NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/environm/14377

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-08 | 6.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!DIALix!tillage!gil
From: [e-mail] (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 15:59:30 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents
Lines: 125


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

 > Well, I begin to see the intellectual framework behind all your verbiage,
 > Gil. Your main point is a sort of isolationism predicated on the nation-
 > state system. The first problem here is your introduction of the word
 > "American" into the discussion. I cannot see how the suggestion of sharing
 > technology applies less to you Australians or us Canadians. So allow me
 > to substitute the word "Western" (despite your location) which is to
 > be taken as the technologically advanced martket-economy countries.

You appear to read only what you want to read, Michael. There is no
covert exegesis required to understand what I am talking about, only
some basic appreciation of the fact that different people have their
own different wants and needs which can be as readily satisfied by
going to the market to buy it when it is on offer, or wait until some
other opportunity if it is not.

Compared to having it shoved down your throat by people who just won't
piss off when they are asked to, or who withhold their goods on the
other hand knowing you are starving just to wring the last penny from
your purse . . .

 > As for who wants to learn anything at all from the Western perspective,
 > I believe it is almost everyone. If you can provide an example of a
 > traditional society that does NOT want modern medicine, education,
 > technology, and economy, I will freely agree that (to the extent that
 > they are not impinging on other societies) they should be left
 > alone. Now name one. (Burma a.k.a. Myanmar has been left alone for
 > a few decades now. See how happy they are in their cultural stability?)

We have covered all this before. Technology (medical, educational, and
so on) is culturally neutral. People will adopt and adapt whatever is
available to suit their own requirements in their own way, without it
becoming a world issue. So, what is your game making it such an issue?

Why would they want *Western* technology in particular?

 > Well, most of those countries believe otherwise, and are rather vehemently
 > requesting that the west make those techniques available. By your argument
 > there is no particular reason on the part of the western countries to
 > make their techniques (rather than their products) available.

Sorry, no country anywhere is vehemently requesting that "The West"
make anything available whatsoever, beyond it being made available in
any event by anyone at all. You are quite up yourself to believe that
anyone would prefer Western goods above any other, just because they
had been invented and/or made in a Western country. People when they
go shopping buy what they feel represents good value for money, and
only look at the label afterwards.

 > Of course, making those techniques readily available
 > is not in the short term interest of the individual institutions that
 > control the technologies. But from the western point of view, our long term
 > best interests are served by efforts to overcome this resistance. Stable
 > economies provide more customers and less immigration pressures, not
 > to mention a more stable planetary environment. (Oh I've forgotten, you
 > do not believe in a planetary environment.)

Whatever may be in the best interests of your individual institutions
is surely their own business. If they fail to pursue good business
sense they will finally go under, won't they?.

Ah, on the matter of your global objective environment, I do wonder
yet what you know so much about that you can prosper anywhere we might
care to dump you suddenly. You have *no idea* how complex it is, and
how much local knowledge is required to manage successfully any given
situation.

 > Since you utterly refuse to consider the point of view of humanity as a whole,
 > I will refrain from stressing the profound human misery that currently is
 > widespread in the poorer countries. You believe they deserve everything they
 > get, don't you?

This part is blithering raving nonsense, Mikey. If humanity is in fact
a whole, how is it one part is so fat and the other so thin? If there
were *one* surely some balance would have been achieved by now, yes?

 > What was all that brouhaha at Rio about "technology transfer" anyway?
 > Do you really believe that the west is foisting its ways on the rest of the
 > world? Most of the rest of the world believes that the west is withholding
 > information in pursuit of short-term advantage.

Most of the world? Most of the world would rather you just decided to
piss off and leave them in peace to get on with their own lives again.

 > |>  >   I'm not convinced that attempting *either* population control *or*
 > |>  >   technology advancement in those countries is 1) possible, or 2)
 > |>  >   appropriate. Maybe those societies need *cultural* change before any
 > |>  >   of this other stuff?  Are we really a good enough example of a
 > |>  >   'successful' modern society to assume that 'we have' what 'they need'?
 > |>  >   Please elaborate.
 >
 > |> Regardless of what you find convincing, there is nothing inherently
 > |> difficult to understand about such processes.
 >
 > Um, he seems to be agreeing with you, Gil. The problem is that the
 > countries we are discussing generally do not.

Which countries are "we" discussing generally, Mikey?

 > |> If people are dysfunctional their society will no longer be viable,
 > |> will it?
 >
 > Charming.
 >
 > |> If a society is not viable it will die out, won't it?
 > |>
 > |> If such dysfunction is of their own making we can't do much to help
 > |> them, can we?
 >
 > I suppose the geographic isolation of your country allows you the illusion
 > that their failure will have no effect on your own well-being. This is
 > not only factually wrong but imho morally dubious.

Ah yes, *morally* dubious indeed. Perhaps recognising the reality of
the situation people find themselves in, that they might either find
some motivation to get themselves *out* of and into another, or accept
the strings attached to your "help" and find themselves in deeper shit
later, or simply die now? Some choice you offer.

You edited out my last paragraph, BTW.

Gil