Hello Glenn That's very interesting. Thankyou.
>Hello Keith > >You bring up some interesting points, particularly as relates to >corporations. As stated in your attachment, corporations develop into >separate entities, as if they were a diffferent species. They have developed >an ability to control human beings and "have become the dominant species on >the planet." This is a new concept to me that helps me to better understand >the culture in which we live. I'm glad you liked that. I like Roberto a lot, he's secretary-general of the Philippine Greens, very clear-headed. >The same can be said, I believe, about Federal Agencies (and about religious >institutions with which I have been very personally concerned in that they >ursurp and compromise the functions of local congregations which ursupation >I strongly oppose). Yes, I think so - different species of mammoths. They're generally non-hostile to each other and sometimes mix rather closely, grazing the same pastures, but I don't think they can inter-breed. They're all very difficult to kill, but it's worth trying, LOL! Roberto makes it quite clear that the mammoths themselves and the people who work for them are quite different. A corporation is not at all the sum of its employees, they're human, it isn't. >The same can be said, I suppose, about what appears to >be a natural trend these days of groups to "get themselves organized." In >each case the individual and regional group can very quickly lose control of >their own destiny, become submerged in the corporate organization, and be >expected to adopt and give priority to the corporate goal(s). . > >A case can be made, I believe, that the role and responsibilities of the >individual, and local/regional organizations are being very widely >marginalized, minimized, and even eliminated. These extra organizations >take on a life of their own, and they control, modiy, and depersonalize the >human beings over which they have cognizance. One has to be officially >blessed by the super organization in order to wheel and deal. One's >initiatives are evaluated solely in terms of whether they further the >particular mission and/or its founder's goals. Individual initiatives are >minimized and even discouraged. Everything must be done in the name of the >sponsoring agency, and the icorporations smaller units whether they be >sub-agency units or individuals exist only to be directed and to provide >funding to the sponsoring agency. The agency, whether they be corporation, >Federal Agency, or sponsoring religious agency receives all the glory. This >leaves very little room for regional, local, or individual initiatives or >attention to their own priorities. . This is quite pertinent to biofuels issues. Damn, this is going to get a bit long. I'll cut the rest of your message Glenn, but I very much agree with you, and thanks for the enlightenment. A couple of months ago this was posted to the Biofuel list: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?view=14775&list=BIOFUEL >From: "malakai_tigers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> >Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:04 AM >Subject: [biofuel] Greetings and an Idea > >Hello folks, I just joined after reading a few posts and deciding >that this group may actually prove an interesting read...:) I had an >idea which actually expands beyond the biofuel field into all >alternative fuel arenas. > >It seems that alternative fuel development is being rather coy in >its growth under the direction of the ogolopoly of energy companies. >I also agree that until we develop fusion energy, nuclear reactors >pose a cosiderable cleanup issue. So the question becomes, how do we >as citizens (of the world, I suppose, this is likely an >international list) make enough of a change to subvert the >stabalizing initiatives of the big oil/energy companies? > >I play a strategy game occasionally which involves taking a small >force and growing and nuturing it into a large force and defeating >the larger forces in the game. This is not an easy task when the >bigger forces are constantly raiding you. The tatic that seems to >work best is the rapid expansion technique. In the relm of growing >and developing alternative fuel technologies, it could be done as >such: As soon as possible, setup development and administration >sites in as many places as possible. Link the sites to each other so >that they can communicate, but make sure that each location has it's >own independant existence. Protect a project from legal >ramifications by coordinating verification research across >international borders. This seems like a huge undertaking, but the >truth is, it doesn't need to be. Each area of research can work it's >own contacts to expand. A micro-hydro generator project could create >labs in the UK, India, US, and perhaps Itali, just as examples. In >the mean time, a biofuels project could do the same thing with >Canadian, Mexican, and Columbian locations. > >The scientific community has done a fairly decent job of policing >itself as to coordinating work and such, so the primary thing to be >concerned with is the distribution of funds. With this regard, I >suggest each project be headed by an international trust fund that >would get and distribute funds and resources and also communicate >with other alternative energy trusts to share technology. > >This leads to my final and probably most controversial point with >this idea. All information, technology, and methodologies need to be >OPEN SOURCED (to borrow from the computer relm). The contibuting >scientists could get the patents as needed, with the trusts holding >the rights, but nothing should be charged for. By starting with this >founding principle, you set expectations from the start and keep the >alternative fuel energy from ending up in the clutches of a few >large cartels like the fossil fuel energy. > >So those are my thoughts. I apologize for any rambling within. I was >typing this on the fly. I welcome any discussion or insights >regarding this message. > >Cheers! > >Chris Rogers I wrote a reply but didn't post it, for some reason. Steve Spence did reply: "Actually this is exactly what we do with this forum....." Steve's right, though there are some differences. This was the reply I never posted: >There's no organization or more or less formal network such as you >propose, it's entirely distributed and independent. Groups like this >one and a few others, as well as