[p2p-research] The Commons Abundance Debate

[Michel Bauwens]

Dear Trent,

this is very useful for us newbies, and I guess of great interest to david
bollier's new project on commons law,

is there any way to flesh this out, with some resources, to create a
reference online?

see http://p2pfoundation.net/Sources_of_Commons_Law

Michel

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Trent Schroyer <tschroye at warwick.net>wrote:

> commons colleagues,
>
> AS I HAVE READ THIS DISCOURSE I HAD A SENSE THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHER
> OVERLAPPING OR CONVERGING VIEWS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED AS PART OF THE
> COMMONS MOVEMENT- HERE ARE A FEW CONVERGING DISCOURSES THAT MAY BE COGNITIVE
> RESOURCES FOR THE COMMONS MOVEMENT.
>
> Such as:
>
> -Henry George and Geonomics that have resulted in an Earthrights movement
> -consult Alanna Hartzok, Co-Director
> Earth Rights Institute Web: <http://www.earthrights.net/>
> www.earthrights.net
>
> -Ward Morehouse  who has created peoples tribunals in Japan and the U.N (
> that i attended ) and others named in the following quote from him  - he is
> constantly talking about 'people's law' as a legal commons that can emerge
> whereever needed  to indict corporate and state crimes:
>  "The Permanent People's Tribunal should be part of the Commons debate. Its
> origins go back to Bertrand Russell and the war crimes of the 1970s and
> include the Algiers Declaration of the Rights of Peoples in 1976.  The
> repository of more recent tribunals is the the Lelio Baso Foundation in Rome
> and the coordinator in Milan, G. Tognoni (spelling ?)
> Even more  relevant to the "Commons Debate" is the Charter on Industrial
> Hazards and Human Rights which grew out of a series of tribunals (including
> Bhopal) in the 1990s.  The text of the charter is given in Brigit Hanna,
> Ward Morehouse, and Satyu Sarangi, The Bhopal Reader, 2004" -
> quote from  ward morehouse
>
> - pardon me but the commons movement is all too secular - Ivan Illich
> talked about the 'vernacular domain' from the 70's onward and in a series of
> historical reconstructions made a case for that has been misunderstood in
> this discourse -  i think he is one source of Wolfgang Sachs 'cosmopolitan
> localism' that i used as a key notion in my writing - for an account of this
> consult trant schroyer ' Beyond Western Economics' ( Routledge 2009- chapter
> 2 & 4)) for a chapter on Illich and Polanyi that argues the sustainability
> of small communities in a post-secular argumentation.
>
> -and of course the background debate about Gandhi's in India about swaraj,
> or self rule. that that has not had the recognition it needs - here both
> critics of small communities and defenders will find partial support - i
> think this debate has a relevance for the commons movement in many ways -
> again i argue both sides of this case in 'Beyond Western Economics' chapter
> 5
>
> - finally the marxism really relevant to the commons movement are the
> cultural marxists - especially Jurgen Habermas whose Universal Pragmatics
> and discourse ethics-  is the ultimate critique of positivism and the
> politics of productivism - he has been wrongly labeled as having become a
> liberal after publication of 'Between Facts and Norms' - which is very wrong
> - of course his procedural constitutionalism may have some conflicts with
> the commons movements but as a theory of communication - i think-  it is the
> most sophisticated around -
>
> Trent Schroyer
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 2:18 PM +0700 11/15/10, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> >hi Brian,
> >
> >the issue of armed men arises in times of dislocation, when the official
> body of armed men, the state, becomes to weak to police localized  and
> undisciplined competition, (in case the state itself is not the problem!)
> >
> >I'm reminded of a discussion I had with East Germans, who regularly saw
> their produce stolen, and their lifeboat strategies becoming unsustainable
> in isolation, but I think this occured many times in history,
> >
> >Kautsky is indeed a great analysis of early christianity and its class
> dynamics, you are probably right they they succeeded in creating sustainable
> communities for a while, and this may have been the basis of their success,
> in times of hardship and before the consolidation of the new feudal class
> structure ..
> >
> >I see no contradiciton between cultural abundance and material
> sufficiency, but in many scenarios of possibility, the sufficiency
> communities would need a sufficient surplus to maintain their defense or be
> defined in such a way they are defended by the larger system they are part
> of ..
