Humour: IMPORTANT VIRUS ALERT!!!!!!!! (it's ok, it is funny) (fwd)
>A virus called WORK is on the loose... > >If you receive any sort of work at all, whether via e-mail, internet, or >simply handed to you by a colleague... DO NOT OPEN IT! The work virus has >been circulating around our building for months and those who have been >tempted to open it or even look at it have found that their social life is >deleted and the brain ceases to function properly. > >If you do encounter work via e-mail, then to transmogrify the virus, send an >e-mail to your boss with the words, "I've had enough of your shit... I'm off >to the pub". The work should automatically be forgotten by your brain and >your career will now be successfully destroyed. If you receive work in paper >document form, simply lift the document and drag to your waste paper bin and >deposit there. Put on your hat and coat and skip to the nearest pub with >two friends and order 3 pints. After repeating this action 14 times you will >find that work will no longer be of any relevance to you. > > >Send this message to everyone in your mailbox. If you do not have anyone in >your mailbox, then I'm afraid the work virus has already corrupted your >life. > - End of forwarded message from Christine L. Forber -
Re: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
>
> Once again, you have cut through the BS of my thinking. On the one hand, I
> can find rational answers such as the Basic Income which I am sure will
> provide a corrective for the capitalistic system. I can also agree with
> others answers, such as WesBurt's proposals or some of the thoughts of Tom
> Walker.
>
> Then I enlarge the problem by thinking/reading of population, energy,
> resource depletion, or the book I picked up at the library today called Dark
> Grey which deals with the demographics of an aging population and how
> economics has no answer in providing a system in which we can save enough or
> tax enough for a pension system for the elderly. This morning, I read how a
> research team in California are onto what they call the immortality cell in
> which they have been able to extend the life of a fruit fly up to three
> times it's normal lifespan. A couple of days ago, I read an online book
> called Can America Survive in which the author makes a very convincing case
> that the Earth could support a sustainable population of only 5 million
> hunter/gathers and 5 million living in an industrial/technological society.
> Though we might quibble with the numbers, it seems rational to believe that
> we can't keep 6 billion mouths and assholes functioning on this small planet
> indefintely.
>
> And yes, every state is debt and almost every person on the planet is in
> debt to someone, somewhere. So what happens when a chain of non-payment
> begins? It boggles my mind. Unlike you, though, I do have some small
> comfort - death happens to us all and I chose to believe in an afterlife -
> in fact many afterlives. I guess we'll have to each die before we find out
> who is right on that belief.
>
I have the comfort of knowing that I belong to this
peculiar species called homo sapiens, and we have the
ability to become aware of our problems -
besides having a bloody good time, in the
process, in lucky circumstances - and
ingenius enough to plan for the future - in which I
have vested - normal biological as well as emotional
interest - through my children.
This is plenty enough for me to go on with -
I need no comfort, I feel lucky and special without
god - the number of coincidences to continuously
produce this individual - special to me and a few
others,- and the ability to reflect on this
amazing morsel of the universe of ours for a short while -
or even manipulate it collectively - is good enough for me,
thank you very much!
Eva
> Respectfully,
>
> Thomas Lunde
>
>
>
> --
> >From: "Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
> >Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 10:14 PM
> >
>
> > This is a utopia if based on capitalist
> > economics. (Or have I already mentioned this?)
> > Welfare capitalism was tried, and when the upswing
> > collapsed, it failed. Even the richest states are in debt,
> > even when they only spend pitifully small percentages
> > on welfare.
> >
> > Eva
> >
> >> Thomas:
> >>
> >> One of things I have always like about Galbraith is that he accepts that the
> >> poor are entitled and deserve some joy and comfort and security in their
> >> lives. Something which the majority of the moderate and overly affluent want
> >> to deny. It is as if poorness is not enough, a little suffering is good for
> >> the soul, especially if it someone elses suffering.
> >>
> >> You know, being poor is not so bad, and most of us who experience it find
> >> ways to still enjoy our lives. However, it is the constant pressure from
> >> those more fortunate that somehow if we have sex, go to a movie, have a
> >> picnic in the park we are violating our status in life. Give us a basic
> >> income and get off our back, I think would be endorsed by the majority of
> >> the poor. Allow us to have dreams for our children and we will live
> >> modestly.
> >>
> >> Respectfully,
> >>
> >> Thomas Lunde
> >>
> >> --
> >> >From: "S. Lerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca
> >> >Subject: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
> >> >Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 9:52 AM
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Much to my delight, the following appeared in today's Toronto Globe and
> >> > Mail: A13 ("J.K.Galbraith, who is 90, delivered this lecture last week on
> >> > receiving an honorary doctorate from the London School of Economics. It is
> >> > reprinted from The Guardian." )
> >> >
> >> > Excerpt: "I come to two pieces of the unfinished business of the century
> >> > and millenium that have high visibility and urgency. The first is the very
> >> > large number of the very poor even in the richest of countries and notably
> >> > in the U.S.
> >> > The answer or part of the answer is rather clear: Everybody should
> >> > be guaranteed a decent income. A rich country such as the U.S. can well
> >> > afford to keep everybody out of poverty. Some, it will be said,
Re: An Aside: On Rational Thinking
> Eva Durant wrote: > > > Uncompromising means, not changing opinions even when > > presented rational reasons to do so. In the absence of such > > what can I do? What if my opinion is actually a good > > approximation to reality, > > Let's take a harder look at rational thought: > as it happens, I wasn't as deep as you wanted me to be, by rational reasons I meant those that can be demonstrated to be best describing our experiences/ our reality upto the time of the decision. However, as the FPLC is working away happily, I might as well give you my reflections... > "Rational thinking ... cannot predict the future. All it can do is to > map out the probability space as it appears at the present, and which > will be different tomorrow when one of the infinity of possible states > will have materialized. Technological and social inventions broaden this > probability space all the time; it is now incomparably larger than it > was before the Industrial Revolution, for good or for evil. > Who claimed any prediction of the future? Marxism claims with evidence that capitalism has an inbuilt contradiction, and that a system is possible and maybe more effective in maintaining human society without the capitalist anomaly. Everything else depends on the given particular initial conditions. From these probabilistic predictions may be drawn. People happen to trust the products of "rational thinking", they step into airoplanes and cars without giving much of a thought to probability, not to mention the million other such everyday effects of scientific thinking. > "The future cannot be predicted, but futures can be invented. It was > man's ability to invent which has made human society what it is. The > mental processes of invention are still mysterious. They are rational, > but not logical, that is to say not deductive. The first step of the > technological or social inventor is to visualize, by an act of > imagination, a thing or a state of things which does not yet exist, and > which to him appears in some way desirable. He can then start rationally > arguing backwards from the invention, and forward from the means at his > disposal, until a way is found from one to the other." > The ability to invent is secondary to be able to remember and to communicate. Every inventor is "standing on the shoulder of giants" who are unknown and number thousands of the same and several previous generations. When a given number of data is accumulated, and there is a given number of well fed people with access to this data and a bit of spare time from chasing the dynosaur, tilling the land or manning the checkout counter, there is a good chance that the "invention" will follow. Quantity turning into quality... I can't think of any of these "backward" inventions - can you? the rest seem to be semantic/relativistic mix, making strawmen arguments from wierd definition of rational thought - I'll get back to them later, you seem to be ahead in the "time management pardigm". Eva > ( D. Gabor, Inventing the Future, Penguin Books, 1963, p. 161) > > "... criticisms of rational (decision-making) model: > > 1.Success in goal attainment means commitment to the goal, and > commitment is an emotional -- thus nonrational -- state ... > 2.All groups have several goals ... so that over-specialization may > threaten survival ... > 3 it is very difficult to gain agreement on just what goals or > goal are being sought ..." > > (W. Breed, The Self-Guiding Society, The Free Press, 1971, pp. 95-96) > > "Several critics of the rational model suggest a second approach to > decision-making -- incrementalism. > > "Two major weaknesses ... First ... reflects the interests of the most > powerful groupings in society ... second .. ignores overdue > innovations." > > (ibid., pp. 99-101) > > "The model (of decision-making) we recommend is called mixed scanning. > > "An example of mixed scanning: weather satellites hold two cameras. One > takes broad-angle pictures covering large segments of the sky ... The > other lens photographs much smaller segments but in much greater detail > ... dual scanning device ... scans for signs of trouble. The second > camera explores these danger points in detail ... > > "When criticism shows that a policy is ineffective, stop incrementing > and turn to more encompassing scanning." > > (ibid., pp. 103-111) > > "Intellectual competence will be judged in terms of the ability of the > student to synthesize the explosion of information. Most significant > thinking will be reflective ... Men will succeed or not in the measure > of their ab
Re: Easing Transition to Cybereconomy
> > > > > > Who was talking about any final > > > > solution? I find such a strawman a tad offensive. > > > > > > And, believe me, I was sensitive to the implication of the term; > > > however, your uncompromising views do give the impression that you can > > > see only one solution, and that > > > that solution is the final one. But, even so, I do apologize for giving > > > in to my baser > > > instincts. > > > > > > > Uncompromising means, not changing opinions even when > > presented rational reasons to do so. In the absence of such > > what can I do? What if my opinion is actually a good > > approximation to reality, such as, say, Newton's views > > on gravity? Was he uncompromising about these? > > > > Hmmm. So, in your opinion, there is a final solution after all! > ?? Just because I find no adequate reason as yet to change my opinion, that doesn't mean that said opinion says anything that can be termed as final solution. You sidetracked your debate about the way I said it (uncompromisingly) to what I said - two different things in most books. > In a compromise one need not give up one's opinions (to which one is always > entitled); one may simply agree to put them on hold in order to get on > with life. In the case of > this listserv "life" is simply the stated issue for which it provides a > forum. (A compromise may also involve each side in a disagreement > merging views > to produce a mutually-acceptable position, but I don't that's likely in this > context.) > Yes, compromise is a very essential part of human cooperation, no argument there. However, it is not always possible, or even necessary or useful. If we are consccous about something harmful, we have a duty to attempt, using the most convincing evidence, to shift other people to our view, so that we can cooperate to avoid the continuation of said harm. > > To both collectivists and certain environmentalists discussing such short > range or limited issues is tantamount to shuffling deck chairs on the > Titanic. But, as > has been noted before, to muddle through a bit at a time, while frustrating, > may be the best approach. It at least holds out the prospect that > society may > attain a singular (critical) point at which a paradigm shift occurs and > the correct views are conceived and implemented. > To muuddle through is the maddest possible strategy when you are aware, that the boat is sinking. - You should tell as many people as you can, so you may use the largest capacity of human inventiveness to avoid/survive the catastrophy. Human history is defined by the progress of "artificial" involvement in the paradigm-shift business. At this point, if you leave it to the muddle-through shortsightedness of the present captains of the media, you might as well pop a few pills and jump overboard to avoid all the chaos of the sinking. I uncompromisingly try my best to shift that horrid paradigm. The gist of syncronising cooperative production with cooperative distribution did not happen, the process of polarization of economical, thus political power is happening as much and more than in Marx's time. All compromises so far ended up with an untouched capitalist economic base. I agree, that the non-compromising revolutions failed, too, but we had a chance to find out exactly, why, and all those conditions that lead to the failure - such as poverty, illiteracy, thus the continuation of the despotic burocracy intact from the tsar - cannot be repeated with the awareness and expectancy of democracy - a paradigm shift that actually happened in my opinion, and waits for the opportune moment to assert itself... Eva > The following is an extract from "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx and > Engels. How much of this has already been implemented? Or found to be > undesirable? Or outmoded by technological change? > > "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, _by degrees_ > (my emphasis), all > capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of > production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat > organised as > the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive > forces as rapidly as possible. > > Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of > despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the > conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which > appear economically insufficient and untenable, but > which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate > further inroads upon the old social order, 18) and are > unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. > > These measures will of course be different in different countries. 19) > > Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty > generally applicable: > > 1.Abolition 20) of property in land and application of all rents of land > to public purposes. > 2.A heavy progressive or gr
Re: Easing Transition to Cybereconomy
> > > > "The pattern of events" is the dependent variable. You have to > > pinpoint the base for the reason of change, before the "pattern of > > events" happen to go the wrong way. Who was talking about any final > > solution? I find such a strawman a tad offensive. > > > > > > > > > "The pattern of events" is the dependent variable. > > Now you are using the terminology of inferential statistics. > sorry, I didn't mean to... > > You have to > > pinpoint the base for the reason of change, > > Presumably by "base" you mean the independent variables. If so, then I > don't understand > "independent variables for the reason of change". What I could > understand is: what are > the independent variables influencing the pattern of events? And that > I've answered in > various previous posts. But, in any event, one can only state that a > relationship exists > in probabilistic terms. > I must have missed it, I can't remember you pointing out the irregularities in the economic mechanism. That is the (relatively) independent variable. I can't see the probabilistic side; capitalist means of production has particular consequences as seen over and over again. > > To rephrase: one has to identify the independent variables before the > dependent variable > goes the "wrong way". You seem to see this as a quality control problem, > i.e. ensure > that the dependent variable stays within certain limits. No, not really. The point is, that it is futile to manuver (sp?) those variables that are dependent on structures some of us content to leave as they are. > While there may > be some insight > to be gained by adopting that metaphor, it is not one that I intended. I > guess all I was > saying was: Find a need, and fill it! (the entrepreneurial maxim updated > to reflect a > more complex environment). > and proving to be as shortsighted and ineffective policy as can be, both in finding needs and filling them, even in the literal sense. > > Who was talking about any final > > solution? I find such a strawman a tad offensive. > > And, believe me, I was sensitive to the implication of the term; > however, your uncompromising views do give the impression that you can > see only one solution, and that > that solution is the final one. But, even so, I do apologize for giving > in to my baser > instincts. > Uncompromising means, not changing opinions even when presented rational reasons to do so. In the absence of such what can I do? What if my opinion is actually a good approximation to reality, such as, say, Newton's views on gravity? Was he uncompromising about these? Eva > -- > http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/ >
KOSOVO 08/06/99 (fwd)
nder certain conditions, could lead to the break-up of Macedonia. This is precisely the scenario which the West has been desperate to avoid, since it can plunge the whole of the Balkans into war. Despite all the propaganda, NATO's Kosovo adventure has been an expensive disaster. Its main war aims have not been achieved. It has caused a serious rift within the ranks of Nato itself, and aggravated the crisis in Russia. The problem of Kosovo has not been resolved and the Balkans are more unstable now than they were before the war started. The devastation of Yugoslavia is very poor compensation for all this. And to make things worse, Milosevic remains firmly in power. If he is removed in the future, it will not be by American bombs or NATO's intrigues, but by the movement of the masses in Serbia itself. As for the cost of the war, this has already reached the figure of at least three billion pounds, and will continue to rise as the costs of reconstruction will have to be met by the West. As always, it is the working class which will pick up the bill for the crimes of imperialism. There will never be peace or stability in the Balkans until the working people take power into their own hands and carry out the socialist transformation of society. Alan Woods London, 8th June 1999 PS: As we publish this article, talks have been re-started and the UN is drafting a resolution. Read the other material about the crisis in the former Yugoslavia at: Crisis in the Balkans - A Socialist Analysis [Back to In Defence of Marxism] [Back to Europe] - End of forwarded message from Eva Durant -
Re:
Sorry - I thought you need light relief. Eva "Reflected-sound-of-underground-spirits?" -- Economics explained (Terry Pratchett, The Colour Of Magic)
Re: Destruction of Albania (Part I)
What media coverage? We only got to know about the displeasure of some german greens about the war, when Joshka Fisher had paint thrown at his face. All debates against the bombing were under-reported, demonstrations non-reported. At least some well-informed lists should do some more informing such as passing on info about what to do. O don't know, that's why I am angry and frustrated. eva > I feel very strongly as you. I worry about a nuclear exchange. Why not > appear at a local protest against the war. Media coverage of protesters > will do more to stop things than any amount of talk and flames on this or > any list. > > > arthur cordell
Re: Destruction of Albania (Part I)
The swiss were pretty rich and smug before Hitler's time. It is a good example, that if the society is effluent enough, the ethnic strife becomes a thing of the past. (Doesn't make them all that friendly and guest-loving though...) However, given our beloved capitalism, such peaceful, prosperous times are transient; insecurity and poverty will bring out all the alienation and aggressivity wherever you are whichever minority/majority is persecuted as the alleged cause for all misery. It could even happen to the swiss given an implosion of the financial/tourist/cookoo clock sector... Eva > >Funny, but here in Europe we don't have an army that has bombed 21 > countries > >during the last 50 years (without having been attacked once). We also > don't > >have the high rates of murder and prisoners that your peaceful country has. > >Nor do we need metal detectors in our schools to protect the kids from > >each other, or security guards on our campus to prevent the kids from > >massacrating their peers on Hitler's birthday. We also don't have > >militia-men who kill dozens of civilians by blowing up a gov't building. > >Geez, we don't even have racial riots in large cities after some state > >officers have beaten up a citizen for his race. > > > >But I'm sure we'll have all that pretty soon if we follow the lead of your > >peace-loving and tolerant country, Ray. > > > How beautifully smug! I understand that your bankers made quite a lot of > money from the gold and jewelry that the Nazis took from death-camp victims. > Europe, if you read its history, was a cesspool of wars, repressions and > mass exterminations. And it was Europeans who brought diseases and > enslavement to the Americas, accounting for the destruction of civilizations > and the deaths of perhaps 100 million people. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to > get into this one, but on reading the above self-congratulatory puffery, I > just couldn't help it. But perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps you intent was > some form of comic irony. > > Ed Weick [text/html is unsupported, treating like TEXT/PLAIN] > > > > > > > > > >Funny, but here in Europe we don't have an army that has bombed > 21countries>during the last 50 years (without having been attacked > once). We alsodon't>have the high rates of murder and prisoners > that your peaceful country has.>Nor do we need metal detectors in our > schools to protect the kids from>each other, or security guards on our > campus to prevent the kids from>massacrating their peers on Hitler's > birthday. We also don't have>militia-men who kill dozens of > civilians by blowing up a gov't building.>Geez, we don't even have racial > riots in large cities after some state>officers have beaten up a citizen > for his race.>>But I'm sure we'll have all that pretty soon if we > follow the lead of your>peace-loving and tolerant country, > Ray.How beautifully smug! I understand that your bankers > made quite a lot ofmoney from the gold and jewelry that the Nazis took from > death-camp victims.Europe, if you read its history, was a cesspool of wars, > repressions andmass exterminations. And it was Europeans who brought > diseases andenslavement to the Americas, accounting for the destruction of > civilizationsand the deaths of perhaps 100 million people. I'm sorry, > I didn't mean toget into this one, but on reading the above > self-congratulatory puffery, Ijust couldn't help it. But perhaps I > misunderstood. Perhaps you intent wassome form of comic > irony.Ed Weick
Re: Destruction of Albania (Part I)
I have the feeling, that if a conflict has a chance (and this one has) to ignite WWlll, than we should talk about nothing else but how to stop insanity. Not much futurework in a destroyed world... Eva Durant > I am re-posting our caveat of a few weeks ago. The war is front and center > with all of us. Discussions about it could easily > swamp all the lists on the net. So Sally and I appeal to all FWers and > your netizen ideals and values to keep futurework to its main discussion > focus. Thanx. > > = > Dear faithful FWers. > > There is obviously a great deal of emotion and concern about events in > Yugoslavia. War is a serious thing. However the futurework list was set up > for a purpose. If we allow postings on this or that side of events > regarding the war it is clear that a new thread on the war will begin. It > is likely that such a thread would overwhelm postings concerning futurework. > Thus we ask that you keep your postings to the general area indicated by our > futurework notices and that you direct your postings vis-a-vis the war and > related matters to those lists more relevant to events underway in > Yugoslavia and neighbouring countries. > > Thank you > > Sally Lerner and Arthur Cordell > > -- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Ray E. Harrell; Michel Chossudovsky > Subject: Re: Destruction of Albania (Part I) > Date: Thursday, May 13, 1999 4:17PM > > On Fri, 14 May 1999 02:26:20 -0400, Ray E. Harrell wrote: > > One point in all of this is that as an immigrant New Yorker > > I am prone to cynicism around the ability of > > Europeans to live together, (one war every 25 years for > > the past 1000 years). e.g. From the usefulness of the window > > shutters in Geneva, with the guns and one month food > > supply required by law in the basement, to the doors on > > new apartments in Milan that are made of steel with > > steel rod bolts going in four directions to keep out marauding > > armies. > > Funny, but here in Europe we don't have an army that has bombed 21 countries > during the last 50 years (without having been attacked once). We also don't > have the high rates of murder and prisoners that your peaceful country has. > Nor do we need metal detectors in our schools to protect the kids from > each other, or security guards on our campus to prevent the kids from > massacrating their peers on Hitler's birthday. We also don't have > militia-men who kill dozens of civilians by blowing up a gov't building. > Geez, we don't even have racial riots in large cities after some state > officers have beaten up a citizen for his race. > > But I'm sure we'll have all that pretty soon if we follow the lead of your > peace-loving and tolerant country, Ray. > > > > You see I live in NYCity and we take a rather jaundiced > > look at people who gather together to kill their neighbors or > > steal their homes. > > Jaundiced indeed for a city that was built on just that. > > > Greetings from a multi-cultural European country > that had _2_ short (defense) wars in the last 500 years > (but I guess this can't be read in your informative NYT), > > Chris > >
a detailed analysis
I haven't read it yet, but if you have a debating point free from personal abuse, please send it off-list to me as well as to the authors. Eva Durant A month into the bombing campaign: A Marxist analysis of the Balkan crisis by Ted Grant and Alan Woods http://www.marxist.com/Europe/kosovo6.html
Shooting / History / Michael Moore (fwd)
forwarded by Eva It's helpful to understand the history Europe and the Balkans: (double click these website URLs to get there) http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/ and for current info: http://www.lbbs.org/ZNETTOPnoanimation.html http://www.iacenter.org http://www.keepfaith.com/ http://www.webcinema.org/war_diaries/ http://www.greens.org/kosovo.html Also, here's a perspective on our violent society from Michael Moore, of the TV show "The Awful Truth" http://www.theawfultruth.com TO BE DEAD IN DENVER & DOWNTOWN PRISTINA Michael Moore, April 22, 1999 Dear Friends, There he was, The Great Consoler, standing at the podium, biting his lip, and speaking to a nation in shock. "We must teach our children to settle their differences through words and not weapons." Meanwhile, this same President, continues a daily slaughter of human beings. He says it's because the people he is bombing are doing their own slaughter. He has chosen to respond to their actions not with "words" but with death. Is it any wonder some of our children -- especially those in most pain, the "outcasts," the "uncool" -- decide to turn to murder and strike out against what they perceive to be a world against them? We live in a culture in America where violence is The Way We Get Things Done. If it works for their elders, why shouldn't the kids give it a try? As the kids at the high school near Denver huddled in locked classrooms in the hopes that they would not be the next one with a bullet in the face, they turned on the classroom TVs to watch the carnage and their own potential execution on CNN. One student, "Bob," got on his cell phone and called the local Channel 9 to give the on-air anchors a live play-by-play of events inside the school. "Bob," the anchors said after getting their precious, Emmy-winning sound bytes, "maybe you should hang up now and call 911." "Uh, oh, yeah," responded Bob, sounding a bit disappointed. His connection to the virtual world of television and cellular communication was more a part of his instinct to survive than his need to call the cops. Or maybe he trusted the people on TV more to get him out of there than the full-time armed officer who patrolled the halls of the high school. Not one gun of a well-armed force of police that showed up was able to prevent one death. A world away, kids just a few years older than Bob are dropping bombs that are killing kids just a few years younger than Bob. We know this because we watch it on TV. We learn why we're dropping these bombs also on TV. A man from the Pentagon shows us cool video game images of point-and-click targets that go "BOOM!" Cool. Another man in an important uniform shows us photographs from one of the Mother-of-All- Cameras, those satellites that sit thousands of miles up in space and have, I guess, REALLY long lenses. He shows us Photo #1. Here, he says, is "unbroken, untouched ground" from a week ago. Then he shows us Photo #2 where he points to the ground being "freshly turned-over, dug up, and replaced." This, he says, is evidence of "a mass grave." The reporters sit there like anxious pet dogs, lapping up the "revelations" and eagerly reporting them to us as "truth." But these journalists failed to ask the man in the important uniform one very important and obvious question: "Where's the middle photo?" If our satellite camera is always up there and running, capturing the before and after of a 300 foot piece of dirt, where's the "during" photo? The satellite cameras were snapping pictures the whole time, so where's the photos of the massacre itself? Where are the photos of the Serbs transporting the bodies to the "mass grave?" Where are the photos of the bodies being placed in the "mass grave" and covered with dirt? Where's just ONE photo of any of this? Was the satellite camera on the blink during all this activity? Was it only working before the ground was dug and then only after it was covered back up? Where are those photos, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Blair? Members of our so-called free press: Where is your courage to ask the obvious questions? Why won't you? Why are we being lied to? On the night of the Denver shootings, NATO (us) bombed the building containing the three Serbian TV entertainment networks. They didn't bomb the news station putting out the nightly propaganda until two nights later. They chose to bomb the entertainment networks first, one of which was showing "Wag the Dog" with its fake Albanian atrocity scenes, on a continuous loop. Yes! Bomb the entertainment networks, 'cause it's all just one big show for a violence-deprived public forced to sit through a year of mostly-unconsummated oral sex in oval offices. We'd much prefer the gore to Gore and Bill. "The Matrix," a film about a young hero in a trenchcoat who is able to blows away everything in sight, is the number one film this week in the country. And as the children of Denver ran from the trenchcoated killers, they were not me
