permaculture

[Mark Ludwig <mpludwig@facstaff.wisc.edu>]

YEE HAW!  Got a live one here!
At 12:05 PM 12/7/02 +0800, you wrote:

> 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.

1I think much of the 1st world besides the USA is already fixed, I focus 
here cuz #1, it's my country and I'm actually in a fairly good position to 
shape it's future and #2 I'm quite sure there are plenty of my fellow 
citizens who need a little reordering of priorities.  Like it or not the 
USA has tremendous influence on how other nations will act; I'm not saying 
it's right or sane, I'm saying it is.

> 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.

I'm very worried about just this.  Out trade deficit is unsustainable and 
our government is currently run by folks who live by the "quarter to 
quarter" creed, un thinking about the long term implications of our actions.

> 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.

Totally true.  The coming Iraq may be a catalyst for WWIII and a dystopian 
future worthy of William Gibson.  Bush is an Uber nutcase and danger to our 
republic.  I have never been more frightened for the future of my nation.


> 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.

Yes and no.  I grantee you all the land rovers in the third world run on 
petroleum today and for the foreseeable future.  However the rest of the 
world has preserved the train, ferry and donkey as transport, where the USA 
has not.  we are to dependant on the infernal combustion engine, but we 
also have a fabulous, well developed infrastructure and base of engineering 
and science which could change that in a decade given the will.  If the USA 
as a nation reordered it's efforts and priorities we could become leaders 
rather than impediments to progress, but its a big IF!

> [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.

All true again up to a point.  The Islamic militants of the world are 
successful to some extent, but lets not confuse blowing up civilians with 
real power.  I can pretty much guarantee that the USA's military might can 
crush these guys in a straight up fight, and lets all pray this never has 
to happen, cuz lots of other folks will end up dead in the process.  I 
agree also that many aspects of technological advancement will leap frog 
out in the developing world, in fact this is essential to avoiding the 
mistakes this nation has made in our trip to the modern world.

> [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.

this is almost total nonsense.  Most of out schools are still public, 
though there are right wing wackos in the USA trying to change that.  As 
for the repression of dissenting opinion, that is also almost impossible 
these days with 500 channels of TV and a thriving Internet.  I am an active 
unionist and know of no killing in this country in decades.  It's bad here, 
no question; but not that bad.

> > 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.

which part? pulling charters or $ making the world go round?  You're flat 
wrong in either case.

> >
> > >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.

My point is that its really none of your business how hard people work, who 
they screw and how, what drugs they take or what kind of art they 
make.  the sooner governments get out of the business of regulating 
relatively harmless human conduct and focus in on stopping pissing in the 
water the better off we will all be.

> 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.

My point is that some trade is OK, not all.  That steal or plastics are 
shipped far and wide is silly indeed.  That coffee is shipped here makes 
plenty of sense.

> > I only rent my soul, I don't sell it ;<)
>
> Please provide us with a copy of your rental agreement with Satan.

Sorry, privileged information.


> > >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.

and between 1900 and 2002 women have made excellent progress.  Get the heck 
into the current century please!

> 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")

Dude!  I've been a dairy farmer for god's sake!  I love fertility!  Women 
are swell!  They are not however incorruptible flowers of virtue any more 
than men are doomed to be motor sports enthusiasts.  I find all of this to 
be totally absurd posturing to fit in with people who drive me nuts. I'm 
not doing it any more!  15 years was plenty.

> 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.

Stupidity is gender neutral in my generation.

> 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.

My personal summation of International relations, "hungry people don't 
behave".


> 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.

Here you may be surprised to find I agree totally.  Just finished Bruce 
Sterling's "Heavy Weather", been reading plenty of apocalyptic SF 
lately.  It just that I know the American people all to well an know that 
while they will feel bad about people starving in where ever spuring them 
to action requires something more, like a better deal.  Like trains that so 
350 KPH rather than cars that go 120 KPH.  That's going to work far better 
than guilt trips.

> >
> > Mark:
> >   Lets further be honest that this piggy society is FUN AS HELL!
>
> Having fun are we?

Damn right!  Every day is fun in the first world!  I love it!

> 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.
Like heck it is!  This is a plea to not alienate the vast majority of 
people who are not far left, self flagellating wet blankets.  I like 
winning elections, mass movements and saving the world; not just feeling 
self riotous satisfied with ones own purity.  If thats somehow beyond PC 
then count me out.

> There are no technical solutions only ethical ones.
>
> Bob Howard

Hogwash.  Like these are somehow separate!  Most of us live in a technical 
society, and I'll guarantee right now no matter how bad it gets there will 
be technology to make it comfortable and pleasant for those who can pay for 
it.  Pursuing a benign technical future is no shameful venture, and in fact 
has a far greater chance of succeeding in saving the world than all the 
brow beating and guilt you or anyone else can generate.   Go back and read 
what I wrote the first time and look at how much I agree with MGS; 
especially the C tax (which is the key to getting people making more 
rational decisions).   I don't expect people to love all my opinions, but 
for goddess sake MAKE COMMON GROUND on the aspects that are essential and 
agreeable.
Mark Ludwig