 
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:43 EST
From: BLUECANARYINNAOUTLET 
Subject: our two approaches
To: +dist+~js9b/Public/camc.dl@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
Message-Id: 

"Question: So what exactly are people envisoning for these new
communities? It seems like Jesse is very free form - these communities
could spring up in the middle of a city ghetto, or out in remote farm
land... Ideas?"  --Jon Slenk, 4/5/92.
 
Hello all.
 
   Not being familiar with mailing lists, I wonder if this is what the
rhythm of them is normally like... I'm glad we seem to have gotten a
second volley.  The Cat Lives. :-)
 
   Hey Jon.  You first.
 
>From:  IN%"js9b+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET"  "Jon C. Slenk"  5-APR-1992 15
   :45:58.32
>Subj:  yow
 
>Random things in response to Jesse's mail:
>
>>  Now, this struck me as sort of odd.  You seem to be considering the
>> whole thing as a matter of formal experimentation, a very systematic
>> approach to things.  My instinct is to say, fuck scientific protocol;
>> distribute tools for self-sufficiency as quickly as possible, and let the
>> users figure things out for themselves!
>
>I agree with the idea that we should try to get the tools out as quickly
>as possible. My brother has a book that discusses building houses
>without the use of "standard" construction techniques. The idea was that
>current methods are destructive and  generate a lot of waste, when one
>could use materials already available to construct economical and thus
>environmentally sound abodes. Admittedly, they aren't luxurious, but the
>basic idea can be improved upon. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the
>title of the book is, or who the authors are. It does serve to indicate
>what kind of tools are available, though - even if we can't get hardware
>into people's hands, we could start with information.
 
   Hmm.  This does sound interesting, and thank you for making the
connection.  I think that the kind of approach I think I'm advocating,
emphasizing less planning and more speed/ubiquity of action, would
naturally follow such a pattern.  Settlements built in this style would be
done without officially approved safety features, insurance, etc.  This
obviously could lead to a lot of irresponsibility, and I'd expect to see a
good number of people die from fires and so on in poorly designed and
built shelters of this kind.  I imagine that eventually, various
architectural conventions would become the norm, and the quality would
improve-- tribal villages were not constructed through a
capitalistic/legalistic system of rights and responsibilities, after
all... But even if so, is this an acceptable price to pay? I don't know.
My impulse is to say yes, that it would be sad and regrettable but that
the benefits could outweigh the costs in the end.  But then the ante is
upped, as in Allen's proposal...
 
>From:  IN%"ALLENS@YANG.EARLHAM.EDU"  5-APR-1992 15:28:12.67
>Subj:  Biotech in these communities
>
>        I've seen quite a bit of discussion of information tech of all
>types in these communities, and some on using sustainable tech. What I
>haven't seen much of is discussion of biotech.
>        This field (applied molecular genetics) is what I'm personally
>going into. I have a choice between working for a firm, only on what can
>be conveniently patented and profits made off of, or working for a
>university and having to do things I'm not suited to do- namely teach.
 
   I think I can sort of understand where you're coming from.  And I think
the dilemna that you outline is a real one.  The question of what the
place of technoscience in these communities is, is valid.
 
>        The specific area I'm interested in is gene therapy, and its
>extensions to not only cure genetic diseases, but make up for where
>evolution left off.
 
   (Hrmm.  There's things I think about this, too, but my tangent alarm is
going off, and so I'll not address it.)
 
>        I'm wondering if these communities will include resources for my
>type of research. If they don't, then I may cheer them on from the
>sidelines but I certainly won't join one.
 
   I wonder what a community could derive from a contingent of maverick
scientist types.  Potentially a good deal, I imagine.  Creative energy.  A
climate of innovation and excitement.  Possibly even valuable
technological resources.  A temptation, certainly.
 