The Real Reasons Why We Are Bombing Yugoslavia (fwd)
I found this article a very feasable response to the question. Eva .. THE REAL REASONS WHY WE ARE BOMBING YUGOSLAVIA Guest editorial by Chuck Sher, Argus Courier, Petaluma, CA The current bombing of yet another sovereign country by U.S.-led forces is being justified on humanitarian grounds-U.S. leaders claim that we must stop the Serbs from a policy of ethnic cleansing and even genocide. But before you accept our government's claim at face value, let's take a look at U.S. actions, or inaction, and see what they reveal. If humanitarian concern was the real motivation for U.S. actions then why is our government not bombing Turkey for the brutal repression of their Kurdish population? Is it because Turkey is useful to the U.S. as an ally? Why is our government supplying arms to the Columbian government so they can commit thousands of politically motivated murders every year? As Noam Chomsky writes, "Columbia and Turkey explain their (U.S. supported) atrocities on grounds that they are defending their countries from the threat of terrorist guerrillas. As does the government of Yugoslavia." All sides in the Yugoslav civil wars (not just the Serbs) have committed atrocities. But can we believe reports of massacres of Kosovars (used as the rationale for intervention by the U.S. but disputed by Le Monde and Le Figaro, among other European newspapers) when they come from the lips of NATO inspector William Walker, who was Ollie North's underling and then U.S. ambassador to El Salvador during the late 1980s and who did nothing while U.S.-trained death squads terrorized that country? Why does our government not protest as Palestinians are slowly but surely squeezed out of Arab East Jerusalem and other parts of the West Bank, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions which forbids an occupying power from importing its own population into territories captured in an armed conflict? Why does the U.S. not support the East Timorese in their struggle to free themselves from a genocidal Indonesian occupation of their country? And on and on. In each of these cases, the U.S. finds it useful to its geopolitical aims to let human rights abuses go unnoticed. Going back in history, we find that the U.S. record is clear-it bombs or invades any country it feels like, supports the worst Third World dictators, and then claims "humanitarian" motives as a fig leaf to cover our government's real motivations-to ever-increase the power of U.S. financial or geopolitical interests around the world. From the illegal and useless bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan; to the deaths of over a million innocent Iraqi civilians in the last eight years due to malnutrition and water-borne diseases (caused by U.S.-led sanctions); to the invasion of Panama, a sovereign nation, causing thousands of civilian deaths in direct violation of international law; to the murder of hundreds of thousands of peasants in Guatemala and El Salvador by their military forces, supported and trained by our government; to a real "scorched earth" policy which killed three million Vietnamese during the Vietnam War; to the original "ethnic cleansing" of Native Americans from their ancestral lands here-the U.S. has no moral authority to point a finger at anyone. Once you have eliminated humanitarian concerns as the motive for the U.S. bombing in Yugoslavia it becomes easier to find the real reasons. First, the U.S. has decided that NATO is a more pliant military tool than the U.N., Kosovo being a case in point-the U.N. would never have authorized an armed attack on Serbia but NATO would and did, at the U.S. government's request. This is a direct violation of international law and the U.N. charter, as well as NATO's own charter which stipulates that NATO is to be a purely defensive alliance. But being the world's only superpower means you never have to say you are sorry, or justify your actions according to the rule of law. Second, there are potentially trillions of dollars of oil in the Caspian Sea region which Western corporations want to control. Instead of a pipeline going through Iran or Russia, the U.S. plan is to build a pipeline through the Balkans and in order to do that we need compliant regimes who will do what they are told. Thirdly, U.S. policy in the Balkans, as elsewhere, is motivated by the Pentagon's need to have some rationale for spending almost $300 billion dollars every year so that it can be the unelected policeman of the world, on behalf of U.S. corporate interests. Is this where you want your hard-earned tax dollars to go? Finally, Yugoslavia was a relatively successful socialist country under Tito and therefore a threat to the ideological hegemony of the U.S. Starting in the 1989, the IMF and the World Bank (both controlled by U.S. financial interests), forced Yugoslavia to largely dismantle their public sector. This, along with U.S.-sponsored economic sanctions, has resulted in the disintegration
present work
i found this article demonstrative...Eva THE PEOPLE MARCH 1999 VOL. 108 NO. 12 PROFITING FROM MAYHEM BY KEN BOETTCHER A half-page advertisement that recently ran in THE NEW YORK TIMES is a testament to the debilitating nature of work under capitalism and the stress, anxiety and anger that pervades the workplace and society at large under that system. It was an ad for the security services firm, Guardsmark, that warned of the dangers of workplace violence. Four lines of display type were superimposed over a photograph depicting the evacuation of an office building, presumably during or after an incident of workplace violence. "A loyal employee for 22 years," said the first line. "Last month he was laid off," said the next. "This morning he came back," said the next. "No one was ready for him," said the last. Elsewhere, the ad reinforced Guardsmark's point. "Incidents of workplace violence like this can happen anywhere, anytime. Even the best run companies can be victimized by it. If you don't think your company is vulnerable, think again: workplace violence costs American business billions of dollars annuallyIf you want the best protection for your employees, your visitors and your shareholders, depend on Guardsmark." There's little wonder that Guardsmark should find it useful to use the threat of workplace violence to sell its services. Many such companies do, if a random sampling of security firms offering their services over the Internet is any indication. Fear of workplace violence is not entirely misplaced, though the repressive "solutions" such firms generally offer hold little promise of stemming the growing phenomenon of workplace violence. According to a June 1997 report on "Violence in the Workplace" available from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), "an average of 20 workers are murdered each week in the United States." Further, "...an estimated 1 million workers--18,000 per week--are victims of nonfatal workplace assaults each year." As the report put it, "Homicide is the second leading cause of death on the job, second only to motor vehicle crashes." Not all of this violence is committed by employees. In fact, the portion committed by employees or former employees is about 30 percent, according to the Northwestern National Life Insurance Company. Perhaps more telling is that, according to information provided at www.workplace-violence.com by a firm called Critical Incident Associates, in 95 percent of all workplace violence incidents, the perpetrator is "a socially isolated loner, who is either a disgruntled employee, an angry client, a sexual harasser, an irate spouse or a jilted would-be lover of one of your employees." If a major key to workplace violence is that its perpetrators are "socially isolated loners," then the real wonder is that there is not more workplace violence. For the social environment in which we live--a general social atmosphere often described as the "cold, cruel world"--could hardly be constructed to more efficiently produce "socially isolated loners." Psychologists try to treat such individuals as having "personal problems" that each must cope with alone. However, an individual's "personal problem" in feeling isolated or alienated from other people is in reality a social problem, with its roots in the capitalist system and the culture it engenders. Under such atrocious social conditions, the real wonder is that there are as many reasonably well-adjusted human beings as there are. That there are some "socially isolated loners" who engage in violence at the workplace--or elsewhere--should surprise no one who understands the nature of the society in which we live. Security services like Guardsmark generally prescribe complicated identification procedures, invasive searches, drug testing, Orwellian surveillance or other schemes to curb workplace violence--measures likely to add to the anxiety and stress of work under capitalism. But the only measure that can actually end workplace violence is to end the violence done to workers by the capitalist social system by abolishing capitalism itself. - End of forwarded message from Ken Boettcher -
Re: It's not the economy, stupid
The burst of the speculative financial bubble, that has long lost it's link with the productive economy, will teach the new investor citizens much faster than any book... Eva > > Bill Clinton's "It's the Economy, Stupid!" strategy followed the same one used > very successfully by Ronald Reagan in 1980. In Reagan's case, he asked > U.S. citizens directly, "Are YOU better off than you were four years ago?" > Not only does that slogan situate all important matters in the economic > sphere (or the market, as typically conceived today) but also it reduces > politics to a matter of simply calculating > one's own immediate financial best interest. Additionally, such a tack > effectively > "dehumanizes" the market and the economy, divorcing economic indicators from > their social, political and moral contexts--except as they relate to the > individual who's > in a strong enough respurce position to be thinking about raises, taxes, > and stocks. > As a strategy of political expediency, it's brilliant. In terms of deeper > and longer-term implications for politics and ethics, it's disastrous. As > Jacob Weisberg described so eloquently in the _New York Times Magazine_, > Jan. 25, 1998, the U.S. has become a "community of investors," who > understand politics largely by looking at their own pocketbooks at a > particular moment. > > Fortunately, a number of important critiques of this perspective on human > affairs have been advanced in just the past few years--see, e.g., Richard > Sennett's _The Corrosion of Character_. > > --George Cheney > > > George Cheney > Professor and Director of Graduate Studies > Department of Communication Studies > The University of Montana-Missoula > Missoula, MT 59812 > USA > tel.: 406-243-4426 > fax: 406-243-6136 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: FW: Re: In the interests of peace...
Recognizing independence unqualified is not a good idea - though you probably are aware of this, it can be the start of wars rather than the end. The hasty recognition of Croatia by Germany and then the West, without any guarantees of minority rights, started the whole damn yugoslav war. Whether the aim is to blackmail a bully or not, this is important. Eva > > I think it's a damn good idea, and I don't see anything simpleminded > about it at all. It is certainly a bit off topic for this group, but > I'm prepared to tolerate a brief digression. I wouldn't want to see > it turn into a month long debate, though. My only reticence about it > is I feel it's probably too late to be used effectively in Kosovo, > as at this point it would just look like NATO backing up another > step and drawing another line in the sand after the Serbs have stepped > over the twenty or so drawn before. As a principle for dealing with > military responses to national aspirations, I think it has great merit, > though I would suggest that many nations might fear that the support > of it would be against the interests of their own territorial > integrity. However, it is an idea whose time has really come. > The UN and other treaty organizations such as NATO have done a lot > in the last 50 years to end wars between sovereign nations, so now > most mass violence is confined to within the boundaries of states. > Up til now, the international community has been reluctant to > step in to `internal' affairs, but in the last few years, without > major internation conflicts to command attention, the desire is growing > to develop a mechanism whereby the security of groups under persecution > by their state can be sanctioned by the world community. Your proposal > offers such a mechanism. > > Knowing how world consensus proceeds, I expect it would take several > years for this concept to gain acceptance, but I suspect it would > find some champions immediately. We in Canada, with our own minority > perennially considering devolution, have come, I think, to accept > that the only mature way to handle this issue is by democratic > choice, negotiation and compromise. I see it as part of the continual > advancement of the "goalposts" of civilized behaviour. As peace > becomes more widespread in the world, expectations of peaceful > behaviour become stronger. > -Pete Vincent > >
Re: some words I hope could not really refrain from writing
1. How do you define compatibility? especially in a mathematical language for the computer. Making similar decisions, as you say yourself, is not necessarily a solution. Define this in computer language: How often are couples able to resolve disagreements in a satisfactory manner for both of them? How would you know this before they meet? I think the same applies for friend-relationships. Would people be happy to leave their local pond for the possibility of "better" friendship/ spouse? It seems that in the past in small communities people found both friend and spouse - though probably the expectations were miles different. people became isolated/enstranged in the large masses of the cities, but I think more to do with the working/living practices, than the numbers. 2. If you picture a no-profit, thus non-capitalist society, as you mention at some point, there is no employer-employee, but co-worker relationships. 3. You still have to have a high level economical integration for a high-technology society you envisage - and indeed we need, to keep 6-->10 billion people going. You have to decide on a more universal democratic structure to make the larger community to be able to cooperate effectively. Eva
Authentic Trojan Horse warning ;-) (fwd)
For your amusement onlyEva > TO: Trojan Army Listserv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > RE: WARNING!! BEWARE GREEKS BEARING GIFTS! > > Hey Hector, > > This was forwarded to me by Cassandra--it looks legit. Please > distribute to Priam, Hecuba, and your 99 siblings. > > Thanks, > > Laocoon > > > WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! > > IF YOU RECEIVE A GIFT IN THE SHAPE OF A LARGE WOODEN HORSE DO NOT > DOWNLOAD IT It is EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE and will overwrite your > ENTIRE CITY! > > The "gift" is disguised as a large wooden horse about two stories > tall. It tends to show up outside the city gates and appears to be > abandoned. DO NOT let it through the gates! It contains hardware that > is incompatible with Trojan programming, including a crowd of heavily > armed Greek warriors that will destroy your army, sack your town, and > kill your women and children. If you have already received such a > gift, DO NOT OPEN IT! Take it back out of the city unopened and set > fire to it by the beach. > > FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW! > > Poseidon > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > RE: Greeks bearing gifts > > Laocoon, > > I hate to break to you, but this is one of the oldest hoaxes there is. > I've seen variants on this warning come through on other listservs, > one involving some kind of fruit that was supposed to kill the people > who ate it and one having to do with something called the "Midas Touch." > > Here are a few tipoffs that this is a hoax: > > 1) This "Forward this message to everyone you know" crap. If it were > really meant as a warning about the Greek army, why tell anyone to > post it to the Phonecians, Sumerians, and Cretans? > > 2) Use of exclamation points. Always a giveaway. > > 3) It's signed "from Poseidon." Granted he's had his problems with > Odysseus but he's one of their guys, isn't he? Besides, the lack of a > real header with a detailed address makes me suspicious. > > 4) Technically speaking, there is no way for a horse to overwrite your > entire city. A horse is just an animal, after all. > > Next time you get a message like this, just delete it. I appreciate > your concern, but once you've been around the block a couple times > you'll realize how annoying this kind of stuff is. > > Bye now, > > Hector > *** Regards, Dave Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As much as the author would like to spend precious minutes of the rapidly- dwindling time remaining in his life responding to your kind and thoughtful letter about how he is going to spend eternity in a lake of fire being eaten by rats, he regrets that he is unable to do so, due to the volume of such mail received. http://members.xoom.com/dwpalmer/home.htm * - End of forwarded message from David Palmer -
Re: FWD: (SK) Scary Genetic Stories
I thought you'd find this as interesting as me, the ways science can be reported - the need not to jump to conclusions too soon. Having said that, no way would I trust corpo- rations/multinationals or anybody with financial interest to make decisions for my future health/safety/environment. Eva > > I am impressed -- as ever -- by the amazing way too little information can > be made worse for the reader (and better for the writer and his opinions) > than enough information. Stunned, even, in this case, since I have > first-hand knowledge of the stuff being discussed. > > For instance, the thing described in this article as "Jeff Palmer's" > "genetic parasite" is a DNA sequence of about 2000 base pairs (if I recall, > since I am one of many botanists who actually sequenced part of the damned > thing, back when I was a budding molecular botanist in the summer of 1987) > called a *transposon* or *transposable element*. These are the things that > make leaves of some green plants have white blotches on them, and make what > we call in this country "indian corn" have little red or purple radiant > stripes on the kernels of some varietals. They have an interesting history, > evolutionarily, since they are most likely the origin of viruses (i.e., all > of them), and control expression of whole suites of genes in very > interesting ways. They are what Barbara McClintock got her belated Nobel > prize for. > > All higher (eukaryotic) organisms have transposons. Always have, > apparently. And there's always been some suspicion of horizontal gene > transfer. What I was sequencing during my golden youf was a close relative > of this article's particular transposon, which turned out to be nearly > identical in carrots and in rice -- which are not very closely related, > phylogenetically. 'Tis to say, we pretty much knew that the DNA had got > from one to another way back then, without being directly inherited. > > >A group of researchers in Indiana University of the United States, headed > >by Dr. Jeffrey Palmer, have just reported in the current issue of the > >Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA that a genetic parasite > >belonging to yeast has suddenly jumped into many unrelated species of > >higher plants recently. > > But the **best** thing I like about this article is the word "recently" and > the word "suddenly". Amazing, actually. Know what it means, really? I quote > from the abstract of the article in question: > > "Extrapolating to the over 13,500 genera of angiosperms, we estimate that > this intron has invaded cox1 genes by cross-species horizontal transfer > over 1,000 times during angiosperm evolution. This massive wave of lateral > transfers is of entirely recent occurrence, perhaps triggered by some key > shift in the intron's invasiveness within angiosperms. " > http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/24/14244?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10& > RESULTFORMAT=&author1=palmer%2C+j.+g.&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&FIRSTINDEX= > > Check it out -- "during angiosperm evolution". This being a *very long time*. > > >This parasite is a piece of DNA called a group I intron that can splice > >itself in and out of a particular gene in the genome of mitochondria. > >Mitochondria are little power houses of the cell that oxdize food in order > >to turn it into a form of energy that can be used for all living processes. > >Until 1995, this parasite was thought to be confined to yeast and only one > >genus of higher plants out of the 25 surveyed had the parasite. But in a > >new survey of species from 335 genera, 48 were found to have the parasite. > > "Until 1995 this parasite was thought to be confined..." my ass, not to put > too fine a point on it. It wasn't "unknown" -- I know a man who got his > Ph.D. in 1988 for showing how it worked in rice, wheat, and carrots. > Admittedly, that was a version in the coxII gene, but what the hey? Same > idea. > ... > > >· Is it possible that the recent massive horizontal gene transfer from > >yeast to higher plants was triggered by commercial genetic engineering > >biotechnology itself? > > Here, students, we see what is perhaps the best rhetorical use of > incomplete information. Note how we have moved laterally from never saying > what "recently" means to the actual researchers (at least several tens or > hundreds of thousand years) to what the author of this "review" feels it > "should" mean to the now worried reader. Shift and separate. > > >· Genetic engineering makes use of artificial genetic parasites as gene > >carriers, to transfer genes horizontally between unrelated species. These > >artificial parasites are made from parts of the most aggressive naturally > >occurring parasites like the group 1 intron discussed here. > > And this phrase "genetic parasite" is a fascinating coinage in its own > right. While strictly speaking it is absolutely accurate, its X-filesian > connotation gives it a very high score on the rhetorical scale. One could > as
Re: New Y2K Computer Problem -- Time Dilation (fwd)
I thought I'd better to send you the follow-up (debunking?), too. Eva > >From the Los Angeles Times > Monday, February 22, 1999 > > The Y2K Bug Has Company in the Form of 'Time Dilation' Computers: Pair who > stumbled on the odd phenomenon insist it's a legitimate concern. Others > call their warnings a scare tactic. This rubbish from Elchin and Crouch has been around for a while. Here are two of my messages to the Australian Computer Society's Y2K list: 24 February > >From Mike Echlin... > > Hi Carl, > > As you say its not easily replicated, and this is why a lot of people have > wrtten it off, they tried a few times, didn't see it, so say, "not gonna > hit me." > > But they are wrong, Every year or two a rumour circulates that a time bomb virus is out there, set to go off on a certain date and do dreadful things. Each time this happens, "current affairs" programs find a few poor people who didn't take the precautions and had computer problems. Warning!!! The PBhaha virus is set to come into operation on 22/9/1999. This evil program hides itself on your computer (it cannot be detected by any anti-virus program) until it detects that the date has rolled to 22/9/1999. When it sees this date, it generates a random number and, based on the value returned, causes either your hard disk or the fan in your power supply to fail. If either of these things happen when you turn on your computer on that date you have probably become a victim. This is a hybrid virus and is equally likely to affect PCs running DOS or Windows (any flavour from 1.1 to 2000), Macs, Linux boxes and HP network printers with hard disks. (A lot of Macs are immune to the fan problem, though.) Do not switch your machine on on that date unless you have adequate backups. But seriously - a couple of dozen computers from the hundreds of millions out there exhibit some non-reproducible anomaly in the BIOS or RTC date and this guy reckons Armageddon is here. Where's the pattern? Where are the large number of machines from the same manufacturer which all exhibit the same symptoms and which do it every time the test is applied? Time Dilation! More like "Brain Dilation". Perhaps we could call it "Brain Shrinkage, or "BS" for short. Crouch's website looks like a definite Quintessence candidate. === 5 March I spend a lot of my time online with people who are fighting quack medicine and other forms of ratbaggery such as those who claim paranormal powers of various kinds or are aware of events occurring through Forces Unknown To Science (FUTS). I was sceptical of Elchin and Crouch immediately, simply because they exhibit all the hallmarks of the mad scientist. Please note that scepticism does not mean immediate rejection, only a desire for truth. Cold fusion was not rejected immediately even though it looked highly probable that Fleischmann and Pons were either mistaken or deluded. It is classic quack or woowoo practice to quote slim anecdotal "evidence" and then demand that everyone else prove the findings to be false. Leaving aside the impossibility of proving a negative, the onus of proof has to be on the claimant, and, as we say in the sceptic business, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Many of these mad claims can be ignored because they are either obviously impossible (eg perpetual motion machines) or of no urgency. Unfortunately this one addressed a real problem with real urgency. This meant that real scientists had to spend real time and real money investigating the claims of these fools, claims based on the fact that highly improbable random events can happen. (The next time you hear of someone winning Lotto, remember that the win was less probable than your Windows machine running for 1,000 years without a problem.) The public have been scared silly by much of the talk about the Y2K problem and are susceptible to almost any stupid claim of a solution (I will talk about MFX2000 at another time). Like quack cancer cures or stories about planetary alignment, these things bring false hope (or fears) and demands for investigation. Like these other lunacies they waste everyone's time when there are real problems to solve. . Peter Bowditch [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gebesse.com.au - End of forwarded message from Peter Bowditch -
RE: Beware Happy99
(Eva:) Here is an advise from another "respected" person: forwarded message.. First, you have to differentiate between the ones that are defintely bogus, and the ones that might be for real. Any warning of the type "merely opening this mail will trigger the virus" is bogus. However, binary attachments to mail messages can and do carry viruses. If you run an executable binary attachment without at least running it through a decent virus scanner first, you're pretty much begging for trouble. Check out http://www.kumite.com/myths for accurate info on virus myths and realities. *** Regards, Dave Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As much as the author would like to spend precious minutes of the rapidly- dwindling time remaining in his life responding to your kind and thoughtful letter about how he is going to spend eternity in a lake of fire being eaten by rats, he regrets that he is unable to do so, due to the volume of such mail received. http://members.xoom.com/dwpalmer/home.htm * - End of forwarded message from David Palmer -
Re: Beware Happy99.exe worm!!!
