interrelations between economic boom and simple living
In Europe we hear a lot about the long lasting economic boom and the success in job creation in the USA. On the other hand we hear about the success of bestsellers like Your Money or Your Life or the simple living movement. I'd like to ask the members of this list how they see the interrelations and / or contradictions between the economic boom and the simple living movement. With best wishes from Austria / Europe, Robert Neunteufel
Re: interrelations between economic boom and simple living
Robert Neunteufel In Europe we hear a lot about the long lasting economic boom and the success in job creation in the USA. On the other hand we hear about the success of bestsellers like Your Money or Your Life or the simple living movement. I'd like to ask the members of this list how they see the interrelations and / or contradictions between the economic boom and the simple living movement. Dear Robert: A nice question. I see it as a clash of belief systems. On the one hand, you have those who have been through the educational system and have accepted the concept of careers, work and materalism as put forth by the Western worldview. For most of these people, they have not questioned the assumptions behind these beliefs and/or spent any time learning, reflecting on mass productions, environment, resource use, or the future except as one promising more and more. Just down the street where I live, there are homes for sale, 5 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, in which two people live. For them, in my opinion, their value system is one of showing the world a reflection of their percieved success. Others, in a variety of ways, thinking, personal choice, innate conservatism (not in the political sense) hold a differned world view. In their homes, of perhaps three bedrooms and one and one and a half bathrooms, you might see a garden in the back instead of swimming pool. An economical car in the driveway instead of a four wheel sports utility. They too like their materialism and comforts, but have tempered their use by common sense. Finally, you get antimaterialists, in truth a very small number, who ride a bike to work, have a small wardrobe, live simply and would like to be able to live simpler still. Finally, to get around to your first two sentences. What we hear is what the media want us to hear. The long lasting boom in the United States is given many reasons, but mine is simple. Money is a coward and a large chunk of the world has been and is going through some very rough financial times - therefore, money has flowed to the percieved safest place - the United States. It's like having a bunch of relatives send you their savings to use to make more money. When you have a surplus of money trying to make money you have a booming economy. The media find all this so fascinating - much like stories of the Royal Family or Lifes of the Rich and Famous - so appearances are deceiving. Co-existing with all that media hype are millions in the US and Canada who are reading, thinking and making small changes within their life style - very little of this impacts the media on a consistent basis. Of course, let us not forget the growing amounts of poor who are forced to a simpler lifestyle by the greed of the rich. Sort of a wandering answer, Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: Robert Neunteufel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: interrelations between economic boom and simple living Date: Sat, Jul 10, 1999, 5:54 PM In Europe we hear a lot about the long lasting economic boom and the success in job creation in the USA. On the other hand we hear about the success of bestsellers like Your Money or Your Life or the simple living movement. I'd like to ask the members of this list how they see the interrelations and / or contradictions between the economic boom and the simple living movement. With best wishes from Austria / Europe, Robert Neunteufel
Re: Irish Workfare
Dear Melanie: The latest I read about, as if they haven't suffered enough, is women from the Balkans being lured to the Europe and England to work as prostitutes and your right, it goes on ad infinitum. It's disgusting, it's cruel and most of us are powerless as individuals to do anything because many of us in affluent countries who care are struggling to survive as well. And yes, I agree, it is "impossibly depressing" to know about which is why most of us, I think, in self defence choose not to read, or think about it. Thanks for posting your feelings on this matter. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde PS 99% of this could be eliminated with a Universal Basic Income -- From: Melanie Milanich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Irish Workfare Date: Fri, Jul 9, 1999, 6:14 PM Thomas, A few years ago on this list I quoted from a book I was reading, which I don't recall the author or title now, however, it took your premise a bit further, and suggested that the elite "haves" of the world were more or less desiring to kill off the unnecessary people on the planet. I don't want to dwell on it because it is impossibly depressing an idea, but more and more I see how the homeless are being treated, as well as refugees and victims of various disasters locally and around the world, and I do feel that we have lost the Judeo-Christian philosophy that once existed in the1950s about helping our fellowmen and doing good to others, all those kinds of things to believe in that the potential of all human beings was valued. Also I just bought a book from the bookstore, called Unwanted people, slavery today (or something like that I don't have it right here) about the thousands, literally hundreds of thousands of women, children, youth and adults who are in essense bought and sold for the sex trade, for beggars, for endentured labourers, and in African countries pure forms of slavery, buying and sellling people exists today. As many countries economies collapse people turn increasingly to any way of survival. And there are some 800 million people without enough food or clean water willing to do anything to get out of their plight. The Fortune 500 magazine put out its growing list of world billionaires last week, but I don't hear any concern about all the unnecessary dying people. Melanie Thomas Lunde wrote: -- From: "Durant" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Irish Workfare Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 10:14 PM Thomas: First, this is not my writing, but a quote typed from a book - a book written by a popular author in 1912. They used different forms in writing than what we use today, so, sometimes you have to work a little to get the idea behind the cumbersome style. The problem turns, remember, upon the control of the means of production. Capitalism means that this control is vested in the hands of few, while political freedom is the appanage of all. It this anomaly cannot endure, from its insecurity and from its own contradiction with its presumed moral basis, you must either have a transformation of one or of the other of the two elements which combined have been found unworkable. These two factors are (1) The ownership of the means of production by a few; (2) The freedom of all. To solve capitalism you must get rid of restricted ownership, or of freedom, or of both. Eva asked: What political freedom?? (and what the *^%$* is appanage, the dictionary didn't find any means to connect it to your sentence.) Thomas: Yes, I stumbled on this word appanage too when I was transcribing and I was tempted to subsitute the word "appendage" but decided that perhaps I just did not have enough education, so I left it as written. Now, as to political freedom. Belloc maintains in greater detail in other parts of the book, but alludes to it here in the phrase, "this anomaly cannot endure" his perception of the basic contradiction between belief systems. On the one hand, the belief that democracy gives individuals freedom by allowing them to choose who represents them and how they will be represented by the political platforms of various parties - and I agree, this is a very questionable freedom - and the anomaly that allows those with capital to monopolize the means of production and thereby derive others of their economic freedom. Eva continues: Your premise is false. Capitalism doesn't mean political freedom, most of the time not even nominally. Economic unequality cannot provide political equality, when economic power means political power. Therefore there is no reason why non-capitalism should lead necessarily to non-freedom. Thomas: You have prefectly made Belloc's point. Capitalism is the antithesis of political freedom, which is why he argues that the dominance of capitalism will lead to slavery. The anomaly between the two belief systems is that you
Re: [GKD] ICT and Jobs
Thomas: Today in the Ottawa Citizen Career Section was an article lamenting the fact the older programmers are having an increasingly difficult time getting hired as Companies find it better to hire younger/cheaper and perhaps help that has just learned the latest language. My brother and I were discussing a book review he had read about using the Internet to search for jobs and how, even though you may be posting many resumes a week to job postings most of them never even get a reply. Having at one time worked in a private agency, I know how daunting it is to have an employers job order and sit down and try and review 20 or 30 resumes. After awhile, you begin to not look for positives, but use negatives of the most minute kind as an excuse to eliminate a resume. Finally, when you are down to 2 or three, the ardous process of contacting, interviewing and deciding whether you want to try and "sell" this applicant to an employer has to be made. The Internet probably makes this process even worse. I can imagine coming into the Human Resource office on any given morning and having several hundred resumes in my E Mail. The sheer volume prevents any kind of fair assessment or comparison process to take place. I'm sure different people employ different strategies, the first one that fits, the one that has the highest education, the one that worked for the biggest name brand, the youngest one, the one with a degree from a good school, or throwing up your hands in dispair and asking someone in the office if they know someone who can do the job and by pass all the resumes. Personally, when I worked in Calgary for a year at this agency, I was fortunate to place three to four professional people a month for a variety of reasons. Some had to do with applicants