From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #127 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, May 17 2005 Volume 14 : Number 127 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Yeah, Baby [Jeff ] Re: election stuff [The Great Quail ] Re: Yeah, Baby [Capuchin ] Re: Yeah, Baby [Jeff ] Re: Yeah, Baby [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Yeah, Baby [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Yeah, Baby ["Randalljr" ] Re: Yeah, Baby [Jeff ] Re: Yeah, Baby [Capuchin ] Re: Yeah, Baby [Capuchin ] Re: Yeah, Baby [Capuchin ] RE: Yeah, Baby ["michael wells" ] RE: Yeah, Baby [Jeff Dwarf ] RE: Yeah, Baby [Capuchin ] Re: Yeah, Baby ["Randalljr" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 07:42:31 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Yeah, Baby On 5/16/05, Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus wrote: > less, we don't.> > > sounds a bit like the emphysema patient telling his doctor that, "it would > be nice if i could stop smoking, but i can't." Yes, and "Smells Like Teen Spirit" sounds a bit like "More Than a Feeling." That doesn't mean they're the same song, or that they have the same words. The key difference is, the only person stopping your patient from smoking is himself. But if he's also sub'd to this list and is thinking, hey, "it would be nice if we lived in a nation where everyone could drive less," what's stopping *that* from being true isn't only himself, it's the other hundred million people out there. And, as we've discussed, many people's situations are such that they cannot, by an act of will, stop driving and still function in the lives they lead. Nor can they instantaneously change their lives - and in many cases, there are no viable options for them. It would probably be more useful to encourage those who can get away from driving to do so, try to get public transportation working better to more people can avoid driving, etc., than to just berate everyone universally for driving. > > practical.> > > so which is it -- not possible, or not practical? at any rate, we'll see > how much more practical it "becomes" as the price of gas continues to rise. I use "possible" in the everyday sense which is pretty close to "practical." It's "possible" for me to get to work by crawling on my hands and knees while ringing a bell every five seconds...but it's surely not practical, to the extent that calling it "possible" evokes thoughts of a plummeting whale wondering whether the ground is going to be friendly. But of course you're correct that higher gas prices will make it less practical. It'd be smarter not to be forced to do that, though - since no matter what anyone thinks, extremely higher gas prices will cause a lot of economic disruption...and not just to Hummer drivers who deserve it ;-) - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 10:27:13 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: election stuff Matt "Known for sophisticated political opinions" Sewell writes, > I far prefer Jeme's jibes to "shut the fuck up". Neither Gollum nor Elmer Fudd, my "Jeme exasperation touchstone" is actually Julianne Moore from "Magnolia," perched in a state of near hysteria and uselessly screeching, "Shut the fuck up!!!" over and over again, as if it would actually stave off the unappeasable horror that is Jeme. Gollum works, though. He's kind of a hero of mine. - --Q ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 09:10:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Yeah, Baby On Mon, 16 May 2005, Jeff wrote: > But if he's also sub'd to this list and is thinking, hey, "it would be > nice if we lived in a nation where everyone could drive less," what's > stopping *that* from being true isn't only himself, it's the other > hundred million people out there. No way, Jeff. If that one person put themselves in a situation where they drove less, we'd all live in a nation where less driving took place. As I've written before, you have to live in the world you want to make. > And, as we've discussed, many people's situations are such that they > cannot, by an act of will, stop driving and still function in the lives > they lead. That's because "the lives they lead" are constructed of choices that require perpetual automobile use. This reminds me of the bumper stickers I see every day reading, "No war for oil" and "Attack Iraq? NO!" It's as if these people think that a change in top-level policy will make a difference in the way the world operates, when, in fact, the change has to come from each person changing the parameters of acceptable behavior for themselves. You're absolutely right that most people cannot stop driving and still function in the lives they lead. Sooner or later, they're going to have to stop driving, though. Not only is there no means to support the system's energy requirements, but the mounting evidence seems to indicate that the automobile lifestyle is degrading to physical and mental health. So that means some fundamental changes have to made in the lives they lead. There's an old saying about an omelette. > Nor can they instantaneously change their lives - and in many cases, > there are no viable options for them. Again, the options aren't "viable" because those things that must be sustained for a change to be considered viable are predicated on automobiles. We have a structural problem and we're not going to fix it with superficial adjustments. > It would probably be more useful to encourage those who can get away > from driving to do so, try to get public transportation working better > to more people can avoid driving, etc., than to just berate everyone > universally for driving. Do you think that's what's going on? I've been really busy this weekend and haven't read the whole thread over again, but was there general berating? And I think that improvements to public transportation are no real help... at least not if you mean things like mass transit. Sure, better infrastructure for walking and cycling would be great and could be called