Subject: Re: Getting Together

From: [email-masked] (Karl Henning)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 9:31:40 EST

> 
> 
> I peeled a grape, and found that Christopher Friedenberg had written upon it:
> : 
> : Eh? The previous example showed how technology De-stratified the classes.
> : Allowing the lower classes to emulate their "superiors", etc. etc...or
> : if you prefer Re-stratified...allowing those willing to master the new
> : technology to become wealthy and powerful by offering goods and services
> : of quality at lower cost.
> 
> Ummmm, it takes money to build factories. A lot of the early pioneers in
> the industrial revolution were rich men to start with. The drain of workers
> into the city created conditions of unimaginable poverty and hardship, and
> caused massive disruption in the countryside..
> 
> 
> Dwayne.
> 

Exactly, everywhere europeans went in the world they modeled the same sick
living philosophy.  Lure people to the citys with the false promise of
a better life.  the fact that prices where low for a few more upper poor
broadened the working class.
Industrialism has done nothing but placate the masses and destroyed family
homesteads in the rural areas thru subsidys, and corporate food factories
which under cut the real cost of proper, responsible agriculture.
corporate food and animal production has desimated the functional family farm.
And here we are non-farmers (mostly) trying to get back what was stolen 
long ago, freedom to live off your own.  If I had a surplus of whole 
organic foods, the first thing I would do is get it to the poorest folks
in the city at next to nothing prices.  It's these folks that need it. 
We working people can afford the co-ops and the expensive solar homes
though the homes Andy Evans described sounded awfully expensive. I do not
have anywhere near the capital to get those kinds of energy systems.

---

From: [email-masked] (Dwayne)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 13:22:25 +1100 (EST)

Dwayne.

              -------> [email-masked] <--------
*  http://www.latrobe.edu.au/nexus/Permaculture/permaculture.html  * 
             r e t u r n   t o   t h e   s o u r c e
NEXUS:.settling.the.electronic.frontier..     mail [email-masked]
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/nexus/HTML/          "subscribe nexus-gaia" 

<a href="http://www.latrobe.edu.au/nexus/HTML/dwayne.html">Dwayne</a>
      ...our.aim.is.wakefulness.our.enemy.is.dreamless.sleep...

---

From: Andrew Evans <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 15:35:52 -0500 (EST)

I'm sorry if I left this impression, because for the most part that's not 
true - one house was owner-built from logs and cost mostly sweat to 
build.  The other house, including land, energy systems, architect, etc. 
cost about $180,000 - certainly more than an inner-city resident can 
afford, but not out of the reach of the typical middle-class family.  
Only one of the houses I visited was prohibitively expensive, but by the 
owner's choice rather than by virtue of the technology.  Used PV panels 
cna be had for $150 a piece for 48 or 53 watt units.  One house I saw had 
started with four panels and added two more when they had the cash.  If 
you consider your electric bills, this is a reasonable amount of money.  
Remember that the up-front cost is mitigated by the long-term savings on 
utility bills.

On Thu, 2 Mar 1995, Karl Henning wrote:

[snip]
> have anywhere near the capital to get those kinds of energy systems. 

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Andrew Evans                      | Compu$erve: 70711,745         |
|  Compass Point Software, Inc.      | Internet:   [email-masked]   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|         Home Page: http://www.cais.com/aevans/homepage.html        |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

---

From: [email-masked] (Karl Henning)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 15:44:55 EST

> 
>         The movement was tivialized because the larger socirty saw good in
> the new looms and saw no value in the traditional craft.  The new looms made
> clothing afordable.  THe lower classes in the cities rarely had new clothes.
> THey lived off the castoffs from the rich.  Card controlled looms allowed
> the middle class to afford brocade(sp?).  Powered looms made cloth in
> general affordable.  Life was made better for some because they could afford
> such things as overcoats and underwear.  The act of consumption became more
> important than the act of production.
> 
>   Donald E. Bowen           [email-masked]
>   Valley Center CA.         [email-masked]

   Agreed.
   
   I think classes are a key word here,  as we know it was technology 
   and the monopolising of such that caused the stratification of people
   to begin with (beginning in Europe). 
   the problem of good/bad scenarios for technology have to be
   put into a bigger picture.  And i'm not sure it's even worth debating what
   was and *is*.  Just that we need to use some kind of criteria for deciding
   whats *really* needed and what is simply another shiney object for our 
   desire.

---

From: Christopher Friedenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 16:43:14 -0500 (EST)

>    whats *really* needed and what is simply another shiney object for our 

Eh? The previous example showed how technology De-stratified the classes.
Allowing the lower classes to emulate their "superiors", etc. etc...or
if you prefer Re-stratified...allowing those willing to master the new
technology to become wealthy and powerful by offering goods and services
of quality at lower cost.

But, you pays yer money and take your choices...

We probably all have our idiosyncratic criteria for appropriate technology.
Mine are mostly based on economy, efficency, and utility, with the occasional
aesthetic flourish...but these are personal choices and perhaps we should
leave it at that...

Speaking of tech: anyone have any experience or interest in construction
of slip-form stone houses? I've been working on a few designs in my
spare time...

---

From: [email-masked] (Don Bowen)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 11:43:42 -0800

>
>I peeled a grape, and found that Paul Girouard had written upon it:
> 
>: Ludd-ite \'led-,[0xF5]^-t\ n
>: [Ned Ludd supposed Leicestershire workman who destroyed machinery]
>: (1811)
>: :one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving
>:      machinery as a protest; broadly
>: :one who is opposed to esp. technological change 

        A quick aside here.  One method of destroying the looms was to throw
the wooden shoes known as sabots into the works.  From this we have the word
sabotage.

>The thing is, though, they weren't mindless fools railing against
>technology, they were a group of people who realised that the industrial
>revolution was destroying their traditional way of life, and took steps to
>prevent it. It's a shame that their movement became trivialised, but that's
>the way of history, I guess.
>

  Software Engineer, woodworker, historian, beekeeper, farmboy
  model railroader, 1936 Farmall 12, 1966 Corvair CORSA 140 convertible
  1 wife, 3 kids, 2 acres, 2 cats, 2 dogs, ? projects,  24 hours