Keith, I take your point, but would suggest that the world you envisage is
so far in the future that even our grandchildren won't see it, and perhaps
not their grandchildren. Personally, I see metal bashing, brick and board
bashing, and conventional energy bashing being with us for a long time.
There are huge vested interests at play in these things. As I noted in my
previous posting on the subject, I see metal bashing increasingly done in
the third world (the trend is already there bigtime), brick and board
bashing, as Christoph Reuss suggests, done by imported (if not immigrant)
labour, and energy bashing wherever the reserves and markets are. As Naomi
Klein suggests in "No Logo", the role of the rich world may increasingly be
to "brand" and market the products of these various bashings, much like
Nike, Gap, et. al. are already doing with clothing produced in third world
sweat shops.
Regards, Ed
Ed Weick
577 Melbourne Ave.
Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7
Canada
Phone (613) 728 4630
Fax (613) 728 9382
> Ed,
>
> You either misunderstand me or, more probably, I haven't explained myself
> very well. Yes, we will always need the sorts of objects you've mentioned
> -- "cars, trucks, tanks, aeroplanes, guns, and girders for tall buildings"
> -- but we won't necessarily have to make them out of metal, nor use
> concentrated sources of energy such as the fossil fuels on which we
> predominantly rely today.
>
> So far, ever since man discovered the formation of copper and bronze in
the
> embers of his camp fires 5,000 years ago, we have gone along the fairly
> straightforward and simple route of making more and more objects from
metal
> ores, refining them by means of expensive forms of energy and bulk
methods.
> (True, plastics have become important in the course of the last century,
> but these are relatively simple organic products made by rather similar
> methods of applying concentrated forms of energy.)
>
> Instead, sophisticated organic products in the future, quite as strong and
> versatile as present objects (spider's silk is stronger than steel), will
> be able to be produced by gentle applications of energy (that is,
sunlight)
> via DNA-controlled methods of production. Now there seems to be no reason
> why the production of objects made by DNA-processes should not be
> concentrated into specialised regions as now, and traded halfway across
the
> world as now, but there seems to be no pressing economic reason either why
> they should. It seems to me that DNA-controlled production ought to lead
to
> a more financially evenly balanced world than now. Any country with a
> reasonable level of sunlight (that is, anywhere) and of clean water will
be
> able (in the longer term future) to make anything at all -- no matter what
> the metal or energy resources it has or doesn't have.
>
> Furthermore, if each region or even each fairly small locality is able to
> make almost all of its material products in situ then we can hope that a
> rich diversity of cultures will once again have a chance of surviving
> instead of the uniform McDonaldisation of today.
>
> As for your last comment about the con artists returning at some stage, I
> agree -- unless we have full disclosure of all communications within
> business. I've mentioned this in my other posting to Karen ("Or poorer")
of
> this morning.
>
> Keith
>
>
> At 17:15 27/10/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >Keith, interesting stuff. I like the concept of "metal bashing
industries".
> >Because we will continue to need cars, trucks, tanks, aeroplanes, guns,
and
> >girders for tall buildings for someone to blow up, somebody, somewhere
will
> >have to keep bashing metal. It may not be necessary for them to do in
the
> >rich world. They can do it in China (unless they get rich) or Mexico
> >(unless they get rich too). We will also need houses, so we'll have to
have
> >"board and brick bashers". I think that will have to be done where we
live,
> >so there will still be people who can do things among us. We will also n
eed
> >energy - oil, gas and coal for the time being, but surely, if Rifkin is
> >right, hydrogen at some point (flogisten(sp?) bashers?).
> >
> >People in the poor world now make our clothes. Why shouldn't they make
our
> >cars and fridges (perhaps, largely, they already do)? What will be left
for
> >us? I take your point about education. But at some point the dominant
way
> >we think may not be about how we do things, but about what we do next to
> >keep the bubble going. If we don't make things anymore, how do we keep
> >ourselves rich, ahead of the pack, so to speak? We've recently been in a
> >stew about con artists in big business and have gone to some lengths to
> >purge ourselves of them. But we should not worry, they'll be back.
> >
> >Best regards, Ed
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------------
> Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ________________________________________________________________________
