 
ReSent-Message-ID: 
ReSent-Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 13:24:21 -0400 (EDT)
ReSent-From: "Jon C. Slenk" 
ReSent-To: +dist+/afs/andrew/usr/js9b/Public/camc.dl@andrew.cmu.edu
From: wce@hogbbs.scol.pa.us (Bill Eichman)
Message-Id: 
Date: 	Thu, 15 Apr 1993 20:27:11 -0400
To: angst+@CMU.EDU
Cc: angst+@CMU.EDU
Subject: dream boogie
Comments: Jon, please post this, and everything else I send you...
Reply-To: wce@hogbbs.scol.pa.us
In-Reply-To: <01GWYXBBVB0W0019J2@YANG.EARLHAM.EDU>

Jesse, in your message you write:

>    I don't really accept your arguments yet.  I had to delete the letter,
> since my quota overflowed, but I remember you talked about "stepping off
> the wheel of life"; such is not my intention at all.  Rather, I'd like to
> return responsibility for one's existence (like mine!) to one's own
> locality-- to make the individual unbeholden to distant, faceless others
> for his/her survival.  In a society where food, energy, and shelter are
> tokens in a global economy, this is not the case.

It's not my goal to get you to accept my arguments. My goal is just to
get you to argue. That way, working on the problems each from our own
perspective, I think we'll learn the maximum amount.

I've been told I'm pushy about that sort of thing. Oh well... ;-)

It's clear we're in basic agreement about goals-- it's the practical
issues, the step-by-step approach to those goals, where we tend to
disagree. I think the evidence is clear that it's not practical to ask
people to give up so much of the old society in one jump. Only the rare
and idealistic few would accept a Thoreauvian existence, despite the
fact that it's healthier and very acheivable.

When you talk about "locality", it seems to me that what you're saying
does have some profound 'religious' qualities. Starting a church to
'preach' and practice those ideals sounds like a good plan to me.

>    I don't propose isolationism.  Far from it, I'd love to *export*
> self-sufficiency to as many people as possible, until it becomes obvious
> that it is ridiculous and inhumane to live otherwise.

"ridiculous and inhumane"-- again, this seems religious to me, and using
religion as a tool to spread this meme might work.

"Exporting" implies marketing. Who do you expect to buy
"self-sufficiency"? Are you going to get them to buy it by telling them
they're 'ridiculous and inhumane' to want otherwise?

>    One of the difficulties with my scheme is that it involves phasing out
> dependence on artifacts produced by the global economy I wish to escape;
> at present, this includes many kinds of "alternative technologies", such
> as solar cells, computers, etc.  This is not a necessary condition,

You want to escape the global economy; wheras I want to _parasitise_ the
global economy, and tap a portion of it's wasted energies and products
and apply them to purposes which will ultimately lead to a cultural
seperation from the existing 'hive-nation-state' style of global
economy.

Currently, I'm in a state in which I want to _get_ solar cells and
computers and UV-resistant plastic films. I see the global industrial
economy and it's technological products as a type of 'honey', produced
by the hive-states, which I can apply to a higher-order use than they
are making of it.

I can't see any way in which I can stop them from doing what they are
doing, but I can use their energy for purposes that will eventually
(hopefully) counter their programming.

> however.  We can imagine, and have already begun to create, technologies
> which render Second Wave-style centralized mass manufacture obsolete.  The
> ultimate extension of this, a full-blown Drexlerian nanotechnology
> (miniaturized, self-replicating factories), can eventually make all such
> issues obsolete.

Boy I sure hope so. About the only thing I can imagine that would lift
this country out of it's economic tailspin, and this planet out of it's
ecological tailspin, is the invention of radically new technologies that
lead to major engineering and energy leaps.

> no problem with this last course of action, as long as it is done with the
> eventual goal of maximum self-sufficiency in mind.

By 'self-reliance' I mean something which is probably very much like
what you just called 'maximum self-sufficiency'.

> you like, I'll find it for you.  I'm not sure how they obtained their
> land.  One of their members has a connection to the Internet, but I have
> yet to get in touch with him.

It would be useful to know.

> not contingent on business activity, it's perfectly acceptable.  But the
> only way to *ensure* such (insofar as it's assurable) is to achieve
> maximum self-sufficiency within the community!  (Pardon me if I seem
> strident! :-)

Stridency is fine-- all I want is the evidence, the data, and the plan.
Show me how I can make it happen and I'll abandon my cynical ways in an
instant.

What I'd really like you to do, Jesse, is to map out a scenario or two.
Describe a practical way in which your ideas for self-sufficiency could
be put in action. Without that, I just can't accept what you're saying
to me.

---

Spring is wonderful! I'm hoping to double the production of my garden
this year. I've improved my fences in hopes of foiling the ravenous
rabbits, and have started a bunch of seedlings. Setting aside $5000 has
put a crimp into my free spending money-- I'd wanted to buy a half dozen
new fruit trees, but that'll have to wait.

Especially after the size of the check I just sent the federal
government. Self employment tax is 15.3% of your earnings- ouch.

Later, Bill

 prev message 
 next message