Subject: discussing solutions, was Re: "Forward" and "back"

From: Greg E <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:08:57 -0400

Hey John, (+ Eric) et al.

See a few followup comments below which I hope clarify some things.

Cheers,

Greg E

John Schinnerer wrote:

> Aloha,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg E [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> >Many utopian systems I've read about speak of essentially throwing away
> most if not all
> >technology and basically shifting back to "the simpler times" of agriarian
> societies
> >from hundreds of years ago. I believe this is dead wrong, and completely
> pointless,
> >given the current state and size of the human population. We need to move
> forward, not
> >go back. This means continuing to support and develop and embrace new
> technologies of
> >all kinds to solve some of the problems we have created for ourselves in
> this current
> >mess, continuing on the thought from bullet item six above.
>
> How about taking off the cultural blinders that get us stuck in living an
> argument of "forward" (whatever that is) versus "back" (whatever that is)
> when there are so many other paths?
>
> Can you expand on what "forward" and "back" mean to you, and more
> importantly, where you acquired those meanings?

I don't know what cultural blinders you are referring to, but my forward and back
adjective were I thought very clear. Forward and back simply in terms of time and
history. I'm pretty sure all cultures understand the concept of time and what is the
past and what is the future. Its not 1600 anymore, its 1999. Although you nor anyone
else here has suggested this directly, my previous point which you rebutted, is that we
cannot rely on simply getting back to simple times (as some I've read wish for) with
population levels a 1/10 of what they are now and just throw away all that has been
gained through science and industry, wishing things will get better if we just "get
back to the land", etc.

>
> Quite a few wise folks have pointed out that it is unlikely that more of our
> "technology" (whatever that is) can save us from the messes we've made with
> our technology.  It's what we do with "technology," not what it "is," that
> matters - and the underlying manner in which we use it does not necessarily
> change with the creation of "new" technologies (it certainly hasn't
> lately...).

Absolutely I agree with you. Tecnhnology (you know - whatever that is) is not in and of
itself the answer. It is what we do with it, and of course we haven't up to this point
done a good job of controlling it and/or applying its benefits for the greater long
term sustainable good. We need to BOTH better apply existing technologies AND create
new ones to get us out of some of our current inherited "messes".  Completely IMO, of
course.

I'm sure that is a controversial point to my "vision" which many will disagree with. Oh
well, thats not so bad. if everyone agreed with me life would be no fun at all ;-)

I think there is alot of anti-technogy bias out there, which IMO is unfounded to a
large degree. And as you can tell I am clearly not in that camp. Technological advances
are not inherently good or bad, but simply a tool or a means to get where we want to
go. Just like Permaculture is a tool/methodology. And all I'm really saying is we are
going to need every tool in our toolbelt to turn things around.

---
You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]