> >
> >Michel
> >
>  >On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Brian Davey <<mailto:
> briadavey at googlemail.com>briadavey at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >On a very small scale I helped create a community garden for people
> >whose lives had fallen to bits and who had had serious mental health
> >problems. It helped many people find a new routine, new interests, new
> >friends and relationships, to get started again. It never provided
> >abundance to attract much attention but it provided enough to be
> >helpful to people. It was occasionally robbed and vandalised but
> >perhaps provided a generalisable model that is good enough for now..
> >
> >One interpretation of early Christianity is that it was a movement of
> >the destitute and poor at the time of the Roman Empire and its
> >collapse. Its core institution was the commons meal - in other words
> >people made sure that, sharing things in common, members had enough to
> >eat. The word companion derives from com pani - with bread.
> >
> >In our community garden the meals we ate together were often important
> >occasions for people and attracted many.
> >
> >Of course nothing lasts for ever and as it became more influential it
> >got taken over by richer people and institutionalised and lost its
> >original focus, idealism etc.
> >
> >This was the view of Karl Kautsky in his study "The Origins of
> Christianity".
> >
> >Nevertheless, as you say though monasteries for a long time have been
> >institutions which acted as places of refuge and asylum and sanctuary
> >for some. (Unfortunately they have also often been institutions
> >characterised by a fair amount of abuse as we know).
> >
> >Interestingly a major step towards enclosures and a private land
> >market in Britain was when Henry VIII expropriated the monasteries and
> >sold them to his courtiers - because the monastries had a function of
> >providing charity and support for the old and sick this was an early
> >example of the sorts of policies that we are seeing all over at this
> >time.
> >
> >Monasteries probably provide a similar role in other cultures and
> religions.
> >
> >I don't know an answer to the question of armed men. All I would say
> >is that in human affairs it is often the case that the anticipation of
> >a problem leads to pre-emptive action against it...and thus brings
> >about the anticipated problem through a self fulfilling prophecy.
> >
> >I think a movement based on abundance is more likely to attract armed
> >men than a movement based on sufficiency!
> >
> >All the best
> >
> >Brian
> >
> >
> >On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Michel Bauwens <<mailto:
> michelsub2004 at gmail.com>michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Brian,
> >>
> >> I will look to that book with interest,
> >>
> >> I hope I'll be right, and I'll fear you will be <g>
> >>
> >> but is there any evidence of successfull lifeboat strategies in the
> past?
> >>
> >> the only ones I know of are monasteries and they were defended by all as
> the
> >> spiritual core of their civilisations,
> >>
> >> but other isolated communities are just taken over by armed men,
> >>
> >> so you see, my vision of the future is even more dire than  yours <g>
> >>
> >> Michel
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Brian Davey <<mailto:
> briadavey at googlemail.com>briadavey at googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Michel
> >>>
> >>> I hope that you are right. I fear that you might not be. There's a
> >>> view that a safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere is much less than
> >>> 350ppm and we are already at 387ppm....and that's just one of the
> >>> problems....a generalised shortage of energy will have serious effects
> >>> on material production - while things that are unravelling tend to be
> >>> difficult to manage and stressful to cope with. I've just been reading
> >>> about hunger in Ireland right now. There's a lot of rage in the UK at
> >>> the moment...and Greece...and the US...and..
> >>>
> >>> I don't know for sure what the future will bring. No one does or can.
> >>> But collapse scenarios are plausible and commons functioning as
> >>> lifeboat arrangements are a view that I think is most plausible (no
> > >> more than that). Feasta is just about to publish a collection of essay
> >>> articles with Greenbooks and with New Society Publishers in the USA
> >>> called "Fleeing Vesuvius. Overcoming the risks of economic and
> >>> environmental collapse." edited by Richard Douthwaite and Gillian
> >>> Fallon. In the first few weeks of the new year it will be
> >>> progressively put on the internet in sections - its available now in
> >>> hardback from Amazon etc. I think you will find a lot in this book to
> >>> help  thinking about many different dimensions in regard to what the
> >>> future will bring.
> >>>
> >>> All the best
> >>>
> >>> Brian
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Michel Bauwens <<mailto:
> michelsub2004 at gmail.com>michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>  >>> wrote:
> >>> > Hi Brian,
> >>> >
> >>> > thanks for resuming your position and explaining it in further
> detail.
