(Untitled)

[hobgadling]

Well it doesn't sound like there's any more interest here than in the population at large, but generally speaking I'm interested in spreading memes which promote the long-term happiness and survivability of all life. Now here's a list of words: sustainability, conservation economy, peak oil, unschooling, natural capitalism, cradle to cradle,

Comments

[hobgadling]

I think you're correct in that that is how they have been portreyed up to now. For example, environmentalism was always presented as something to be practiced for it's own good, and often at odds with other economic benefits. McDonough is changing that perspective by showing how sustainability can be profitable. His clients include Nike and Herman-Miller. (His documentary The Next Industrial Revolution is a great introduction.) Add to that the fact that our current economic system is incomplete - only looking at the financial impacts of any transaction. All ecological, social and other impacts are completely disregarded. It has been described as an "autistic" economic system (feel free to google for more info). Participation in any society requires some sacrifice of one's own self-interest, as explained by Social Contract theory.

[hobgadling]

Things will change regardless of whether or not we want them to. We now live in an unsustainable manner which, by definition, means we cannot continue. We can choose to react to unfolding events or consciously choose to adapt.

go idealism

[evel8yn]

I don't know why everyone is hating on you. I am a sometimes idealist and libertarian and believe that my style of libertarianism would be indistinguishable from communism in its effects but would be a more efficient way of going about it, so I completely sympathize with your hope that these things will catch on. The only problem, as other people have said, are that not everyone will cooperate with it, but I hope that they will. I don't know why the TAMS community forum should not be a place to discuss these things. I don't really know what memes have to do with all your goals. Maybe you could do something more direct to make it all happen. I dream of communes where everyone helps everyone else. As to the environmental issues, I agree that we need to change something, but I think a lot of people have skewed ideas about the actual environmental costs of implementing different policies, but go for it. Lead us by example, and I'm behind you.

Re: go idealism

[hobgadling]

Well thanks. A lot of the negative reaction can be explained by the fact that I'm questioning people's basic beliefs about society and human nature. It's akin to questioning someone's religion - the assumptions which they have taken for granted for their entire lives. People tie their deep-seeded assumptions about the nature of life to their identity, and by questioning those assumptions, one is questioning their identity. See http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=3948 for more discussion of the identity/assumption link

[cantordust]

No, people can be very open to changing said beliefs, but you have to be nice about it.

parry, riposte

[naralian]

You have a very... interesting... concept of "survivability".

Just to chime in with the obvious, the survivability of a species relies upon its ability to adapt to its environment, which requires that the unfit die or are otherwise incapacitated in such a way that they do not reproduce.

If you're actually interested in the survival of the species, you might try a different set of memes: Discipline, competition, scientific advancement, direction, impermanence. I could come up with more, but on the sneaking suspicion that you're a zealot who has closed his mind to conflicting ideas, I don't think i'll bother, eh.

Re: parry, riposte

[hobgadling]

Please don not make any such assumptions about the state of my mind. I'm always open to new and especially conflicting ideas, if they are well-founded.

Regarding "survivability of all life": our culture (the dominant culture on our planet), is like a virus. It seeks out and dominates or destroys other forms of life - we destroy diversity in order to enhance our industrialized/mechanized society. (see: monocrop agriculture, standardized education, etc) Everywhere in nature, diversity is essential to long-term survival. So while the survivability of a species does rely on it's ability to adapt, if it destroys the diversity of the ecosystem on which it relies, it harms not only the ecosystem, but it's own survivability in the process. Some people counter-argue that technology will save us from all our problems, but at what point do you admit that the technology (or the application of the technology) is a contributor to the problems?

Re: parry, riposte

[elderbaboongod]

That's it; you've gone and given me a facial twitch. I really don't like you and I have a very low opinion of your logic. You deny your agenda in one statement and then reinforce it in the next. I think you need to take a more objective view on the concepts of life, evolution, nature, diversity, etc. I'll try and explain this one more time. Let's use an arbitrary value T to designate technology where most chimps have T=0 and modern technology is T=1 Now, spontaneously, physiologically modern humans went from T=0 to T=1 according to a function of time. Let's say that according to your theory the appropriate level of technology is somewhere in the region 0

2¢

[ratmist]

I debated whether or not I wanted to throw my 2¢ into this thread, but then the library informed me that they won't retrieve the volumes from the Special Collections that I want until two hours from now. So here I am, replying out of sheer boredom - which is to be noted, in case someone gets the idea that I'm flaming hobgadlingThe fundamental problem I've had with your memes, Benjy, is that I don't believe memes serve as a catalyst towards environmentally sustainable living, let alone towards a better future for mankind. They feel more like medeival bloodlettings, undertaken to exorcise spirits and malignant cancers, and ultimately useless to the poor patient desperately trying to get well - which, in this case, I identify as you. (I've seen you enjoy medical jargon in describing the Western culture (=virus; =cancer), both terms which I found unhelpful and unnecessarily negative in terms of accurately identifying and describing Western culture; I use the terminology here because it seemed fitting. Regardless, memes are fundamentally

Re: 2¢

[ciggieposeur]

*applause*

Well said.

Re: 2¢

[naralian]

Your assertion about theories being discarded just because they're wrong in the hard sciences is not entirely correct. Wrong theories generally are not developed any further once their falsity is discovered, but they are often used as analytic tools because they generally provide a close approximation. A psysicist tossing a ball at a window is probably going to call the kinetic energy of the thing mv^2/2, despite the fact that this is not the correct formula (or rather, it's the correct formula with the incorrect assumption mass = rest mass). Similarly, a materials scientist will often shuffle between 5 or 6 models of interatomic connection, none of which may be the strict truth, but all of which work within an acceptable margin of error. I should know, my professor does it all the time.

In fact, a lot of the popular (most useful) models were never intended to be true. Look at the Lewis dot/line bond model of covalent bonding.

Re: 2¢

[ratmist]

Firstly, you're correct.

Secondly, I believe you may have willingly misinterpreted my words by stating that I asserted anything contrary to what you mentioned. I was merely asserting that the data collected by ethnographies in the 1960s and 70s, regardless of the ultimate framework by which they interpreted their findings, was still useful, even if some (and I stress that it is only some) find the inherent ideologies suspect. Those that work in the humanities, like I do, could not possibly do their job well if we decided to discard other people's work because they were known to be Marxists, or capitalists, or whatever. As for theories, they are useful in so far that they are flexible models of thought, which are subject to change as new ideas and ideologies are introduced into whatever field, whether science or humanity.

My 2¢ post was never intended to be a veiled jab at the sciences, for I find the intellectual divide between the humanities and sciences an unfortunate and unnecessary rift, to which I certainly would not wish to