smaller, more local or more >specific groups, along with websites like Steve's at Webconx and >ours at Journey to Forever, serve as a sort of virtual >hub-cum-network. There are also various cooperative groups, local >workshops, educational efforts, people working the fairs and so on, >all completely informal, and nothing central. > >I believe trying to "organise" it could create more difficulties >than anything else. As you noted this is a worldwide group, and it's >a worldwide movement. It was started by individuals and that's still >it's strength - make your own fuel, be independent, and then a lot >of environmental issues go along with that, which people can take or >leave as they prefer. A central organisation, or even a network of >such organisations, could offer some benefits, such as perhaps >quality-testing facilities, one thing that's been talked of, and >certain lobbying and advocacy issues. But I think it would soon get >snarled up in bureaucracy and become divorced from the grass-roots, >individual level which is the movement's whole strength. That's >pretty much what's happened to the environment movement itself >(though only partly). > >Research is on the same level. There are a great many biodiesel and >biofuels patents, but virtually everything we do is "open-source". >People work by themselves and share their efforts and collaborate >with each other on these Internet groups. The findings are freely >available in the group archives and at the websites. It works well - >there is very much more and very much better information freely >available now than even three years ago, when there was very little >indeed, and it wasn't easy to find. All we had to start with was a >few paragraphs written by Tom Reed. > >Financing, if any, is also at the same level. People make their own >arrangements. They have difficulties, but mostly they seem to solve >them. I know of many different projects that are moving ahead well, >not stopped by finance barriers. > >I've no idea what the growth figures might be, there's no way of >telling, but I'd say it's huge, and very widespread, pretty much >global. > >This kind of pattern has great strength. For a start, once it's >reached a certain point it's difficult to control it or take it >over, or to stop it, or even to stop it spreading. It's certainly >well past that critical point now. It is difficult in some >countries, where there are too many regulations that don't serve any >good purpose, and it's even illegal in various ways, but that >doesn't seem to stop people doing it anyway. To legislate against it >and enforce the legislation would probably be too expensive >politically, not worth the candle - biofuellers can be quite noisy >of they want to be, so can environmentalists, and there would be >some embarrassing issues involved. Most governments are committed to >cutting CO2 emissions and cleaning up the air, what could be their >justification for clamping down on effective individual efforts like >DIY biodiesel? Newspapers like stories like that (as we showed in >Hong Kong). > >For the most part it's probably easiest just not to notice us, and I >think that's mostly what happens. We're very difficult to measure, >or even to estimate, which helps. Meanwhile we grow. Big Oil doesn't >notice us, or not much, we're beneath their attention. For now >anyway. Big Biofuels doesn't notice us much either, for the most >part. In the US they tend to sneer at us a bit, saying we can't >guarantee quality (yes we can), while admitting we're useful, for >such purposes as "demonstrating community support" to the suits in >City Hall and so on. They also admit we're more effective than they >are at promoting biodiesel, for all their advertising budgets and >lobbying. And they've started to make it tough for small operators >to sell on-road fuel - tough or impossible without affiliating to >them, which costs big bucks. Mainly they're Big Soy interests with a >marketing plan, they want control. It's not established that they're >within their rights, but they'll probably get away with it, things >being the way they are. > >It won't stop us though, just hamper us a bit. Local groups will >continue to grow and to spread, more and more farmers will make >their own fuel, form coops for wider distribution for off-road use. >We keep pushing local efforts, local self-reliance, community-level >energy initiatives, bioregionalism and so on. > >So, frankly, sod alternative fuel development under the direction of >the ogolopoly of energy companies, if we wait for them the sky will >fall on our heads first (maybe literally!). We're what's happening, >not them. > >In fact I'm a bit surprised more people haven't been studying this >model. It's fascinating, with some very interesting and optimistic >implications. But I don't mind - it's a quiet revolution. The >quieter the better. Maybe that last bit was why I didn't post it - the quieter the better. Thor Skov, also a member of this list, posted a comment a bit later that I really liked (hey Thor!): >I just want to say how important what you all are doing here is (I'm >just an interested bystander). Closed-system fuel production, on a >local or small regional scale, tied to local resources, using >accessible technologies, and dependent on entrepreneurial innovation >combined with open-source information exchange--it's AWESOME. Keep >up the good work everyone, before the planet fries. That's a right handy summing up, IMO. Maybe we can't dump an asteroid on the mammoths' heads before they dump the sky on ours, but maybe we can simply outgrow them - I mean real growing, like nature does it, not just gross expansion of control, the mammoths' version of growth. I think the corps and mega-bureaucracies and the other out-of-control institutions (World Bank, IMF) are almost as anachronistic as the real mammoths, but they're powerful enough to drag the past along with them, wrecking the future. Do you remember that line, I don't know where it came from: "What if they had a war and nobody came?" Same with this: what if nobody came? We'll see. It occurs to me that, as a group, backyard biofuelers have probably saved a lot more carbon than the US government has. Well, they haven't saved any, have they? Is there a government that's saved more carbon than we have? I wonder. What I like about it is that it's impossible to prove. We're invisible. Mammoths can't see us. Regards Keith ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