> >>> >
> >>> > as I tried to state before, I have problem with accepting the dire
> state
> >>> > of
> >>> > our planet, though I find it always useful to have more than one
> >>> > scenario,
> >>> > and not to count on the most catastrophic one,
> >>> >
> >>> > I still belief communities and individuals have a degree of freedom
> to
> >>> > adapt
> >>> > and create situations,
> >>> >
> >>> > and I still hold onto the belief that material sufficiency can be
> >>> > married
> >>> > with a very rich relational and cultural life, and that both the
> latter
> >>> > immensely benefit from the global interconnectedness of human minds:
> I
> >>> > can't
> >>> > really see why this would be illusory for any human, after all, they
> had
> >>> > this for hundreds of thousands of year before the advent of class
> >>> > society,
> >>> > and even for a good deal within it .. ; I think this remains the
> crucial
> >>> > distinction between the left and the right, with the left believing
> in
> >>> > human
> >>> > potential, held back by unjust structures, and the right seeing these
> >>> > structures as the natural consequence of human frailty; a message of
> >>> > doom
> >>> > can never be an emancipatory one, because even in the direst
> >>> > circumstances,
> >>> > perhaps even especially in the direst circumstances, there is a lot
> >>> > humans
> >>> > can do to rediscover their mutual interdependence and need for mutual
> >>> > solidarity;
> >>> >
> >>> > and that re-organisation our infrastructures to make them sustainable
> >>> > and
> >>> > distiributed, will be much more successfull if we can muster the
> >>> > collective
> >>> > intelligence of mankind to bear on the subject, rather than do this
> in
> >>> > isolated communities which cannot benefit from peer learning
> >>> >
> >>> > and that the problems of hyper-work that you suggest, are only very
> >>> > partially related to the computer, and have more to do with the
> demands
> >>> > of
> >>> > the system of capital; give me a decent basic income, and I can
> easily
> >>> > halve
> >>> > my computer time, leaving it to my passion and sociality, rather than
> on
> >>> > the
> >>> > need to survive; some would indeed blame slavery on the invention of
> >>> > writing, and while there is undoubtedly a relation, it's a complex
> one
> >>> > and
> >>> > not cause and effect ... I think the same is true for the system of
> >>> > cognitive capital and the computer networks ...
> >>> >
> >>> > I think you indeed react to the narrative of immaterial abundance,
> >>> > because
> >>> > you fear it will induce people in error, but I think this is a
> mistaken
> >>> > assumption, and that people are increasingly seeing the difference
> >>> > between
> >>> > what can be shared freely (knowledge) and what should be used with
> care
> >>> > (material resources); and how the latter is in fact dependent on the
> >>> > former,
> >>> > making networks a crucial affordance for humanity's next step ..
> which
> >>> > in my
> >>> > view, need not be a gory one, but on the contrary a new kind of
> >>> > "Renaissance"
> >>> >
> >>> > It will get a lot worse before it gets better, but this is not the
> end
> >>> > of
> >>> > history, and I'm reminded of those new historians who are rewriting
> the
> >>> > Dark
> >>> > Ages, showing that seen from the bottom up, it wasn't actually such a
> >>> > degradation as may appear from the top down,
> >>> >
> >>> > Michel
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Brian Davey <<mailto:
> briadavey at googlemail.com>briadavey at googlemail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Dear Michel,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We are going to have to get used to disagreeing on this - and it is
> a
> >>> >> very deep disagreement. I am not opposed to computers or the
> internet
> >>> >> or mobile phone - I am just opposed to overselling what they can
> >>> >> achieve and particularly in the difficult context of the future, a
> >>> >> future in which their continued functioning and existence may well
> be
> >>> >> vulnerable. (See the viewpoint of my Feasta colleague, David
> Korowicz
> >>> >> <http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6309>
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6309 )
>  >>> >>
> >>> >> Neither is Feasta opposed to technology - and there are a range of
> >>> >> views in Feasta - but I find the narrative of abundance deeply
> >>> >> disturbing because it is so at contradictory to the basic limits to
> >>> >> growth arguments of ecological economics and many studies to that
> >>> >> effect.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> A book appeared recently in the UK called "Requiem for a Species",
> >>> >> written by Clive Hamilton and published by Earthscan. It argued that
> >>> >> the battle against runaway climate change had effectively been lost.
