I would like some clarification on just what we are meant to be doing
here. As I understand it the crash we are talking about is going to
initially be precipitated by a shortage of easily extractable fossil fuels,
this will be made worse by the cumulative effects of climate change, over
population, deforestation and general erosion of arable land. This situation
has been forced on us by a world system based on a consumerist, capitalist
mode of production, that is completely dependent on cheap oil in order to be
maintained. So, the crash, is essentially the collapse of this system.
If I'm on the right track, our job here is to do one, or more, of three
things. 1)- Come up with some options for the short and medium term that
could possibly prevent the worst aspects of the crash from occurring. As I
see it there are groups already doing this by advancing alternative energy
sources and encouraging governments to change their tax policies to
facilitate the development of these technologies. If we are to follow this
path then the job would be one of discussing the merits of others ideas, and
to possibly integrate the best of what's already out there. 2)- Assume that
the crash is inevitable and discuss what type of society we will want and
need in the aftermath, since after this crash there will be a vacuum that
will need to be filled, and if we don't fill it others will and they may not
have the best interests of most humans or this planet in mind. 3)- Envision
the type of society that we want and make some plans on how to achieve it.
Always keeping the crash in mind, but only as a guide of how to make this
vision compatible with the ecological realities we are likely to face, and
hopefully coming up with something that would work under any scenario.
This is more or less how I see it [I could go on at greater length but my
fingers won't allow for it]. Any and all comments would be appreciated.
Thanks, Aaron.
>
>Thank you Tony. I don't know about Aaron but I am not particularly
>interested in the finer points of Marxist (or any other) theory or
>theology.
>They would only be of value if they could offer a demonstrable and
>practical
>way of avoiding the crash - which, although it sometimes seems most
>contributors have forgotten - is the whole point of this group (as far as I
>know).
>
>Having been on the group for a few weeks, it seems to me that in spite of
>Mark's good efforts to keep discussion more or less on topic and presented
>in a reasonably positive manner, it might nevertheless be a good idea for
>the group to split into two separate e-groups: those who want to talk and
>duel endlessly about theories and theologies and those who are genuinely
>interested in finding, discussing and positively debating practical and
>readily understandable ideas and ways of avoiding the crash. Alternatively,
>perhaps someone already knows of such a group in which case I'll sign up to
>it.
>All the best.
>John
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