who found other jobs by the time I got to them, some was with personnel officer who changed specs mid stream, or who were using multiple agencies, most had to do with time, it takes time to read a resume, phone a person, have an interview. And then of course, there was the other side in which I had to contact a company, arrange an interview, follow it up from the employees assessment and from the Companies assessment and then I often had to act as the broker to help the match along. Finally, a placement and a commission. By the way, I didn't make very much money. It seems to me, that the so called private sector with it's vaunted efficiency has not found solutions to the complex hiring process and it has become expensive, time consuming and probably still has a pretty low success rate. Anyone have any experiences or know of any solutions, I and millions of job seekers and needy employers would like to hear them. The following article makes some of these points and also points out that the pace of change has made it even more complex. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde [***Moderator's note: Members may recall that in August 1998, we posted a summary of the ICT-JOBS Working Group discussion, which EDC and ILO hosted in May-July 1998, and which had over 700 members. The article below is another excellent summary of the ICT-JOBS discussion, with a somewhat different emphasis.***] Philippine Journal October 9, 1998 Second opinion ICT: job creator or destroyer? by Roberto S. Verzola Are information and communications technologies (ICTs) a net creator or destroyer of jobs? This was the topic which more than a dozen scholars, consultants and union officials debated in an online conference sponsored by the International Labor Organization (ILO) from May to July this year. It is both As can be expected, the discussants all acknowledged that ICT was both a creator and a destroyer of jobs. That machines and computers are taking over work previously done by human beings was something nobody denied. All agreed that ICT was destroying some types of jobs. But all likewise acknowledged that ICT introduced new ways of doing things, creating in the process new types of work which did not exist before. Despite very strong opinions expressed by both sides, however, they could not agree which role dominated. A job creator Some discussants asserted that ICTs create new goods and services as well as new market opportunities and income sources. Thus, they stimulate general economic activity, which translates into more jobs. The new ICTs, they said, are no different in their effects from the industrial revolution, which enhanced our productivity and improved our living standards. Historical records since the 19th century, they added, showed that productivity, output and jobs have all risen together. Today, the argument goes, ICTs help businesses save money, which these businesses then invest elsewhere, creating new jobs. There is even a shortage of skilled ICT workers. ... and a job destroyer Other discussants claimed that ICTs are
Third and final reminder - Subscription/membership due !
** THIRD AND FINAL REMINDER - SUBSCRIPTION/MEMBERSHIP DUE! Dear Colleague, Membership and/or subscription to the Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)/Global Futures Bulletin is now due. * If you have already sent a payment, please disregard this * notice. Thankyou. * * If you do not wish to continue subscription or membership, * there is no need to respond (you will automatically be deleted * from the recipient list). Thankyou for your interest to date. * The Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR) has now been operating for over three years. Initial grant funding has now finished. However, we remain optimistic that the work of the IGFR will continue, and with more people involved in the research of global futures. Currently research groups are being formed in 40 areas. (These areas are listed below for anyone interested in participating). We hope to continue to encourage people from developing countries (the Global Futures Bulletin is currently sent to 76 countries) to participate in our research and debate, so we can benefit from a greater diversity of worldviews. As a community-based NGO, we hope the IGFR is offering global perspectives that vary from university, government and corporate- funded research institutes. It is important to remember that if the IGFR is not able to secure adequate revenue from its members and subscribers, it will be obliged to seek institutional funding and corporate sponsorship, and suffer the possible constraints, subtle and otherwise, this may involve. Lastly, we would like to remind readers that we ask that the Global Futures Bulletin not be reposted (on the Web or to other recipients) as this undermines our potential to achieve financial self-reliance. If you are involved with a group of people, you may subscribe jointly at the library rate, and have each person receive the Global Futures Bulletin directly (no matter where they are located). We hope you benefit from this latest issue. Thankyou for your continued interest and support. Sincerely, Geoff Holland, Director, Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR). P.O. Box 263E, Earlville, Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Please note: