You realise what a hard battle it is when you have people like Len who is permaculture aware but still thinks BAU is the best option. He is willing to put up with the polluting of coal fired power stations because he fears a price rise if we shift to renewables. He claims he cant afford to buy scarce fish now but wants to scrap green zones that will protect them . He is vehemently opposed to solar and wind farms on aesthetic grounds He doesnt believe in AGW He doesnt believe CO2 is a pollutant. What chance do you have with the rest of the world who dont even know about permaculture We might aswell prepare for Zombies or the rapture
Brother G I reckon MB best defined the problem here, when he stated (my emphasis in bold): What literally defines social ecology as "social" is its recognition of the often overlooked fact that nearly all our present ecological problems arise from deep-seated social problems. Conversely, present ecological problems cannot be clearly understood, much less resolved, without resolutely dealing with problems within society. To make this point more concrete: economic, ethnic, cultural, and gender conflicts, among many others, lie at the core of the most serious ecological dislocations we face today... And JB, MB's longtime partner, best articulated the solution in her book: Biehl (1997) The Politics of Social Ecology: Libertarian Municipalism I'd be happy to co-facilitate a 'study group' with you 'in here', on this very volume. Who knows, we may even be able to persuade more people to applye it 'out there'? Cheerio, M
It's written in a very accessible style, Mark. It's available at most uni libraries (or ask your local library to put a copy on their shelf). It should also be available via your favourite book seller for about $20US. I reckon a copy of it would make a fine addition to the PP library. Get back to me and/or G when you've had a chance to secure a copy. I'll dig out my old copy of it. Hopefully G and anyone else who wants to join us can find a copy too, and together we can 'discuss' it 'study group' style - i.e. chapter-by-chapter - here in a new thread devoted to it. Who knows, we may even inspire a socio-ecological revolution?
well i reckon this whole representative democracy thing is a quagmire - The Herd chooses! - how smart is that? about as smart as the Herd i figure. There are some smarts among it, but by jeezies there are a hell of a lot of dumb bastards - which drops the collective IQ down to barely sentient. representative democracy is inconsistent with other social norms - like exploiting comparative advantage. it is simply not advantageous to the Herd to let "every one have a go" - because this isn't marbles. are the Herd smart enough to chose their leadership? Government for the people by the people maybe needs a rethink. Time for AI to do the job. Algorithms....it's all numbers, modelling, outcomes. Policy by the numbers removed from the corruption of the human element. at first it might seem like a hard and cold idea, but i put it to you - hard and cold is what today's society is - consider the Health, Education and Welfare Systems, gutted. This is not good for society - it's hard and cold - where does that come from? could benevolent AI just be a bit more holistic. I recommend Iain M. Banks Culture novels; it was them that got me thinking that AI is less likely to be as hostile as human self interest.... and it would put back intelligence into the system,,,currently driven by The Herd.
suppose that's why they bought in the 18 vote? the herd basically votes for personality, not consistency, anyhow i reckon teh heard is only needed to put pencil marks on vote slips, there after the figures are manipulated so that the one that suits the world governance gets elected. now they are considering making voting non compulsory allows for more figure manipulation, also some talk about including 16 year olds in the voting system, so the one who gives the biggest jar of lollies will be assured. len
I take it then, Len, that you put little trust in the ability of young people to make rational decisions about how we govern ourselves? If this is the case, do you also extend that position to include older people who may be starting to lose their marbles? What about people with low IQs generally, or the mentally insane in particular, or perhaps even people who have not been given the opportunity to receive even a rudimentary education? Should we also exclude all of these people from wider decision making processes? In a free, rationalist and humane society, every voice counts. As such we are very soon going start a discussion about how we can '...replace today's capitalist society, which immiserates most of humanity and poisons the natural world, with a more enlightened and rational alternative (Biehl, 1998, p. vii)'. Perhaps you might like to join us?