It's a rather dated hoax, don't you think? Never post such stuff to other people or lists as that itself is a spam "virus". Send it to your server maintenance people - they should either complain about it, or let you know if it is something real - never yet. Eva
Re: Some thoughts on one of the threads
Sorry, but I cannot see the "freedom" aspect. If you had to work in the tribe because a/ otherwise you'd starve/freeze etc. or b/ your tribe would exclude you which means certain death that is not frredom, even if you are not aware of the "choice" you are making. People always attempted to make work enjoyable. And some of it always is, such as enjoying accomplishment/result or problemsolving itself. Eva > > Thanks Eva, for creating the post that made me look up the meaning of this > common word. The key words seem to be time and free with disposal, > enjoyment and opportunity as the collaries. Leisure is taking that which is > truly ours, the time of our lives and disposing of it in an enjoyable manner > while following up the opportunities that arise from within us - our > personal desires, talents and wants. I think this is the essence of > Moravic's quote. That those from primitive lifestyles worked - yes to be > sure - things of survival and pleasure need to be done, but it was done from > the point of freedom - work is done at the direction of another, to their > standards and needs. got to go. > > Respectfully, > > Thomas > -Original Message- > From: Eva Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: list futurework <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: March 2, 1999 9:06 AM > Subject: Re: Some thoughts on one of the threads > > > >(Thomas:) > >It was the last sentence that resonated within me. I have long felt that > we > >deny ourselves one of our birthrights - indolence and unemployment. I > enjoy > >immensely - doing little or nothing and I enjoy immensely - the pleasure of > >following my impulses. Work and employment destroy those natural human > >attributes and make them into leisure activities that can only be indulged > >in after worshipping at the alter of employment. Biologically, I think we > >are not workers, but livers of life. I for one, welcome a future of > leisure > >and indolence. > >... > > > > > >I wonder what you mean by doing nothing. > >Reading, arguing on the internet (education > >and educating) used to be classified as work, even > >if some people enjoyed it. > >Some people get paid for doing physical > >or mental exercise. > >Spending time with your loved ones is part of > >looking after their physical/mental well-being - > >that is defined as work rhese days. > > > >I suppose sitting in front of the telly > >without any communication to other humans > >or snoozing under the sun in the garden > >or just sleeping all the time counts as > >doing nothing, but I haven't yet met people > >who could do these exclusively. > > > >Eva > >
Re: competition/contradiction
So when people were making and improving on their stone-tools, who were they competing exactly? How come the chinese managed all those inventions of theirs? I think in capitalism the aim is to make profit, and for that it not as necessary as in the old times when you just had to beat competitors with a cheaper (more mass produced) product. You can be very productive with a large turnover and still not managing to keep your share prices up, or your market crumbles etc. The motivation to innovate - and to do that in a humanly useful fashion is questionable even without mentioning multinational monopolies. Finding someone who invest in your however useful invention demands more inventiveness, than the invention itself. Eva > > I enter this fray with some trepitation, but I have a point to make. One of > the myth's of capitalism is stated by Chris above. The implication is that > there would be no or limited innovation without the goad of competition and > there is truth in that statement. However, what may be good in moderation > may not be good in excess and I would opine that improvements are in the > excessive stage, creating a lack of durability as a design feature, vast > misuse of resources, complications caused by obsolence and host of other > negative features such as the great variety of parts and technical skills > needed to keep up with the constant innovation. Y2K may be one example of > the effects of what might in one circumstance be a positive but because of > the efficiencies of capitalism, a simple error in structure was never > corrected and we may now pay the costs for all that neglect in the constant > drive to build a new and better computer or software program. > > Respectfully, > > Thomas Lunde > > >
Re: Some thoughts on one of the threads
(Thomas:) It was the last sentence that resonated within me. I have long felt that we deny ourselves one of our birthrights - indolence and unemployment. I enjoy immensely - doing little or nothing and I enjoy immensely - the pleasure of following my impulses. Work and employment destroy those natural human attributes and make them into leisure activities that can only be indulged in after worshipping at the alter of employment. Biologically, I think we are not workers, but livers of life. I for one, welcome a future of leisure and indolence. ... I wonder what you mean by doing nothing. Reading, arguing on the internet (education and educating) used to be classified as work, even if some people enjoyed it. Some people get paid for doing physical or mental exercise. Spending time with your loved ones is part of looking after their physical/mental well-being - that is defined as work rhese days. I suppose sitting in front of the telly without any communication to other humans or snoozing under the sun in the garden or just sleeping all the time counts as doing nothing, but I haven't yet met people who could do these exclusively. Eva
The JesusRaptor project (humor) (fwd)
Just to chear - well, some of you - up. Eva --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Vatican Announces Christ Genome Project VATICAN CITY - In a stunning development, Pope John Paul II, after a private screening of Jurassic Park, announced that the Catholic Church will embrace the technology of genetic engineering and embark on an ambitious project. Beginning with DNA recovered from the Shroud of Turin, Vatican scientists will begin the gene sequencing project immediately, with the ultimate goal of of producing a second coming sometime early in the next century. In working up to their goal, they will recover DNA from other sacred relics, producing a battery of saints and other holy men before actually producing the Son of Man. Relatives of the deceased could not be reached for comment. "We understand that this is a big change," the pope said, "and we ask for your patience. Obviously we are concerned with declining membership worldwide, and we hope this will stabilize our numbers and create a resurgence of faith. However, our main goal is to try and wrap this up and bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth by, assuming we stay on schedule, 2013; 2015 at the latest." Sharp criticism of the project came from the Baptist church, who claimed that the Vatican's virtual monopoly on bits of dead holy people should be restrained. The Baptist church is pushing for legislation to force the Vatican to allow scientists from other religions access to the DNA of important religious figures. "I don't know what they're complaining about," said a Vatican spokesperson, "Once we've sequenced the John the Baptist Genome, the license will be available for a modest fee. In fact, with our generous pricing structure and multi-saint discounts, they could afford several copies. Granted, he is not one of our first saints to be produced, but our schedule is available. Check us out on the web at http://www.vatican.com/christ_genome.html." A vatican scientist connected with the Christ Genome Project, discussing the project under condition of anonymity, said that the Christ Genome Project has a hidden agenda. According to our source, the ultimate goal is not, in fact, to clone Jesus, but to use recombinant DNA to create a `Jesusraptor.' "The Jesusraptor, about 9 feet long, would be able to chase down sinners at speeds of up to 60 kilometers per hour and dispatch them with the enormous claws on the big toe of each foot," according to our source, who provided us with various technical documents. Vatican sources denied this claim, adding that, "when we find out who is spreading these lies, we're going to excommunicate them, and then they'd better watch their back." *** Regards, Dave Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As much as the author would like to spend precious minutes of the rapidly- dwindling time remaining in his life responding to your kind and thoughtful letter about how he is going to spend eternity in a lake of fire being eaten by rats, he regrets that he is unable to do so, due to the volume of such mail received. http://members.xoom.com/dwpalmer/home.htm * - End of forwarded message from David Palmer -
What's New for Feb 26, 1999 (fwd)
As loads of you seem to be in awe of the sience establishment, I thought perhaps you are interested in these reports on its management, I forward these in the future if there is interest. Eva -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:56:27 -0500 (EST) From: What's New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: What's New for Feb 26, 1999 WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 26 Feb 99 Washington, DC 1. NMD: WHO SAYS CONGRESS ISN'T DOING THE PEOPLES BUSINESS? We can all sleep better tonight. By an overwhelming 50-3, the House Armed Services Committee yesterday approved the National Missile Defense Act: "It is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense" (WN 5 Feb 99). There is no mention of when, what it might cost, whether it should work, or the White House promise of a veto in its present form (12 Feb 99). 2. BROOKHAVEN: NO SIGNIFICANT SAFETY ISSUES FOUND AT HFBR. At the request of DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducted a six-week on-site assessment of safety issues at the High Flux Beam Reactor. The NRC report concludes that: "Actions taken to characterize and control the tritium plume were conservative, and this plume does not represent a radiological hazard to public health or safety." Uh, does it mean that the decision to shutdown HFBR and terminate the Associated Universities contract was premature (WN 2 May 97)? Of course, we won't know for sure until the STAR panel completes its safety review (WN 12 Feb 98). 3. RADON: EFFECT OF SINGLE ALPHA PARTICLE IS STUDIED DIRECTLY. Just one year ago, a NRC report on residential radon risk (BIER- VI) relied on the dubious linear-no-threshold extrapolation from data on uranium miners to evaluate residential radon risk (WN 20 Feb 98). Using a charged particle microbeam system, however, researchers at Columbia's Center for Radiological Research have directly studied cell damage from multiple alpha traversals, which are experienced by miners, down to single alpha traversals in a lifetime, that result at residential levels. They found no difference between single traversals and zero. While the studies were done using mouse cells, they indicate that the linear-no- threshold model strongly overestimates residential radon risks. The new technique may also offer a way to evaluate the risk from high-energy, high-Z radiation in space travel (WN 20 Dec 96). 4. CIRCULAR A-110: EARMARK HAS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. The APS Executive Board on Saturday affirmed the position of the APS that scientists have an ethical obligation to make public the data on which their findings are based. The proposed revision of OMB circular A-110, however, which requires that all data resulting from federal funding be publicly available under the Freedom of Information Act (WN 12 Feb 99), is overly broad. The law could force premature release of data. It was slipped into the omnibus appropriations bill under the cover of darkness by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL). At a meeting at the AAAS this morning, a staffer for Sen. Shelby confirmed that the target was the EPA, which had taken actions based on data that was not in the public domain. However, using an appropriations earmark to legislate, thus avoiding debate or hearings, commits the same sin. In a war between Shelby and the EPA, science was an innocent bystander. THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) - End of forwarded message from gj bart -
Re: Democracy is the opiate of the masses.
> > Eva, I give up. I'm sorry if I was bad mannered. But you do seem to argue > from an impenetrable ideology. Let me explain my point of view, perhaps > equally impenetrable. Some years ago, I arrived at the conclusion that > idealism and ideology are the worst things that have ever happened to > humankind, even though I know that they go with the territory of being > human. > > What has happened time and again in history is that great ideas have become > religious or secular ideologies which have then become mantras and formulas, > which have then been fanaticized, and have then become marching boots. Look > at Christ becoming the Crusades, Calvin and the Inquisition; at Hegel and > Marx becoming Stalin and the gulag; at Nietche becoming Hitler and the gas > chambers. Because of the ever-present possibility of this sequence, I would > be apprehensive about a motivated and mobilized working class which has > achieved "consciousness" in accordance with some ideal or ideology. Would > its members, like Mao's Red Guards, begin to turf the capitalists wherever > they thought they found them? > So, what you propose is, that we never ever analyse our history and think about how to avoid past pittfalls and make a plan for a better future? All the past ideology failed, because all the movements were taken over at some point - usually at the very beginning - by non-democratic processes, that did not allow the continuous re-examination of the aims, tactics and strategy - which is the core of a democratic movement. You probably say there is no point in such analysis, all human effort ends of being animal-like hierarchival and democracy is an unnatural phenomena... ... and I don't agree, does this amount to "inpenetrable ideology"? Afterall, I only argue for democracy, and even some capitalists seem to be in favour of that... ...allegedly. once we manage to be aware of the importance of maintaining the democratic process, we can work out how best to guard it from any deformation - we've seen it often enough, surely you clever people can come up with something - > I do recognize that it is not idealism itself, but the distortion of > idealism into iron-clad ideologies, that is the fault. Yet I would suggest > that such distortion is more the rule than the exception. While I haven't > lost sleep over it yet, I know that there are many millions of angry people > around just waiting for the next great distortion and the next great > crusade. If you could assure me that we could proceed to the ideal state > owned and operated by the working class without persecution and bloodshed, I > would buy it, but, knowing something of history and its ability to repeat > itself, I might be pretty hard to convince. > I think only the development of democracy can protect us from future bloodshed. I've just seen some frightening docu about the KKK and it's ilk in the US having a major upswing. And one knows when an ideology is problematic, not only from the hate content, but also from the hierarchical, militaristic character of the organization. (What was also shown, that they are able to grow in the present climate of capitalist "all for oneself" ideology with the complementary emotional desolation. They interviewed an ex-member of one of these groups, and asked him why he joined. He said these were the first bunch of people ever to send him birthdaycards...) > I recognize that people's lives are organized around work. But I would > argue that, in doing their work, people in general have little in common > other than having to get out of bed and having to go to a place of work. > People who do a particular kind of work or who work in a particular > establishment have common interests, and if these are not being satisfied, > they should take collective action, but action through negotiation and a > democratically derived system of laws, with strikes as an ultimate threat. > There are many instances in which broadly based opposition to unjust laws or > circumstances make sense, but the issues in question usually transcend the > interests of a particular group or class. Poverty and homelessness, for > example, require the attention of all members of society. But on all such > issues, I would like to think that whatever action is taken would be aimed > at solving the problem, not at restructuring us into conformity with some > ideological dogma about how a society should function. We've surely had > enough of that. > You miss the important point: there is a very obvious and sufficient common denominator: we are forced to work to earn a living, and the majority of us has no say in the process at all, and a large portion do not get even enough to live in dignity, for their troubles. Our lives are dependent on the tiny layer, that owns our means of productions; building, land, machinary etc, and most unfortunately makes the decision for our military/economist/environmentalist strategists, and it doesn't look li
Re: Democracy is the opiate of the masses.
You're right as far as decisions are made
in Europe, but don't underestimate
the unions that started to be international, too.
Not quite what you expect from those often mentioned
bleedin' herd animals!
Eva
>
> Since the Scandinavian nations (except Norway) and the Netherlands are now
> in the EU, democracy is 'working' less and less in them. All important
> decisions are increasingly "shifted" to Brussels and [thus] the international
> big biz. ("The United States of Europe" is the aim, remember.)
> Oligarchy with a democratic face (makEUp) is a more elegant way of
> "managing the herd animals" than plain sincere scientocracy...
>
> --Chris
>
>
>
Re: Democracy & sociocybernetics
> > I don't think that the level of > > aggressivity is an ethnic trait > > or even genetic. > > Any such statement on "human nature" > > is very suspect. > > Have you ever noticed the bully & the runt in a litter of puppies? Have you > noticed some species of dogs as more predictably aggressive than other > breeds? And please don't tell us as you always do that humans are > 'different'; sure we're different, but we're still mammalian. > The bully tend to be the biggest puppy, the one with the most expendable energy. Even in dogs, aggressivity is "taught" by the human who replaced the role of the alpha. Even bull-terriers in a strong-controlled but peaceful environment tend to grow up docile. You say we should not attempt democracy because no animals live that way? And for the same reason we should accept whatever an exploitative and visibly insane social structure throws at us? Than we shouldn't do poetry, science, etc, etc, or even debate on the internet, must be bad for us, it is against our animal nature, I haven't seen any mammals doing it... What a said apology for the support of the capitalist system! > > I am not aware of any present mongols > > being more aggressive than other peoples. > > Another example of nature/nurture adaptive fitness is high altitude > athletes who's genetic heritage, childhood development, and training > increase their capacities/skills. > You are confusing physical/biologival and behavoral/social traits. > > > Most research comparing such ethnic or > > race differences are scientifically > > contraversial to say the least. > > Evidence? Historical literature is full of genealogical lines with their > dominant traits/characteristics. Do you think the attributions made in > literature are unrelated to real experience? Pure tabula rasa fantasy? > So we should accept all the unscientific stereotyping of historical literature as evidence? E.g. That wellknown fact of thousands years of history that women cannot think rationally? Etc, Etc.? Are you serious?? People in the absence of scientific methods end cientific data, made some patterns that had no real base, only a self-fulfilling expectations of set behavoral forms. > I'm short, pensive, studied philosophy in univ., made enough $ trading in > finance to retire young to organic gardening, and am 1/2 eastern euro jew, > 1/4 german jew, 1/4 german christian. Kurtz (kurz) means short in german. > Jews were historically good traders, and studied talmud (philosophy). In > _Heart of Darkness_ (J.Conrad), Kurtz is a gloomy, philosophical > businessman/trader. He is referred to in Eliot's poem "The Wasteland", and > reappears as Colonel Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now". All coincidence? > Must be, because I am a 100% east-European jew ethnically and I haven't done any of these things. Besides being tall. Jews learned to be good traders, as in a scores of medieval countries they were not allowed to do anything else. I happen to know dozens who are crap at it, couldn't give a damn, do other stuff well or live in poverty. > > The level of allowed/legit aggressivity > > is a social construct > > (level of control expected i.e. > > aggressivity tolerated), with individual > > variation being a mixture of nurture > > environment and the given chemical balance > > of the nervous system. > > OK. You acknowledge a "mixture" of nurture/nature. So why throw out the > "nature" by speculating that nurture can overrule it? A first & second > order cybernetic feedback system is IMO the clearest way to approach the > issues we've been slinging around these last weeks. > Everyone has a hardwired possibility to become a psychopath in given circumstances. Nurture can overrule it except for a very few cases of physiological mental illness. It is not a speculation but a fact you see if you look around, our behaviour reflects the social/emotional defects or plusses of our environment. Please tell me what points you are making with these excerpts, I missed them. Eva > excerpted from abstract below: > "Third, this is caused by autopoiesis (Greek for self-production), the > recognition of the fact that all living organisms are self-steering within > certain limits, and that their behaviour therefore can be steered from the > outside only to a very moderate extent." > > > better format on: > http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Einmag_Abstr/FGeyer.html > > The Challenge of Sociocybernetics. > > By F. Geyer > > Felix Geyer > SISWO > Plantage Muidergracht 4 > 1018 TV Amsterdam > Nederland > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Full Paper > > Abstract: > > This paper summarizes some of the important concepts and developments in > cybernetics and general systems theory, especially during the last two > decades. Its purpose is to show show how they indeed can be a challenge to > sociological thinking. Cybernetics is used here as an umbrella term for a > great variety of related disciplines: general sys
Re: Democracy
I don't think that the level of aggressivity is an ethnic trait or even genetic. Any such statement on "human nature" is very suspect. I am not aware of any present mongols being more aggressive than other peoples. And I am not being PC, just never heard about such scientific evidence. Most research comparing such ethnic or race differences are scientifically contraversial to say the least. The level of allowed/legit aggressivity is a social construct (level of control expected i.e. aggressivity tolerated), with individual variation being a mixture of nurture environment and the given chemical balance of the nervous system. eva > > Competition has been with us since the dawn of time. Hunters and gatherers > competed for harvesting territory, farmers competed as tribes for the best > lands and then within tribes for the best lands, and manufacturers have > competed since manufacturing became the dominant mode of business. The > whole thing has been driven by real or perceived scarcity - either I get my > cut or someone else will - and, it would seem, the need to dominate, which, > though deplorable, is nevertheless a human characteristic. > > In this process, peaceful people tend to get kicked around - e.g., the > peaceful Utes who once lived in southern Alberta were kicked out by the > Blackfeet; Bantu tribes overran Africa; the Mongols, from far east Asia, > overran Europe as the Huns had previously; and of course we are still, > hopefully, familiar with what the Germans and Japanese tried to do just a > few decades ago. I once asked a Professor of Russian History why the > Mongols overran Russia and moved into eastern Europe in the 13th and 14th > Centuries. He looked at me with some surprise, not as though it was a > stupid question, but one that he had never really considered. His answer: > "Why, they were Mongols, that's what Mongols did." > > Ed Weick > >
Re: (Humor) Microsoft Democracy(TM)
Classless society happened before surplus was produced, and yes it was probably very cruel. The point is that it must have been successful, nevertheless, in establishing more and more stable and numerous human populations. It is an example for a classless society. We made our spiral of development over 100k years as homo sapiens - we are ready to use such efficient looking scenario again - this time without the cruelty and the fear of the unknown world - on a totally different conscious level. Eva > Eva: > > >Classless society happened to humans for 100K + years, > >our relatively short written history chronicled only the > >class society that also happened to us - with it's > >exploitation, privilege, cruelty, etc. > > You can believe that if you like, but I doubt very much that the first 100K > of human were without class and cruelty. But then of course none of us were > present, so how can we know? Incidentally, there is a very good novel > written on the theme of prehistoric cleverness and cruelty -- Willian > Golding's "The Inheritors", which deals with an encounter between > Neanderthal and modern man. Golding is better known for "Lord of the > Flies", which carries a somewhat similar message, though the setting is > modern. > > Believe me, I too would like to believe that a series of social > transformations, such as going from hunting and gathering to agriculture and > thence to industry, accounts for the class system and resultant > exploitation. But I really have no evidence that exploitation did not exist > in earlier systems. And not only that. It is people themselves who brought > about the transformations, and for their own ends. That is, the class > system was not imposed on us by aliens from outer space. We created it, > probably a very long time ago, and amplified and broadened it each time some > new innovation made it possible to do so. > > Hunters were displaced by farmers, and farmers by industrialists, and each > time those who were displaced became the lumpenproletariat who had to work > for the farmers or the industrialists. Perhaps the driving cause is our > need to invent and innovate, but that is something that we can't help doing. > It is a consequence of having large brains and opposable thumbs, or some > such thing. > > Ed Weick > > > >
Re: Democracy is the opiate of the masses.