> >>> >> It is prefaced by quite a few well regarded climate scientists
> >>> >> praising it for having an accurate message. A runaway process is one
> >>> >> where humanity can no longer stop an avalanche of reinforcing
> >>> >> feedbacks in the climate system - melting ice caps mean more of the
> >>> >> ocean is exposed so the darker ocean absorbs more solar energy,
> warmer
> >>> >> sea waters and siberian peat bogs release methane which is an even
> >>> >> more powerful greenhouse gas, after two years of drought parts of
> the
> >>> >> Amazon and other rainforests die and then burn, releasing CO2 into
> the
> >>> >> atmosphere etc.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So we could end up with up to 6 degrees more in global temperatures
> -
> >>> >> and work out the maths for yourself when a 1% termperature leads to
> a
> >>> >> 10% decline in global crop yields. That's on an "all other things
> >>> >> being equal assumption" - but all other things are not equal - as
> >>> >> global fresh water reserves are declining rapidly, soils are being
> >>> >> depleted all over the world, pollinating species are in
> decline....not
> >>> >> to mention the effects that a 2 degree temperature increase would
> lead
> >>> >> eventually to a 7 metre sea rise from the melting of Greenland
> >>> >> alone.....possible a couple of metres this century. (This is how I
> >>> >> would reply to the Facebook message from Kragen Javier Sitaker who
> >>> >> doubts that we have overstepped the carrying capacity of the earth.
> >>> >> There is a "30 Year Update" to the Club of Rome report by Meadows,
> >>> >> randers and Meadows, published by Earthscan. It is worth reading).
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The last time the earth warmed up by 6 degrees almost all species
> were
> >>> >> driven to extinction. That looks nothing like abundance to me.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Paradoxically I suspect that the "Requiem" book is not  quite right
> -
> >>> >> but only because it assumes continued economic growth and thus
> >>> >> continuing emissions growth....whereas the chaotic effects of peak
> oil
> >>> >> on a wobbly financial infrastructure are already being felt in
> states
> >>> >> bailing out the banks and then attacking their public sectors in
> order
> >>> >> to balance the books...and one plausible scenario is of a global
> >>> >> banking and financial collapse starting a period of generalised
> chaos
> >>> >> and falling emissions....
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So everywhere I look I see a world in crisis. Commons will be
> >>> >> immensely helpful in this regard - and relief from intellectual
> >>> >> property too. But that's the context in which I see the need for
> them
> >>> >> and the gulf between that viewpoint and your own and that of Roberto
> >>> >> seems to me to be vast
> >>> >>
> >>> >> As I said I think we should have concentrated on this difference at
> >>> >> the conference and the fact that we did not was a big failing.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> As regards to the channel capacity argument. A lot of the time
> people
> >>> >> do not have the power, like you, to filter. They have workloads
> >>> >> imposed by others for example. They have lives in which workloads
> and
> > >> >> commitments are less predictable.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I live in a world where lots of people are tired, stressed, unhappy
> >>> >> because they work such long hours. The long hours they work is not
> >>> >> because of computers per se but because society has become ever more
> >>> >> complex, ever more specialised and pretty hierarchical too.
> Computers
> >>> >> and the internet have helped hold that world together in a
> particular
> >>> >> way and facilitated the growing complexity.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> You say in one of your email messages that without computers and the
> >>> >> internet it would not be possible to support indigenous commons
> under
> >>> >> threat from global capital - true - but without computers and the
> >>> >> internet capital would not be nearly as global and thus would
> probably
> >>> >> not be putting commons under such a threat. There is a bigger
> process
> >>> >> going on here in which computer, the internet and technological
> change
> >>> >> is a part, not the whole.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> What is this bigger process? I would follow the view of Joseph
> Tainter
> >>> >> that all civilisations seek to deal with their problems by
> increasing
> >>> >> complexity. There are always more problems than there are mechanisms
> >>> >> for dealing with them so civilisations typically use their surpluses
> >>> >> to bring new regulator mechanisms and solutions into existence - and
> >>> >> that over time they thus become more and more complex. This works
> for
> >>> >> a time but the returns to complexity decline - until further
> >>> >> complexity becomes unmanageable and things collapse. Another, and
> >>> >> compatible way of presenting these dynamics, is that of the
> "Panarchy"
> >>> >> theorists who suggest that natural and social systems evolve in
> three
> >>> >> dimensions in cycles - the three dimensions being productivity,
> >>> >> interconnectedness and resilience. At a certain point highly
> >>> >> socio-economic productive systems become so interconnected that they
> >>> >> are vulnerable to problems cascading in destructive reinforcing
> >>> >> feedbacks through their system interdependencies and they break
> down.
