 
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 17:05 EST
From: BLUECANARYINNAOUTLET 
Subject: Re: NEXTdream boogie
To: +dist+/afs/andrew/usr/js9b/Public/camc.dl@andrew.cmu.edu
Message-Id: <01GX7BAH78CK000BGK@YANG.EARLHAM.EDU>

Bill sez, through the medium of Jon Slenk:

>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.

   That's cool.

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

   Nah, don't worry about it. :-)

>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'm not sure where you got this from what I said, but let me clarify--
I'm a rather hard-core atheist!  A humanist by trade.  Starting a church
is out of the question.

>>    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.

   Religions, even *more* so than corporations and governments, seem
almost intrinsically unsuited to the purpose of changing human ways of
life for the better.  I don't mind if someone starts a really beneficial
world religion tomorrow and proves me wrong, but I'm way skeptical.

>"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?

   No.  What I'd like is to show by demonstration that the existing system
is inhumane, that the gains made by abandoning it for some new forms
exceed the losses, and that it is ridiculous to stay inside a less
preferential system when you have alternatives.  Not too controversial, I
hope?
   It might be really tough to begin with, my purist scheme, but it
wouldn't have to be that way forever, or even indefinitely.  The
localization of luxury isn't technically impossible, just hard for us to
figure out how to do after centuries and centuries of living one way.

>>    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.

   The idea of "parasitism" is implicit in one of the purist strategies I
talked about-- scrounging materials and info without exchanging stuff for
it within the system rules, thus avoiding the trap presented by the
economic game.  Just a cautionary note: as a parasite, you have to watch
out for becoming *intrinsically dependent* on the host society for your
way of life.  Like Simon Ings describes in his novel *Hot Head*:
"repudiation" is a tricky concept, and when a repudiation rests on the
assumption that others will continue to produce and create certain kinds
of things, it is deeply flawed.

>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.

   Sort of a short-circuiting.  Hmm.

>> 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.

   Well, hey-- I think it's far from inconceivable.  Man, as long as we
know that matter and energy are the same thing in two different forms,
there's really no excuse for the way things are.  There should always be
*enough*.

>> 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'.

   I'd like to know more about your ideas of "self-reliance", and what it
would entail in terms of a lifestyle.

>> 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.

   Unfortunately, I seem to have left it home with a lot of other stuff
from Britain.  Rats.  Well, I can get it to you eventually...

>> 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.

   Oh, you're not that cynical!  You're just stubborn as hell. :-)

>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.

   Likewise, I don't really need you to accept my arguments; the point is
more to learn from the process.  At this point, I'm far from possessing
the technical expertise to describe a self-sufficient village.  I have
some ideas, some anecdotes, some daydreams, some examples, some scribbles,
some photos.  But I'm working on it.
    Your work sounds like it's progressing, although I confess I don't
have a clear picture of what's actually in place.  Watch out for them
wascally wabbits, and good luck. :-)



   --Jesse.

[P.S. to Bill-- did you get the private e-mail I sent?]


 prev message 
 next message