Re: [DE] What is SUSTAINABLE?

At 08:32 11/06/99 -0700, Eric Storm wrote:
>I agree that there would be cases "where the high-energy-per-unit-[of work]
>of [something can] allow a high-value job to be done."  A good familiarity
>with "lifecycle costs" and similar ideas and information will make these
>judgements easy and more accurate.
>
[David: ]
>> **  My point is, if you use a sufficiently stringent criterion for
>> 'necessary', you find that almost all of what people do now is unnecessary.
>> 
>> **  Since anything beyond the 'necessary' is optional, it _should_ be
>> optional! The people themselves should have the option; not people with
>> power (rich, or corporations, or governments) arranging things for _their_
>> own benefit, and convincing everyone(?) that they must work, to survive. 
>> **  People will clamour to do one of the 'necessary' jobs, including
>> housing and school repairs, just to have something useful to do. Money and
>> 'the market' won't be the major decider of what people do, as they are now.
>> **  With so much time on most people's hands, most of the time, activities
>> like hiking, sailing clinker-built boats, horse-riding, gliding, making
>> music and other performance, and so on will be a focus of many people's
>> lives, not 'frivolous' additions to one's 'main job': working for a living.
>> **  With so many people out in (relatively) natural surroundings and having
>> time to think, views (like DE's) of their place in the scheme of things
>> should be easy to spread - I'd say a large minority would start looking for
>> something like deep ecology to give meaning/purpose to their lives.
>
[Eric: ]
>Interesting idea!  I also think this is where Betsy's "beauty, art, music,
>ritual and celebration" (I'd add "fun") comes in as vital needs -- 
>something to do with some purpose or meaning.

**  I would think others on this list would want to comment here.


>But I noticed something in the ideas you mentioned here ...
>Given this senario, why would anyone care if something took "10-to-100
>times longer" to do?  Would it just be more of the "necesary jobs" that
>"people will clamour to do"?  Since we've got the people, and they need
>purposeful jobs, wouldn't "worker productivity" become a negative concept?
> ...
>But if we are clever enough, there will be a good balance of things to do
>and people to do them.  I'd still like to leave plenty of time ...

**  This discussion, mainly between Eric Storm and me, seems to be leading
towards some sort of overall direction, benevolent dictatorship, to
restrain humans' prehistoric drives now that limitation is necessary.

**  Also, there's an assumption, by adherents to most beliefs, that you
just have to present 'the benighted' with reasons to believe, in a
sufficiently persuasive manner, and they will naturally come around to your
way of thinking.

**  The connection between these two points is that I think Deep Ecologists
should face up to the unlikelihood that the 'ordinary man in the street'
will see deep ecology, or voluntary simplicity, or islam or christianity or
whatever, as life- and goal-changing _for_them_. Leaving some outside
coercion, like a legal system (with its implicit use of force as a last
resort), as the only way to get enough human activities changed soon enough
to save the earth's ecology.

**  Methods _are_ important as well as aims; so what methods might work?

David.
(David MacClement) mailto:d1v9d@bigfoot.com 
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/Pg1-AD11.html#top
*************************************************************