permaculture

[Bob Howard <rmhoward@omninet.net.au>]

I'm going to snip up Mark Ludwig's last detailed response on the general
discussion on ecology and economics. I've been reading and thinking about 
jumping
in - so here's my 2c worth.

In general, much of the comment seems to be based upon the assumption that if 
we
can fix up the USA then that will fix up the problems of the world. This might
seem reasonable to an citizen of that country but to people like me in south
western Australia it seems remarkably naive.

It's obvious that the US is highly economically dependent upon the 
availability
of cheap fossil fuels and that this is one of the motivating factors for the 
war
against Iraq. Petrol prices in the US are by far the cheapest in the world - 
half
to 60% of Australia at the moment I think which is second or third in fuel
prices.

Also it's obvious to me but perhaps not to many of it's citizens that the US$ 
is
in imminent danger of collapsing. US debt is expanding rapidly and the Japan 
Inc
bubble is about to burst. As well, the US$ is the most easily forged currency 
in
the world. Given the US's current unilateral approach to the world the rest of
the world will probably not be too interested in requests for assistance when 
the
crunch comes.

Although the US may in the short term secure military control over oil 
supplies -
resistance to US consumption is growing exponentially around the world and 
there
are too many 'terrorists' out there for all the satellites and spies and 
spooks
to ever see or do anything about.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned the US is the problem and not 
part
of the solution.

Now to some of the issues...

Mark wrote:

> the worlds infrastructure does not change in a heart beat, we are stuck 
> with a
> tremendously hungry system that will take time to change....
>

You mean the US's infrastructure don't you. Indonesian villagers are not 
anywhere
near as dependent upon fossil fuels as US citizens are. And they will happily
leap frog the petrol economy.

[snip]

Mark continued:

> I think this is a good analysis, however the sad reality is that these
> people are almost totally powerless in the current world situation.  I
> don't really know how to make such inequities go away, and doubtless they
> will be the ones screwed by any new world order as well.

A cheap shot might be to say "tell that to the followers of Jamaat Islamaiya 
or
Bin Laden".  They don't feel powerless at the moment. But really it's not just
them tell it to the people of Thailand for instance - where democracy has 
taken
root and they are busily engaged in inventing barter trades worth millions 
with
South Africa and new ways to build cheap fuel efficient engines for Bimos and
buses and the communal transport systems of Asia and Africa. . Where a local 
film
industry and music industry are booming. Look at the way in which China leap
frogged the development of DVD's to bring cinema to the masses.

[big snip]
more Mark:

> This is where I'll disagree sharply.  The corporate whores of the world
> will carry on green washing, lieing and spinning wether they do anything
> good or not.  Tis the nature of the beast.  Even such sleaze balls as
> Phillip Morris and Wal Mart, clearly detrimental to vast numbers of folks,
> spend plenty on polishing their image despite good documentation of their
> bad actions.  Huge money is going to promote GMO's as answers to world
> hunger, when in fact hunger is mostly about economics,  distribution and
> war.  The real problem IMO is that we live in a nation (and to some extent
> a world) of willful ignorance and cynical paralysis, the population simply
> does not know enough about science, politics, rhetoric and economics to
> know when they are being lied to, and willingly sucks up feel good lies
> from the TV and other sewers.
>

In the US - where education standards and TV are appalling and mostly in the
hands of private enterprise. Compared to public TV/Education in most other
countries of the world. Also the degree of political repression of facts,
dissenting opinion is much greater in the US than many other parts of the 
world
despite your much vaunted democracy. We don't for instance regularly shoot
protestors or unionists in this country.

> All true.  The move to pull the charters or errant corporations is a very
> positive issue, if investors are faced with the loss of share value because
> the companies they own commit illegal acts they will demand better
> action.  It is sadly, all about money.
>

A view not shared by the rest of the world.

>
> >Greening Earth is funded by a large consortium of FOSSIL FUEL corporations
> >that actively lobby against any challenges to or movement away from a
> >fossil fuel economy. They exist to thwart evolving awareness of ecological
> >science and to continue the 20th century's engineering of consciousness
> >around fossil fuels.
> >
> >What's called for is a breaking of this nation's key addictions: to fossil
> >fuel and other highly concentrated energy forms (like oil/coal/gas, sugar,
> >caffeine, explosives), to the zoomy rammy lifestyle to which we have
> >become accustomed, and to the bipolar cranky homocidal skygod who holds it
> >all up.
>
> Yes and no.  There really is no reason IMO to condemn people who work to
> hard or even eat some garbage now and again.  There Is also no problem with
> trade that is fair and reasonable for all parties involved and actually
> moves goods unproducable in one area to another (coffee come to mind).

