Thanx for your considered reply Ken.
Now I am working at getting off this list,( which it seems is not easy!?)
It requires 80% effort in the reading (present compnay excepted Ken!) and
less than 20% reward.! For me the ratio must be 20% effort and 80%
reward, as life around me becomes more unsustainable. OFF to 'greener
pastures'.
Thank you list members for the informative history and arguments that I
have gleaned. Thank you Mark Jones for organizing a List, for
alternatives that are needed (to divert/repair) for the inevitable Crash.
But I have to put my time and effort in the practical alternatives that I
see working, NOW. jo*
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 19:02:28 -0700 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Jo,
>That's an important point, possibly the same one that Mark is trying
>to get me to address in a more heavy-handed way (being moderator and
>all . . .). I will try to elaborate on this question when I have time
>over the weekend. But to give a quick, off-the-cuff response to your
>point for the moment: coopareatives are not inherently any more or
>less ecologically-minded thatn their capitalist counterparts. HOWEVER:
>as the biggest inducement to ecological calamity is the profit-motive,
>and as cooperatives tend to give less emphasis to that (and do not
>have the sword of Damocles called a profiteering board of directors
>demanding that they put the bottom line before all else), the
>cooperative model is naturally more conducive to ecological concerns,
>since there is no strong counterforce to oppose it, and also because
>the social utility which must be an attribute of the process finds a
>natural philosophical extension in the PROCESS of production, hence,
>environmentalism would find a!
> natural place in the planning and process of cooperatives over time,
>I hold. There! If I don't find time to elaborate it over the weekend,
>at least the synopsis is published.
>
>Thanks for raising a good point. (I hope Mark will find this answer
>satisfactory, and/or comment on it).
>
>Peace,
>Ken
>
>
>Ken Julien and Tom, I have some single word responses...
>SUSTAINABILITY,
>HOLISTIC and with the awareness of ECOLOGICAL, much of which was not
>in
>our consciousness even in the past, much has to be re-thought, not
>necessairluy re-chewed.
>If something worked for a while, or cannot contiue to work, it is not
>sustainable and I believe this is key for this millenium. If it only
>worked for awhile it was disabling until it collapsed, because the
>system
>used non renewable resources or used up human capital.
>
>Note: However I am hoping the Mondragon people are becoming more:
>aware
>conscious and green, or THEY will not be sustainable ecologically.
>Everything being inter connected and related one has to look at
>preventions for potential Crashes HOLISTICALLY right?
>
>We are not speaking of automobiles, that one might keep them on the
>road with constant good maintenance, or work at keeping them on the
>road
>as vintage models, elegant interesting or fun, even fair transport!
>But
>self sustaining? jo*
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>((( GREAT DEAL: Home Depot: Home Improvement 1-2-3 on CD-ROM )))
>Get it FREE! at: http://nettaxi.free-irewards.com ( plus S&H )
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
>To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
>http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
