Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:45:01 -0500
> From: "Doug H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: US Says: Kill first Green later!!!
[snip]
> > The only other worry that comes close is environmental
> > deterioration, and the two are intimately connected, indeed are one.
> > They are because wealth entails not only consumption but also
> > waste, not only production but also destruction. It is this waste and
> > destruction, which has increased enormously with output and
> > income, that threatens the space we live in and move in. . . .
[snip]
melanie lazarow wrote (I forget on which mailing list...):
[snip]
> Anything 'obvious' is probably eiher wrong or serves some hidden ulterior
> purpose: go find out what it is!
*Why* *must* wealth entail waste and destruction? I have yet to
hear of an art collector burning their collection (although maybe
Bill Gates will learn something from the Northwest American Indians
and start parcticing potlatches?).
*All* life produces waste (CO2, urine, feces...), and, obviously, a
person who disposes over a rich cornucopia of natural resources and
the proucts of labor will necessarily be responsible for a lot of
chemical transformations.
But this is not what is usually meant by *waste* and *destruction*.
It does not seem to me a priori impossible for a rich person to
generally devote their life to what is fashionably called "netative
entropy": increasing the information value of their possessions.
Sure they will make some garbage, but it is well known that
poverty is a highly effective producer of waste and destruction
(slash and burn agriculture, spreading of disease by poor sanitation,
etc.).
Instead of saying tht wealth necessarily entails waste and destruction,
why can't we try to change our world so that the well-to-do find their
pleasures in such non-destructive activities as scientific research
(devoted to solving real human problems, not corporate Darwinian
competitive hypertrophy, like inventing a "better" CocaCola to
beat Pepsi of which nobody needed even the original of either...),
teaching, architecture (especially moderate cost housing that
enriches the spirits of the occupants), art (_Moby Dick_, _The
Man Without Qualities_, _Gargantua and Pantagruel_, The
Art of the Fugue, The Hammerclavier Sonata, etc.
probably didn't produce too much toxic waste....
Yours in the belief that the main thing wrong with wealth if that
not everybody has it, and that all *effort* (as opposed to
freely chosen, joyous engagement with material) is misfortunate,
etc.
Or have I missed something?
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[SGML]]> Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
