Paul,
At 22:41 15-01-00 -0800, you wrote:
>... I don't totally agree with you about the
>inevitability of a global ecological disaster, Maybe that's just because it
>comes slowly, amphibians become extinct, more respiratory diseases become
>normal, etc, etc.
At the moment, I would say *we* are the ecological disaster. The above
seems to construe the world as collapsing around us, outside of us; as if
the only ecological disaster that matters is the one that affects us
(humans). For extinct amphibians, the ecological disaster is past. I tend
to think nature regards us (excuse the metaphorical anthropomorphism) as
inside rather than out. Archaeological history tends to support the
"ruptures" theory as regards traumatic ecological events.
>If the market controls the inputs and outputs between
>humans and the environment it becomes hard to see how the evaluation of the
>economic value of a present action could include consideration of possible
>outcomes 150 years from now.
Strange that "the market" can hedge debts out until about the year 2200
without any worries at all. It's just that perfect information is assumed
in econometrics. Everything that muddies the mathematical waters is elided
by the economic elite. Thus the environment does not exist for
econometrics. Nevertheless, I recently heard an american technocrat
exhaling some garbage about carbon credits proving "that we can sell
anything on our market, even fresh air". She was really high, I think. At
least she sounded it.
>But there is a positive side: I don't think
>the full effect of the internet has been felt yet--especially the
>communication and coordination that it affords non-hegemonic voices--or the
>simple effect of its globalization of culture.
This is a bit utopian for me:
1) Hegemonic voices are hegemonic on the internet, just as they are
elsewhere. Even access is confined to the narrowest of vocal spectrums. One
person per 1000 has access. Half the world has never made a phone call. One
third of the world has no clean water, etc etc etc
2) The "simple effect of its globalization of culture" is neither simple
nor given nor inevitable. In fact, the effects of "globalisation" appear to
be culturallyy fragmentary rather than homogenising. Perhaps you meant
something different.
3) ICTs provide more "friction-free" coordination for the dominant than
they do for the "subaltern" (ugh, scuse). After all, they were designed by
the dominant for the dominant and are controlled, as far as they can be,
which is quite a good deal, by the dominant.
All that said, I'd like to think that you were right.
regards,
Phil
--------------------------------------------
Phil Graham
Faculty of Business, Economics, and Law
University of Queensland
phil.graham@mailbox.uq.edu.au
--------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:02:06 PST