Well actually there are legitmate arguments against too much trade, working 
too
hard and eating garbage. Doing something that is bad for you "now and then" 
does
not make it good. Some people smoke tobacco "now and then" but millions die 
from
it's addictive properties. Working too hard is bad for your health, your 
family
and for the people around you when you make mistakes from being over tired, 
over
stressed etc. The initial fight that most unions engaged in was too control
working hours not to increase wages.

I can engage in 'fair' trade with the neighbouring cocaine grower - trade has 
a
downside - this is well established. The biggest downside of trade is that it 
too
is subsidized by the cheap availability of fossil fuel.

> I only rent my soul, I don't sell it ;<)

Please provide us with a copy of your rental agreement with Satan.


> >My husband and I--pandrogynes both--were talking about this while cleaning
> >the house for our Thanks-giving party. Think of our disdain, as a culture,
> >for janitors, trash-haulers, bedpan-emptiers, sewage workers, mothers,
> >housekeepers, pigeons, gulls, crows, flies, cockroaches....
> >
> >Being appropriately powerful/Masculine comes to mean, precisely, making a
> >mess in all directions, then zooming away when it threatens to dirty one's
> >own wing-tips or $200 Nikes. Think of those big manly stacks spewing
> >clouds of black from locomotives, factories, etc. That's progress, my boy!
> >Now let's catch the train back to Long Island.
>
> Of course there are no women sullying themselves in the corporate world
> (not!); I find statements like this about as silly as they come.  This is
> not about castrating the "maleness" out of the world, it about stopping
> pissing in the air and water.  alienating half of the population for your
> own satisfaction is stupid and counter productive.  I have no intention
> personally of becoming a eunuch in any sense of the world just to meet some
> politically correct standard.
>

Actually it's not about castrating the maleness out of the world - that is 
your
fear talking and not what was said. Patriarchal issues are at the center of 
this
debate. Let me be specific and expand your mind somewhat... The rise of
productive enterprises following the renaissance and the acceptance of the 
power
of the dollar occurred upon the back of the destruction of female power
throughout western europe. Between 1400 and 1700 4 million women were 
executed as
witches.

What was going on was the downgrading of reproductive economics in favour of
productive economics. Reproductive economics is centered around woman's 
bodies.
The labour for labour for instance.

Reproductive work differs in three fundamental ways from productive work.
It is cyclical with respect to time instead of linear.
It is time compulsory instead of time voluntary
It is necessarily social instead of socially necessary
(Mary O'Brien "The Politics of Reproduction")

Reproductive work in modern societies is the work that is done by governments
e.g. education, policing, health etc. etc.

It is the reproductive goods that are most threatened by the ecological
consequences of  Patriarchal Capitalism's juggernaut of greed.

What people should bear in mind though is that any country is only one square
meal away from a revolution. There's nothing like the threat of imminent
starvation to sharpen people's minds. People power in Indonesia replaced the
Suharto regime because the price of rice went up by 25% because the IMF 
demanded
that they reduce subsidies.

There is only a few weeks worth of food in reserve at any one time. Storing 
food
for longer that none season is prohibitively expensive. Therefore we are
dependent upon each seasons crop for our survival. Technology notwithstanding 
-
nobody can make it rain in Australia. And without rain Australia won't export 
any
wheat for the foreseeable future. The consequences of CO2 induced climate 
changed
will hit home to people in the next few years when the global famine hits.

See how quick it takes then to implement replacement energy sources after 
that.
You might say there's been famine before but it will not be like the one that 
is
developing now in Africa and other parts of the world. Where millions of 
people
might have died in the past - we will be looking at tens of millions of people
dying from famine every year. They won't be able to keep it off the TV 
screens or
away from our psyche. We will feel these deaths in our bones.

>
> Mark:
>   Lets further be honest that this piggy society is FUN AS HELL!

Having fun are we?
Mark wrote in response to Misha:

>  You seem to suffer from angry liberal syndrome, the unfortunate tendency to
> lash out at
> your less than pure allies rather than focus on the real problem, the
> system that has us all trapped looking for enough $ or time or platform or
> whatever to build a better world.  I don't stand in your way, I am in fact
> on your side.
>

This is paternalistic crap.

There are no technical solutions only ethical ones.

Bob Howard