> >>> >> Just before they do, when we are referring to social and economic
> >>> >> systems, millions of people will be feeling the stresses, the
> >>> >> difficulty of managing unsustainable lifestyles, a great deal of
> >>> >> unhappiness....
> >>> >>
> >>> >> That includes the desperate attempt to cope with ever increasing
> >>> >> workloads and information flows - and an accelerating 24 hours
> society
> >>> >> which has become collectively manic trying to hold things together
> >>> >> with longer and longer hours...and a technology available to work
> with
> >>> >> to try and hold things together.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> (And here I am working on Sunday morning again.....without getting
> out
> >>> >> for exercise....)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I happen to believe that humanity is on the brink of such a change
> and
> >>> >> to point to what has happened in the past is no longer a reliable
> >>> >> guide to the future. If we are going to be able to survive this
> white
> >>> >> water phase in human history we are going to need new forms of
> social
> >>> >> organisation to help us hold together - sharing ideas and goods and
> so
> >>> >> on. A narrative of material sufficiency in a different lifestyle
> >>> >> package which seeks to democratise survivability (to use a phrase
> from
> >>> >> the "Requiem" book is for me the most honest way of saying how I see
> >>> >> things.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I simply do not believe in giving messages of hope and abundance if
> I
> >>> >> think they are unlikely to be realised - I do not tailor my message
> to
> >>> >> the audience but to the situation as I see it to be. There may be
> >>> >> places where abundance is possible - but it is not a generalisable
> >>> >> message that I can believe in when respected ecological scientists
> are
> >>> >> predicting a population collapse to perhaps 1 billion people at the
> >>> >> end of the century.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> But to return to the point about trying to stuff more mental content
> >>> >> through limited human minds....people who try to speed up what they
> >>> >> put through their minds and whose thinking gets faster and faster,
> >>> >> doing more and more, are called "manic" and end up in the mental
> > >> >> health services. I rather suspect we have elements of a manic
> society.
> >>> >> To have a manic society all you need is a concentrated fuel source,
> an
> >>> >> energy delivery system (the grid) and then a technology to beam more
> >>> >> and more ideas into people's minds.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Fortunately it is techology that requires people to sit down when
> they
> >>> >> use it - so this is not the type of mania that one used to get when
> >>> >> people wore their feet out until they turned up in psychiatric
> >>> >> hospital.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Is this an exaggeration?  How can we tell that society has become
> >>> >> manic in this sense - that it it trying and failing to filter and is
> >>> >> nevertheless expecting its members to keep up and has gone too far?
> >>> >> That too much is being put through the channel capacity of the
> >>> >> individuals that make up society? The proof lies in the fact that
> >>> >> people are getting sick - they are developing medical conditions.
> Also
> >>> >> the environment too is getting sick, not just because of things
> >>> >> occuring spatially, but because of things occuring too quickly.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>  One estimate of the economic costs of accidents caused by tiredness
> >>> >> across the world is $400 billion dollars a year. ( Zulley, J.
> >>> >> Menschliche Rythmen und der Preis ihrer Mißachtung in Adam B.,
> Geißler
> >>> >> K. and Held M. (eds.) Die Non-Stop Gesellschaft und ihr Preis
> >>> >> Stuttgart 1998 p 117. ) The $400 billion figure includes the costs
> >>> >> from the accidents themselves, the production and quality control
> >>> >> losses that follow, the health care, social and security costs. To
> get
> >>> >> a sense of the scale of this sum - it is equivalent to the
> marketised
> >>> >> value of the world's food supply for a whole year.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> OK the figures are over 10 years old - but I bet it got worse since
> >>> >> then, not better.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> It is because people are trying to put more and more through the
> >>> >> limited channel capacity that they are getting sick - and everything
> >>> >> is speeding up. But we don't notice it - manic people rarely notice
> or
> >>> >> are prepared to acknowledge that they have a problem.  But here's
> >>> >> another indicator
> >>> >>
> >>> >> When Beethoven conducted his Eroica Symphony it took him 60 minutes
> to
> >>> >> complete it. Leonard Bernstein needed 53 minutes when playing it in
> >>> >> Vienna, but in New York, the faster city, 49 minutes and 30 seconds,
> >>> >> Herbert von Karajan did it in 50 minutes and 10 seconds whereas
> >>> >> Michael Gielen, in 1987, conducted it in 43 minutes. (the figures
> are
> >>> >> from Karlheinz A. Geißler Vom Tempo der Welt pp 91-92).