public transportation improvements... but then again, so could freeways. No, trains and busses are an attempt to continue the separation of life into work and home modules that are far flung and isolated and still shift the energy (and work) burden from closed, organic cycles to open processes of resource extraction and pollution. > But of course you're correct that higher gas prices will make it less > practical. It'd be smarter not to be forced to do that, though - since > no matter what anyone thinks, extremely higher gas prices will cause a > lot of economic disruption...and not just to Hummer drivers who deserve > it ;-) Sure. When we start to really see the effects of higher fuel prices, agriculture is going to be hit very hard. Factory farming (which already requires massive public subsidies) will become even less economically feasible and the wholesale transportation of food from one side of the country to another could be an extravagance rather than a matter of course. That, along with the general transport crisis and the already-noted improbability of commuting, will likely kill the suburbs completely. Some believe it's already too late and Great Depression-style poverty and despair are inevitable. I'm not so gloomy, but it's clear that time is short and major changes have to be made. The way of life invented after the second world war into which we were all indoctrinated is unhealthy and unsustainable. I wouldn't go so far as to call it an experiment -- no plan for the future was ever even formulated. Burn the candles at both ends now and there will be some way to splice in some more wick before things burn up. But placing the burdens of the present on the future is short-sighted and selfish. We've sold out future generations for a little comfort in the present. The national debt, the consumer debt, the ecological debt, and the energy debt of the past half-century will take centuries to repay. The "externalities" have to be internalized and when they are, what has been seen as unprecedented growth will be recognized, if we work very hard and are lucky, as a wash. "Make every decision with respect for its impact on the seventh generation - -- even if it requires skin as thick as the bark of a pine." J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 11:36:22 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Yeah, Baby On 5/16/05, Capuchin wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2005, Jeff wrote: > > But if he's also sub'd to this list and is thinking, hey, "it would be > > nice if we lived in a nation where everyone could drive less," what's > > stopping *that* from being true isn't only himself, it's the other > > hundred million people out there. > > No way, Jeff. If that one person put themselves in a situation where they > drove less, we'd all live in a nation where less driving took place. Yes, but the problem will still exist after the one person makes the change (unlike the emphysemic smoker who quits, for whom no other person's actions make a direct difference). > > As I've written before, you have to live in the world you want to make. > > > And, as we've discussed, many people's situations are such that they > > cannot, by an act of will, stop driving and still function in the lives > > they lead. > > That's because "the lives they lead" are constructed of choices that > require perpetual automobile use. Of course they are - but that doesn't mean they're all undoable for all people. *I* could probably stop driving - but many people cannot. Or at least, they cannot in a practical sense, by which I mean their livelihood is connected to their driving. I have a friend who's a contractor: he can't walk with all his tools, or take the bus, etc. etc. Now, he *could* change careers...but unless your ideal world is some agrarian utopia with only local connections, where the only building that happens is within an area circumscribed by how far a gang of workers *can* manually transport equipment, well... > > It would probably be more useful to encourage those who can get away > > from driving to do so, try to get public transportation working better > > to more people can avoid driving, etc., than to just berate everyone > > universally for driving. > > And I think that improvements to public transportation are no real help... > at least not if you mean things like mass transit. Sure, better > infrastructure for walking and cycling would be great and could be called > public transportation improvements... but then again, so could freeways. > No, trains and busses are an attempt to continue the separation of life > into work and home modules that are far flung and isolated and still shift > the energy (and work) burden from closed, organic cycles to open processes > of resource extraction and pollution. If the alternatives are (a) complete and utter change to a sustainable lifestyle; (b) gradual, reformative change that moves us closer to a sustainable lifestyle; and (c) do nothing, isn't (b) better than (c) no matter how much better (a) might be? And I don't quite feel up to arguing whether trains "are" primarily to continue separation of home and work. The problem is, it's a very long way from where we are to where you want the world to be. It's very hard to get there without a map. We can't teleport from here to there, so we will have to go along the way, but what that way is must be charted, since everyone is not spontaneously going to decide. So go ahead and be a utopian - but try to be practical about how to move from here to there and recognize it will take many, many steps, not all of which can be foreseen...none of which if ya don't even make the effort to do so. