Eva sent this to me by mistake and asked me to send it to the list.
----- Original Message -----
From: Eva Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jay Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 16, 1998 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: What other way is there to live?
>I actually agree with most of the stuff as it is
>presented here by Jay, except
>- it is demonstrated now, that humans are
>in the right circumstanses are not into
>over-population - some relatively rich
>countries now have declining birthrates.
>- he again avoided to mention the type of economic
>structure that could support a sustainable system,
>- he seems to move from his favoured technocracy towards
>a global democracy. A police state - even in "the name of
>the majority" doesn't work.
>- There is no need to separate people to "producers"
>and those finding sustainable passtimes, a more
>likely scenario is that we share most activities.
>I think most people enjoy producing stuff as well
>as learning and being actively or passively
>artistic. We learn through our lifetime all the
>activities we feel we have talent and interest in,
>so for a few days a month we'd do some physical work for
>which say, the energy spent by robots would be
>too expensive, we spend some time with most of the
>other "work" that there is; "necessary" and "enjoyable"
>hopefully merging for most activities.
>- I can't see a big role for religion
>in an open and free society where the role of
>comforters such as drugs and religion
>would be diminishing,
>however, until people need it they would have it
>in a democracy - uptil the point where a
>religion obstructs openness and tries to supress
>freedoms.
>
>Eva
>
>>
>> I HAVE offered something constructive and useful in the past. I will
attach
>> more to the end of this post.
>>
>> I think many of you academics misunderstand the context of this debate.
In
>> his book "Of Men and Galaxies", cosmologist Fred Hoyle sets our physical
>> context -- its' a one-shot affair:
>>
>> "It has been often said that, if the human species fails to make a go of
it
>> here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the
sense
>> of developing intelligence this is not correct. We have, or soon will
have,
>> exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is
>> concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ore gone, no
>> species however competent can make the long climb from primitive
conditions
>> to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this
>> planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will
be
>> true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one
chance,
>> and one chance only." [ Hoyle, 1964, 64 ]
>>
>> The social context of this debate is POLITICS -- and, as I have amply
>> documented for you, it's the politics of life and death. I welcome a
debate
>> on economic theory, but the economists on this list aren't interested in
>> debating economic theory because economics is not science -- it's
politics.
>>
>> Economists do not react do disproved hypothesis by formulating a new
>> hypothesis, instead they work politically to make the offending
components
>> conform to their hypothesis. Moreover, it's not possible to talk
anyone --
>> even economists -- into giving-up political power. If history teaches
>> anything, it's that political power must be taken.
>>
>> If economists are upset by the tone of my attack, it's because they are
not
>> used to being treated as politicians.
>>
>> What other way is there to live? Here's one:
>>
>> SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Sustainable development both improves quality
of
>> life and retains continuity with physical conditions. To do both requires
>> that social systems be equitable and physical systems circular.
>>
>> COMMONS: "A commons is any resource treated as though it belongs to all.
>> When anyone can claim a resource simply on the grounds that he wants or
>> needs to use it, one has a commons." [ Virginia Abernethy, POPULATION AND
>> ENVIRONMENT, Vol. 18, No. 1, Sept 1996. cited in CCN's FOCUS, Vol. 2,
No.2,
>> p. 20. ]
>>
>> COERCION: To "coerce" is to compel one to act in a certain way -- either
by
>> promise of reward or threat of punishment.
>>
>> POLITICS: One coercing another.
>>
>> AUTHORITY: I use this word in the sense that goals (or ideals) are NOT
>> produced by a consensus of the governed. For example, physical goals for
>> sustainable development must come from "scientific authority" -- because
no
>> one else knows what they must be.
>>
>> Examples of "authoritarian" political systems include corporations,
>> Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and churches.
>>
>> An obvious example of extremely successful "authoritarian, systems
politics"
>> is a corporation.
>>
>> GLOBAL PROBLEMATIC: Global tragedy of the commons because people are
>> genetically programmed to more-than-reproduce themselves and make the
best
>> use of their environments.
>>
>> THE ONE-AND-ONLY SOLUTION: Global coercion.
>>
>> NEW SOCIETY
>> We already live under a coercive, global religio-political system called
>> "Capitalism". The sine qua non of Capitalism is the conversion of our
>> life-support system into commodities. Thus, Capitalism WILL end -- one
way
>> or another. Moreover, a new system would need to be anywhere near a
brutal
>> as our present one.
>>
>> In reality, the current development paradigm is nothing but a
grotesque --
>> energy gulping -- Rube Goldberg machine to deliver "needs" to people.
Today,
>> people still "need" the same things that people "needed" 35,000 years
ago:
>> community, shelter, health care, clean water, clean air, and about 3,000
>> calories a day of nutritious food. But each of those three million
>> hunter-gatherers -- Homo sapiens -- used the same amount of energy as a
>> common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), whereas each of today's 269 million
>> Americans -- Homo colossus -- uses as much energy as a sperm whale
(Physeter
>> macrocephalus)..
>>
>> Step one is to break out of the money/market/advertising/consumption
death
>> grip. A new society would NOT be based on money because it's inherently
>> unsustainable. It would be based on something like Hubbert's energy
>> certificates. [ See It's the Money, Stupid! at
>> http://dieoff.com/page149.htm
>>
>> The key to the new society is to find meaning and happiness in
>> non-consumptive activities such as religion and the arts. With modern
>> technology, probably less than 5% of the population could produce all the
>> goods we really "need".
>>
>> A certain number of "producers" could be selected and trained by society
to
>> produce. The rest can stay home and sing, dance, paint, read, write,
pray,
>> play, and practice birth control.
>>
>> Highest priority would be to establish a global government of some sort
with
>> police powers that are capable of protecting the global commons -- our
>> life-support system -- as well as protecting individual human rights (as
>> yet, undefined). Within the global framework, I believe a great deal of
>> freedom is possible -- in fact, far more than we have now.
>>
>> Any number of cultural, ethnic or religious communities could be
established
>> by popular vote. Religious people could have public prayer in their
schools,
>> prohibit booze, allow no television to corrupt their kids, wear uniforms,
>> whatever. Communities of writers or painters could be established in
which
>> bad taste would be against the law. Ethnic communities could be
established
>> to preserve language and customs. If someone didn't like the rules in a
>> particular community, they could move to another religious, cultural, or
>> ethnic community of their choosing.
>>
>> In short, the one big freedom that people would be giving-up would be the
>> freedom to destroy the commons (in its broadest sense). And in return,
they
>> would be given a guaranteed income and the freedom to live the kind of
life
>> they choose.
>>
>> Jay
>> -------------------------
>> COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU!
>> http://dieoff.com/page1.htm
>>
>>
>>
>