> >>> >>
> >>> >> And that's even before the generalisation of computers - now we have
> >>> >> technomusic with 150 beats per minute - which if it were your heart
> >>> >> would mean that you are running a 8 minute mile.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So you don't take the channel capacity argument seriously. But if
> you
> >>> >> spend more time on one thing - sitting in front of computers - you
> >>> >> must spend less time on others. Here is another consequence:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> To "have no time" for someone means not to like them. It matters
> >>> >> therefore, that, for example in the USA, studies show that parents
> >>> >> spent 17 hours a week with their children in 1985 compared with 30
> >>> >> hours in 1965. (Quoted in turn by Will Hutton, "The State We are In"
> >>> >> Vintage Books 1996 p 225.). If such children become narcissistic
> >>> >> attention seekers in later life, their behaviour based on a craving
> >>> >> for other people to notice that they are there (the "look at me,
> look
> >>> >> at me" type of personality) then we may explain this partly in their
> >>> >> parent's time priorisation. Some would say that if psychotherapy is
> >>> >> effective it is, above all because, for once in life, someone is
> >>> >> prepared to devote a whole hour listening once a week......
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Again the figures are old....but I'll bet there has been a further
> >>> >> deterioration since then. One would hope that in the lifestyle
> package
> >>> >> that commons organisations (eg community gardens) offer we can start
> >>> >> to push the trend back in the other direction...
> > >> >>
> >>> >> So, as I said, we have a very different view of how society is
> >>> >> evolving and the about the sheer magnitude of the threats and a
> >>> >> different way of expressing the value and place of commons.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I doubt if we are going to agree.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> There is, as I think we agree, a profound gulf in viewpoint based in
> >>> >> different experiences in life.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> As the Talmud says "We don't see things as they are, but as we are"
> >>> >> and your life has obviously been very different from mine.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We will have to get used to disagreeing.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Brian
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Michel Bauwens
> >>> >> <<mailto:michelsub2004 at gmail.com>michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>  >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > Hi Brian,
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > we also have a p2p mailing list, which I cc'ed, for perhaps
> further
> >>> >> > contributions ..
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Concerning the contribution below, I have a certain sympathy for
> >>> >> > those
> >>> >> > that
> >>> >> > do not want to get involved in a new technology, such as those who
> >>> >> > refused
> >>> >> > writing, to read printed books, to watch TV, and now: use the
> >>> >> > internet.
> >>> >> > It's
> >>> >> > a legimate choice, and I have beloved family members who do so,
> yet
> >>> >> > at
> >>> >> > the
> >>> >> > same time, it will be the choice of the minority, and I believe
> the
> >>> >> > majority
> >>> >> > of humankind, especially those who are deprived from it, will find
> it
> >>> >> > as
> >>> >> > an
> >>> >> > absolute priority to be connected to their fellow men. Here where
> I
> >>> >> > live, as
> >>> >> > soon as the poor have some money, they buy a motorcycle and a
> mobile
> >>> >> > phone,
> >>> >> > followed by the TV, and the omnipresent cybercafes are full day
> and
> >>> >> > night,
> >>> >> > and not by the rich and  middle classes, who own their own
> computers.
> >>> >> > They
> >>> >> > know what a vital need for communication and learning they have,
> and
> >>> >> > that
> >>> >> > they now have direct access to a vast store of information and
> >>> >> > learning,
> >>> >> > which they not only use to 'join the consumer society', but also,
> to
> >>> >> > self-organise in many ways previously unthinkable.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > But I think that choosing ignorance through non-use, and then
> >>> >> > proposing
> >>> >> > solutions that impact the equally legitimate choices of those who
> >>> >> > want
> >>> >> > to be
> >>> >> > connected, and that in fact then impose on others one own's
> choices,
> >>> >> > are
> >>> >> > a
> >>> >> > very dangerous path.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Of course, no one except tea party'ers ignores that are planet is
> in
> >>> >> > serious
> >>> >> > problems, and that our computing infrastructure consumes
> resources,
> >>> >> > but
> >>> >> > restricting internet time through such a authoritarian measure,
> and
> >>> >> > given
> >>> >> > the monopoly of communication to moneyed interests seems such a
> >>> >> > counter-intuive measure and destined to send anyone who proposes
> it
> >>> >> > to
> >>> >> > political oblivion ... with friends such as these, does the
> >>> >> > environmental
> >>> >> > movement need any enemies?