>Trying to make a difference? So what? People have been trying to make a >difference ever since people existed. And today, our water laps the >portholes of our Titanic. > >When one's ship is on its way down, the only thing that matters is results. >Rather than wasting time on a make-believe political system, wouldn't it >make more sense to petition the rich directly for relief? Unless you mean euthenasia... The rich are not aware that they are on the same ship with us, save a few lonely voice such as Soros. Asking them to use all ther wealth to save the earth sound much more utopistic than anything I ever said. Anyway, if we are just a type of herd animals, we should not bother in any effort of diverting impending catastrophies - I don't know any herd animal who behave like that. Another of them damn contradictions. I bet Ray is chuffed with the idea that humans never ever made a difference. Eva >Jay
Re: Democracy is the opiate of the masses.
>... and the good ship Titanic takes her final plunge into the icy blackness. >Our final scene is of a panicing herd -- arms waving and running in >circles -- totally preoccupied with the political correctness of it all. I don't remember anyone using PC arguments. Another strawman. > I am leaving this list for a while. about the best point made so far... Eva C U later, Jay
Re: Democracy(TM)
So the "left" is still to be equated with the soviets. You think today's socialists want to follow the pattern of the ex-USSR. You are (again) ignoring all I've been saying here for years. I suppose there must be a few over 70 CP-ers who still idolise the USSR, but that is definitely not "the left". Please do not send picture to any list - that is an ultimate offence against netikette. You can send it privately to people who are interested, or put it on your website and refer to it. Eva > To the list: > > I tried sending a picture but obviously that doesn't work. I guess it's just > "too big", I mean too much memory for the list or servers.Anyone who wants > one just ask and I will try sending it to you. Eva, did you get the picture? > > Now as for Eva, Ed, Jay, Arthur, Sally, Mike and the rest, > > The problem with this for me is the same as Paul Robeson. I worked with one of > his teachers and he was a great man. One of the great artists and heroes of the > 20th century.It was not his politics that was so much the problem, anymore > than was Picasso's, but the whole concept of " intellectual value" abroad in the > society in his time and this time still. > > A best selling book by a female judge says it best: "Beauty fades, dumb is > forever." But what constitutes smart?A scientist on the basketball court > with professional players would make dumb moves as would the reverse. > Robeson was a great singer and a great political hero for an America that was > brutal, crude and banal but he failed to see the same in the Soviets and the > relatives of his intellectual friends in Moscow who were murdered by Stalin, > never forgave him. > > The split between Jews and Blacks began there but the Black collaborationists > who abandoned Robeson in the U.S. maintained the fragile coalition for a time > longer until more progress could be made. The Crow Priest "Plenty Coups" had > done the same sixty years earlier when he also signed a loyalty oath while > "Crazy Horse" was murdered for being intractable.So who was right?The > hero Robenson, under illegal "house arrest" in the U.S. for seven years > protesting the lynchings and apartheid refusing to sign an unconstitutional > loyalty oath so that he could perform around the world, or the men who > cooperated with Macarthy?We have a similiar issue with Elia Kazan and the > Oscars. > > And they love to call this a Judeo-Christian society. If I were either I would > protest or certainly not admit to it. > > It is said that the CIA gave Robeson a drug, that causes paranoia, at a party in > Moscow and the effect was that he slit his wrists effectively stopping his world > tour of socialist countries and not embarrassing the U.S. powers. The Russians > cooperated by giving him shock treatments and practically destroying the man. > Beauty is fragile but dumbness is cantagious.All of this was on Television > tonight.This great artist was a national treasure but dummies who stumble > over diamonds and can only use them to kill rabbits were emulated in the last > couple of centuries and are emulated still. Yes those same bunny killers are > the ones who call us Hunter/Gatherers and even finally got it into the Am. Her. > II American Dictionary. There is a problem with "knowledge" especially when > you can simply define your competitor out of existence.Only the latest is > real because there is a problem with remembering. > > In tomorrow's NYTimes there is an article about the scientist businessmen in > Silicone Valley using their technical expertise and money to effect the > political landscape in California for the Libertarians. Most are young and > beautiful but their causes will outlast them and are truly dumb. Even the > article quotes them as having very short attentions spans. (Cocaine can cause > that also.) So the left is dumb and the right is dumb. Jay there had > better be more than just right or left or this ship WILL sink. > > Robeson was trapped.White America patted themselves on the back for > "letting" him become who he was but did not ask why they were not up to his > standard. It also never occurred to them that this world class artist could > have happened anywhere at any time. America had nothing to do with it.It > just destroyed his health and ultimately killed him.The country that > criticized the KGB even monitored his medical charts in the hospital with the > FBI. What should worry the folks here is that the Black folks are not > forgetting this stuff. Even Harry Belafonte came across like a historian > tonight.They were an impressive group of people. > > On Nightline tonight there was a program about a study in how the White medical > establishment treats blacks differently even when they are middle class, have > good health insurance and are productive. In effect they were saying that > the Black community is being rob
Re: (Humor) Microsoft Democracy(TM)
> > Satire aside, it is obvious that fully developed direct electronic > > democracy is just a few years away. > >And we can expect the computer companies to develop special > > software to accommodate it. > > And we can expect the computer hackers to develop special software to > fake the votes. Like video telephones, electronic voting is a technical > solution that won't be feasible due to the "human factor". > Yes, you're right, it could only worked if power and privilages were not involved in the decision-making process and all the channels of information were totally transparent for everyone. Guess what - this means an alternative social structure... Eva > --Chris > > >
shorter hours essay
A few comments to Tom Walker; Your essay completely misses an important word whether he talks about the Canadian or any other economy of today; businesses need to make PROFITS to survive in our market system. - productivity is not linked to profits in a climate of over-production and disappearing markets. - management efficiency is not linked to profits in a climate of over-production and disappearing markets. - the free flow of investment to countries of much lower labour cost makes unemployment grow regardless. - incentives to employers - such as subsidised employment of young unemployed did not ork - it lead to the redundancy of the more expencive type of labour. - The reduction of labour cost due to reduced insurance/taxes per employee was used to increase profits, not to increase the number of workers. Sorry it, seems a well meant but a cosmetic, a superficial idea that disregards the realities of capitalism. Try to get out of the framework that cannot be reformed, only scrapped. Please refer to the forwarded "competition" post. Eva
Re: expand/steady-state mkt. economy
> > Religious people believe in a god, whether > > it is a literal one with beard or an abstract > > one that supposed to be symbolising some > > sort of human feeling/thinking/valuing. > > There is nothing abstract about Ultimate Concern withthat which is Ultimate in the > person's life. It could be an > automobile, a book or even another person or pet. > We put it a different way, we said: "When we die, so > do our Gods." > Do you mean that people can believe in anything? Ofcourse they can. However it doesn't mean that anything people believe in is valid. If some one tells me that he believes that I have a nestful of pink unicorns behind my left earlobe, I won't take his word for it. I differentiate between my fantasies and my beliefs. I don't believe in fantasies, but I believe in stuff that is linked with reality. > You said: > > > Well, I am thankfully free of all this, so I don't know > > what sort of opinions you have alotted as mine. > > I say:Put yourself in my place. That is what, as an actor, I do with you.Then I >have > a conversation knowing that the dialogue is with > myself on an inadaquate machine. I can only stir the things > you already know within yourself and you within me. Neither > one of us is Mime or Wotan and so we don't have to worry about > only asking that which we already know. That is all there is > anyway.That is also what I was trying to say to you about > translation but you have a different thought attached to me on that > one. > I don't understand what you're saying. I think I am able to learn new things, though yes, obviously, I measure up the validity of new ideas with my experience. > You said: > > > Yes, there is an underlying human concern with > > finding our place, finding our role in life, > > but as there is no evidence for anything > > "ultimate". > > I say:Glad to know that you don't believe in a hierarchy of needs. > hm? I am lost again. > > > I have no reason to think > > any of it has anything to do with > > a fair description of our reality. > > I say:See the Gardner article or see the earlier post I wrote on Arts and Crafts. > what was the gist of it? > You said: > > > There is enough wonder around > > in the form of all that ended up > > existing temporarily as a result of > > chains of random coincidences to fill > > our lives, especially if we also > > have an ambition to make the best > > of the short period of consciousness > > we have for ourselves therefore for > > everybody else. > > I say:1. I'm all for "wonder".2. There is no more proof that it is random than that > it is not. One might compare it to the randomness of the Internet except there are > all of those links. I tend to believe more in the interconnectedness of all > reality and that it is a conscious as I am but different. Reality is "conscious"? I could imagine a theory that connects all the material in the universe, including the yet undescribed structure of empty space, but how could it be conscious? That seems the usual thing - trying to make everything reflect us, measly humans... > 3. I to wish to make the best for my short period of life in this place but I have no > idea about > before or after and I must find a balance between enlightened self-interest and the > rest of the world. Are you saying, along with Ayn Rand, that if you are truly >selfish > with your brief period that it will be good for everyone else as well? > I think I've answered this one in my other post: you have to realise, that it is in your selfish interest to make the social/economical structure work for everyone. There is no sense in quantifying selfishness. > You say: > >If you think that all of it is here to please > >you or your god, you are wrong, > > I say:Actually that is a paper tiger but how do you know that it is wrong. I > thinkthat is as much an area of "belief" as the "faith" of the people you deride. > I'm not speaking of faith as "ultimate concern" but as "belief in that which > cannot be proven." > Not everything is falcifiable, but that doesn't mean that we cannot make rational decisions about what we belive, especially if we manage to keep an open, but critical mind. All the religions except the most abstract ones are in contradiction with the reality we have, so I think my best option is to say that I have no reason to believe in any of them and I put them in the same category as those pink unicorns. > You say: > > > but you should > > let me criticise peacefully yours ... > > it is just an other aspect of life one has > > to puzzle about... > > I say;I agree and you can. > > You said: > > > As for languages and people - they exist to > > pass on meanings. If there is no content, > > there is no point in language or communication. > > I said;Every word in every language can contain at least seven > meanings.Meaninglessness is the concept of the Barbarian gibberish that the > Greeks claimed everyone else spoke b
Re: Communism is just another stupid idea whose time has past.
>>People were not consciously structuring slavery, >>feudalism or capitalism. It happened to them >>as a consequence of the physical environment including >>technological/economical development and in turn, social >>relations. > >I am beginning to understand your thesis Eva. It seems >to be one of two possibilities: > I don't think you are really trying... e.g.: >Hypothesis #1. "People" are defined by their actions. >"People" can only do good things. > Now, where did I say or even imply such nonsense? > >Hypothesis #2: "People" can do no wrong. Only the "system" >can be wrong. > again - a very clumsily constructed strawmen. > >Question: Over a hundred million people were killed during >the last century. > >Isn't it possible that some of those who were doing the burning, >raping, shooting, clubbing, knifing, and bombing were doing it >because they LIKED it? > I think the people you describe are defined as "psycopaths", and there are not many of them, and usually it is extreme unhumne conditions that produce them, but some physiological capacity for mental breakdown is also present. Conditions of poverty/war/demagoguery/chauvinism/ ignorance etc. allow such individuals periodically to be accepted as "normal". But it is not the normal "defining" state of humanness, same as being angel is not, either: > >Where on Earth, has the "system" EVER allowed the "people" >to become the angels you claim them to be? > I have never claimed people to be angels, merely humans. People act for the betterment of society, when they realise, that this is in their own selfish interest. Some people are a bit ahead in this realisation of social awareness, others had different experiences that made them think that the only way they can succeed (to achieve happiness) if they ready to subdue/exploit other people. I don't have any basis to pronounce value-judgement on them, I definitely do not think, that I am "good" or that the capitalists are "bad". >Communism is just another stupid idea whose time has past. > it would be nice if sometimes you could give me the feeling that you understand any of it before you pronounce your opinion. You are regurgitating 5 decades of well-brainwashed ideas of the US mass media. Eva >Jay > > -- ** Beispiel-Signatur **
Re: social darwinism again (fwd)
I thought anyone can be classified as social darwinists, if they think some sort of "survival of the fittest" applies to human society, or if they in fact describe human society as not distinguishable from that of "herd animals". You gave the impression of accepting opinions like these. Eva ... With respect to the title of this thread: "social Darwinism again". In order to even understand the subject matter, one would have to be able to differentiate between "social Darwinism" (politics) and "biological Darwinism" (science). Nowadays, there is a great deal of popular literature available on the subject. Jay
Re: expand/steady-state mkt. economy
Religious people believe in a god, whether it is a literal one with beard or an abstract one that supposed to be symbolising some sort of human feeling/thinking/valuing. Well, I am thankfully free of all this, so I don't know what sort of opinions you have alotted as mine. Yes, there is an underlying human concern with finding our place, finding our role in life, but as there is no evidence for anything "ultimate". I have no reason to think any of it has anything to do with a fair description of our reality. There is enough wonder around in the form of all that ended up existing temporarily as a result of chains of random coincidences to fill our lives, especially if we also have an ambition to make the best of the short period of consciousness we have for ourselves therefore for everybody else. If you think that all of it is here to please you or your god, you are wrong, but you should let me criticise peacefully yours ... it is just an other aspect of life one has to puzzle about... As for languages and people - they exist to pass on meanings. If there is no content, there is no point in language or communication. I don't know what sort of person Marx was, I am interested in his theories. You'll find, that most geniuses, including artists, tend to be self-centered and preoccupied with their art or science, so they are usually unhappy and difficult/antisocial individuals. So what? Ask Jay not to make leaders out of them... Their biographies are fascinating like anybody else's but the major thing is what they made for us to use and enjoy. Even if we know absolutely nothing about Wagner, Mozart and x number of scientists and poets, if their work somehow touches the human condition (they are lucky enough to develop their potential instead of dying of malnutrition aged 3 or sitting in prison after a deliquent youth), it will be in the public domain forever. "Marx's zest for punctillious intrigue"?? "Counter warlike postures of the Soviets"?? You are what you preach, all words and no meaning. Eva > neil, perhaps you would like to check these dates as well. > > Eva, > > Growing up on a reservation where English was taught from the perspective of the > Cherokee language, while the Cherokee language itself was banned, created an > interesting English to say the least. It wasn't until I went to college and > left the reservation that I began to realize that the non-Indians read the bible > differently from the folks on the reservation with the words being more concrete > in Tulsa at the University. Well it is a big geology school. > > I would suggest that your view of religion and God is a particularly literal > fundamentalist one. We have the same problem when non-Indians interpret what > they believe we are saying in our Sacred myths.It's as if we were all > fundamentalists, but we aren't.That is not even close. > > I would suggest that you look into Paul Tillich, Martin Buber or even the J.A.T. > Robinson, the Bishop of Woolich for a concept of God that is not 19th century > Romantic. I would also point out that while you complained about not being > read, you didn't seem to try to read what I wrote about Sacred language which a > lot of Christians (My not being Christian) have no trouble accepting either. > > Tillich merely defined faith as "ultimate concern" (not belief in that which is > unseen or cannot be proved) and God was that part of your existence that had > your "ultimate concern" while Robinson called God simply the "Ground of all > Being."We say that the first choice you have in life is that which will be > your "ultimate concern" and that is your God. I don't think that Buber would > have had a problem with that either since it fits nicely with the Jewish concept > of "idolatry." I would be curious how it would have fitted with a first > generation German Christian whose grandfathers had been Rabbis as well. > > This has little to do with the "God as the big supernatural Object" (big white > daddy in the sky) that you seem to be railing against.That God is a part > of the 19th century Romantic flourish which said things like "My God and I walk > through the fields together" or maybe Kazantzakis' Barbarian who drinks wine > from the skull of his God in the "Odysseus Sequel." > > But Eva, I don't understand how you can say these things when Hungarian > translates so much like "opening blossoms" into English.Even the > dictionaries are forced to rely upon metaphor and "as ifs" when translating > Hungarian into English.Even on the Internet, the Hungarian dictionaries are > not an easy read in the English mode. Where is your respect for the speakers > who have lived with the English and struggled with IT'S complexities all of > their lives? > > Mark Twain did a very funny piece called "Innocents Abroad" where he constantly > confused the literary with the phonetic, especially around the word "dammit" in > German which is writt
No Subject
(JAY:) These "egalitarian" societies work because they are small. Community members must be able to "recognize" other community memebers. That limits them to 300 or 400 individuals. me: If everyone have information about the trackrecord of somebody's capabilities in a directly any time open information system, we do not need to "recognize" community members in the larger community. And in the smaller one - such as living place and workplace control, such choosing people relying on personal experience is more efficient than the present system where the supervisors are pushed on from the top. By the way, I would call a hierarchy democracy, if it is built bottom-up, everyone is instantly recallable and everyone have the same access to information and life's necessities. Besides not being based on physical strength and darwinism, it seems a very natural social way to me, too... Ray: It not a question wheither or not human will have rulers, the only question is who shall rule. We are presently ruled by the rich. I would like to see different criteria. It's a fact of life that democracy (no matter how one defines it) is on the way out. me: it cannot be on the way out, as it hasn't been in yet! We should be ruled by ourselves, that's the best way to being ouselves; the most individualistic system there is... Eva
Re:
>Economic theories are not the cause of wars, economic structures >that developed without any human intervention, and seem >to be oblivious to any government manipulation, are. "Economic structures that developed without any human intervention?" If humans didn't develop them, who did? The chimps? The men from Mars? (Jay) Well, perhaps it is too subtle for you Jay, but I'll explain patiently: People were not consciously structuring slavery, feudalism or capitalism. It happened to them as a consequence of the physical environment including technological/economical development and in turn, social relations. However there were some conscious attempts to change or make up such as Athen's or Rome's "democracy", slave/peasant uprisings, the bourgois civil wars/revolutions to demonstrate, that homo sapiens were striving for a long time to totally break from the notion of living in bliss- ful ignorance, accepting insanity, like animals. Eva
re: social darwinism again
Jay: I am a realist, someone who recognizes the overwhelmingly obvious fact that humanity is hierarchical -- that some people are better at some things than others. me: ofcourse some people are better at some things than others. That's why they have to work together and to rely on each other as valued citizens. Jay: I would -- like all other people who are not insane -- go to a doctor for surgery. I suppose a true believer like yourself might opt for surgery from the grocer, but it doesn't make sense to me. me: I would only go for the surgery if my illness is well diagnosed. Meantime - get a better diet and go to the grocer... You and Ray keep calling me fundamentalist and true believer. Both of these imply looking at one's opinions without any criticism or periodical overhaul. This is not true in my case on either counts. If we are into namecalling, I think I have some evidence to call Jay a supremacist anti-humanist and Ray a relativist, who prefers to look at the superficial attributes, such as language, rather than the content of ideas. Eva
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
> > Eva, > > Thanks for all of the work. You were very articulate and I enjoyed the read. If >your > premise is correct then the rest of that post is unnecessary. There are those in >every > movement who state that the original premise has been betrayed.I think the Free > Marketeers would say the same about their ideas. They certainly would argue with >you about > genuine Capitalism ever being tried in the world. > Complementing me won't hide the fact that you did not bother to read my my post, as you are not responding to the points I made; I had given reasons for my arguments, I hadn't just re-stated them like you do here. (patiently and optimistically:) The original premise has not been betrayed, well demonstrated conditions created a well demonstrated pattern. Different conditions would have made a different outcome. Every theory have to be defined over a given and limited domain to work; Marx was good enough to define it for us, but if he didn't we would had to do the work of making it more universal. Just like relativity being more inclusive than newtons laws, not negating but making it more understandable as a special case of a more general framework. I haven't seen a systematic analysis of capitalism by free-marketeers or by capitalists as a development from past systems and as a pointer to a next phase. Free markets lead to child-labour etc, super-exploitation of humans and the environment, I yet to see an analysis why it didn't work in the pre-welfare past. Also, the free-marketists usually embrace social Darwinism that is ready to dispence with the "loser" majority of human kind which is totally against the trend of human development so far. > I am aware of the specifics of what you were speaking but it was not the subject of >my > questions. I would contend that the teacher (apart from a school which is a kind of > "education of scale") IS responsible for the success of their product. They are also > responsible for the failure. If they do not wish to be known as such, then they >should not > accept the job of teaching that particular student. Or should forgo writing the >book.I > certainly do hold the founders of the various schools of religious, political and >economic > thought responsible for the chaos expressed in their names. I contend that without >the > original seed, the genetics stop there.Responsibility is, in my culture, one of >the > primal ideas. That is why we burn anything that has not been sold or given away by >the > dead. > If the student is hungry and hasn't got the book which even if he had he cannot read, would you still blame the author of the book for any outcome? Uptil now history just happened TO people, so you cannot blame them - any of them - for it, it was like an outside, wild law of nature. Only now we have first time the option to act responsibly with both the information and the economic/technological conditions satisfactory for actively form our future. > If you wish to go the route of Marx as founding the idea that "economics is the >bottom of > all human life and interactions" then I would have another, actually harsher set of > questions since I consider it a statement not grounded in all of the facts of human > civilization. In short, it is 19th century "romantic idealized thought." Thought >from a > time that had no idea of the foolishness implications inherent in their arguments. >As I > pointed out with the Hammerklavier fugue, even in the system of 18th and 19th century > harmonic theory, there is the issue of time. When the system has been achieved it is > replaced by another with different rules. In the 19th century they believed in A >system, A > morality, A religion, A universal theory of economics (their own), A Universal Art >based > upon European principles. > Economics is the base of society, the efficiency and distribution of the human necessities make the rest go round - surely this is somewhat evident. In what way can you see marxism to be linked to morality and religion of the 19 hundreds? It has a totally different look at the family, art and culture than his contemporaries - the problem is, he's even too new for you... > The absurdity of this should be apparent to anyone who has studied the various >languages of > the world.But from Johnson's Dictionary up through Marx's era it was the common >belief > that Latin grammar was the basis of all advanced languages. This lasted until >modern > psycho-linguists had to admit that it didn't fit English all that well either. >Like the > Sioux skull to the Phrenologists. > I don't know if Marx signed up for this idea, he happened to have opinions on most sciences he was aware of, but even if he did a bit of liguistics, I can't see the significance. Galileo was wrong about heliocentriity because his contemporaries had a few wierd beliefs? If someone managed to nail a piece of reality, it just doesn't
Re: Perhaps a stupid couple of questions
I thought you'd find it interesting, I had an e-mail asking me to do a fixed term job: ringing up for H-P (the printers etc people) a 100 hungarian companies with a questionnaire about their Mil-bug readiness for stg8/hour... (As it is in office hours on their premises I can't do it, though I could do with a bit of extra money...) Eva
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
...
