Re: [ba-unrev-talk] An approach to a simpler truth.
Eric, I just have to chime in here.
If you are pampering yourself spending your money on a lot of "things" there is
a good chance that you don't really know who you are! You speak like you DO
know. So tell me. (01)
With regard to all the "if only's, that is a really tough fight. I think that a
more powerful approach would be to offer "charming deceptions" that would
provide forces and tools to assist people in waking up. As people become more
aware of their real relationship to the planet their market demands will shift
to products that do not shoot holes in the other end of the lifeboat. In many
ways, big business doesn't really care whether you buy good stuff or bad stuff.
They will make and sell you what you ask for. (02)
The bad news, of course, is while working on world problems behind the scenes at
this level is powerful and effective, there is very little recognition or credit
to be had and it takes an exceptional person/organization to hang in there. I
think that there is a major opportunity for religious organization to transform
themselves by taking on this challenge. This will give them something to do
besides bicker about who is right and work out why the infidels/heathens need to
be killed. Any clergy, monks, priests, etc out there who are reading this - I
will thank you, Mother Earth will thank you and (I won't claim to speak for the
un-namable namer but I feel to the depths of my genetic code) HE/SHE/WE/IT will
look favorably on such an enterprise. (03)
Q. E. D. Services (04)
Eric Armstrong wrote:
> Mighty post. Thanks.
> I began reading with a predisposition to accept his thesis.
> In particular, I find his condemnation of market economies
> as causing environmental degradation and loss of quality of
> life (in some respects, at least) rather apt.
> However, when he argues that most of the goods go the rich
> and _as a result_ people in poor countries are starving, I
> think he may be confusomg correlation with causation. There is
> definitely a correlation. I'm not sure about the causation,
> but I remain open to demonstration -- which he seems to
> point to when he talks about use of 3rd world lands -- but
> whether they are better off with a market for goods, or worse
> off because of it, I'm not yet totally convinced.
> (That is the only small issue in an otherwise fine post, though.
> Of course, I eagerly anticipated some concrete alternative,
> which I failed to find. But his analysis and his allusion to
> information sources gives me hope...)
> As for banks and businesses sweeping away all obstacles, he is
> dead on correct. The new keiretsu are, in effect, nation states
> that are making geopgraphical boundaries obsolete. But is this
> a good thing?
> In the 60's, I was sure that it was. At that time, I saw
> *nationalism* as the fundamental enemy to human welfare.
> Religious fantacism is a terrible thing, to be sure, but it
> is only when it is combined with nationalism and governmental
> power that it becomes demonizing. I saw then, and still see
> now, that "nationalism" is the most likely cause of war and
> Global corporations, because they cross boundaries, serve as
> an effective antidote to war. But is the cure worse than the
> disease? That is an open question. Having seen for myself the
> misery that corporations are capable of inflicting in the name
> of profit -- unless and until restrained by an act of government,
> I am certainly not enthralled with government by corporate
> All of which brings me back to the separation of business and
> state which is such a fundamental necessity. But it is perhaps
> interesting that if it is business which makes war obsolete, it
> may well be business which provides the motivation for the U.N.
> to turn into something useful. Of course, that will take 50
> years or so, but the end result may well be a global magna carta
> that takes power out of the hands of the wealthy aristocracy,
> and returns it to the people once and for all.
> His point about market and its destructive effect on community
> is equally well taken. Here, I resport to equilibrium theory as
> the "right" way to think about the social contract. In fact, it
> was with just this idea in mind that I eagerly read this message.
> Again, he is dead on when it comes to the commitment to growth,
> which eats up resources -- not to mention that deading effect on
> people who are financially enslaved to corporations, for lack of
> any means of subsistence without them. (For this, I see 3-D
> farming as a possible remedy.)
> Pollution, too, is a major concern. Granted, it is fueled by a
> market economy. And like rats who overrun a ship, we may well
> eat find ourselves with no usable environmental resources of any
> Hey! He references "a substantial and growing literature on the
> basic form a sustainable society must take", and "small market
> gardens (located) throughout cities". Now he's talking my
> language! (Everytime I see a bare lot, I think about how a
> great forest farm could be growing there.)
> And this, I love: "we could easily organise a much higher
> quality of life at a much more relaxed pace than most of us have
> now, with no reduction in the availability of modern medical or
> other important technologies..."
> It sounds like quite a few people are thinking in the right
> directions. Now if we can only get some concrete proposals and
> take steps to get there...
> When I get the exercise equipment company off the ground, I
> expect to have the wherewithal to focus on 3-D farming, music
> instruction, and community building. In fact, it was during my
> last start-up attempt that I reflected how beneficial it would
> have been to have no rent to pay, and few groceries to buy. At
> the moment, though, I'm as trapped as anyone else.
> If only I didn't have so many interests! (There was a great line
> on one of the Law & Order shows last night -- "You're an
> intelligent person and you have a lot of interests -- that you
> spend a lot of money on -- so you don't have any.")
> Perfect description. But one thing the great philosopher Vin
> Diesel said at the Agora (aka Leno's place) was "invest in your
> dreams". And *that* appears to be the antidote to overspending.
> (Actually, he said "invest in yourself". But I've followed that
> advice for years. Unfortunately, it lets you pamper yourself to
> death, indulging any interest that comes along -- but "invest in
> your dreams" implies a focus on a goal, so that all expenditures
> dovetail to help you get where you want to go, and be who you want
> to be.)