>        I can see possibilities for such communities being easier to work
>in than the present maze of restrictions on genetic research. If they can
>fund research without NIH grants, then most of the needless (I'm not going
>to be working on biological warfare) restrictions won't affect me and
>fellow researchers- and you'll get a LOT of researchers with that as a
>selling point.
>        -Allen
 
   Not to put any real faith in the capacity of the aforesaid maze of
regulations to protect us from idiocy and greed... but I wonder if I
should feel so comfortable throwing away that protection.  I am gaining a
healthy respect for the ability of living things to reproduce themselves
repeatedly, to multiply and flourish unexpectedly and without permission.
Without conjuring up doomsday scenarios of mutant plagues unleashed on the
world (I'll take your word for it, Allen :-), it would be bad enough if
this hyper-deregulated scientific community Allen's projecting released a
steady stream of *little* organisms-- genetically altered fish, insects,
bacteria (think: kudzu.  tumbleweed.  Asian moths.  killer bees)-- into
the environment, via sloppiness and lack of accountability.  There, the
consequences get global.  I don't want to let that happen.
   (Note: I am thinking of the Republic of Grenada in Bruce Sterling's
*Islands in the Net* as an illustration of this idea...)
 
   The "unplanned" approach, if we want to call it that, carries with it
some very real dangers.
 
>>    And what is this about being part of a "globally competitive economy"? I
>> thought that was something worth *avoiding*! [etc.]
>
>I understand your desire to avoid the rat race, however, I think it is
>important not to totally remove ourselves from the world. We must be
>sure to keep up to date with "outside" developments, so we can take
>advantage of any new and useful ideas. Not everything produced "outside"
>would be bad (in the sense of being produced in an unsound, unethical,
>or unecological manner).
 
   I suppose, although I can see some value in village-scale isolationism
*sometimes*...
 
>> > My point is this: If we want to see any results
>> >from these ideas, we must rely on ourselves to accomplish the first,
>> >and hardest, basic experiments.
>>
>>    Exactly.  Now, who is the "ourselves"?
>
>Those of us on the mailing list and... ?
 
   Ah, but that's a problem I have here.  It may begin with us, but it
should *not* end with us, or we are a selfish elite, worthless to the rest
of humanity-- in which case, no one *should* support our efforts.  Do you
see what I mean? We have an obligation to the world.
 
>> To answer my own question from last time-- that's one thing that *I* would
>> personally want from a community: a lot of free time to dream in.
>
>What would that take? Computer systems? Cars? Plastics? Where do we draw
>the line? Should we avoid being hooked up with the rest of the
>information systems of the world, for our own protection? I would really
>miss my computer set up, but perhaps it is necessary? Production will
>always have side effects. We have to figure out what they are and if
>they are acceptable.
 
   Yes.  I thoroughly agree.  I hope there's a technological compromise
that can be made between high-tech luxury and low-tech drudgery.  We don't
want a repeat of the Brook Farm experience, for instance.  Nathaniel
Hawthorne's letters sketch out the end of *that* experiment: he couldn't
write or read or think anymore, because he was too busy shoveling shit.
 
>Basically, I envision a quiet revolution - we can go off and try to
>start our own communities, or perhaps we just adjust our way of living
>within the world (ie: we alter our diets, we consider what we buy and
>where we do buisness and who we vote for). Any attempt to stand up and
>shout, "Hey! Everyone wake up!!" is going to be met with a wall of
>indifference, at best. Then again, maybe I am pessimistic here.
 
   To try and echo what I see here: you envision either a nonviolent
movement towards alternative, sustainable communities, *or* some kind of
thoroughgoing change within the system-- the same approach as liberal
feminism and Social Green politics to their respective issues.  The first
approach is radical, the second liberal.  I think we may need both,
working in parallel: the first for the future, the second for the Now.  An
interplay more complex than any of us have been able to outline might be
in order...
 
>> >Lets hope we're clever enough to make this work and keep plenty of time
>> >available for lovemaking, watching sunrises, and hard sweaty play.
>>
>>    *Yes*!  Again, that image really resonates for me.  And if it does (or
>> doesn't) for anyone else in here, please speak up!
>
>*Yes*!
 
Thanks. :-)
 
That's all for this one, my disk quota overfloweth.  More to come.
 
 
   --Jesse.

 prev message 
 next message