>
> No, I don't think that 19th century Socialism and Communism with its base in out
> of date "scientific" theories is any better. These may as well base their
> theories on Phrenology for all of the sense they make. They were all trying to
> find their individuality by killing their Fathers. ("I'm sure I can write a
> better Bible than that!)
>
...
If this is what you think, you did not understand what
marxism is all about.
>
> That is the reason that I do my own work and am my own boss.I miss the
> "safety" and am considered irresponsible by some for not having more of an
> inheritance for my offspring, but it seems you can't have both in this
> society. Sometimes it's better just to stay out of the way of those "economies
> of scale."
>
not an available option for 99% of the people.
Eva
> REH
>
>
Re: different language games
> > What lead you to think this, Eva? What counts as evidence and proof for > you in this matter? If you and I were looking at paintings by > Michaelangelo, lets say his 'The Fall of Man' in the Sistine Chapel and > Picasso's 'Guernica' ; how would you help me to see how Picasso's work has > progressed beyond Michelangelo's. > Progress is not necessarily a value-judgement, it means different and in fact a higher step of orderliness from the chaos and random coincidence that caused us. Isn't there a line of progress in the universality of meaning, in the accessibility, the new forms and appreciation of art? Artists are created by their society, and their society progressed and they are surely reflecting this. > When Einstein was asked if he was upset that a younger friend had died > before he did; Einstein replied that "the past, the present and the future > are illusions, albeit stubborn ones". Was this the third rate philosopher > speaking or the first rate physicist? > If he said something you happened not to like, would you still think him a good philosopher? He only made extraordinary monument in physics. > Dismissing 2/3's of Newton's writings as third rate puzzles me. Richard S > Westfall, historian of science, and considered to be the authority on > Newton's life and work, wrote a paper; "Newton and Alchemy" in the book > "Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance" 1984, pp.315-335. In > this paper Westfall summarizes the role of Newton's alchemy in his > development of the concept of force; which led to 3 laws of motion... > > A belated Happy Ground Hog Day, it comes half way,exactly, between the > winter solstice and the spring equinox - A sacred day for alchemists. > Alchemists were great, considering the limited data and laboratory equipment available in their times, they made very useful discoveries and put down the foundation of the science called chemistry. The magic/mystic hocus- pocus did not progressed however as their were no practical and evident results from that area of enquiry. Eva > ** > * Brian McAndrews, Practicum Coordinator* > * Faculty of Education, Queen's University * > * Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 * > * FAX:(613) 533-6307 Phone (613) 533-6000x74937* > * e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]* > * "Ethics and aesthetics are one"* > * Wittgenstein * > ** > ** > ** > > > >
Re: Global Social Policy Code (fwd)
Fascinating stuff, as my impression is that the IMF and the WB "gives" money to countries so that they can repay debts. Their constraints so far meant cut in social spending etc, so that debts can be repaid. I won't hold my breath waiting for any such measure to work in the interest of social benefits. Eva > > -- Forwarded message -- > Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 11:19:20 + > From: Bob Deacon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Global Social Policy Code > > WHO SHOULD DEVISE AND OWN THE PROPOSED GLOBAL SOCIAL POLICY CODE? > > The UK government, through the intervention of the Chancellor Gordon > Brown, has made a significant contribution to the debate about how to > regulate the global economy not only in terms of financial flows but also > in terms of the social dimension of globalization. > > He has argued for a GLOBAL SOCIAL POLICY CODE. This would be a "code of > global best practice in social policy which will apply for every country, > will set minimum standards and will ensure that when IMF and WORLD BANK > help a country in trouble the agreed programme of reform will preserve > investments in the social, education, and employment programmes which are > essential for growth" Moreover this code "should not be seen in narrow > terms as merely the creation of social safety nets. We should see it as > creating opportunities for all by investing more not less in education, > employment and vital public services".(Speech entitled Rediscovering > Public Purpose in the Global Economy, Harvard, Dec 15th 1998.) > > It is suggested by him that this code should be agreed at the next meeting > of the World Bank meeting in spring1999. The question, therefore, is posed > as to who and how will this code be devised. It has fallen to Robert > Holzmann as Director of the newly created Social Protection division of > the Human Resources Network of the Bank to formulate this. Some initial > thinking was provided by the Social Development Section of the DFID of the > UK government. It suggested that best practice in social policy involved > a)equitable access to basic social services health, education, water and > sanitation, shelter; b)social protection enabling individuals to reduce > their vulnerability to shocks: and c)core labour standards. > > Two questions arise. First what does the track record of Bank policy > making in this field suggest might be the slant of this new global code if > left to them? > > For a final answer we must await the articulation within the next few > months of the World Bank's Social Protection sector strategy paper. Some > clues as to its orientation already exist. The social protection section, > in the terms of its own publicity material, says it is meeting the > challenge of inclusion by focusing on risk management by 'helping people > manage risks proactively in their households and communities'. Within this > remit it is working on labour market reform, pension reform and social > assistance strategies including supporting NGO and community social funds > in many countries. This suggests a strategy which emphasizes individual > responsibility to insure themselves against the increased risks and > uncertainties of globalization rather than one that puts emphasis on > governmental responsibilities to pool risks and to universalize provision. > Holzmann concentrates on pension policy (1997a,1997b,1997c,1997d) and has > lent his support to the multi-pillar approach to pension reform (1997b) > which would reduce the state PAYG schemes to a minimal role of basic > pension provision, supplemented by a compulsory and fully funded and > individualized second pillar and a voluntary third pillar. > > Second how should other global actors with a right to a view on this code: > ILO, UNICEF, WHO, UNESCO, UNDP, the UN Economic and Social Secretariat, > global trade unions, global civil society etc. have their say? If we are > to build a global economy that takes the social dimension seriously then > we need forms of global social policy formulation that stand in the > tradition of consensus politics and tripartism. The initiative by the UN > Social Policy and Social Development Secretariat to formulate a policy for > the social dimension of globalization needs to engage with this GLOBAL > CODE OF SOCIAL POLICY . The ILO and other UN social agencies need to make > their input. A wide ranging discussion is needed , not a quick fix at the > next meeting of the Bank. A code owned by all could be agreed at the > Copenhagen plus 5 meeting scheduled for June 2000. > > A code for best practice in social policy should not slant too far in the > direction of targeting and privatisation. It would have to explicate what > the alternative poles of universalism and public responsibility might mean > for countries at different levels of development. At the same time such an > approach of universalism appropriate to the level of dev
Re: re:democracy
>>I pointed out (often), that there are fundamental conditions for >>a proper working democracy, and these conditions did not >>exist in our history so far. >Then the reasonable observer would conclude they never will. What about universal literacy? What about the technology to make information universally available and open for everyone? What about the capacity to produce all basic necessities in abundance? What about basic experience in democratic de- cisionmaking? To my knowledge, some of these conditions only existed for less than 100 years and on the others we are still working on. So, who is this reasonable observer? Eva >Jay
Re: Lundemocracy
Sounds good to me... However, I think we can only give an approximate framework, with a few stopchecks, the system will stear itself to the most efficient way. Eva > A LUNDEMOCRACY. > > I like Thomas's idea. A significant improvement over currently > operative models of democracy. > > But I would make these modifications. > > (1) that citizen education for parliamentary participation be > compulsory, IF participation is to be compulsory, OR: > (2) that participation in parliament not be mandatory, but the right to > participate be conditional on attainment of certain communicative and > other competencies, ie, on a 'driving' licence. > (3) that a person's participation be limited to two or three main > decision-making domains. Few, if any, people have the capacity to > absorb the theory and info. in all areas in order to make reasonable > decisions. Better that people choose those areas in which they have a > genuine interest. The rule: don't participate in a decision if you > don't have have time to properly deliberate on the information and have > not well considered the underlying theoretical assumptions. > (4) that full right to effect decisions in the chosen domain be bestowed > only after a 'learning' period - say a year or two, during which time > one serves as an observer/commentator. > (5) that one has the right to choose to continue to serve as a > parliamentarian in an honorary capacity for an extended period say up to > 30 years (subject to confidence maintaining procedures). > (6) that such a democracy be glocal (ie, local and global), using the > Internet as the 'Virtual Parliament'. Such a democracy would render > national politics redundant. > > THE POSSIBILITY TO DESIGN AND TRIAL SUCH A PARLIAMENT NOW EXISTS. THE > EXPERIMENT DOES NOT NEED THE SANCTION OF THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL > ORDER. BETTER THAT IT BE TRIALED, DEVELOPED BY AND IMPLEMENTED AMONG > THOSE INTERESTED RATHER THAN IT BE UNDEMOCRATICALLY FOISTED ON AN UNWARY > PUBLIC. > > > Thomas Lunde wrote: > > > > > I have long puzzled over this question of democracy and I would like to > > propose the Democratic Lottery. For it to work, there is only one > > assumption that needs to be made and that every citizen is capable of making > > decisions. Whether you are a hooker, housewife, drunk, tradesman, > > businessman, genius or over trained academic, we all are capable of having > > opinions and making decisions. > > > > I suggest that every citizen over 18 have their name put into a National > > Electoral Lottery. I suggest "draws" every two years at which time 1/3 of > > the Parliment is selected. Each member chosen will serve one six year term. > > The first two years are the equivalent of a backbencher in which the > > individual learns how parliment works and can vote on all legislation. The > > second two years, the member serves on various committees that are required > > by parliment. The third and final term is one from which the parliment as > > whole choses a leader for two years and also appoints new heads to all the > > standing committees. > > > > This does away with the professional politician, political parties, and the > > dictatorship of party leadership of the ruling party and it's specific > > cabinet. It ensures a learning curve for each prospective parlimentarian > > and allows in the final term the emergence of the best leader as judged by > > all of parliment. Every parlimentarian knows that he will be removed from > > office at the end of the sixth year. We could extend this to the Senate in > > which parlimentarians who have served for the full six years could > > participate in a Lottery to select Senate members who would hold office for > > a period of 12 years. This would give us a wise council of experienced > > elders to guide parliment and because the Senate could only take a small > > increase of new members every two years, only the most respected members of > > parliment would be voted by parlimentarians into a Senate position. > > > > This would eliminate political parties - it would eliminate the need for > > re-election, it would eliminate campaign financing and all the chicannery > > that goes with money. It would provide a broad representation of gender, > > ethnic groupings, regional groupings, age spread and abilities - and though > > some may question abilities, the prepronderance of lawyers in government has > > not proven to be superior. > > > > If the idea of a representative democracy is for citizens to represent > > citizens, then a choice by lottery is surely the fairest and has the least > > possibility of corruption, greed or the seeking of power to satisfy a > > particular agenda. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Thomas Lunde > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Colin Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: January 27, 1999 4:42 PM > > Subject: Re: real-life example > > > > >At 11:50 AM 1/26/
Re: democracy
I only respond to bits that are clear enough for me to comprehend... >From the latter message about the only concept I managed was "concern"... >From the one next - individual freedoms would be only lessened for a small minority, for the rest I think a change to the future I advocate would mean more individual freedom. I don't know how you define intelligence. I thought we are all capable listen to reason and make decisions for a future we can visualise, but most of us don't have the opportunity to do so. Eva > Eva, > > You persist in not addressing the words of your antagonists, & respond > based upon your revisionist interpretations, ignoring parts that would be > inconsistent with your ideal. > See the second para. below. Note that Jay & I fully expect humans to either > revolt/self-destruct *or* to wake-up to the lessening of individual > freedoms required for the 'common good'. The "intelligence" you seek to > objectify is nothing more than total adaptive fitness to habitat, including > creative & scientific aspects. Humans are not divisible in actuality, only > by theoreticians. > > Steve > > > Not contempt, Eva. Concern. The decline isn't limited to mental > > (brain/nervous system). No species is composed of exact replicas/equals. > > Adaptive fitness is a reality. Humans are the only species known that > > attempts to make differences disappear - a physical impossibility. For > > those dealing in 'souls' or 'spirits', I have nothing to say, and you have > > nothing to show us. > > > > This doesn't make deep democracy impossible; recall Garrett Harden's > > "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" as the rational way forward. (see > > Jay's site: dieoff.org) > > >
Re: real-life example
Hitler was not elected, he's got in power through a militarry-type take-over with the financial and power support of the capitalist class that was terrified by the previous victories of the german worker's movement. He used his power to terrify and brainwash the people. Don't tell me that there was a free flow of information and no intimidation by the time there were "elections". You might as well say that Brezhnev was "elected". Well, torture is not legal anymore in most countries. There is international popular pressure against countries where it is or where it is used illegaly. The problem is, that it is not in the interest of the capitalist countries to do anything about it, because they make good profits in these countries. It was the people who made the law to outlaw the slave trade. They could only do it, when all the information about it was available and those who made the profits from it were defeated. Human society is not static. What was accepted behaviou a generation go, can be totally abhorent now. Normal people control their aggressive, sexual etc.urges, only when society somehow breaks down are conditions arising that allows such controls to break down. How would your benevolant technocrat scientists overcome all this innate nastiness you talk about? You repeat your stuff without answering any of these points. Eva That's exactly my point. Given the opportunity, it would happen anywhere, at any time. There is nothing inherent in man that keeps him torturing and murdering his fellows. For example, the practice of human torture was "legal" for at least 3,000 years and formed a part of most legal codes in Europe and the Far East. Remember that Hitler was elected by "the people". Moreover, the men who ran the camps during WW2 were, for the most part, average people. Remember the Slave trade? Just some conscious family men trying to make a buck and put their kids through school. Let "the people" make all the laws? Bad idea! Jay
Re: real-life example
(I think I mentioned it before BTW, I am Hungarian, as centre-european as any.) I don't think it is valid to link political ideas with ethniticy. Also, I can only picture DD as a global phenomena, once established, you cannot stop it, just like the internet. Eva > At 07:16 AM 1/29/99 +, Mark Measday wrote: > >Mentioning a version of your comments to a central european-born manager, > I was a > >little surprised to receive the following tirade back I paraphrase 'Why would > >Direct Democracy be a good system? Intelligent people know from experience > that > >most other people are idiots. Therefore most decisions will be made by > idiots for > >idiots with idiots,. Those people are idiots. They will have only > themselves, the > >idiots, to blame' > > Are all intelligent people non-idiots? > Are most intelligent people non-idiots? > Do some people who consider themselves intelligent have limited experience > from which to make such harsh, polarized, one-dimensional judgements of > their fellow-humans? > etc > > I do not value your friend's opinion > What does he know of DD? > > >With the visceral, if obviously intellectually inconsequential, anglosaxon > desire > >for fairplay, tolerance and conflict-avoidance (Chamberlain at Munich > comes to > >mind), I agreed pro tem, whilst mentally noting that I woudl like to ask > whether > >you would be happy to include such a person in your direct democracy (or > not). > > by definition, he would have one vote > I would be neither happy nor unhappy > You may be exhibit both tolerance and conflict-avoidance -- while I strive > for the first, I have few tendencies to the second. But then I am Celtic, > not anglo-saxon > > If > >you do, he will destroy it of course, and if you don't then of course it > destroys > >itself. > > I do not attribute to him any more power than one vote, so I cannot accept > your view > > >Do you then have to destroy him to preserve your democracy? And what kind > >of democracy is it that has to preserve itself by destroying its elitists? > > The whole question is hypothetical. > But I do not believe anyone has to destroy him > Nor do I believe that all elitists are so narrow-minded > > I have little experience of Central Europe, and I am not advocating DD for > Central Europe. > I have met several E/Central. Europeans in Canada, and I am not unfamiliar > with the characteristics you describe. > In Canada such people are not numerous, and have little influence in the > circles I move in. > The biggest obstacle in Canada would appear to come from political, > academic, and business Elites whose worlds are bound up in money and power > -- obstacles enough without paying undue attention to people like your friend. > > I sincerely believe that DD is viable in Canada, US, and UK, the three > countries with which I am most familiar > > Colin Stark > > >Colin Stark wrote: > > > >> At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: > >> >- Original Message - > >> >From: Edward Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > >> >>and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed > >> >>only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent > ones. > >> >>However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic, > >> >>allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited > tenure. > >> > > >> >Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best > >> >skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and > experience -- > >> >not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. > >> > > >> >Jay > >> > >> Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A > >> broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a > >> DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be > >> more likely to make a "stupid" choice. > >> > >> But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability > >> of the leader". > >> > >> In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not > >> accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every > >> 4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick > >> the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally > >> UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also! > >> > >> Hence the concept of Direct Democracy: > >> " a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can > >> directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" > >> > >> Colin Stark > >> Vice-President > >> Canadians for Direct Democracy > >> Vancouver, B.C. > >> http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv) > > > >-- > > > > > > > >Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] > >UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 > >French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92 > >Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 > > > >L'
Re: real-life example
Direct democracy cannot selectively exclude people. The elitists are a minority by definition. If they vote themselves out from the collective decisionmaking, we may have fun to see how they manage on their own. Eva > Mentioning a version of your comments to a central european-born manager, I was a > little surprised to receive the following tirade back I paraphrase 'Why would > Direct Democracy be a good system? Intelligent people know from experience that > most other people are idiots. Therefore most decisions will be made by idiots for > idiots with idiots,. Those people are idiots. They will have only themselves, the > idiots, to blame' > > With the visceral, if obviously intellectually inconsequential, anglosaxon desire > for fairplay, tolerance and conflict-avoidance (Chamberlain at Munich comes to > mind), I agreed pro tem, whilst mentally noting that I woudl like to ask whether > you would be happy to include such a person in your direct democracy (or not). If > you do, he will destroy it of course, and if you don't then of course it destroys > itself. Do you then have to destroy him to preserve your democracy? And what kind > of democracy is it that has to preserve itself by destroying its elitists? > > Colin Stark wrote: > > > At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: > > >- Original Message - > > >From: Edward Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >>and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed > > >>only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent ones. > > >>However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic, > > >>allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited tenure. > > > > > >Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best > > >skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and experience -- > > >not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. > > > > > >Jay > > > > Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A > > broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a > > DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be > > more likely to make a "stupid" choice. > > > > But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability > > of the leader". > > > > In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not > > accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every > > 4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick > > the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally > > UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also! > > > > Hence the concept of Direct Democracy: > > " a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can > > directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" > > > > Colin Stark > > Vice-President > > Canadians for Direct Democracy > > Vancouver, B.C. > > http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv) > > -- > > > > Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] > UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 > French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92 > Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 > > L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151 > _ > > >
Re: democracy
> > > Anyone who uses the winners/losers biological > > evolution argument for the development of human society > > is ready to blame the failures of social structure > > on human characteristics, and ready to condemn > > sections of society, rather than to condenm > > inefficient social structures. A straight > > and sinister road to fascism. > > Interesting thought but the economists who wrote the "Winner Take All Society" > define this issue in the reverse. The ones pushing Winner/Loser or Social > Darwinian "Creative Greed" solutions blame the social governmental structures > as not > being efficient in their very nature. According to them, only the private > companies > that have to live by the free market "natural selection" competitive process > have the > potential for efficiency, which is often interchanged with "productivity" > although > that is a confusing use of the two words. > Because they think without the intrusion of govrnments, the winners/losers separation would be more perfect for them. So that they can blame then every ill on just their "inefficiently evolved" victims. ... > > The propaganda of the left is amply criticized in the media in the West but a > truly > non-military economic competition between structures of the far left and right > has never > happened so we can't really call Capitalism, Socialisms, Communism or any other > > economic ism scientific or Darwinian in that sense IMO. > you lost me here. Just because they haven't competed, doesn't mean we cannot draw conclusions, even scientific conclusions. Your examples that I deleted show the shortcomings of the competitive setup for sustainability and R&D. Even just these two problems cannot be solved based on market compotition system and there are more such fatal flows. So surely, you try to achieve a society without these flaws. > > As Ed Weick pointed out last year on this list. Such "scientific" economic > writings as Marx and others are less science and more philosophy in spite of > the Complexity Engineer's love of Huyek's writing structures. If I remember > right Ed said that they didn't really qualify being called Economists in the > modern scientific sense. But Ed will have to say whether my memory is correct > or just all in my head. > I find Marx's analysis scientific, because he manages to point out the features of capitalism that are unable to achieve a balanced economical and social development. It makes sense to leave them out from a future structure. This is what he proposed with very good reasoning, using all the historical and scientific data he had. That he had also had the philosophical support of dialectic materialism is just an extra plus. Eva > REH > > >
Re: How science is really done
Both describe reality in different ways. One person is able to do both. I don't think artists are predisposed against being good at science and vice versa. Eva > > > Science is a method. I detest any separation of > > thinking into "artist" and "scientist". I think we > > all do and need both, but this has nothing to do with > > the way science works. > > "Detest" doesn't say anything. Because both hands are the body doesn't mean > that both hands are the same. > > REH > >
Re: How science is really done
> > Yes, scientists are human, but when we try to define something, shouldn't > it define what is, not what its practitioners mistakenly assume it to be ? > Science in its description of itself denies the entire right brain creative > side of itself. It does this because the mythology of science is > objectivity and subjective pattern making is heresy to that mythology. Yet > in fact science is a blend of the two. > Science is a method. I detest any separation of thinking into "artist" and "scientist". I think we all do and need both, but this has nothing to do with the way science works. Eva > Mike H > > >Mike H: > >> Regarding the subject of what is science and definitions which emphasized > >> observation and rejection of theories when counter factual data is > >> presented, I thought the two following documents would be of interest. > >> > >> Scientists do not as a rule observe and then theorize. They typically do > >> it the other way round. When they find the data does not confirm the > >> hypothesis, the usual reaction is not to reject the hypothesis, but to > >> assume it was a bad set of data and proceed to draw another set. > >> > > > >Scientists are human, they not always adhere to their own principles. > >That doesn't make those principles defunct. The good news is that > >the method always wins out in the long run, when all the data is in > >the public domain, and peers have a free run at the re-analysis. > >I sent on your piece on Gold for a review... > > > >Eva > >"So the universe is not quite as you thought > >it was. > > You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. > > Because you certainly can't rearrange the > > universe." > > -- Isaac Asimov & > > Robert Silverberg, > > _Nightfall_ > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >
re:democracy
Ed W.: ... Somehow I'm not at all surprised that this is your point of view. But then how is merit to be determined? Testing and experience, you say, but who will assess this? Surely an intelligent and informed public should have something to do with it. But, I suppose you would then argue that much of the public is neither intelligent nor informed, a point which I would, alas, have to agree with. ... Not informed , yes. But not intelligent?? I wasn't aware of any decline in public intelligence. Any data? Voting and tv vieing habits are not valid - they belong to the "not informed" bit. I am seriously concerned now. How many of this list have this total contempt for most of humanity??? Eva
re:democracy
