Subject: RE: [Ottawadissenters] RE: [Futurework] Musing on the Vancouver
Stanley Cup riot

John,

Since my posting started this "discussion" , let me say how sad it makes me
to see the shouting match that broke out.

John, I really don't know what you are thinking or your starting point but
somewhere in the background is a DND ethos.  Your home department.   To
those who say why are Canadians dying in Afghanistan, the answer has to be
"well people have died over the years and that is why we have democracy
today...."   And so on.  

All I did was say that the current paradigm is not adequate to organize
Canadians to social action and commitment, not to mention something that
gets them going each day.  I was met with pessimist, cynic and almost called
"defeatist".   The latter being that old chestnut from past wars.

And it is with respect that I say this since I think you have an unusual and
eclectic intelligence.  Perhaps this is how you have or had been able to
survive so long within DND, by thinking way out of the box.  To a degree
that your writings on this issue have no practical policy use. And doesn't
threaten the established order.  Only by leaping ahead to some hypothetical
future and drawing on past successes (called such, because we are here even
though many have died) can you say that all will be well, albeit with some
evolutionary adjustments along the way.

This has been "a trip".  But still, John, you haven't answered my original
posting on the need for a positive vision for the future.  Or, perhaps you
have answered it:  in the mishmash of techno optimism and sci fi musings
there is no practical policy oriented vision of the future that is possible.
Which in itself is quite sad.

Arthur   

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David M Delaney
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 10:22 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Ottawadissenters] RE: [Futurework] Musing on the Vancouver
Stanley Cup riot


  On 11-06-18 12:54 AM, John Verdon wrote:
> The future is full of very serious problems - but even the scope of 
> our discussion about 'what to do' implies a level of human 
> intervention on the scale of 'terra-forming' and the need to increase 
> our own willful re-shaping of our selves and human societies - which 
> means more not less human intervention. 
So far this is a typical techno-optimist cornucopian dream, but then you 
wander off into acknowledging one of the simple, devastating, and 
conclusive, arguments that it's nonsense:
> When we recognize that the whole thing is a complex system - we don't 
> know how small a difference will make a difference nor how big a 
> difference will make no difference at all. We have no idea of how a 
> well-intentioned reasoning will compound itself in the long to produce 
> unintended consequences (positive or negative)
Strange.

Paraphrase: "We have to manage society, the biosphere, and resources 
globally, (implicit: if we are to keep seven billion plus people alive) 
but that's impossible to do successfully."

Sounds like a valid reductio ad absurdum.   (In spite of the fact that 
global cooperation on the scale necessary to test the conclusion is also 
impossible.)





------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ottawadissenters/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ottawadissenters/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to