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > why not promote green computing, use the internet to save carbon
> >>> >> > following
> >>> >> > the detailed proposals of Bill St. Arnaud, and use the power of
> >>> >> > collective
> >>> >> > intelligent and autonomous self-organisation to solve global
> issues?
> >>> >> > why
> >>> >> > not
> >>> >> > use the internet as a means of constructing a new world with new
> >>> >> > infrastructures and new life forms, and as a means of social
> struggle
> >>> >> > and
> >>> >> > unity on a global scale, against the enemy which already long time
> >>> >> > ago
> >>> >> > has
> >>> >> > used the same weapons against us, which they for decades possessed
> as
> >>> >> > a
> >>> >> > monopoly ... using mass media against which no effective
> >>> >> > counter-measures
> >>> >> > existed ..
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > I must say that your earlier text had given me little inkling that
> >>> >> > you,
> >>> >> > or
> >>> >> > Feasta perhaps, were positioning itself in such an
> anti-digital-tech
> >>> >> > stance
> >>> >> > ... I personally think this can only isolate the movement, and
> loose
> >>> >> > any
> >>> >> > real contact with the younger generations ... and sever linkages
> with
> > >> >> > all
> >>> >> > the social forces that are using online and F2F collaboration to
> >>> >> > develop
> >>> >> > lighter and environmentally friendly,
> >>> >> > commons-oriented infrastructures,
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Without the digital, the traditional commons would have continued
> >>> >> > their
> >>> >> > decay, overcome by the superior forces of globally coordinated
> >>> >> > capital,
> >>> >> > and
> >>> >> > the counter-movements, digitally enabled and organized, would not
> >>> >> > have
> >>> >> > seen
> >>> >> > the light of day, and neither would shared knowledge commons,
> shared
> >>> >> > software commons, and shared design for sustainability
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > in fact, without the digital, neither the berlin conference, nor
> >>> >> > global
> >>> >> > movements such as transition, would be at all possible, or at
> least
> >>> >> > their
> >>> >> > substantial growth in such a short timescale ..
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > and of course, supreme irony, this conversastion would not have
> taken
> >>> >> > place,
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > What I see as a danger is the emergence of a new puritanism, which
> >>> >> > uses
> >>> >> > ecology as a vehicle to hide a basic orientation which is opposed
> to
> >>> >> > exuberance of life; I'm not saying it can't succeed, it may well
> one
> >>> >> > day
> >>> >> > prove popular with a demoralized population after decades of
> social
> >>> >> > dislocation, but I do not wish for it,
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Michel
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Brian Davey
> >>> >> > <<mailto:briadavey at googlemail.com>briadavey at googlemail.com>
> >>> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Hello Michel
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> A friend sent me this (below) - Alan Simpson was, until the last
> >>> >> >> election, a Labour member of the British Parliament. He did not
> >>> >> >> stand
> >>> >> >> at the last election to be able to get more involved and do more
> >>> >> >> environmental politics and now works for the British Friends of
> the
> >>> >> >> Earth on climate policy and renewables 3 days a week. He sent
> this
> >>> >> >> response to me and I asked him if he wanted it to be posted into
> the
> >>> >> >> discussion and he said yes...I will also suggest to Roberto that
> we
> >>> >> >> carry on any discussion through the blog rather than through an
> >>> >> >> email
> >>> >> >> list...which would have been a more sensible way to proceed -
> >>> >> >> although
> >>> >> >> lots of my contacts didn't go to the conference and I would like
> to
> >>> >> >> get them involved in these discussions. Hopefully we can widen
> out
> >>> >> >> and
> >>> >> >> get a good broad discussion going on the way forward and the
> >>> >> >> understandings for the commons movement generally...
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> When Roberto replies I will come back with my response....
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Brian
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> >> >> From: Alan <<mailto:alan at alansimpson.org>alan at alansimpson.org>
> >>> >> >> Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:16 AM
> >>> >> >> Subject: Re: The Commons Abundance Debate
>  >>> >> >> To: Brian Davey <<mailto:briadavey at googlemail.com>
> briadavey at googlemail.com>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Brian
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> As you know, I am crap on the computer and try to avoid it where
> I
> >>> >> >> can. Somewhere in my incompetence there is also the notion that
> >>> >> >> freedom from the internet is as important as freedom within it.