Membership fees are the same as subscription fees. Membership includes subscription and additionally means that the subscriber supports the aims and work of the IGFR as an independent NGO, but not necessarily the views expressed in its publications. ** SUBSCRIPTION/MEMBERSHIP FORM Subscription/membership rates 1 year 2 years Individual AUD$35 / US$26 AUD$65 / US$48 Concession AUD$24 / US$18 AUD$44 / US$33 Corporate/library AUD$68 / US$52 AUD$128 / US$95 Please fill out the following and return it to e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], or fax: 61 7 4033 6881 post: PO Box 263E, Earlville, Qld 4870, Australia Name of subscriber/member Name of organisation (if any) .. e-mail address . keyword areas of interest [optional] . I wish to become/renew [place an X in a) or b)] a) subscription to the Global Futures Bulletin (min 20/year). or b) membership of IGFR (including subscription to GFB). My credit card is [place an X in a) or b) or c)] a)Visa, or b)...Mastercard, or c)..American Express Name on creditcard is . Date of expiry is.. . Creditcard number is .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. Amount I am paying is:... Type: (Individual, Concession, Corporate/library) Duration:...(1 year, 2 years) ** Note: If you are paying by personal cheque from outside Australia, please add US$5 to cover bank processing charges ** Thankyou for your continued interest in the Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR). :-- INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL FUTURES RESEARCH (IGFR) Open Research Program - Research
Re: interrelations between economic boom and simple living
Robert Neunteufel wrote: In Europe we hear a lot about the long lasting economic boom and the success in job creation in the USA. On the other hand we hear about the success of bestsellers like Your Money or Your Life or the simple living movement. I'd like to ask the members of this list how they see the interrelations and / or contradictions between the economic boom and the simple living movement. With best wishes from Austria / Europe, Robert Neunteufel Having grown up in a milieu in which I was supposed to be "altruistic" (i.e., to satisfy the ambient adults' selfishness which they called selflessness, by doing things which they liked but which I did not like), I am generally as suspicious of "virtue" as I am of vice. The self-styled "simple living" movement is one of those things of which I am a priori suspicious. I certainly would not deny that there are probably some persons who live under that banner who are genuinely decent (etc.). But as far as the movement as a whole is concerned, I would like to see how well these simple livers would like to live in a world in which there was only their own kind, and no high technology system to covertly help them live out their ideas. I once read that one of the reasons that vegetarians do not suffer from nutritional deficiencies is because of the minute bits of meat: dead insect parts, which they unwittingly eat in their vegetables. As the late architect Louis Kahn beautifully put it: The city is the place of availabilities. It is the place where persons pursue interests and refine their skills beyond the necessities of survival. It is the place where a young boy, as he looks around from the work of one master craftsman to another, may discover something he *wants* to do his whole life. In the "simple life" -- the world of the peasants who lynched Martin Guerre, and whose besotted bodies litter Breughel's paintings (my prejudices are showing, n'est pas?) -- there is no "high culture", no rigorous science (neither the Galilean nor the Husserlean kind)... -- and maybe that's precisely what some of the "simple livers" want [i.e., want to deny *me* and you the opportunity to have]. We know that some of the simple livers believe that of all the species on earth, it is OK for lions to eat gazelles, and for orcas to eat penguins, etc. -- but it is not OK for humans to -- exist. Gandhi is one good exmple here: As a lawyer, he had the freedom to live rich or poor or whatever. He *chose* "voluntary simplicity": and he also chose it for his family, who *did not* like it. Sorry, but this kind of stuff is one of my "pet peeves". \brad mccormick -- Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) 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: interrelations between economic boom and simple living
In Europe we hear a lot about the long lasting economic boom and the success in job creation in the USA. On the other hand we hear about the success of bestsellers like Your Money or Your Life or the simple living movement. I'd like to ask the members of this list how they see the interrelations and / or contradictions between the economic boom and the simple living movement. With best wishes from Austria / Europe, Robert Neunteufel A few comments on this: First, not everyone benefits from the economic boom. Here in Canada, it was recently announced that our unemployment rate has fallen. However, this reflects decreased labour force participation rather than a surge in employment. An increasing proportion of persons of labour force age have not found a satisfactory place in the economy. For them, simple living may be the only option. If they cannot find a place in the mainstream economy, then perhaps, like the hippies of the sixties, they can develop an alternative lifestyle. Second, many of the people who have a place in the economy are working longer and more stressful hours. For them, living more simply, having more time with family and friends, etc., represents an alternative to their increasingly harried lives, one that they yearn for and achieve in part even if it is out of reach in total. Third, we have a surfeit of consumers' goods, and even people who can afford just about everything may be questioning whether they really need a minivan twice as big as the one they have. Ed Weick
