Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] Efficiency

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Liz <liz@allslash.org>
  • To: <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Efficiency
  • Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:41:46 -0500

At 09:27 AM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
First question, where will the money come from to create the millions of
good paying occupations and rural prosperity? In order to create an influx
of capital into an economy, local or otherwise, you must generate an
outgoing trade of goods at a value less than they can acquire it elsewhere.

This is true only when "value" has the single meaning of dollars (or whatever the local currency may be). That's one of our problems, that we equate value only with bottom line cost in money.

And no, such an economy can't be "created." It has to grow and evolve from the efforts of the people who participate in it. The situation we have now wasn't created overnight, after all. But the more quickly we make the necessary efforts to return to a local economy, the closer to that we will be when the fragile underpinnings of today's system collapse.


If use of modern machinery replacing hand labor is one of the worst things
to happen to modern society, how do you prospose to pay these people fairly
for their labor. 1 gallon of fuel replaces about 1,000 man hours. Who
will work for $0.003 per hour? You don't have to use all mechanized
equipment, but you also don't need to be absent of mechanization.

Absolutely not. I have nothing against tools. With a spinning wheel, I can make enough yarn to keep my family clothed and warm. With a handspindle, I probably can't, because it takes a lot longer (though that's all people had for many thousands of years, and a handspindle is itself a primitive tool). Tools make labor easier and less dangerous. But they don't replace people (or animals). That's the difference, and I'm very much aware that in some cases, it's an arbitrary difference. I think the distinction should always be that a tool assists labor. It doesn't replace it.

Your analogy of man-hours versus fuel works only in a highly mechanized society where labor is valued only in dollars. If nothing else, in a less mechanized system, the things people need don't cost as much, and the money that is exchanged is more likely to circulate in the local economy rather than going overseas, or even to other parts of a country.

The end goal is finding the happy medium to everything.

No argument with that. Just to put things in context, I'm an electrical engineer who has worked with computers since 1963. No Luddite, not by a long way. And you are obviously doing what a lot of other people are only talking about (and sometimes saying can't be done). So I don't think we have any real difference of purpose or intention.

Liz in SW VA
http://life-as-a-spectator-sport.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page