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 10:03:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Yeah, Baby On Mon, 16 May 2005, Jeff wrote: > It would probably be more useful to encourage those who can get away > from driving to do so, try to get public transportation working better > to more people can avoid driving, etc., than to just berate everyone > universally for driving. But of course it's easier to berate everyone universally :) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 10:05:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Yeah, Baby On Mon, 16 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2005, Jeff wrote: > > But if he's also sub'd to this list and is thinking, hey, "it would be > > nice if we lived in a nation where everyone could drive less," what's > > stopping *that* from being true isn't only himself, it's the other > > hundred million people out there. > > No way, Jeff. If that one person put themselves in a situation where they > drove less, we'd all live in a nation where less driving took place. You are, strictly speaking, correct, but what's the percentage reduction in total miles driven? So close to zero as to make almost no difference... > There's an old saying about an omelette. Who's going to be doing the breaking? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 10:51:26 -0700 From: "Randalljr" Subject: Re: Yeah, Baby - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Capuchin" To: "Not Reg" Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 9:10 AM Subject: Re: Yeah, Baby > On Mon, 16 May 2005, Jeff wrote: >> But if he's also sub'd to this list and is thinking, hey, "it would be >> nice if we lived in a nation where everyone could drive less," what's >> stopping *that* from being true isn't only himself, it's the other >> hundred million people out there. > > No way, Jeff. If that one person put themselves in a situation where they > drove less, we'd all live in a nation where less driving took place. > > As I've written before, you have to live in the world you want to make. > >> And, as we've discussed, many people's situations are such that they >> cannot, by an act of will, stop driving and still function in the lives >> they lead. > > That's because "the lives they lead" are constructed of choices that > require perpetual automobile use. > > This reminds me of the bumper stickers I see every day reading, "No war > for oil" and "Attack Iraq? NO!" It's as if these people think that a > change in top-level policy will make a difference in the way the world > operates, when, in fact, the change has to come from each person changing > the parameters of acceptable behavior for themselves. > > You're absolutely right that most people cannot stop driving and still > function in the lives they lead. Sooner or later, they're going to have > to stop driving, though. Not only is there no means to support the > system's energy requirements, but the mounting evidence seems to indicate > that the automobile lifestyle is degrading to physical and mental health. > So that means some fundamental changes have to made in the lives they > lead. > > There's an old saying about an omelette. > >> Nor can they instantaneously change their lives - and in many cases, >> there are no viable options for them. > > Again, the options aren't "viable" because those things that must be > sustained for a change to be considered viable are predicated on > automobiles. We have a structural problem and we're not going to fix it > with superficial adjustments. > >> It would probably be more useful to encourage those who can get away from >> driving to do so, try to get public transportation working better to more >> people can avoid driving, etc., than to just berate everyone universally >> for driving. > > Do you think that's what's going on? I've been really busy this weekend > and haven't read the whole thread over again, but was there general > berating? > > And I think that improvements to public transportation are no real help... > at least not if you mean things like mass transit. Sure, better > infrastructure for walking and cycling would be great and could be called > public transportation improvements... but then again, so could freeways. > No, trains and busses are an attempt to continue the separation of life > into work and home modules that are far flung and isolated and still shift > the energy (and work) burden from closed, organic cycles to open processes > of resource extraction and pollution. > >> But of course you're correct that higher gas prices will make it less >> practical. It'd be smarter not to be forced to do that, though - since no >> matter what anyone thinks, extremely higher gas prices will cause a lot >> of economic disruption...and not just to Hummer drivers who deserve it >> ;-) > > Sure. When we start to really see the effects of higher fuel prices, > agriculture is going to be hit very hard. Factory farming (which already > requires massive public subsidies) will become even less economically > feasible and the wholesale transportation of food from one side of the > country to another could be an extravagance rather than a matter of > course. That, along with the general transport crisis and the > already-noted improbability of commuting, will likely kill the suburbs > completely. > > Some believe it's already too late and Great Depression-style poverty and > despair are inevitable. I'm not so gloomy, but it's clear that time is > short and major changes have to be made. The way of life invented after > the second world war into which we were all indoctrinated is unhealthy and > unsustainable. I wouldn't go so far as to call it an experiment -- no > plan for the future was ever even formulated. Burn the candles at both > ends now and there will be some way to splice in some more wick before > things burn up. But placing the burdens of the present on the future is > short-sighted and selfish. We've sold out future generations for a little > comfort in the present. The national debt, the consumer debt, the > ecological debt, and the energy debt of the past half-century will take > centuries to repay. The "externalities" have to be internalized and when > they are, what has been seen as unprecedented growth will be recognized, > if we work very hard and are lucky, as a wash. > > "Make every decision with respect for its impact on the seventh > generation -- even if it requires skin as thick as the bark of a pine." > > J. > -- > _______________________________________________ > > Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin So where are the nekkid pictures of Viv? Vince The Vincester ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:08:27 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Yeah, Baby On 5/16/05, Capuchin wrote: > "Make every decision with respect for its impact on the seventh generation..." Actually, that reminds me: what forces (if any) would influence a corporation to sacrifice short- and medium-term profits (say, for the next five years) if those profits led to long-term instability - and if a different strategy led to long-term profits (say, fifteen to twenty years later) at the expense of short- to mid-term losses (again, the next five years), to choose that strategy? (Assume the predictability of each scenario is equivalent.) Of course, investments always have a certain expectation of delayed profitability...but it seems that one problem is that there's great economic pressure on corporations to profit *now* and not a generation in the future. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 15:50:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Yeah, Baby On Mon, 16 May 2005, Jeff wrote: > On 5/16/05, Capuchin wrote: >> "Make every decision with respect for its impact on the seventh >> generation..." I'm kind of amused that you truncated the quotation in exactly the way that I wrote annoys me and indicates, to me, a failure to recognize what is required to fulfill the obligation implied. > Of course, investments always have a certain expectation of delayed > profitability...but it seems that one problem is that there's great > economic pressure on corporations to profit *now* and not a generation > in the future. Corporations are externalizing machines. Their goal is to pass the cost of everything on to someone else and pick up the tab only when absolutely necessary. If it ain't economic, a corporation basically can't be concerned with it... not a public corporation, anyway. The bottom line is the bottom line. I saw William McDonough speak again last winter and he told a story about a presentation he gave to the board of a large corporation about moving to fecund practices and no longer considering anything an externality. Of course, much of this involved a first step in becoming sustainable before becoming fecund. A board member asked, "So how long is this sustainability thing going to take?" McDonough answered, "Forever. That's the point." The whole idea of appropriate behavior has to change. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 15:52:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Yeah, Baby On Mon, 16 May 2005, Randalljr wrote: > So where are the nekkid pictures of Viv? It's my understanding that if any still exist, they are completely inaccessible. Cool it, brother. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 18:26:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Yeah, Baby On Mon, 16 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2005, Randalljr wrote: >> So where are the nekkid pictures of Viv? > > It's my understanding that if any still exist, they are completely > inaccessible. I realized on rereading that this was ambiguous. Let me be clear. If any did exist, they don't now and never were they made public. Also, not particularly happy with the objectification. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 21:39:29 -0700 From: "michael wells" Subject: RE: Yeah, Baby > Also, not particularly happy with the objectification. You'll be refreshed to know that nobody cares what you think. That should take the pressure off. > The whole idea of appropriate behavior has to change. Right. We start with you. Michael "you can't out-passive/aggressive me" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 00:22:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: RE: Yeah, Baby michael wells wrote: > > Also, not particularly happy with the objectification. > > You'll be refreshed to know that nobody cares what you > think. That should take the pressure off. Without people objectifying each other, there'd be no damn species. Which would actually probably make him happiest. And you can want to see someone nekkid etc and still respect them. It's easy. No really. > > The whole idea of appropriate behavior has to change. > > Right. We start with you. "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 01:22:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Yeah, Baby On Tue, 17 May 2005, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > michael wells wrote: >>> Also, not particularly happy with the objectification. >> >> You'll be refreshed to know that nobody cares what you think. That >> should take the pressure off. > > Without people objectifying each other, there'd be no damn species. Maybe that's how you work, Jeff, but I'm perfectly capable of sexual attraction while still maintaining my view of the attractive as a human being and not merely an object. Kind of surprised that's controversial. > Which would actually probably make him happiest. On what do you base such a statement? If I didn't love the species, I wouldn't make such a fuss about the mess it's creating for itself. > And you can want to see someone nekkid etc and still respect them. It's > easy. No really. Damn straight... though I don't know how to reconcile that with the above comment of yours. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 06:37:32 -0700 From: "Randalljr" Subject: Re: Yeah, Baby From: "Capuchin" > It's my understanding that if any still exist, they are completely > inaccessible. > > Cool it, brother. Hey! When we met, I thought the fact was established that I am prone to inappropriate behavior! Anyways, should we meet again, I will bring nekkid pictures of myself to you, as compensation for any hard feelings. Vince ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #127 ********************************