Jay: ... As it has turned out, modern evolutionary scientists have found that the Founding Fathers were right: true democracy won?t work. Natural selection and genetic development created a human tendency for dominance, submission, hierarchy, and obedience, as opposed to equality and democracy. As one political scientist recently put it: "[ Evolutionary scientists ] Somit and Peterson provide an informative account of the evolutionary basis for our historical (and current) opposition to democracy. For many, this will be an unwelcome message ? like being told that one?s fly is unzipped. But after a brief bout of anger, we tend to thank the messenger for sparing us further embarrassment." ... Natural selection and genetic development works in a much larger time scale than social depelopment that may change human hierarchical, obedient etc behaviour in less than a generation and such socially conditioned behaviour forms are not genetically inheritable. Anyone who uses the winners/losers biological evolution argument for the development of human society is ready to blame the failures of social structure on human characteristics, and ready to condemn sections of society, rather than to condenm inefficient social structures. A straight and sinister road to fascism. Eva
RE: (Fwd) HANDBOOK OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY (fwd)
I'm glad there are people who can compose more concisely...Eva > Why do they believe this? First, explicit evolutionary thinking can > sometimes eliminate certain kinds of errors in thinking about behavior > (Symons, 1987). >... and so on. Evolutionary theory is only intended to explain how living organisms evolve. Applying it to any other field of inquiry puts you on VERY shaky ground. *** Regards, Dave Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
bounce x
-- just one more... Eva > Scientists do not as a rule observe and then theorize. They typically do > it the other way round. When they find the data does not confirm the > hypothesis, the usual reaction is not to reject the hypothesis, but to > assume it was a bad set of data and proceed to draw another set. > > These observations are well born out in the following article about > scientific heretics and particularly Thomas Gold, because he generated new > data on the origins of oil and gas and geophysicists are not rejecting the > conventional theory but Gold's data. These observations are not so born out, because what they are not saying is that scientists observed, theorized, observered, experimented, theorized, and observed some more to get the current theory *before* Thomas Gold came up with his new theory -- which flies in the face of all those past observations. > As an astrophysicist he is well aware > that hydrocarbons are found in meteorites and on planets like Pluto where > there is absolutely no chance of their having originated from plants - the > conventional theory of petroleum geologists. Hydrocarbons does not necessarily mean petroleum. As a matter of fact most hydrocarbons found off-planet (we don't know about Pluto, BTW, very little chemical information from there as yet) is in the form of very simple hydrocarbons, such as methane, not the more complex stuff. No-one is claiming that all methane must come from biological processes. -- James H.G. Redekop | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Programmer | http://www.residents.com/ The Residents UUNET Canada | http://www.residents.com/Goons/The Goon Show [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.residents.com/Tzoq/ Home Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] [application/octet-stream is not supported, skipping...] - End of forwarded message from /DD.msdos=PSCNHQ$/LAURIER2$[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
bounce 4
-- > If energy (oil?) is in short supply, can one afford to be "fair"? > we can be only fair if the decision is made collectively on how to use a scarse resource, especially if the all the information and the options are well known by everybody. Eva > Just wondering ... ! > > Bob > > Eva Durant wrote: > > > >You have the contradiction in your own paragraph: > > >"as just as possible" vs "best possible way" > > > > > > > I can't see contradiction. The two have large > > overlapping section. > > > > -- > ___ > http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [application/octet-stream is not supported, skipping...] - End of forwarded message from /DD.msdos=PSCNHQ$/LAURIER2$[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
bounce 3
ditto Eva -- > Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best > skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and experience -- > not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. > and you are right; however, government by popularity is not democracy. Government by the popularity of proposals or even policies would be an improvement. And these are not necessaryly linked to "leaders". People with good ideas are not necessary the ones with good organising or administrative or movitating skills. Why shouldn't people who happen to experience these skills should decide who is the best for each. Eva > Jay > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [application/octet-stream is not supported, skipping...] - End of forwarded message from /DD.msdos=PSCNHQ$/LAURIER2$[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
bounced 2
again, sorry if it has gone through and so a duplicate Eva -- a response from skeptic, Eva > Scientists do not as a rule observe and then theorize. They > typically do it the other way round. When they find the data does not > confirm the hypothesis, the usual reaction is not to reject the hypothesis, > but to assume it was a bad set of data and proceed to draw another set. First off, this person appears to be confusing the terms "hypothesis" and "theory." They are two very different things. Next, if some scientist DID proceed this way, throwing out data everytime it contradicted previously-reached conclusions, one of two things would happen: 1) If the hypothesis is right, the contradictory data WAS wrong, and further data sets will bear this out. 2) If the hypothesis is wrong, taking 1000 more data sets will show the same thing, that it's wrong. > These observations are well born out in the following article about Well, not really. > scientific heretics and particularly Thomas Gold, because he > generated new data on the origins of oil and gas and geophysicists are not > rejecting the conventional theory but Gold's data. Ah yes, Tommy Gold. Another one of those sad cases of a scientist who comes up with some interesting and groundbreaking work early on, then takes a left turn into LaLa Land and becomes a "scientific martyr." > Gold is an astrophysicist with impressive credentials WITHOUT credentials in organic chemistry, or anything having to do with petroleum, however...this is the old "he's got a PhD, he MUST be right" gag. > More importantly he conducted and experiment which debunks conventional > theory - he drilled for oil and gas where the > conventional theory would predict none would be found and found both. >... > At considerable depth they found both oil and methane. Last I heard, that was a dry hole. They drilled in Sweden, and came up with a little bit of sludge that was terribly ambiguous. > If he is right, there is much more oil and gas to be found than > conventional models would indicate because they exist in > places far removed from places the conventional theories predict and therefore > far from where oil and gas companies typically drill. And so OF COURSE the Evil Scientific Cabal (backed in this case by the Evil Petroleum Cabal) is ignoring his work, because we all know that oil companies just aren't interested in finding NEW sources of their product, noo. And as for the Swedes who (AFAIK) have to import all their oil, they were just paid off to ignore these huge oil fields under their soil. Right. *** Regards, Dave Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As much as the author would like to spend precious minutes of the rapidly- dwindling time remaining in his life responding to your kind and thoughtful letter about how he is going to spend eternity in a lake of fire being eaten by rats, he regrets that he is unable to do so, due to the volume of such mail received. http://members.xoom.com/dwpalmer/home.htm * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [application/octet-stream is not supported, skipping...] - End of forwarded message from /DD.msdos=PSCNHQ$/LAURIER2$[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
bounced
sorry if it is a duplicate Eva -- I passed it on again, I hope you won't mind, those people seem to have time to read every article... I just respond to a few things: (Mike H.) > > It was methane that was detected on Pluto and in the tails of comets, > according to Gold. > methane is the very simplest CH compound. I belive astronomers found more complex stuff than that, but not any longer C chains. We have an astrochemistry department, I could ask... > I know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis and the sentence > quoted does not demonstrate such a confusion. Your reader also totally > misses my point. People like Wegener and Gold are not merely told their > data or their hypotheses are wrong - they are pilloried and vilified for > decades. Certain metaphors or images or ideas come to dominate science and > any contradiction is met with almost hysterical denial at times. This kind > of behaviour is a clear indication of of the non-rational in science, which > was the point I was trying to make. The non-rational is particularly > important when it comes to creating original ideas - creativity is a > marriage of intuition, emotion and rationality. Time after time, if you > read the history of science and technology, ideas come to people as > epiphanies at the most unusual and unexpected moments, not as a conscious > result of systematic and conscious analysis of the data. The patterning > typically happens in the unconsious. Poincare famously had one of his > most important insights, quite unbidden, as he stepped off an omnibus, for > example, though admittedly that was in mathematics, not science. > Theories seem to surface when there are enough data/ information is hanging around. Doesn't matter how suddenly an idea surface, in the majority of cases if that particular chap hadn't see the light, there was somebody else quite near to it. (Wallace? start with w anyhow) In a very few cases some individuals indeed are "ahead of their time". Which means, that there are insufficient data around to convince the science establishment, which yes, can be a bit slow moving. However, relying on accumulated data, peer review etc seems to be a very good method (best) of working so far. Remember, the vast majority of ideas DO turn out to be wrong - which also is part of the constructive database identifying the areas where there is no need to look again. The old greeks had some astounding speculative ideas about dialectics and materialism, just to mention the two that impressed me most... but they also had a million of other such speculative ideas that did not work out... They had no chance of separating the valid from the wrong, they had no sufficient data, sufficient tools. > As an example of a theory which did not arise from the data, take Darwinian > evolution. Historians of science accept that Darwin got the idea from > classical economics, from reading Malthus, if I remember correctly. Then > when he went on his famous voyage on the Beagle, the biological data fell > into alignment with the Malthusian idea in his mind. It is not even a true > theory, by the way, it is a tautology. But it is politically incorrect to > say in the hearing of biologists who are inclined (metaphorically) to stone > you for it. > I believe there was a chap around that also had the same general idea as Darwin. I also believe that his main stimuli for his theory came from his travels to sepaated habitats. Also his attempts to adapt his theory to human society was a complete failure. but let's see the skeptics response on this one, they are very much into Darwin... I can't figure why would the oil industry shun Gold's ideas - they are not interested in the science establishment, only in money, and new technology is not even involved. Eva [application/octet-stream is not supported, skipping...] - End of forwarded message from /DD.msdos=PSCNHQ$/LAURIER2$[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: (Fwd) RE: (Fwd) How science is really done
I passed it on again, I hope you won't mind, those people seem to have time to read every article... I just respond to a few things: (Mike H.) > > It was methane that was detected on Pluto and in the tails of comets, > according to Gold. > methane is the very simplest CH compound. I belive astronomers found more complex stuff than that, but not any longer C chains. We have an astrochemistry department, I could ask... > I know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis and the sentence > quoted does not demonstrate such a confusion. Your reader also totally > misses my point. People like Wegener and Gold are not merely told their > data or their hypotheses are wrong - they are pilloried and vilified for > decades. Certain metaphors or images or ideas come to dominate science and > any contradiction is met with almost hysterical denial at times. This kind > of behaviour is a clear indication of of the non-rational in science, which > was the point I was trying to make. The non-rational is particularly > important when it comes to creating original ideas - creativity is a > marriage of intuition, emotion and rationality. Time after time, if you > read the history of science and technology, ideas come to people as > epiphanies at the most unusual and unexpected moments, not as a conscious > result of systematic and conscious analysis of the data. The patterning > typically happens in the unconsious. Poincare famously had one of his > most important insights, quite unbidden, as he stepped off an omnibus, for > example, though admittedly that was in mathematics, not science. > Theories seem to surface when there are enough data/ information is hanging around. Doesn't matter how suddenly an idea surface, in the majority of cases if that particular chap hadn't see the light, there was somebody else quite near to it. (Wallace? start with w anyhow) In a very few cases some individuals indeed are "ahead of their time". Which means, that there are insufficient data around to convince the science establishment, which yes, can be a bit slow moving. However, relying on accumulated data, peer review etc seems to be a very good method (best) of working so far. Remember, the vast majority of ideas DO turn out to be wrong - which also is part of the constructive database identifying the areas where there is no need to look again. The old greeks had some astounding speculative ideas about dialectics and materialism, just to mention the two that impressed me most... but they also had a million of other such speculative ideas that did not work out... They had no chance of separating the valid from the wrong, they had no sufficient data, sufficient tools. > As an example of a theory which did not arise from the data, take Darwinian > evolution. Historians of science accept that Darwin got the idea from > classical economics, from reading Malthus, if I remember correctly. Then > when he went on his famous voyage on the Beagle, the biological data fell > into alignment with the Malthusian idea in his mind. It is not even a true > theory, by the way, it is a tautology. But it is politically incorrect to > say in the hearing of biologists who are inclined (metaphorically) to stone > you for it. > I believe there was a chap around that also had the same general idea as Darwin. I also believe that his main stimuli for his theory came from his travels to sepaated habitats. Also his attempts to adapt his theory to human society was a complete failure. but let's see the skeptics response on this one, they are very much into Darwin... I can't figure why would the oil industry shun Gold's ideas - they are not interested in the science establishment, only in money, and new technology is not even involved. Eva
lump of labour stuff
It is obvious, that people's life should not depend on the ambiguous ways work is defined and measured. Work is a social collaborative activity, so the products should be socially shared. Simple really... Eva
Re: one's fly is unzipped
> Or, maybe, the selfish gene wants *my * DNA to go forward. Maybe we have no > 'program' for the human species. Coming from a wide open world (the hunter > gatherer saga) there is nothing in our internal makeup to cause us to > cooperate at the level of survival of the human species. This latter > behaviour is all learned behaviour. > Ever since we became social beings - a very long time ago indeed - the individual "program" was secondary, soldiers, sacrifice victims, (or even volunteers) priest etc, etc, were not allowed to breed even if they were prime specimen. The tendency of more and more ethnic + national + global integration - even before capitalism - is one of the best observable social fact: cooperation works, outcasts perish. Some of the social features - such as language - is indeed hardwired and evolved since the first humanoids. Eva > Who knows? Time for more coffee. (but after reading Harrell's posts-- no > more berries from abroad!!!) > > arthur > -- > From: Eva Durant > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: one's fly is unzipped > Date: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 4:13AM > > > >>but not a good enough point in respons the one I made; > >>humans are motivated more for pleasure/happiness > >>than reproduction. That's why babies have to look cute > >>and toy-like at least in our culturaly freer society > >> Even than quite a sizable number decide > >>not to bother. Where is the selfish gene? > > > >If it wasn't there, we wouldn't be here. > > > > But our quantity turned into quality; our social/ > economical environment influences our choices more > than the biological one. Otherwise how could we explain > the suicidal tendecy of the present system?? Surely > the selfish gene wants the human species to survive... > > > Eva > > > >Jay > > > > > -- > ** Beispiel-Signatur ** >
Re: one's fly is unzipped
>>but not a good enough point in respons the one I made; >>humans are motivated more for pleasure/happiness >>than reproduction. That's why babies have to look cute >>and toy-like at least in our culturaly freer society >> Even than quite a sizable number decide >>not to bother. Where is the selfish gene? > >If it wasn't there, we wouldn't be here. > But our quantity turned into quality; our social/ economical environment influences our choices more than the biological one. Otherwise how could we explain the suicidal tendecy of the present system?? Surely the selfish gene wants the human species to survive... Eva >Jay > > -- ** Beispiel-Signatur **
Re: real-life example
>You have the contradiction in your own paragraph: >"as just as possible" vs "best possible way" > I can't see contradiction. The two have large overlapping section. I think I'd be most upset if I were of your crew; they are NOT stupid, if it WERE the question of life or death, they would have made the same choice as you. With hindsight you are aware a larger set of data i.e. you know how long the gas actually lasted. You behaved like a stingy employer, you should have taken more gas. You lost weight, had an interesting experience, the democratic choice was a good one. Jay, I hate to be personal, but you'd brough up this example, and it demonstrates that you count yourself as apart from the rest of us, The Good and Benevolent Leader With the Only Correct Solutions... ... and as often happens to such people - you are wrong! Eva > >A few years ago, I was skippering my sailboat on a 50 day trip from Guam to >San Francisco. Sailboats carry a finite amount of propane for heating >drinks and cooking. Moreover, if one runs out of anything a thousand miles >from land, one is out for the remainder of the trip. > >We took the great circle route and it got quite cold in the northern >latitudes. My four crew members liked hot chocolate and coffee before going >on watch. However, I informed the crew that if they used propane to heat >their drinks every time they went on watch, we would run out before reaching >San Francisco. > >I assumed if we ran out of propane the worst would be that we all would lose >a little weight, but since everyone could stand to lose a few pounds >anyway, I decide to let the crew decide. They decided to take a chance and >keep heating their drinks. > >Well, we ran out of propane about half way across. Can you imagine eating >raw brown rice? It was a memorable experience. Collectively we lost about >100 pounds. > >Had the crew forgone the hot drinks, they would not have suffered any >harmful effects and we wouldn't have run out of propane. The "just" answer >was to have hot drinks, but the "right" answer was not to have hot drinks. >Had there been lives at stake, I wouldn't have given them the choice. > >A world that is over carrying capacity and about to run out of fuel is just >like my sailboat, except for one thing. If the fuel runs out this time, >billions are going to die. I wouldn't give them the choice. > >Jay -- www.dieoff.com > > -- ** Beispiel-Signatur **
Re: dark ages
our "ethical" labour govt. still licences the export of the same weapons/torture tools as the tories did, to the same regimes as before. Mo talks of sanctions, the people killed (women and others) have no lobbying power allies. What is the chance of govts ever doing anything for such indirect/ future effects as environmental destruction if the present direct human suffering hasn't got any response out of them? Eva (we'll overcome. eventually.perhaps) > Dear Eva: > > I caught a radio program the other day on the same topic. After listening > for about 10 minutes, I turned it off. To think that young women are being > killed under the concept of "family honour" in this time in history and that > no one is protesting is astounding. It is almost past belief for me that a > young girl could be raised in a family, loved, cared for and cherished and > then murdered because of some minor or imagined violation of some obscure > concept of honour - there is no honour in such a system. Governments who > sanction such actions should be daily pilloried in the press, sanctioned in > trade and no agreements whatsoever should be entered into with them, no > matter what small commercial benefits accrue to a Company or government. > > Respectfully, > > Thomas Lunde > -Original Message- > From: Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: January 23, 1999 5:13 PM > Subject: dark ages > > > I've just seen a report (BBC2 Correspondent) from Pakistan. > Hundreds of women are killed every year ( I missed the figure > but just one regional hospital was getting cca 10 cases a week, of > which one cca survives) > by male relatives who go free or are in prison at most for a > year. Because they defended the family's honour. The sins of the > women - lots of them just 15 years old children or younger - are, > that they wanted to visit their mother, or did not fancy the old man > chosen for them as husband, or was alleged to see a male. No proof > necessary. > Women who kill their husbands in self defence get the death penalty. > There is universal illiteracy of women, they have no idea if > they were sold into legit marriages or not. The favourit mode of > killing women is burning alive, after kerosen being poured over them. > Kosovo is terrible. This is 100 times worth, just looking at the > numbers of terrifying death and the numbers suffering. > The men use the Koran as an excuse. > > It is a fundamental human right to walk free, to choose who you want > to marry and self-defence when attacked. > > The West does NOTHING, there is appearantly not one state that is > complaining about human rights abuses in Pakistan. > I am in a state of shock and I thought I can't be anymore. > > > Eva > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: NEWS FROM THE WORLDWATCH INSTITUTE
I agree with most of what you say, however, I cannot see with the present level of populations how to realise any sort of return to "traditional" methods. I think integrated use of resources still will be necessary and the use of all the science and technology we can get - but used solely for the satisfying of human needs and with all the safeguards for the survival of all the necessary/sustainable environment. With global (democratic, relying on transparent direct, instantanious controls) planning, all the wasteful transport, repetition/secretive research, expense on military, environment-destroying production can be stopped. And we can all live a much better quality life, even us, allegedly rich westerners. We cannot go back to hunter/gatherer or irrigation/ floodplate "economies", even if it worked - which it does not. It can't deliver the universal freedom the "human rights" we aspiring to, e.g. freedom from tedium. Eva ... > > This tastes like more of the same: global development and > integration. However, not the poor are underdeveloped, we are > overdeveloped. It is our globalisation and the unrestrained > so-called "market economy" that raptured many hundred millions > of their traditional ways of living and livelihoods. It is the > integration in the cash crop world economy that is hitting the > poverty-struck masses in Africa, not the lack of "economic > growth to meet needs". > > The Worldwatch Institute must be thanked again for its > unrelented work and warnings. But the proposed solutions > must be challenged and replaced by something more realistic, > breaking with conventional economic "wisdom". > > Willem Georg >
Re: Defining Sustainable
Ok, I'm trying to be short, not rude... But this research effort reminds me of some age old stuff of the 60s or so, when they decided, that the colour of the walls would help the productivity of the workers... Cutting the boringness and team work would also for carworkers... Open vs closed spaces... No revolution here: when the shareprice drops the unit closes down and the employee that perhaps was lucky enough to have a few experimental years of pampering, gets sacked. I've just received a post about your "knowledge workers" (if you mean computer specialists) being the slaves of the future... If you mean others by this, we just had a thread about the downgrading of academic work, whether in the "hard" or "soft" disciplines. I'd prefer to concentrate on a bit more revolutionary aspects of the workplace... we could play with the thought how we picture a truly democratic workplace, but I don't think that your project superwisors and founders are really interested in that... Eva > First thanks to everyone for the comments that are worthy of more thought > and research. > ___ > An Introduction: My name is Deborah Middleton currently I am a graduate > sudent at York Univeristy in the Faculty of Environmental Studies. > > In my previous life I have been an Interior Architect constructing > alternative work environments for corporations such as The Bank of > Montreal, Nortel (I was responsible for the alternative work environments > at the new HQ in Brampton). Over the past five years I have been mapping > the emergence of collaborative work and the role of the physical work > environment in enabling knowledge sharing, creativity and learning. > I am currently a member of a research groun working to understand the > emergence of these informal work practices that we are defining as > softwork. > > > Perhaps sustainability is not the right word and perhaps another would be > better suited to the exercise of constructing a definition of the > individuals context in knowledge based industries. But sustainability > is where some of my ideas are at in this point of my work (word > smithing). Other suggestions are most welcome. > > The application is to answer the following question in my research > proposal. > > > "What is the capacity for the individual within the knowledge based > corporation, to redirect and influence organizational change towards > sustainable business practices (social and environmental)?" > > > The demand for knowledge workers far out runs the supply, this I believe > has resulted in a shift in business focus on recruitment and retention of > employees. And thus a possible shift in power between the corporation and > the individual (freeagent), where the individual for the first time is in > a more powerful position to choose who to work for and under what > conditions and to what ends. > > This is one of the driving reasons that workplaces are transforming to > become more comfortable and creative places (recruitment appeal). They > are also seen as providing comfort for the obsesive work that goes on in > places such as Microsoft. There is an interesting demographic and > cultural component at play also that is reconstructing acceptable norms of > social behavior. > > The role of the values of the individual is also shaping their view on > work. I am finding that a backlash against the traditional corporation, > heirarchy, status and the conditions of white collar work is happening. > And not only within startup young entrepreneurial companies but in places > such as the Royal Bank of Canada (ie. The Royal Bank Growth Co.) Is this a > possible opportunity for the emergence of a movement to change how we > work. I believe that it is just this. > > One just has to browse through FastCompany to find examples of the shifts > taking place. > > Deborah > > > > > > > >
africa
> ... > > > >Africa has is just now reached its physical limits and is beginning a > >massive dieoff -- population control by increasing death rate instead of > >decreasing birth rate > > Is this really true? (see simultaneous article, Will Humans Overwhelm > the Earth? > In Afrika wars and AIDS are not related to population densities. They relate to tribal wars with considerable western intersts still, dismal healthcare and fighting for economic domination. Africa is a more sparsely inhabited continent than the others, even the fertile bits. East-Anglia and Belgium e.g. are far more densely populated and there is no sign of dioff. Eva > Caspar davis > > > [application/octet-stream is not supported, skipping...] - End of forwarded message from /DD.msdos=PSCNHQ$/LAURIER2$[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: Fwd: Controversy over genetically modified organisms (fwd)
> ... > > > >Africa has is just now reached its physical limits and is beginning a > >massive dieoff -- population control by increasing death rate instead of > >decreasing birth rate > > Is this really true? (see simultaneous article, Will Humans Overwhelm > the Earth? > In Afrika wars and AIDS are not relating to population densities. They relate to tribal ars with considerable western intersts still, fighting for economic domination and dismal healthcare. Africa is a more sparsely inhabited continent than the others, even the fertile bits. East-Anglia and Belgium e.g. are far more densely populated and there is no sign of dioff. Eva > Caspar davis > > >
Re: Fwd: Controversy over genetically modified organisms (fwd)