Re: interrelations between economic boom and simple living
Of course, let us not forget the growing amounts of poor who are forced to a simpler lifestyle by the greed of the rich. not necessarily. The urban poor have to rely on processed food and home entertainment - both produced my sophisticated wasteful, unhealthy global industries. Eva Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: Robert Neunteufel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: interrelations between economic boom and simple living Date: Sat, Jul 10, 1999, 5:54 PM In Europe we hear a lot about the long lasting economic boom and the success in job creation in the USA. On the other hand we hear about the success of bestsellers like Your Money or Your Life or the simple living movement. I'd like to ask the members of this list how they see the interrelations and / or contradictions between the economic boom and the simple living movement. With best wishes from Austria / Europe, Robert Neunteufel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: simple living
On Sat, 10 Jul 1999, Brad McCormick wrote: I am generally as suspicious of "virtue" as I am of vice. This is basically a wise attitude, but it shouldn't turn into paranoia. ;-) The self-styled "simple living" movement is one of those things of which I am a priori suspicious. I certainly would not deny that there are probably some persons who live under that banner who are genuinely decent (etc.). But as far as the movement as a whole is concerned, I would like to see how well these simple livers would like to live in a world in which there was only their own kind, and no high technology system to covertly help them live out their ideas. There are surely many shades/facets/flavors/etc. of "simple living", but I'm not sure what your point is here. The basic idea of s.l. seems to be to minimize unnecessary/harmful consumption of resources, and I wonder what should be wrong with that. Maybe you are confusing two things: (a) choosing a lifestyle/ideology for oneself, vs. (b) forcing a lifestyle/ideology onto others. Gandhi is one good exmple here: As a lawyer, he had the freedom to live rich or poor or whatever. He *chose* "voluntary simplicity": and he also chose it for his family, who *did not* like it. If the other family members didn't like it, then it wasn't _voluntary_ simplicity (for them) -- so how can this be an argument against voluntary simplicity ? In the "simple life" -- the world of the peasants who lynched Martin Guerre, and whose besotted bodies litter Breughel's paintings (my prejudices are showing, n'est pas?) -- there is no "high culture", no rigorous science Aren't you confusing "simple life" with "simple minds" ? Or in other words: Confusing material simplicity with mental simplicity ? I think the goal of most "simple lifers" is the former, and quite the contrary of the latter: The goal is to get rid of all that mindless material consumerism, in order to have more time and "muse" to *think* and to grow in a non-material way. We know that some of the simple livers believe that of all the species on earth, it is OK for lions to eat gazelles, and for orcas to eat penguins, etc. -- but it is not OK for humans to -- exist. Have you personally met such a person, or is this a prejudice from the NYT ? (or are you just confusing "the right to exist" with "the right to overconsume and to trash the planet, i.e. to deny other creatures the right to exist" ?) I once read that one of the reasons that vegetarians do not suffer from nutritional deficiencies is because of the minute bits of meat: dead insect parts, which they unwittingly eat in their vegetables. I'm sorry, but this claim is nonsense. (Read from the same source ? ;-}) While there is _no_ essential nutrient that is _absent_ in a balanced vegetarian diet, there are some nutrients that are under-represented in some vegetarian diets (e.g. iron, calcium, sulfur amino acids, fats), but the lacking amounts of these nutrients can most certainly _not_ be provided by "minute bits of dead insects"! The source of this claim may have been alluding to cobalamin, which is the only essential nutrient that is absent in a vegan (=a subset of vegetarians) diet, and which can actually be found in dirt on vegetables (which also contains "dead insect parts"), but even in this case, it is questionable whether the amounts from that source would be sufficient to avoid a deficiency. Considering the pathogens that may also be present in that dirt, it's also a very unadviseable source of cobalamin. Recommendable vegan sources of cobalamin are nutritional yeast, fortified cereals and soy milk, or OTC supplements. Greetings, Chris Sorry, but this kind of stuff is one of my "pet peeves".
