Dear Betty: Thank you for your message. It is very thought provoking. It ref
reflects exactly my ideas only more concise and lucid. I have been preaching
a balance between the two extremes of environmental protection- one Adam & Eve
existence and the other Nuclear waste site in every backyard. We must realize
that every 'progress' or human activity has its cost- what is society willing
to pay? There are no free lunches. The 'haves' want to keep what they have
even at the extent of others, and even grab some more. As Arthur C Clarke once
commented that we have enough resources for human 'needs' but not enough for
human 'greed'. I have been making national and international presentations on
various topics involving a balance between development and SHEP (Safety, Health
and Environmental Protection). I look at Holistic SHEP Systems as each human
activity in one component of this system affects the others. We must realize
again that there are no free lunches- steaks or bean soup. Thanks for provokin
g my thought process. I will now stop preaching here and welcome your comments
, ideas, and references. Regards. Jivan
lectri, 16 Aug 1996 11:18:04 -0700 said:
>>I thought ecofeminists rejected the notion of "development?!"
>>
>>-Susan
>
>I don't reject it. Guess it depends on how you define it, but without
>development humans wouldn't have left the trees or caves. Development is a
>good thing if done with a bit of foresight and intelligence. It sounds
>kind of arrogant for us to sit here enjoying development and suggesting
>that other peoples shouldn't? To me development would include medical
>advances and the like. Who are we to say that people in the third world
>shouldn't enjoy good health and longer lives too?
>
>Betty
>
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 17 11:05:38 1996
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 12:04:12 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (j griffith)
Subject: Re: women in international development
At 1:14 AM 8/17/96 -0700, S. Grubb wrote:
>Does it? I always thought that "rejection" furthered the movement, by
>confronting it squarely with the issues being ignored, and bringing it,
>for lack of a better word, to "consciousness." I'm convinced that without
>this kind of confrontation or "rejection" the feminist movement would have
>been slow to recognize the struggle of minorities (racial, sexual, etc.),
>working/underclass women, "third world" women, etc., etc.
you clearly misconstrued my point. i said that feminists shouldn't reject
one another. that's all.
>After having recognized all this, I don't comprehend how one could *not*
>reject the notion of "development!?"
ahh, true. but i'm saying not to reject the concept of womyn in
development just because they have the word 'development' in their name.
it seems as though we're using buzzwords to convey our thoughts, a concept
that seems to risk rejecting ones own thoughts, ones own movement.
jas
