Bibliographic entry (nonfiction):

E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered

This is the classic book setting forth the case for appropriate technology. There is a mode of thinking which concluded that a Mercedes is the best technological solution to the transportation problem; unfortunately, since we don't have the budget for it, we'll just have to walk. Schumacher makes the humble suggestion that since we CAN afford a bicycle, perhaps that can be made to do.

In the aftermath of Y2K, all of the high-tech equipment which we are used to might not be available for quite a while. Even if it is available, it might be in short supply and unaffordable. Schumacher would point out that it might be worthwhile to explore low-tech, simple, inexpensive alternatives -- many of which can be fabricated by people right were they live.

-- Stefan Stackhouse (stefans@mindspring.com), August 14, 1999

Answers

Stefan,

Thanks for the bibliographic suggestions here and elsewhere. At some point in the next week or two, I'll try to make a "sweep" through all of the threads to collect a bunch of entries for the next version of the Bibliography chapter.

Thanks, Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), August 15, 1999.

A pet bugga-boo of mine are the labels "appropriate" and "sustainable," which are currently in vogue.

As an activist for agriculturalists, I deal with these labels everyday. Please recognize how "value ladened" and highly manipulative they are. When attached to a particular concept, they immediately promote that concept as the only acceptable choice. The label excludes everything else as "inappropiate" or "not-sustainable."

It always makes me see red and really irritates those I represent. Much of the time, such value labels find their into "scientific" vocabulary concerning environmental matters. It would be much easier to find common ground among various interests if such manipulative practices were abandoned.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), August 16, 1999.

I understand what you're saying, Marsh. I really do. Unfortunately, we're committed to language for communication (and miscommunication). I wish we could think of something better.

"Sustainability" could and should have an agreed upon definition; so should "organic" "holistic" "local/regional" "responsibility" and a slew of other terms whose definition is being manipulated by people with an agenda. For example. Do you think your or my take on "organic" or "sustainable" matches that of ADM (Archer Daniels Midland)or Monsanto or other large-scale agro-business?

I know you're tired of being put in the same box as them, being kicked around by misguided newby-enviros who can't tell the difference. You're in a position similar to a "mom & pop" market against Walmart---tarred by the same brush.

Unfortunately, I think that, short of a major catclysm (Y2K or otherwise), the "big" will only get bigger. If we skate by with a 5 or less, the WTO will only get stronger and the One-World corp/guv more firmly entrenched.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the treehugger-left and the fundy-right are both dead set against transnational economy and world goverment? In fact the only people who seem to be for it are the minority who control the majority of resouces and wealth. (One dollar, one vote.) Everyone else with whom I've spoken, on the whole range of the political spectrum, seems to be inclined toward a more "localized" arrangement. (How do you define "local?")

And the PR smoothies have got us at each other's throats over things like definitions and agreements. That's how they're going to wind up with more of the pie, unless the disparate factions of little guys can figure out what we're talking about and how we're talking about it.

Hallyx

"We cannot all sit on the same side of the Council Fire. But we can all sit at the same fire."

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), August 17, 1999.