A nonprogressive innovation sounds nice, even possible. In my mind,
to do this one would have to step outside of
the conventional timeline. Time progresses, then as well as nature,
we have seen this in evolution as well; one cell
produced the maximum perfectness of itself until it grew into it's
next best progression. Maybe, it could be achieved
by only focusing on problems without looking at what has been done
before. Then again, you might spend time
creating solutions that have already been tried; but maybe not as
well. Just a thought, would you be happy in a
world that didn't progress?
Personally, I love progression. Even though it can (and is) abused
by greed; it is a natural form of growth, I
just hope that the true innovators become strong (or smart) enough to
move even the big corporations. With
social media what it is today; a good student can become well known
in a short amount of time. Enough with
the ramblings.
Here's to the purest form of innovation, whatever that is!
P.S.- Check out
http://www.neuronet.pitt.edu/~bogdan/tesla/onfuture.htm
http://swisstesla.com/inspired-by-nikola-tesla-a-car-and-an-opera.html
P.P.S- Maybe we can come together and bring about a change....wait
that's what we are doing aha!
On Mar 31, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Dawie Coetzee wrote:
> One thing I failed to mention in my previous post, but to which
> someone has
> already alluded, is the aspect of time. Roundaboutness plus critical
> threshold
> production volumes explains why the current system not only requires
> one to
> replace one's car or fridge as early as possible, but also requires
> the
> manufacturers of these goods to replace the tooling required to
> produce these
> goods as quickly as possible. It explains why we can't have the last
> model, even
> though it worked much better for us than the current one. It
> explains the race
> not only to come up with new must-have features, but also new
> reasons why the
> old model can't continue. Hence, also, the unfortunately successful
> attempt to
> paint successful and at least almost sustainable old designs as
> "ecologically
> irresponsible". Why a new Fiat 500 the size of a colliery dump-truck
> when there
> was a perfectly good one in 1957? In fact there was arguably an even
> better one
> in 1936.
>
> This comes from the needs of a system of economy. It has nothing to
> do with
> "progress", even though it does appear to march, jack-bootedly. It
> has nothing
> to do with giant leaps for mankind. If it has anything to do with
> "we as a
> species" - that mythical entity - it is only because it works to our
> universal
> detriment.
>
> I am trying to come up with a conception of "nonprogressive
> innovation". In a
> culture so coloured by the idea of progress it is barely possible to
> hold it in
> my mind.
>
> Regards
>
> Dawie Coetzee
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: robert and benita rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Fri, 25 March, 2011 21:01:00
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love
> nuclear
> power (George Monbiot)
>
> On 3/25/2011 10:38 AM, Dawie Coetzee wrote:
>> I fear that, despite Keith's occasional promptings to the contrary,
>> I still
> had
>> no great love for George Monbiot anyway. The latest merely confirms
>> my earlier
>> misgivings.
>>
>> My own position, in which the Green is rather overshadowed by the
>> Black,
>> represents one of the few angles from which George's cloven hoof is
>> really
>> visible. To me he has always been far too much the eco-
>> authoritarian, for whom
>> ecological survival could never really, thoroughly, consummately co-
>> exist with
>> personal liberty. His localism seems thin and superficial, his
>> centralism runs
>> much deeper.
>>
>> An appreciation for obscure local apple cultivars gave George
>> Monbiot a
> chance.
>> He has blown it now.
>
> Ok, it's one thing to dismiss the article offhand because it
> doesn't harmonize with the overall theme of local energy and food
> production, but I would like to ask the list what I believe is an
> important question. Mr. Monibot mentioned that pre-industrial England
> did not support a very comfortable lifestyle for most of its
> inhabitants, and that full reliance on solar, wind and biomass would
> move English society backward without nuclear power. Does it follow
> that a reduction in energy use and reliance on renewables would
> necessarily result in massive declines in both industrial output and
> citizen comfort? (I'm also thinking of that article Keith posted a
> few
> weeks ago, in which analysis of coal consumption in Industrial
> Revolution England actually INCREASED with improvements in
> efficiency.)
> Can we support large populations in the industrialized nations without
> fossil and nuclear power?
>
> I can envision a personal lifestyle in which my energy needs are
> significantly reduced, and I think we--as a society--could make
> substantial progress in better fitting solar energy to demand. (Using
> solar thermal air conditioning is a good example.) But someone still
> needs to make appliances and sundries. The equipment to convert
> diffuse
> energy into electricity and heat must be manufactured, somehow. Where
> is the energy going to come from for these activities? How can we
> work
> with metals, and perform other energy-intensive tasks, without massive
> power plants?
>
> Or, is Mr. Monibot's "either / or" scenario completely off base
> altogether?
>
> When I hear talk of "energy independence," it's usually in the
> context of substituting one form of energy for another, or blind
> insistence that the environment matters less than our need for energy
> and we should "drill and dig" with renewed vigor. I don't hear a
> lot of
> willingness to re-organize our cities, invest in public transit and
> move
> away from factory farms. Our current economic model enjoys an almost
> mystical reverence, and none of its underlying assumptions can be
> challenged without accusations of "socialism" (or worse) being flung
> about. But even IF we could come up with a new form of economic
> policy,
> where is the dense energy for manufacturing going to come from? It's
> clear that we'll need to keep on building things, so HOW can that
> happen?
>
> robert luis rabello
> "The Edge of Justice"
> "The Long Journey"
> New Adventure for Your Mind
> http://www.newadventure.ca
>
> Ranger Supercharger Project Page
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110331/da06103d/attachment.html
> _______________________________________________
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