I found this post informative, so I forwarded it to you as the science is a bit lacking in fw. Eva Kevin wrote: >I guess my first question is: How is this diabolical genetic engineering >any different from the time-honoured practice of breeding? Farmers, >cattlemen, ranchers, all intervene in the "natural" order of things in= order >to select for certain traits that are deemed desirable. So how is directly >altering the gene different from getting your sow with pig from a certain >boar? Ludwig Krippahl wrote: [snip] > -In genetic engineereing you place 'foreign' DNA on an organism, > which does not occur in breeding > > -To do that you need vectors, wich may be problematic in themselves, > and are unecessary in breeding. > > I think that, as with any technological advance, it has its dangers > if not used carefully. However, I feel the dangers are being blown > out of proportion (this technology has been used successfully for > vacine production and general protein sinthesys for some time). Perhaps it would be good to add a few points. In the place of "engineering" should be the word "art" or "science". The only point where we can really speak of "engineering" is that we can make any kind of protein sequence or RNA sequence we wish. Exactly what it *does* -- if anything -- is typically another matter. Moreover, how to target an organism in the "engineering" sense, is still basically a guessing game. Breeding is usually seeking a "phenotype" (selecting a particular "measurable" characteristic) as opposed to a genotype which my not even be "measurable". By "measureable" I mean that it displays a characteristic like resistance to disease, a particular color of fir, etc. Much of breeding is aimed a visible characteristics, but in agriculture, there are certainly plants that are breeded for resistance to infection etc. In such cases, you might call "breeding" a crude form of genetic "science". Perhaps it is important to point out the benefits of such research, which are many I think. * The AIDS, hepatitis C virus, and some other pernicious vermin will most likely be conquered only via genetic engineering (when it really becomes "engineering"). Hence, our best weapon against pathogens is knowledge, not fear. * Most cancers and chemotherapies will eventually turn to genetic engineering (when it really becomes "engineering") to rid this scourge. Hence, our best solution to transcriptional corruption is knowledge, not fear. * Possibly when we really understand life cycles of cells, we may even be able to develop therapies for cell regeneration. Hence, our best "alternative medicine" is knowledge, not fear. Of course, without some form of ethics, we might have reason to fear such capabilities, but once again, whether we are fundamentally theistic or a-theistic, the best form of ethics come from a desire to understand this world and seek to do right, not a blind fear that some utterly diabolical boggyman (with black hat) could succede in some nefarious scheme or a fear that some Cosmic Dictator who will become angry if we find out how the world works. We already have plenty of potential to destroy ourselves many times over if we want to hurry up the end of the world. Wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] - End of forwarded message from Wayne Dawson -
Re: Debt and Depression versus Keynes and Krugman (fwd)
I admit i only browsed the article superficially; two question: 1. Which part of the population had the party that lead to the hangover? Wasn't the bottom half - however, they are the ones who forever have to "tighten their belts". I know from my experience, that the last alleged boom here in the UK went unnoticed by most of the population and involved the collapse of social services such as health, transport, education, pensions etc. 2. What's wrong with the Marxist analysis of the boom-slump cycles? Eva
Re: FW Futurework begins its fifth year
Thanks - I do sometimes find some useful data & information and hopefully a trend towards a analysis of the contradiction of fundations not just pussyfooting on the surface... Best wishes for the hols - and for a better new year. Eva > A relative newcomer, about a year, I too would like to wish all my FW > friends the very best. This has become my home base, the list I feel most > comfortable on and the discussions of the highest level. I have grown to > appreciate Eva, Brad, Jay, Steve, Keith, Ed and Al, but names are just > labels, it is the mind behind the label I engage with and enjoy. Those who > come and go often leave a trail I follow and so from this home base, I am > constantly expanding. > > Respectfully, > > Thomas Lunde >
Re: reply to Ed Weick re simulation
Well, good luck, afterall, if it turns out to be a valid simulation it will show that whatever the initial conditions, capitalism ends up in crisis... I hope the results will be well publicised and the participants rework the operators until they find successful functions, my guess is that they will end up with something like what Marx proposed... Eva > After a few kind words by Pete Vincent, > > > >For my part, I found your post excellent ... > > Ed Weick replied: > > > I, on the other hand, do not. I have seen little evidence that you really > > know anything about the global economy that you hope to model. > > I don't, really -- you're right about that, Ed. Who does, though? > > But I can write a simulator, put data into it, and see what happens. > And I can make it all public, so people like yourself can make > constructive criticism. > > If I had to do everything myself and had to find all the mistakes > myself, it would be a hopeless task, but I think I can count on a lot > input by very sceptical people such as the ones on this mailing list, > and perhaps a bit more concrete help too. > > Later in a more sober mood Ed wrote: > > > Nevertheless, I do feel that the questions I have raised about the > > simulation that Douglas Wilson is proposing are valid: Is there really > > something to be simulated? If so, what? Will the proposed simulation lead > > to a better understanding of economic phenomena? And, do we not already > > have a considerable understanding of the global impacts of megaphenomena > > such as population growth and energy resource depletion? ... > > The only real response I can make to each of these questions is that a > good simulation should answer them. I don't know the answers, but I > think I can get some answeres, even with only the prototype. > > Ed wrote: > > > On whether there is something to be simulated, I pointed out in a previous > > posting that, despite headlines and hype to the contrary, economic activity > > is still overwhelmingly domestic, not international. This makes me wonder > > how a "global economy" might be defined for the purposes of simulation. I > > feel too that, in a global simulation, broad political realities would have > > to play a central role. How might they be factored in? > > The first dataset will consist almost entirely of numbers from a > variety of sources, and from that I expect to produce what discrete > mathematicians call a weighted graph -- not a chart or picture, but a > network of nodes or vertices linked by edges. We can then apply > connectivity and cutting algorithms to see how well connected the > graph is -- I expect more connectivity than Ed would, but that remains > to be seen. > > If broad political realities play a central role, that should be > visible in the results. For example, a program called Metis, > originally written for balancing the load amongst several processors > in a supercomputer can try to divide the graph (or network) into two > (or more) parts of approximately equal size making few cuts or cuts > of low weight only. In cold war days this probably would probably > partition the graph into the well-known East and West blocs, but > now, well, who knows? > > > I would suggest that, in a simulation of the kind being proposed, > > it matters a great deal what kind of overall global world is being > > assumed, since the nature of that world would determine who provides > > economic support to whom, who is willing to sell strategic resources > > to whom, who provides weapons to whom, and other such things. > > I want to make as few assumptions as possible. I don't want to assume > any "kind of overall global world". That should be a result, not > an assumption. > > > Which leads me to the issue of whether a model of the "global economy" would > > really be helpful. In a previous posting I asked what it might tell about > > whether China might devalue the yuan, knowing full well that it couldn't > > tell us much. But perhaps it could tell us quite a lot about the > > consequences of yuan devaluation. ... [much omitted] ... > > But in doing this, it is probable that we would get down to a level too > > micro for a global model -- or the global model would have to terribly > > comprehensive. > > Initially the model will indeed have to be "terribly comprehensive", > and should err on the side of containing too much data, rather than > too little. I suggest that we just don't know enough to make a > smaller, less comprehensive model. Later, having some results from > a simulation based on a lot of data -- tens of thousands of numbers -- > it may be possible to simplify, based on what we have learned. > > > Now to the megaphenom stuff - the end of cheap energy, population growth, > > the concentration of population in unsustainable cities, pollution, the > > effects of climate change. Here there is both a very great need for > > simulation and the possi
Re: FW: Re Chaordic change and the Story
as soon as people realise that communism means democratic socialism which is as much antithesis to stalinism as to capitalism, more people will "come out" as it were... I am proud to be a communist as defined originally, e.g. Marx's Manifesto. Eva > As often happens, I totally agree with you, Eva. > > I had better be careful, or people will think that I am a COMMUNIST, God > (if there is a god) forbid > :-) > > Colin > > > > > At 08:31 AM 11/26/98 +, Eva Durant wrote: > >Half of the population is above average intelligence, > >and that half is better at communication... > >The point is, that without active and conscious > >participation you cannot affect any change; > >so we have no choice but to go for democracy. > >Every option has risks, this one has the > >most chance. Cooperation was always the main > >survivor feature of humans, more and > >more wide-ranging and integrated over > >the centuries, with tyranny and chauvinism > >the periodical backswing. > >Global conscious collectivity > >seems to be the next logical progression - > >hopefully, this time leaving no chance > >(uninformed, left-out mass base) for > >medieval reaction. > > > >Contempt for humanity have never worked, > >for sure. > > > >Eva > >
Re: Caordic change and Greens?
> > ++ a steady state economy in a steady state population - even the > requirement for a reduced population for Ontario is mentioned - and > Wackerneigle's requisit extra planets; > ++ a radical change in the control of the Central Bank, and the way debt and > interest is handled. Some of their policies come from William Krem, a > respected economist; > ++ a shifting tax from personal income to resource usage; > ++ a guaranteed annual wage; > ++ the placing a limit on maximum income; > ++ the reduce/eliminate government subsidies on energy; > ++ the elimination of nuclear energy; > ++ policies which enhance co-op housing; > ++ change voting system to proportional representation; > ++ prohibitions against industrial corporate exploitation of undeveloped > countries. > So what way such a system, based still on a capitalist market's profits, would tick over? Eva > So what have we here, pie in the sky? or a real but fledgling political > option in Canada? I've decided on the latter, partly because, a few years > ago I decided to never again vote for any of the pro-growth political > parties - I'd consider it, like, immoral, something like supporting the > Third Reich, but far more destructive in the big picture long term. > > I suspect many of GPOntario progressive policies could use fine tuning from > groups of elders in a variety of interconnected specialty areas (energy > policy for one). Nevertheless, last weekend, I agreed to be named as a > contact/coordinator the local riding in my part of Toronto. > > I have no idea how strong are the linkage between the Greens in various > countries, states or provinces, but hope to find out. > If all Green political groups were all as progressive as the Ontario Greens > now seem to be, and since they have global presence now, with a little help > from very many places, perhaps they could grow into a challenging force > leading to stage one of a social contract shift which gives due respect for > Gaia, in the human/Gaia relationship. This could give Joe public a viable > option, where we could, "Fight the bastards" as Victor Milne says. > > solidarity in Gaia > Don Chisholm > > > Don Chisholm > 416 484 6225fax 484 0841 > email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The Gaia Preservation Coalition (GPC) >http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/gaia-pc >personal page: http://home.ican.net/~donchism/dchome.html > > "There is an almost gravitational pull toward putting out of mind unpleasant > facts. And our collective ability to face painful facts is no greater than > our personal one. We tune out, we turn away, we avoid. Finally we forget, > and forget we have forgotten. A lacuna hides the harsh truth." - > psychologist Daniel Goleman > \/ > >
Re: FW: Re Chaordic change and the Story
Half of the population is above average intelligence, and that half is better at communication... The point is, that without active and conscious participation you cannot affect any change; so we have no choice but to go for democracy. Every option has risks, this one has the most chance. Cooperation was always the main survivor feature of humans, more and more wide-ranging and integrated over the centuries, with tyranny and chauvinism the periodical backswing. Global conscious collectivity seems to be the next logical progression - hopefully, this time leaving no chance (uninformed, left-out mass base) for medieval reaction. Contempt for humanity have never worked, for sure. Eva > > It seems to me you have been advocating a society with cooperative > ownership - a variety of democratic socialism - along with large > amounts of direct democracy. The problem is there is no guarantee > that large amounts of direct democracy will necessarily result in > the society you envision. It is by no means clear that letting > people participate in the day to day decisions of government > directly will result in enlightened policy. Not that it might > be any worse than what we have now, but it might certainly go > in a completely different direction than you expect. Remember, > half the population are of below average intelligence, and there > is a reason why the word "demagogue" is in our vocabulary. > > -PV > >
Re: Caordic change and the Story
This is ok until we are talking about "mindsets", but if any resulting action causes the loss of human rights - such as, say, the Taliban's "mindset", actions are necessary. And yes, these human rights are negotiated, relative values, but I think they can be condensed with our present available overview of history; besides the basics of rights to all the physical/free movement etc, there are such as rights to education/information/free choice (again, upto the point of not infringing on other people's rights.) So I would conclude, that if a "mindset" stops the rest of humanity in cooperating to save the planet and they have the physical means and will to do so, than we would have to do all we can, ultimately by force, to change their "mind". Eva ... > > There is nothing I fear more than that default characteristic. History has > provided ample demonstration that it always kicks in. Two principles of > social behaviour that I hold sacred are: 1) respect each others' views; and > 2) leave each other alone. To me, this implies a diversity of opinion, and > no dominant mindsets. It allows for strong mindsets, but implies a system > of rights and laws which ensures that these cannot impose themselves on > other mindsets which do not buy into them. But now I suppose I'm being the > idealist. ... > > Ed Weick > >
Re: "chaordic structures"
Yes, humans are capable of self-delusions and most of the time they were encouraged/forced by their status quo in this. However, there are times when people become aware of reality and they act pretty sharpish. Let's hope, that the next such historical activity will happen with the required amount of awareness/consciousness to make this important step - democratically planned/controlled physical as well as social/economical environment. Our survival depend on it. Marx said IIRC: socialism or barbarism. Now that barbarism could turn into Jay's dieoff. Eva ... > > Nevertheless I take Jay's point.It is hard to see how our species can > escape the Reckoning when we are so firmly in the grip of denial. > > Caspar davis > > >
Re: "chaordic structures"
Or most of us gets informed and active in the change into a democratic and cooperative world, which besides being sensible about waste and integration, has a chance to be educated/inventive/creative about solutions. Eva > > We can do it our way: perhaps in the context along the lines of the new > social system that I have proposed. Or Big Brother will do it his way: full > speed into the wall, then it's the police state -- a modern blend of the > Holocaust and Orwell's 1984. > > Jay > -
Re: Caordic change and the Story
Most people in the 1st and 2nd worlds at least, already got the gist of the message: the environment is dying and we are running out of water/energy. The problem is that the message does not contain any meaningful solutions, i.e. - asks for some nominal action of charity, consumer choice or recycling your newspapers. People know that these bagatelle stuff won't get us anywhere (lots of times not even scientifi- cally sound, as bleaching recycled newspapers is very energy consuming and environmentally damaging.) They ask who pays. Please answer. And if your answer says: you pay, there will be no support. 80%+ people have no surplus disposable income to pay. Once there will be a practical solution - such as the one I advocate - people will understand it swiftly and follow it faster than we think it possible. The problem is, this is what your green liberal capitalists with the conscience/ guilty feelings are frightened of. Eva > > -Original Message- > From: fran^don <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: November 23, 1998 7:49 PM > Subject: Re: Caordic change and the Story > > > > > > >My thought is that the time for philosophy and navel gazing is past, and we > >should think more of marketing strategies. That is, marketing and > packaging > >of information and ideas in ways which resonate with the general the public > >and gives them something to by into. Jay's web page is great for people > who > >want a hit of reality from time to time - but then what? There no plan, no > >movement. Surely a collective group could do more. There is a vast build > up > >of collective human intelligence and tools, virtually none of which has > been > >put to use against the problematique in a cognitive intentional fashion > with > >a stratigic plan. > > > >Don Chisholm > > > An opinion I heartily endorse. I've been thinking for some time about what I > call the propaganda problem. Why do the bad guys invariably do a better job > of marketing than the good guys? > > (1) One important reason is that they have more money and hire capable > marketing people. > > (2) Even more importantly, the good guys (environmentalists, social > activists, etc,) simply don't think about marketing. They have become > passionate about an issue after reading the facts, and they assume other > people will too. It ain't so. (Most people lack the time and consuming > interest to plough through a whole host of articles and become true > believers on the issue of averting environmental catastrophe. They've read > or heard about these matters and at the time think something should be done > about it, but they are easily distracted by other issues as when some > politician comes along promising jobs and tax cuts.) Activists generally use > two approaches: the barrage of facts and what I call the Pavlov fallacy. The > barrage of facts doesn't work because most people haven't done the reading > in a particular field (be it economics or environment) to absorb the facts > and be affected by them. By the Pavlov fallacy I mean that some particular > key word has become very charged with emotion for the activist (say, "global > warming") because he has built up all sorts of associations with it. He > unconsciously assumes that it will have the same emotional impact on others, > but it is only a secondary stimulus (like the bell which signaled food for > Pavlov's dogs) and has no impact on those who have not gone through the same > conditioning. > > Activists have to start studying how to use popular culture to put their > message across. It doesn't necessarily have to be fantastically expensive. > There was an interesting discussion recently on Internet Pacifica Radio at > http://www.webactive.com/ on the use of media in the upset victory of Jesse > "The Body" Ventura in Minnesota. Apparently his TV commercials used kids > playing with a Jesse Ventura action figure (which had been cobbled together > from three other action figures) and people were going into stores trying to > buy it. He also placed his TV spots at times when people would be watching > their favourite programs rather than following the six o' clock news as all > his opponents were doing. > > I hope there's some food for thought here. > > Victor Milne > > FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website > at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ > > LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE > at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/ > > > > >
Re: a few words about economics and future work
> > In the early days of the Soviet Union there was an attempt to match > people to jobs (or tasks) through some central bureaucracy. Of course > bureaucracies don't work very well, but even if they did work, > perfectly, they could not have accomplished that task because of the > combinatorial explosion of possibilities. > In the early days of the soviet union, when most of the marxist theorists haven't been killed by the civil/intervesionist war or later, Stalin, there was a genuine strife for democracy and a wide range of new/modern concepts of freedom for those times. However, their failure has not much to do with any combinatorial tasks, but with the facts, that most people couldn't read or write, most people had not enough to eat or place to live, most people had never heard of the concept of thinking for themselves rather than being told what to do by their landlord/ clergy or the tsar. > In graph theory and computer science the problem of matching workers > to jobs (or any equivalent bipartite matching problem) is called the > assignment problem. > > Good modern algorithms for solving the assignment problem are roughly > O(3), which means that they scale up as to the cube of the number of > nodes. Using my aging 120 MHz Pentium it takes about half an hour to > solve an assignment problem with a few thousand nodes. To solve a > problem with a few million nodes would not take 1000 times as long, > but the cube of that, one billion times as long. So there is probably > not enough computing power in the world today to solve the assignment > problem the Soviet bureaucracy set themselves. > Even this estimate doesn't sound that dounting in the view of the present and possible future computing capabilities. However, there would be several different level of assigning anyway, say by local housing groups, education groups, workplace groups, district, town, country etc areas of collective decisions. Hey, if there is an energy problem/hiccup, it can even be done without computers... > OK, this is an oversimplification. But the basic point should be > clear. The organization of society is the kind of combinatorial > optimization problem that is hard to solve. Actually as combinatorial > problems go, it is one of the easy ones, most are not just hard but > virtually impossible. But somehow most economists don't address the > combinatorial explosion. A flaw in the economics curriculum, I suppose. > Even the present system managed to work upto a point without a lot of combinatorics so far... > Unemployment is a good example. One constantly hears governments > talking about job creation, as if there just aren't enough jobs to go > around. To me unemployment is evidence that it is hard to FIND a job, > not that there are too few jobs. Lots of women fail to find a > husband, but you don't hear governments talking about man-creation or > a shortage of men. > Well, the fact is, that while more and more people come to the job-market, there are less and less jobs. When last time there was an advertisement for a middle grade technician job in our department, there was 102 applications, 6 of them with Phds. If you into sharing the existing job-hours, basic income or other ideas mentioned on this list, you have to think of an economic structure that could work with such a human needs and not profit oriented problemsolving. > For each individual to find a good job, society as a whole must solve > a very difficult combinatorial optimization problem, a bipartite > matching or assignment problem. Not an impossible problem, but we > certainly won't solve it as long as we ignore the combinatorial problem > altogether and try to do job-creation. > I wish it was the question of just a bit of clever mathematics... It would have been solved by now; we have teams of able mathematicians all over the place looking for decent Phd projects... Eva > So, there you have it -- after complaining about Jay Hanson's > mistreatment of economists I go on to criticize them myself. But, > people, please, it's not personal, and it's not a prejudice, I just > think the universities need to add a few graph theory and computer > science courses to their economics curriculum. > > dpw > > Douglas P. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.island.net/~dpwilson/index.html >
Re: FW: Rapid job growth in the not for profit sector
There is a miserable unemployment problem in the UK for skilled, unskilled and highly educated people. Most young people have only chance of gaining the "experienced" word into their CV if they work unpaid for one of these "non-profit" organisations. Usually doing a job that used to be paid in the past, under a manager, who's making as good money as can be. The structure of these bodies are usually archaic and even less democratic than ususal, no trade unions, etc. Most of these organisations live on government grants and subsidies, including charities. This "privatisation" is a waste of money and loss of professionality. Eva > > From the Economist > > > > The non-profit sector - LOVE OR MONEY > > > > FOR economists, the non-profit organisation is something of an > > evolutionary oddity. Without the forces that drive conventional > > firms-shareholders, stock options and, of course, profits-it has still > > managed to thrive in the market economy. Indeed, a pioneering > > international study*, published this week, shows that the non-profit > > sector now accounts for an average of one in every 20 jobs in the 22 > > developed and developing countries it examined. > > > > In the nine countries for which the change between 1990 and 1995 could be > > measured, non-profit jobs grew by 23%, compared with 6.2% for the whole > > economy. In some countries, they grew faster still: by 30% in Britain, > > according to Jeremy Kendall of the London School of Economics, who carried > > out the British end of the study. Why this remarkable expansion? > > > > Non-profits span a vast range. Some sell goods and services (such as > > American hospitals) and compete head-on with profit-making firms; others > > are religious bodies and campaigning groups, supported largely by > > donations. In between, in Europe, are the Catholic and Protestant > > non-profits, such as Germany's Caritas, which provide many social > > services, and are financed by the state, but independent of it. Because > > the Netherlands has many such bodies, it tops the list for non-profit > > employment (see chart). To find a definition that fitted all 22 countries > > meant including institutions such as universities, trade unions and > > business associations. > > > > Graph - Non profit share of total employment 1995 - Source John Hopkins > > University > > > > A clue to the success of non-profits is that their growth seems to have > > been fastest in countries where government social-welfare spending is > > high. That suggests they complement government provision, rather than > > substituting for it. Indeed, public money partly finances many > > non-profits-such as Britain's housing associations, which rely on a mix of > > state cash and rents to house the poor. They are, in a sense, an > > off-balance-sheet arm of government. > > > > At their best they are flexible and innovative. However, as non-profits > > become more important, so do their shortcomings. One is what Mr Kendall > > delicately terms "accountability lapses": non-profits tend to reflect the > > interests of many different groups, but those of the consumer often come > > low on the list. Boards of directors of non-profits are typically much > > larger than those of firms, but they serve a different function. As > > Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a management guru at Harvard Business School, puts > > it, they "are often treated like cheerleaders who have to be given good > > news so they'll go out and raise funds." > > > > Another problem, says Lester Salamon, one of the study's main authors, is > > finding competent line managers. Moreover, management may be more complex > > than in a conventional company. Because a firm typically makes money > > directly from its customers, it has an incentive to provide what they > > want. In a non-profit, the money may come not from the clients-the > > homeless, say, or the elderly-but from a mixture of grants, donations and > > charges. > > > > Training for running non-profits is still scarce. Michael O'Neill, of the > > Institute for Nonprofit Organisation Management at the University of San > > Francisco, reckons that 10m people and 100m volunteers work for > > non-profits in America; but no more than 1,000 students a year pass > > through management courses such as the ones he runs. Across the country, > > at the Harvard Business School, the social-enterprise programme that James > > Austin directs aims to ensure that MBAs who go into mainstream business > > know something of running non-profits. Mr Austin recently surveyed 10,000 > > HBS graduates and found that about 80% were involved in non-profits in > > some way; 57% sat on the board of a non-profit. > > > > In fact, points out Ms Moss Kanter, the largest non-profits can attract > > professionals to the top jobs. John Sawhill, a former McKinsey partner, > > heads America's Nature Conservancy; Frances Hesselbein ran the Girl Scouts > > of the USA and graced the cover of
Re: Capitalism - the zero-sum game. (Just one question/The Soviet system)
> Dear Eva:
> I am tempted to say that we disagree on some fundamental points, and
> leave it at that. However, I believe that you (and, in a different
> form, Ed Weick) raise important points, so let me try to distinguish, by
> "deconstructing," the strains of these argument.