Re: simple living
Christoph Reuss wrote: On Sat, 10 Jul 1999, Brad McCormick wrote: I am generally as suspicious of "virtue" as I am of vice. This is basically a wise attitude, but it shouldn't turn into paranoia. ;-) It is not paranoia to be afraid in a threatening situation (-: The self-styled "simple living" movement is one of those things of which I am a priori suspicious. I certainly would not deny that there are probably some persons who live under that banner who are genuinely decent (etc.). But as far as the movement as a whole is concerned, I would like to see how well these simple livers would like to live in a world in which there was only their own kind, and no high technology system to covertly help them live out their ideas. There are surely many shades/facets/flavors/etc. of "simple living", but I'm not sure what your point is here. The basic idea of s.l. seems to be to minimize unnecessary/harmful consumption of resources, and I wonder What is unnecessary? What is harmful? When a physician excises a melanoma from a person's body, the physician is doing harm to the melanoma -- the physician is killing the cancer! Clearly, to do this is not *necessary*. what should be wrong with that. Maybe you are confusing two things: (a) choosing a lifestyle/ideology for oneself, vs. (b) forcing a lifestyle/ideology onto others. Gandhi is one good exmple here: As a lawyer, he had the freedom to live rich or poor or whatever. He *chose* "voluntary simplicity": and he also chose it for his family, who *did not* like it. If the other family members didn't like it, then it wasn't _voluntary_ simplicity (for them) -- so how can this be an argument against voluntary simplicity ? That is *precisely* my point: The verb "to volunteer" is often used in a surreptitiously transitive way: "I volunteer you to [do whatever I want you to do]!" If anyone wishes to live without any dependence on unsimple things, I think they should have the right to do so. If we could get the population under control, maybe we could move all the people and industrial infrastructure off Australia, and let simple livers colonize it In the "simple life" -- the world of the peasants who lynched Martin Guerre, and whose besotted bodies litter Breughel's paintings (my prejudices are showing, n'est pas?) -- there is no "high culture", no rigorous science Aren't you confusing "simple life" with "simple minds" ? Or in other words: Confusing material simplicity with mental simplicity ? A non-trivial question is what level of material base is required to permit the development of a particular level of superstructure (a.k.a. "culture"). I think the goal of most "simple lifers" is the former, and quite the contrary of the latter: The goal is to get rid of all that mindless material consumerism, in order to have more time and "muse" to *think* and to grow in a non-material way. I am opposed to "mindless material consumption" -- actually, I am opposed to *all* mindlessness, including that of the so-called "natural world". The aim of technology (in my opinion) should be to transform to the greatest extent possible all that which merely happens to exist, into caring responsiveness to each person's (and, insofar as they participate in awareness, each animal's, ghosts's, diety's, etc.) hopes and needs. But what about the mindful connoisseurship of such material things as a Matisse painting (not made with a charred stick applied to a cave wall), La Tache wine (not the result of simple peasant grape growing), a Louis Kahn building (which is not "vernacular architecture"), etc. -- Heck? Let's start with the eyeglasses I may need to see anything at all, the hearing aid I may need to hear anything at all, or the antibiotics and vaccines without which I would either be already dead or perhaps crippled (Nietzsche was wrong: What doesn't kill me may irreparably impair the quality of my life.) We know that some of the simple livers believe that of all the species on earth, it is OK for lions to eat gazelles, and for orcas to eat penguins, etc. -- but it is not OK for humans to -- exist. Have you personally met such a person, or is this a prejudice from the NYT ? I've known a couple fairly militant vegetarians (with rich parents...). But, yes, I admit to having read a lot more in such unsimple things as The New York Times. (or are you just confusing "the right to exist" with "the right to overconsume and to trash the planet, i.e. to deny other creatures the right to exist" ?) Reasoned human *selfishness* clearly -- given our current knowledge -- mandates that we treat many lower life forms (lower in terms of their level of apparent self-reflection, a.k.a. "Cartesianism") and inanimate resouces of planet earth with much and technologically sophisticated care, because our ability to live and, a fortiori, to live well, is dependent on
