From: Chad Perrin Date: 2009-04-12T14:36:46+09:00 Subject: Re: Goodbye Ruby - Hello Earth --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:53:07AM +0900, Robert Dober wrote: >=20 > Eleanor, Chad >=20 > why do you assume that green means without technology? Of course that > kind of life would scare the hell out of me too. My reference to dirt farming agrarian societies wasn't a response to any and all uses of the term "green". It was in reference to what *started* this whole discussion -- someone *giving up computers* to "save the earth", for crying out loud. Please read what I say in context before deciding it's time to chastise me for saying it in the future. > I am amazed that Eleanor "accused" the green movement to be afraid of > change, it is them who embrace change. A lot of greenies embrace regressive lifestyle changes to undo environmental change. Thus, they both embrace change and show fear of change at the same time. A lot of greenies embrace technological changes designed to undo environmental change. Thus, they both embrace change and show fear of change at the same time. Eleanor appears to be advocating for embracing technological change in general as a natural outgrowth of the evolution of the human species, and clearly doesn't fear the environmental changes that will result. Whether she fears changes in the way technological change is pursued, if such changes are for "green" reasons, doesn't seem to be either supported or disputed by anything she has said so far -- so I can't really comment with any certainty on whether she appears to fear any change. I, meanwhile, hope the technological singularity comes because I believe that without it the human race is doomed, unless some higher power (aliens, God, whatever) comes along and gives us what we didn't achieve on our own through technological singularity. The singularity might also kill us all off, but I'm more interested in trying and dying than in sitting around waiting to die anyway. I guess you could say that the kind of change I fear is that of failure by complacency or willful ignorance. > What intrigues me most in your reasoning scheme is that you somehow > postulate that we are evolved enough to adapt to the radical changes > our species has caused. I could not agree more with you. But it seems > that you think that the "green" movement does not do that. I however > feel that is exactly what they want to do. Most people who associate them with movements we would call "green" are, in my experience, actually regressives who advocate for giving up what technology has given us. There are those who do not fit that mold, but it can be difficult to clearly identify them since both classes of "green movement" types often say exactly the same things, until one has talked enough to start getting into the differences. Nine times out of ten they end up saying something that advocating some kind of technological advancement moratoria. Most people who advocate for "technological advancement" are status quo driven self-centered and short-sighted idiots who are unable or unwilling to conceive of the human race managing to wipe itself out through poor management of the environment. I'm perfectly willing to agree with such an estimation of the majority of people who label themselves "pro business" when what they really mean is "pro corporation, anti-green". I'm an exception to the rule, in a *huge* way, and in your haste to chastise people for generalizing about "green movement" advocates, you've generalized about people who believe that technological advancement and business efforts are more important than restricted CO2 production. > The difference between "them" and some other movements is rather > political as they see ( as I do BTW, but that really is open to > discussion ) our political and economical system as a primary cause > and want therefore to change it. Only very small groups want to refute > technology as such. Bah. From what I've seen, probably 98% want to restrict technological advancement, and even reverse in some ways. The differences are mostly in the *degree* of restriction and reversal they want. Some just want to restrict certain technologies, but not others that they find convenient; they want to have their cakes and eat them too, when it comes to being "green". > (1) Technology has for centuries been at the service of capital and > revenue, why should it not be capabale of becoming at the service of > nature, ressource management, environement control, ed altri? In a free market economy, technology will serve whatever is needed, when it's needed. Sadly, we do not live within anything like a real free market economy. > Si tu veux construire un bateau ... > Ne rassemble pas des hommes pour aller chercher du bois, pr=C3=A9parer des > outils, r=C3=A9partir les t=C3=A2ches, all=C3=A9ger le travail=E2=80=A6 m= ais enseigne aux > gens la nostalgie de l=E2=80=99infini de la mer. >=20 > If you want to build a ship, don=E2=80=99t herd people together to collect > wood and don=E2=80=99t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them = to > long for the endless immensity of the sea. =2E . . and that quote is ideally suited to my comment about free market economies, above. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Zat was zen, dis is tao. http://tao.apotheon.org --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAknhfR0ACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKVSsQCg6i2q4yNPpRt34FhI7BQazGef vnEAnAxwmcXqh4H63Ck9Xf+RO9VdFeuK =48ys -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp--