Sorry, Tom - wasn't actually being nasty at all. Don't accuse you of
anything. Realise I don't know much about this stuff. Thought there were
some ambiguities that needed resolution, that's all.
>It's indeed interesting that this is the first action that you construct
>from my statement. In fact, equity in food production and distribution is
>the only way to begin to bring the overpopulation issue under control. (I
am
>glad you only managed to accuse me of hinting, however, that's a lot of
>progress, usually such a statement accuses me of it outright.) You project
>that into my statement because you don't know much more about it. That IS
my
>fault because I didn't post 75 pages you wouldn't read anyway. Please try
to
>give me the benefit of the doubt if you can.
I really wasn't doubting you, Tom! Looking for a little clarification was
all.
>If Milton knows what I think he knows he also understands that a general
>reduction in food supply for a population as a whole OVER TIME results in
>population slowing without killing anyone or causing dislocation or
>starvation.
Still reckon ya gotta watch those universal truths, Tom. Taking a few
calories out of Manhattan, Wimbledon or Canberra would have a very different
impact than if it were done in provincial Bangladesh, Chad or Liberia,
I'd've thought.
>BTW, if we are going to "not feed" anyone, I'd start with
>fat-cat diners at the Cordon Bleu. Why did you assume I'd start with
>starving innocents?
Didn't mean to assume any such thing. It seemed ambiguous, and I too
brutally made the point in my hurry to get the kids to their Xmas party.
>AND You should consider the alternatives staring you in the face before you
>object too strongly to this argument.
What alternatives to what argument?
>Yes. I agree with everything you said there. I support it, and work for it.
>If anything I wrote is perceived as advocatiing "impoverishing the
>countryside, I am misunderstood.
Wasn't sure I understood - that's all.
>That seems to be the porblem on Crashlist
>this week, But, hey, that's progress too, we are not yelling at different
>viewpoints quite so stridently as before.
Wasn't even yelling, Tom. We've got ourselves over-defensive here. But for
my little poke at Hallyx (for rather catty generalisations which I thought
unproductive), I've been the very soul of sweetness, haven't I?
>YES! A rather good place to start cutting down consumption, don't you
think?
Well, maybe a credit-crunch might come along and help out a little some time
soon. But everywhere is connected to everywhere else, and the core won't
suffer in lonely silence, I'm afraid. Peripheral economies would lose
export markets, little 'wars' might be created to congeal popular support
for sorely tested administrations, aid budgets would be cut, interest rates
would rise and so on.
>I will not let you dismiss us quite so easily.
Wasn't dismissing anyone. Just trying to put us in some context. There are
healthy things happening, of which we're a miniscule part, but then that's
all any of us is.
>We must teach, if we "get
>it". The movement of those who "get it" starting to teach at present the
>fastest growing "great movement". It is no longer "we poor few", or haven't
>you been looking around?
Whatever. If you think a vanguard of teachers is what the occasion demands,
go ahead. Me, I'm just joining in and seeing what happens - sometimes you
can learn a lot that way - and stuff you learn together, in the events
themselves, well, that's social change, eh?
>I would hope that soon we can quit quibbling over who has the purer motives
>or ideas and begin to meet together on the little bits of common ground we
>can occupy.
C'mon now - where did I argue my motives were purer than anyone else's? I
thought I was summarising some neat points and warning against some
ambiguities in expression!
>I don't claim to have all the answers, but I will not cop a plea to having
none of them, either.
No-one has all the answers, Tom. Answers that count come out of messy great
public actions and debates - huge chaoplexies of indignation, hope and
imagination are abroad, and ears are open, but not for didactic oratory.
Experts have put us in our hole, and we've had a gutfull of 'em. We want
conversation, sure, but not teaching. And we want to feel WE'RE the
process. This is, first and foremost, a demand for democracy. I've said so
to the Leninists (who think I'm full of shit, and that 'democratic
centralism' at Bolshie HQ is the way to go) and I'm saying it to you (who
seems to think I'm full of shit, and that people have to be taught to 'get
it').
Ya put your ha'penny's worth in the mix, keep your ears open, and see what
comes up, actionable moment by actionable moment. It's pretty useless to
try to control the agenda (when you don't have the PR budget, anyway).
And it's historically pretty dicey when someone actually manages it.
Hopefully back to lurking mode till I've something useful to say.
Let's do our listmaster's bidding and chill a little, eh?
Rob.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