> If
> >>> >> >> the
> >>> >> >> internet becomes a drug used by people who do not get out enough,
> it
> >>> >> >> takes you into a different notion of abundance. An abundance of
> >>> >> >> dope,
> >>> >> >> for instance, is not the same as a world of abundance. I had a
> >>> >> >> conversation along these lines with researchers in the House of
> >>> >> >> Commons, following an Evening Standard article saying Londoners
> >>> >> >> (aged
> >>> >> >> 16-30) spent 5 hours a day on Facebook. Since I wouldn't even
> know
> >>> >> >> how
> >>> >> >> to find Facebook I asked them if this was remotely possible. They
> >>> >> >> all
> >>> >> >> said it was really easy, particularly if you wanted to keep up
> with
> >>> >> >> all your Facebook friends. It seems that you can have up to 1000
> >>> >> >> such
> >>> >> >> 'friends', but I soon gathered that you never actually meet up.
> Nor
> > >> >> >> do
> >>> >> >> you necessarily know if the persona you are befriending is real
> or
> >>> >> >> not. When I asked about 'real' friends it became clear that most
> of
> >>> >> >> these guys genuinely didn't have meaningful relationships in the
> >>> >> >> outside world. Is this a world of abundance or the delusion of
> >>> >> >> abundance?
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> This was not the philosophical tack I intended to leap into as a
> >>> >> >> reply, so I will go back to the other point that needs to be
> >>> >> >> factored
> >>> >> >> in. In terms of carbon footprints, information now weighs more
> >>> >> >> heavily
> >>> >> >> than aviation. Google, Microsoft, Apple and all the big data
> >>> >> >> handling
> >>> >> >> systems end up using more energy to cool their systems than it
> takes
> >>> >> >> to run them. They now come into the category of big energy users.
> >>> >> >> The
> >>> >> >> carbon intensity of the industry is frightening.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> We used to associate this with the dark satanic mills of
> >>> >> >> industrialisation. Today, we have a better quality of pollution;
> >>> >> >> cleaner, more discrete, more civilised. Personal carbon budgets
> may
> >>> >> >> constrain this - inviting a choice between 30 mins on the
> internet
> >>> >> >> and/or lunch - but I doubt such budgets will ever emerge at a
> >>> >> >> personal
> >>> >> >> level. To do anything meaningful about global carbon emissions
> you
> >>> >> >> need to tackle the big polluters. Their defence will be that this
> is
> >>> >> >> a
> >>> >> >> form of censorship, an attack on the information 'commons' that
> >>> >> >> everyone should have a round-the-clock entitlement to. Those with
> >>> >> >> the
> >>> >> >> greatest addiction will make the loudest protests. It is a
> strange
> >>> >> >> paradox that those with the most acute awareness of looming
> climate
> >>> >> >> crises could find themselves in.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> My fingers are worn out by all this typing. I am off back to my
> >>> >> >> fountain pen. We can pick this up over coffee if you like.....
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>  Alan
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > P2P Foundation: <http://p2pfoundation.net/>http://p2pfoundation.net -
> >>> > <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/>http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> >>> >
> >>> > Connect: <http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/>
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> >>> > <
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org>
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >>> >
> >>> > Updates: <http://del.icio.us/mbauwens>http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; <
> http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens>http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> >>> > <http://twitter.com/mbauwens>http://twitter.com/mbauwens; <
> http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens>http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> >>> >
> >>> > Think tank: <
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI>
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> P2P Foundation: <http://p2pfoundation.net/>http://p2pfoundation.net  -
> <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/>http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> >>
> >> Connect: <http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/>http://p2pfoundation.ning.com;
> Discuss:
> >> <http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org>
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >>
> >> Updates: <http://del.icio.us/mbauwens>http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; <
> http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens>http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> >> <http://twitter.com/mbauwens>http://twitter.com/mbauwens; <
> http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens>http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> >>
> >> Think tank: <
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI>
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >P2P Foundation: <http://p2pfoundation.net>http://p2pfoundation.net  - <
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net>http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> >
> >Connect: <http://p2pfoundation.ning.com>http://p2pfoundation.ning.com;
> Discuss: <
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org>
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >
> >Updates: <http://del.icio.us/mbauwens>http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; <
> http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens>http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; <
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens>http://twitter.com/mbauwens; <
> http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens>http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> >
> >Think tank: <http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
>


-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20101115/ca53ab4b/attachment-0001.html>