The department is responsible for conducting in-depth research and for assisting in the development and implementation of strategic campaigns in support of organizing and bargaining struggles in the hotel, food service and gaming industries (casinos, riverboats and Native American gaming). Depending upon location and specific staffing needs, positions may be at the International Union or the Local Union level, and positions may be for senior or junior researcher analysts. Some positions may require substantial travel. Additional qualifications may apply to some locations. The qualifications for all analyst positions include: Strong demonstrated commitment to labor/social justice organizing; Investigative research experience, including industry, corporate and/or issue research; Familiarity with basic financial concepts and/or analysis; Demonstrated ability to research, strategize and implement plans around specific issues/campaign; Significant work or volunteer experience with progressive/activist organizations; Excellent writing skills/communications skills (oral, written and one-on- one); Ability to handle multiple projects and tight deadlines; Ease with working in a team environment; College degree in liberal arts, social science, economics, planning or business. Research analyst openings are currently available (as of 8/98) in: Atlantic City NJ California (LA or SF base to be determined) Connecticut/Rhode IslandDistrict of Columbia Las Vegas San Antonio/Austin San Francisco Bay Area Toronto Certain locations will be filled on a priority basis. Also Administrative Assistant - San Francisco only. Qualifications include excellent office skills (including word processing, computer skills, database management); ability to organize and prioritize tasks; desire to work in a campaign atmosphere Salary is negotiable on the basis of experience; excellent benefits. Please send resume and cover letter specifying your geographic flexibility/interest to: Recruitment, HERE Research Department, 1219 28th St. NW, Washington, DC 20007-3389; Fax: 202-333-6049. No phone calls please. (Posted 8/98)
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
From: Eva Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's back to the game manager problem again. So who decides who takes the role of the gamekeeper and the role of animals? This is really an interesting problem and I have been thinking about it for years. I haven't found anyone willing to discuss it calmly because most people become hysterical at the very thought. Here is a very short outline of my present thinking: The problem is how to construct a global political "system" that can remain virtuous to its stated goals? My first cut at the problem is to separate what might work from what would be politically acceptable to Joe Sixpack. In other words, I assume there would be "internal" politics and an "external" politics. (We probably have this kind of system now with Ivy League elites pulling the levers in the back room.) My next cut is to divide the new "internal" system into two more parts: "administration" and "policy making". Policy-making would be done by an elite group of scientists and religious and cultural leaders. Administration would be done by computers. Obviously, working all this stuff out would take an enormous amount of effort. I haven't taken the time because I haven't seen any willingness to junk the present system. Jay
Re: [DEV-L:73] integrating the economically disadvantaged i
Your fatalistic misery built on an entropy misconception is not at all constructive; let's do ourselves in because the Earth is doomed in x million years. - see Ron Ebert's response in an other message. It's not "x million" Eva, the scientific concensus is about 24. We were talking about the effects of entropy. The real short-term collapse you have reason to worry about is nothing to do with entropy, it is due to a system that is not able to coordinate people to save themselves. My point is - it is unnecessary to introduce l'art pour l'art scientific phrases to fog the real issue - we need urgently a social/economical change that is able to motivate people to work together; to distribute goods according to human need, such goods as food, production capacities, energy, contraception, IT and democracy. At the moment the most creative human resources are wasted in military and insane energy-gobbling production of superfluous goods, because this satisfies market/profit needs in a totally flawed chaotic and uncontrollable mechanism. Eva In 1992, both the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of London warned in a joint statement that science and technology may NOT be able to save us: "If current predictions of population growth prove accurate and patterns of human activity on the planet remain unchanged, science and technology may not be able to prevent either irreversible degradation of the environment or continued poverty for much of the world." "The future of our planet is in the balance. Sustainable development can be achieved, but only if irreversible degradation of the environment can be halted in time. The next 30 years may be crucial." [ http://dieoff.com/page7.htm ] Never before in history had the two most prestigious groups of scientists in the world issued a joint statement! Now, six of these years are gone, and global devastation is still increasing exponentially while giant trans-national corporations relentlessly drive billions towards their deaths. Either you believe scientists or you don't. I do. Jay -- www.dieoff.com
