permaculture

[EFMonaco <EFMonaco@compuserve.com>]

This is a repost from the Pro-urb (as in The Practice of New Urbanism)
list.
It's a bit obscure from the typical permaculture posts (like copywriting
the egg, yawn); however, since Alexander's pattern language is a classic, I
thought the list might appreciate some crossfertilization.
Going to Celo this year,
Gene Monaco
S. Knoxville, TN

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message text written by The Practice of New Urbanism
>
This is a little late, but for what it's worth:

It is all to easy to let the rapid pace of technological change blind us to
its core importance.  We become fascinated by gadgetry and forget that
these new technologies will have a profound impact on human existence.  Our
lives will be changed by them in ways we haven't yet imagined.  Of course
"disruptive technologies" will influenced the needs of people and
communities and will change the ways we as New Urbanists plan, design and
act to accommodate those needs.  Just providing data wiring and computer
terminals in our designs will not be nearly enough.

These technologies will change the patterns and processes of our lives, not
just the wiring. When telecommuters' work contacts are mediated by machines
(computers, etc.), their casual, chance contacts away from the job and
their ability to interact with family friends and neighbors without
mediation by other machines (automobiles) become that much more
significant.  The opportunities for community building that NU can provide
will become more, not less, important.

In the June issue (8.06), Wired published several pages of responses to the
Bill Joy "The Future Doesn't Need Us" article.  Most of these came from
leading lights in the New Technology and New Economy fields. The comment
that got to the heart of things from my perspective, though, came from
Christopher Alexander:


                 Chris Alexander, emeritus professor, University of
                 California at Berkeley, and chair of PatternLanguage.com:

                 A few months ago, I went to an evening discussion at which
the
                 two speakers, and the audience, were invited to speculate
                 about the most far-out things they could imagine, in
society and
                 technology, and what the future might hold: how - in a
word -
                 the future might be different from the present.

                 The discussion and the audience comments were entirely
                 dominated by techno thinking. The issues covered included
new
                 materials, new forms of social organization, new
relationships
                 between the sexes, new forms of gene-splicing and gene
                 control, biological warfare, and biological control
systems. All
                 this was predictable and interesting. What was not
predictable
                 to me was the remarkably and exclusively nonhuman or
                 inhumane focus of the discussion. Ethics were not
discussed.
                 The sense of right and wrong was not discussed.
Consciousness
                 was not discussed. The intense search now going on in
physics
                 to find and recognize consciousness or mind as part of the
                 universe was not discussed. God was not discussed, in any
of
                 his or her manifestations.

                 In short, among an audience of whiz-kid scientists and
                 technologists, probably coming largely from Berkeley, Palo
Alto,
                 and San Francisco, the preoccupation with palmtops,
gadgets,
                 light pens, radio laptops, and a host of far more wild
                 technological things had all but pushed thought about the
major
                 human concerns into the background. It was indeed like
being in
                 a roomful of whiz kids - schoolkids - not yet mature
enough to
                 grasp for the ungraspable, or to focus their thinking on
the
                 matters that underlie every human heart.

                 That, I believe, is what Bill Joy has been trying to say.
Cool is
                 not so cool. Technics is not enough, and if taken in
isolation will
                 be dangerous. To be leaders in the world, computer
scientists
                 and creators of technology need to, and must, wake up to
                 embrace a view of the world which is moral, based on
ultimate
                 realities of cosmology. No matter how hard it is to
embrace
                 these things clearly, to find a worldview in which they
play the
                 central role, human existence cannot make sense without
them.
                 When will [Silicon] Valley, which has brought so much to
the world,
                 and which leads on so many fronts, become a leader
                 intellectually, in the human things that matter?


Frank G. Greene, AIA
Artech Design Group
1410 Cowart St.
Chattanooga, TN 37408
(423) 265-4313
frankg@artechdgn.com
www.artechdgn.com

>>> Ed Brenegar <edb3@EMAIL.MSN.COM> 07/19/00 06:07AM >>>
Matthew,
Thank you for linking us to the full report.  I look forward to reading it
sometime during the next couple days.

I'm not a anti-technology luddite.  I'd be an early adopter of technology
if
I could afford the rapid obsolesence of innovations.

I think there are two questions that designers and planners need to ask
about the "disruptive technologies" in which the report discusses.

First, How do or how can these technologies make a difference in NU
designed
communities?  Darrell Fuhriman's offering is an excellent first step.

Second, What effect do these technologies have on human community, and how
can they be used beneficially.  If one of the aims of New Urbanism is to
restore community, how do these technologies enhance the physical space
where human community takes place?

As a sobering take on these innovations, read Bill Joy's article in Wired
"Why The Future Doesn't Need Us" ,
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html

Matthew, thank you for providing some provocative material for us to
consider.

Ed Brenegar




----------------------- Internet Header --------------------------------
Sender: owner-pro-urb@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com
[209.119.0.109])
        by spdmgaaf.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) with ESMTP id
LAA27821
        for <EFMonaco@COMPUSERVE.COM>; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:28:09 -0400
(EDT)
Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com
(LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id
<18.000D9007@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:28:09 -0400
Received: from LISTSERV.UGA.EDU by LISTSERV.UGA.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP
release
          1.8d) with spool id 7667328 for PRO-URB@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU; Thu, 27
Jul
          2000 11:28:02 -0400
Received: from artechdgn.com (host-208-53-72-34.bluestar.net [208.53.72.34]
          (may be forged)) by listserv.cc.uga.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP
id
          LAA34536 for <PRO-URB@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>; Thu, 27 Jul 2000
11:27:56
          -0400
Received: from ADDomain-Message_Server by artechdgn.com with
Novell_GroupWise;
          Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:22:48 -0400
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by listserv.cc.uga.edu
id
                      LAA08252
Message-ID:  <s9801b88.042@artechdgn.com>
Date:         Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:22:17 -0400
Reply-To: The Practice of New Urbanism <PRO-URB@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sender: The Practice of New Urbanism <PRO-URB@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Frank Greene <frankg@ARTECHDGN.COM>
Subject:      "The Future Doesn't Need Us"  was: Disruptive Technologies,
and NU
To: PRO-URB@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU<
--------------------------------------------------------------------