>
I see, deconstructing means avoiding to answer
the question. By the way I have never equated
capitalism with selfishness. Socialism is based
as much on selfishness, just in that case people
realise that their best interests are met better
by that social/economical system.
Correction: Hungary has actually woted out the
socialdemocrats
and a conservative coalition is in government,
not that it makes any difference.
You regurgitated the "positive" stuff about
regulation and vaguely referred to the taxpayer
as the costbearer. But if profits are down
and the economy is slower and there are shortage
of markets, etc etc this is no way consists
of an economic basis for a keynesien revival.
And I haven't mentioned the much larger
body of the unemployed than in the 60s/70s.
Why, oh why do you advocate something without
considering these very fundamental gaps
in your argument? It is a copout that bring
us nearer to disaster.
If you said anything new, I'm sorry, I missed it.
Eva (yes, being impatient)
> As I see it, there are two questions at the core of the discussion:
> (1) What is the nature of capitalism (in its psycnological and
> behavioral roots, and in its functioning as a business-economic system)?
> (2) What is the nature of the relationship between capitalism and the
> society of which it is a part?
>
> As to the first question, I can accept the validity of what you and
> Weick are saying. Capitalism is based on the ethics and behavior of
> selfishness and this comes out most clearly if there is no other element
> that influences the participants -- ALL of the participants (not only
> owners, but investors -- including "widows and orphans", workers, small
> tradespeople, publicists, etc., etc., i.e. all the people, or the vast
> majority of them, in a society characterized by the capitalist mode of
> economic behavior). Ironically, the kindest view of this was
> articulated by Marx. He emphatically declared that the capitalist was
> not necessarily a bad person, but rather, caught up in the realities of
> the competitive system, is alienated from all moral or other
> considerations that might otherwise condition his behavior. ("If I don't
> act this way, and go for the last bit of competitive advantage in
> maximizing my profit, then someone else will do that to my disadvantage
> and eventually I may be driven to the wall. Where would I be then? And
> where would the system be? Would it be any better --- or would it be
> the same, but with me as a loser?" -- etc., so it goes.) The polite
> term for this, in conventional economic and business parlance, is
> "profit maximization." Less politely, all kinds of horrors are built
> into the system. In more contemporary analysis, this is a "zero-sum
> game", in which the gains of one are the losses of the others. In
> traditional pollitical palance, it is Hobbes's "war of all against all."
>
> At this point, we won't go down a whole other road of argument, i.e.
> whether this is a necessary condition, or whether capitalism can be
> replaced by something altogether different, in terms of human
> motivation, behavior, and economic functioning. We will accept Weick's
> view that this is capitalism "as is," in the real view, and also other
> views that have been articulated that suggest that there is "no free
> lunch" in designing and putting in place real world systems, i.e. that
> any alternative also has its own characteristics, some advantageous,
> some disadvantageous, some quite horrifying if taken in their pure form.
> (In imagining systems of alternatives, whether as regards economic
> systems, personal lifestyles, careers, relationships, etc., there is
> always a tendency -- as long as one is imagining -- to see the most
> negative features of the reality one is dealing with and which one
> dreams of escaping from, and idealizing that which one is imagining, and
> believing that it will be something as pure as the physical
> relationships between human beings in Erica Jong's first novel, an
> evocation of daydreaming abstracted from reality.)
>
> Let me turn to the second point. Given a reality like the functioning
> of capitalism, as it is, and in its pure, unrestrained, form, prudence
> dictates that we regard this as dangerous, even if it may be reality.
> So we construct systems of law, regulation, counterbalancing forces,
> economic policy systems (like Keynesianism -- but also others), or
> whatever =-- we try to tame this system to a point where we can live
> with it. Sometimes we will be more successful, sometimes less.
> Sometimes we will give up altogether, and then the beast begins to rage
> among us in its "natural" form. This is what I ori
Re: The Soviet system: who was screwing whom?
All I know, that Hungary couldn't have rebuilt the terrible destruction of the war without soviet energy and raw material, and that hungarian shops always had more food in them - even in the early 50s - than the soviet ones. I suppose we should stop referring to anecdotal evidence, perhaps some figures are available somewhere. I guess they stripped a load of assets - I doubt if this was pre-meditated, probably the motive was to revenge (or being seen to revenge) the fascists. As Czechoslovakia was more of an occupied country and not a fascist ally as Hungary, I am puzzled. Though they also had a better developed industry - perhaps there was more to take. Eva > > Ed Weick wrote: > > > Many writers have refered to the Soviet system as "state capitalism". > > A fellow blacksmith who lived near Prague said to me (in 1980), > > Es gibt kein Communismus! Es gibt nur Staat Capitalismus. > > There is no communism! There's only state capitalism. > > With regard to "who was screwing whom", he also recounted his > experience just after the war. As a young teenager, he watched the > Red Army direct the loading of trucks with every piece of industrial > machinerey and materiel that could be found and ship it off to Russia. > He was exceptionally fortunate to have a power hammer in his shop > (commonplace among N American and western European smiths) because it > had fallen from a truck headed for Moscow, broken a casting and been > pushed into a ditch. A Czech smith had found a way to lug it home > and, more remarkably given the conditions, repair it. > > Perhaps the notion of the SU having been the net exploiter is/was > tilted by recollections of immediate post-war events. > > - Mike >
Re: The Soviet system: who was screwing whom?
... > Soviet system rapidly became a system that was not able to work well -- > one might say that it was a degenerate form of Marxist idealism (in this > one point, I agree with Trotsky -- though he put it in slightly > different form, and blamed the Stalinist bureaucracy: i.e., he thought > that, if he, Trotsky, had somehow been on top of things, he would have > managed it better). Well, he had a big ego, but he gave a decent marxist analysis that fitted all the consequent stalinist regimes. What you fail to mention is the lack of democracy. Making insane plans that depended more on peasant burocrat imagination than data collected about needs and capacities, made even more waste than the burocracy and corruption, which, lets face it, doing business all over in its more sophisticated way in the more subtle capitalist (or are they called well developed?) countries. The same lack of democracy, lack of cooperation and undercover insanity however, will lead eventually the same result. It couldn't have been done "well" in Russia as the nominal political democracy did not bring the real thing, capitalism doesn't work (to satisfy human needs) however slowly or fast you do it. (innuendo purely coincidental!) Eva ... > > The moral of this tale *IS* of value to us. Who was the genius who > believed that capitalism could be introduced easily into Russia (I mean, > not "casino capitalism," but the market economy combined with law and at > least minimal behavioral norms). These people had spent years > perfecting their skills in screwing the system --- as our Cherokee > friend has commented, what gave us the almighty gall to think that they > would change their habits, believe that we had come to give them the > benefits of our economic and political system, and that they could > therefore stop playing their games. The only thing that we did in > changing the Russian economy (as distinct from changes that *MAY* have > occurred -- or may yet occur in the political system) is make this > kind of economic behavior more lucrative, often at our expense via the > IMF and other economic aid channels. > > Saul Silverman > (in a cynical mood) >
Re: The Great Satan
French people still have the healthy tendency to turn out on the streets in their millions if they donvt like something, and their trade union muvement managed to survive mass un+ employment better than say the UK. Norway had used the north Sea oil-gas resourses more wisely than the UK. Religion has much smaller influence in Europe than in the US. Also, the aliens seem to be less active around here. Social benefits are transitory, when profits decline they are withdrawn as much as the local social pressuregroups allow. So national capitalist competition loses in the international arena, if local social benefits are maintained. Social democracy ended up in the same deep crisis as monaterism or lassez faire Social democracy wants capitalism with human face, it is an unachievable contradiction on the long run. I wonder why you all choose ignore this argument. Eva > I meant to get back to an interesting phrase in Pete Vincent's recent > posting "The chronic dominance of resolute stupidity." > > Pete comments: "...is it then any wonder that corporate culture, with its > large US component, is also oblivious to the catastrophic results of > growth." > > I think there is some relevance in noting the national origin of these > neoconservative policies promoting unlimited growth while at the same time > widening the gap between the rich and the poor. > > It is my impression that they have gained much more dominance in the > English-speaking nations (New Zealand, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom) > than in continental Europe where governments and people have clung more > tenanciously to the programs of social democracy. The little snippets of > information I come across seem to indicate, for instance, that unemployment > benefits remain far more generous in countries like Norway and France than > here in Canada, and in many of these nations university tuition is free. > > I don't mean to imply that Americans in general or even all American > business people are "satanic." One comes across good news stories: a company > setting up a generous child care program for its employees; Sun > Microsystems' staggering one-time bonus amounting to an average of three > years' wages; or (rather comically) a factory owner who had to call on his > maintenance staff to deal with a home plumbing emergency and then > thoughtfully made the service available to all employees for the cost of > materials and labor. All these people are well-meaning but under the > American system they can only benefit a small number of people (their own > employees) and the vast majority of Americans do not have their lot > improved. > > In contrast, there is an interesting article on Norway on the Canadian > Centre for Policy Alternatives at http://www.policyalternatives.ca/ which > quotes a Norwegian CEO who acknowledges that their social democracy is > expensive but says, "there are no poor people in Norway, and I don't want to > see any." > > I don't know what the solution is other than to gain more knowledge of the > social democratic countries and disseminate the information as widely as > possible in the hope that people here will demand the same for themselves. > > Victor Milne > > Visit FIGHT THE BASTARDS! an anti-Harris, anti-neoconservative website > at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ > > > > >
Re: DANGEROUS CURRENTS
I thought the government manages the state, and as such, it is the state. If there are periods of better social provision, you may be sure it is so, because a powerful - a bit more farsighted - strata of the capitalist/financial strata wield influence over the government that time. Whatever "good" achieved at these time is in fact to avoid social unrest and to prolongue the system. So these "successes" are transitory, look at the quick erosion of the education/health/social services in the UK. If you think this "process" will give us a democratic and sustainable future you are sadly mistaken. Eva ...cut... > > I don't believe that what is needed is a replacement of the system. As we > have learned time and again in history, corrupt systems are almost always > followed by corrupt systems. However, I do feel that advanced democracies > such as Canada were, at one time, on the point of achieving something > special, a society which really did work in the interests of its citizens. > At one time government operated on the belief that it had a very different > role in society from business -- that business must work in the interests of > its shareholders but government must work in the interests of citizens. I'm > beginning to wonder if this belief has been so eroded and government's view > of itself has so confused as to make government virtually ineffective. > > Ed Weick > > > >
Re: how many people have to die?
Any philosophy or political idea can become a dogma, if applied as such, being identified as Absolute Truth. This, ofcourse says nothing about the validity and applicability of said idea. Marxism/leninism as defined by it's originators does not claim any such identity, it was born from dialectic materialism, that denies such absolutes. The present capitalist market system is not based on any philosophical/political idea, it happened. Any ideology that apologises for it sprung up when this system was already with us. The dogma is that it cannot be changed to something better. Or on this list: if we just change some of it's institutions, than it would somehow work better. Sorry, the fundations of the economic relations that need changing. Eva > > There are no societies without religion, even, or especially, those which > believe themselves to be entirely secular. In our century, in our society, > the concept of development has acquired religious and doctrinal status. The > [World] Bank is commonly accepted as the Vatican, the Mecca or the Kremlin > of this twentieth-century religion. A doctrine need not be true to move > mountains or to provoke manifold material and human disasters. Religious > doctrines (in which we would include secular ones like Leninism) have, > through the ages, done and continue to do precisely that, whereas, logically > speaking, not all of them can be true insofar as they all define Truth as > singular and uniquely their own. > > Religion cannot, by definition, be validated or invalidated, declared true > or false - only believed or rejected. Facts are irrelevant to belief: they > belong to another sphere of reality. True believers, the genuinely pure of > heart, exist in every faith, but the majority generally just goes along > lukewarmly out of cultural habit or material advantage. When, however, the > faith achieves political hegemony as well, like the medieval Church (or the > Bolsheviks, or the Ayatollahs), it is in a position to make people offers > they can't refuse, or to make their lives extremely uncomfortable if they > do. > Eva > > It's a great book! > > Faith and Credit: The World Bank's Secular Empire > by Susan George, Fabrizio Sabelli > Paperback - 282 pages (September 1994) > Westview Press; ISBN: 0813326079 > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813326079 > > > > > >
Re: FW: David Korten: Democracy for Sale (fwd)
> > Adam Smith wrote TWO books- one of these is infamous Wealth of Nations > and the other, neglected child is the Theory of Moral Sentiments. In > other words, smith saw the need for capitalism to be tempered by > responsibility. > Surely the less responsible capitalist makes more profit, thus puts out of business the others. They are in it to survive in the chaos of the markets, human considerations antagonise the basic essence of capitalism. > And therein lies the problem. At both ends of this arbitrary spectrum > between fre market and common ownership is the intervention of the > State, not as a regulator, but as a parent taking responsibility for > errant children who want to play but not pay. Eva has resurected two > staw beings, both of which can be knocked down by either side in order > to avoid the difficult issues of responsibility. > Marxist economics relies on english classical political economy, perhaps you should read some first hand before you form your opinion. I have to assume you have not yet done this, as you misrepresent marxist theory - and me - here. Where did I pass responsibilities? Marx did not look at the state as a "responsible parent". He new that the state represent the status quo of the ruling economic order, thus he knew that full democracy in both the social and economical sense means a society without the state, that would be deemed to "whither away". > This, of course, is why Jeffereson wanted a republic and NOT a > democracy. He, of course, believed that only a certain class of persons > would have sufficient interest and willingness to absorb the > responbility. The common ownership, as Orwell showed, in his novels is > frought with the same dangers as the Genral Bull Moose model of rampant > corporate control. > Orwell had written good novels describing the system of the USSR. However it was not his job to make a rational analysis of the economic/social construct there. Luckily this was done by marxist analysts in a very consistent and convincing manner. In the USSR et al though there was common ownership, the economic control was in the hand of a burocratic elite and the state represented this elite. There are obvious and well demonstrated conditions that caused this lack of democracy to occure, such as the backward state of development in Tsarist Russia, including the illiteracy rates and no experience in democracy whatsoever, also, the conditions of the afternath of an immensly destructive war, and there are quite a few more such coincidental missing of the economic/social initial conditions Marx prescribed for a successful socialist democracy to develop. Luckily, at present, these conditions are, if anything, over-ripe for the next stage of social development which is the conscious democratic control to replace chaos and destruction. > The penduluum is not operating in a plane carving a path between two > alternatives. It is a chaotic system operating in several diminesions > which have been ignored by the political flat landers. > Capitalism and the markets are a chaotic system. So is a lot of the physical/biological systems we learned to manipulate in our favour. The only way we can manipulate the economy to serve human sustainable survival rather than short-term destruction to go on, if we have full collectively responsible democratic control over it. It sounds boring and axiomatic perhaps, but that is not a rational argument against it... I'd love to have a rational/objective argument. It's so much more comfy (at the moment) to be an apologist for capitalism, give me a good argument and I pack in marxism. Eva > cheers > > tom abeles > > >
Re: DANGEROUS CURRENTS
This is why it is so frustrating to stay with this list; seeing continuously hopes for the future based on totally false assumptions. The state and it's institutions are there to defend the economic and thus social/cultural power of the ruling class. I know it sounds like a dogma - nontheless it happens to be amply demonstrated through human history. You expect "fairness" and marxists are called "naive" and "utopist"! And at the moment the ruling class is still the capitalist class that owns our economy. For it to survive, it needs to operate in a capitalist fashion (whether it likes it or not!), which means making profits and not satisfying human survival/sustainability and other needs. Without changing the economic structure you are wasting your time. You may ignore this to have a comfortable time in the short term, but it will get you at the end. If you don't consider it, it will be a rather violent end; if more of you give it a thought, it could be a channelled, planned and democratic proccess and a slim hope to survive. Eva > > > My other point is, where is government in all of this? Surely one of the >outstanding functions of government is to ensure responsible business behaviour. It >is the business of business to grow and be profitable. It is government's >responsibility to ensure that business does not grow at the expense of the >environment or consumers. All too often, it fails to meet that responsibility, and >in fact abandons it. I worked for a very large oil company years ago. It hired some >very good environmental scientists and had a much broader understanding of >environmental issues than the government agencies it had to deal with. The >government agencies had little data of their own and were in fact relying on the >industry to provide information which would then form the basis for regulating the >industry -- a little like trusting the fox to guard the henhouse. Currently, at >least in Canada, the capacity of government agencies to ensure responsible business >behaviour is pretty cl! ose to zero -- witness the mess in the Health Protection Branch. > > > Victor Milne
was: petfood
Should cheer up Jay... Just imagine if all the money/land/ resources spent now on tobacco would be spent on better things... However, short term profit and one easily collectable state revenue is part of the system that cannot be concerned about human needs. I think it is more than the pet-food money, though this data is overlooked. Eva - Forwarded message from Mark Graffis -
Re: [UNDP]: Re: Entitlements
I think there are universal human entitlements that should not depend the usually undemocratic will of an undemocratically ruling elite in any country. If we had the right to interfere on human rights issues in the USSR, South Africa, Cuba etc, than we have the right to interfere in Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, Malaysia, China, Rwanda etc, etc, etc. I think "entitlements" are human right issues in societies where more is spent on importing arms than on public welfare with the blessing of the IMF and other financial/political institutions of the west. Eva > > > I would like to see the UNDP taking the role of ENABLER that is: > > organisation that will listen to the particular goals of LDCs and help to > > achieve those goals. It is extremely sad to assume that the people of a > > developing nation need to be monitored to prevent -for instance- bad > > development. People KNOW what development means for them the UNDP should > > be a receiver of these development concepts then encourage and aid those > > LDCs to determine their future. > > > > I Know that the tone of this message is rather too wide for the needs of > > this discussion list but I hope it may help. > > > > * > > Marcelo D. Affonso Conde > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. ECBC/NSERC/SSHRC Associate Chair in the Management of Technological Change Director: Centre for Community and Enterprise Networking (C\CEN) University College of Cape Breton, POBox 5300, Sydney, NS, CANADA B1P 6L2 Tel. 902-563-1369 (o) 902-562-1055 (h)902-562-0119 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http://ccen.uccb.ns.ca ICQ: 7388855 - End of forwarded message from Michael Gurstein -
Re: SOCIETIES AND ECONOMIC SYSTEMS
I agree with you; the leadership of the union tend to be right wing and to thrive on apathy. The only initiative comes from pressure from the memebership - when it happens. Eva > > >mass unemployment cuts the unions bargaining power > >due to cut in membership and that competitive pool > >of unemployed who are ready to work for less in > >worse conditions. Also the mass media for the last > >30 years was constantly hammering the idea of > >unionism. > > Unemployment may well cut union bargaining power, but short-sighted strategy > cuts union political power much more. Over the past 30 years, unions (in > general) have chosen to focus on income over organizing and on seniority > over solidarity. This could be explained as a defensive strategy brought on > by necessity. Or it could be explained as a conservative strategy brought on > by institutional inertia. I'm sure it's been a bit of both. > > The problem with a one-sided "unions as victim" analysis is that it really > gives the unions no direction to change -- other than whine about how tough > things are. Union bureaucrats are all too happy to have something to > complain about. That way they can keep playing the conservative game and > rationalize the predictable all too predictable losses as due to anti-union > hostility. > And militant rhetoric is no guarantee of strong union political strategy. My > observation is that union officials who "talk tough" often seem to believe > that's enough. > > Regards, > > Tom Walker > ^^^ > #408 1035 Pacific St. > Vancouver, B.C. > V6E 4G7 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (604) 669-3286 > ^^^ > The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/ > >
