----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 2:36
AM
Subject: FW: The coming
recession
Keith,
I agree with you
> But, altogether, it's economic madness
that the future propserity and peace
> of the world depends on the development of major new technologies. Each
> successive one needs increasingly a higher quantum of investment. What are
> needed are socio-economic mechanisms within countries by which populations
> can adjust smoothly to the normal swings and roundabouts of economic cycles
> and investment euphoria. Perhaps constructive ideas and discussion will
> revive on Futurework list in the coming few years.
> of the world depends on the development of major new technologies. Each
> successive one needs increasingly a higher quantum of investment. What are
> needed are socio-economic mechanisms within countries by which populations
> can adjust smoothly to the normal swings and roundabouts of economic cycles
> and investment euphoria. Perhaps constructive ideas and discussion will
> revive on Futurework list in the coming few years.
But how is this less madness than the idea that
success must demand constant growth or there is
stagnation? The concept of balance and ordered growth is
considered stagnant while the consistant over use
of non-renewable natural resources is called
"development."
Are we arriving at an awareness that the
mechanisms of the market in a "wild" environment
is no more efficient than a forest gone to
seed? That the true alternative is not a baroque garden or
an unkept forest but something that allows for both growth and limitation with
the context of the organic potential of each variety of plants and
animals. There are those romantics who believe that a Rain
Forest IS efficient. They site the Rain Forests of
South America as examples, but most of the Rain
Forests in South America have been shaped by thousands of years of subtle, balanced agricultural development by native
peoples. It is not Darwin but forestry management for the greatest possible diversity and the
careful planting of food and medicine plants that
allows for village movement and hunter sustainence that is the plan. The plan takes fifteen years and then is
renewed in a new place, leaving the waste
of the previous village to nurture the returning forest. The Incas
had their own version of productivity never
before or after matched as did the Iroquois in
upstate New York. These were more of the classical or European
varieties but they were working in a different environment and had some of the
same traits as Europe. Still they too thought in terms of
balance between growth, limitation, variety and sustainability.
Their love of corn, the most dependant of plants, indicated that they had a
little of the Europeans desire for micro-control in their personalities as well
but the idea of balance and checks permeated their agricultural and economic
cultures. They considered Europeans to be indulgent, violent and out
of control while the Europeans considered them to be savage, violent, stagnant
and incapable of control althought their forest concepts were too big for the
Europeans to even notice. Both sides totally misused the other's potential
and created a disaster that the greatest to date in the history of the
world. The only reason native peoples escape the credit for their
part in it is because they weren't the thieves and invaders.
However if you consider the Shaman Gengis Khan to be a relative of the Native
Peoples then you could make a point for a very long range vengeance
stratagy.
The problem as I see it is that crazy duality, the
either/or of Western throught that disallows a lqyering fo complexity and a gradual mastery of
processes. We get
yes/no, either/or, success/failure,
beautirufl/ugly, old/young etc. We squeeze the middle and praise the extremes. It must be either
socialism or capitalism. That in
my opinion is the reason that neither capitalism or
communism has been able to run a Nuclear
power plant safely. It is the cultures that have family
structures and responsibility beyond economics
and even politics that seem to be able to control both the market
and the nuclear power rods as well as train the people who are responsible
enough to handle both.
Got to go. Just some thoughts.
REH
