From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Thu Oct 05 2000 - 13:47:42 MDT
How would you run a pro-technology campaign against the eco-fascists? Oooh!
Did I say that? A decent meme, no? Perhaps also a mention of the Ebola
virus, and note that, it too, is 100% natural! Point out that no community
today is powered by Photo-voltaics, for example, ( I am in favor of
Photovoltaics) and that we must spend billions on high tech systems to
produce and store solar energy, for year-round energy use, in all climates.
Let the Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory Lovins) design such a system and then
market it. I bet there are a lot of people who might like to lower their
energy bills imported from the utilities. If he cannot do this, then maybe
there is something wrong with the physics that we require, or that the
technology to accomplish this has been so under-estimated as to put it
somewhere along inter-planetary colonization, to achieve it?
Emphasize the idea that the more high-tech, the less the poverty. That better
technology is far kinder to the environment, but that someone has to
physically create such new technology. Let people know that the Greens are
not intellectually capable of this. Hardly an engineer among em'!
Feh! I spit on the front porches of these eco-schmucks Ha-tooh!!!
In a message dated 10/5/2000 3:04:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
GBurch1@aol.com writes:
<< Here's something from one of the radical green lists I monitor:
>Attitudes to protect you against the one-sided information onslaught:
>1. Since most of what we are told about new technology comes from its
>proponents, be deeply skeptical of all claims.
>
>2. Assume all technology "guilty until proven innocent."
>
>3. Eschew the idea that technology is neutral or "value free." Every
>technology has inherent and identifiable social, political, and
environmental
>consequences.
>
>4. The fact that technology has a natural flash and appeal is meaningless.
>Negative attributes are slow to emerge.
>
>5. Never judge a technology by the way it benefits you personally. Seek a
>holistic view of its impacts. The operative question is not whether it
>benefits
>you, but who benefits most? And to what end?
>
>6. Keep in mind that an individual technology is only one piece of a larger
>web of technologies, "megatechnology." The operative question here is how
the
>individual technology fits the larger one.
>
>7. Make distinctions between technologies that primarily serve the
>individual or the small community (e.g., solar energy) and those that
>operate on a scale
>outside of community control (e.g., nuclear energy). The latter kind is
>the major
>problem of the day.
>
>8. When it is argued that the benefits of the technological lifeway are
>worthwhile despite harmful outcomes, recall that Lewis Mumford referred to
>these
>alleged benefits as "bribery." Cite the figures about crime, suicide,
>alienation,
>drug abuse, as well as environmental and cultural degredation.
>
>9. Do not accept the homily that "once the genie is out of the bottle you
>cannot put it back," or that rejecting a technology is impossible. Such
>attitudes
>induce passivity and confirm victimization.
>
>10. In thinking about technology within the present climate of technological
>worship, emphasize the negative. This brings balance. Negativity is
positive.
>
>--Jerry Mander
>Author of "In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the
>Survival of the Indian Nations >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:25 MST