Re: Alternatives to corporate globalization

In a message dated 5/23/01 3:59:28 AM, p34d3611@jhu.edu writes:

<< Speaking now strictly for myself, I dismiss every alternative to
global capitalism in its current form as either hopelessly utopian
(e.g.--Anarchism)  >>

Dear Peter Grimes,
    Your essay conforms very much with my understanding of the global 
situation I am happy to say except for the above statement. I would like to 
add an essay I wrote yesterday which says the same thing I said before but 
adds a few more elucidating ideas.
I present it here for you (at the risk of being redundant) and others to see 
that anarchist (decentralized, mutually cooperative) views, though utopian in 
the high ideals they espouse can be grounded in practical realities. I don't 
hold that this is the only solution, that there needs to be other means to 
approach the problem in addition to this, as the problem is monumental. But 
rather as one approach, the proactive, grassroots approach which seems 
sensible to me. I would be interested in why anyone might think that this is 
unrealistic:

Hi,
    My name is Tom Osher. I am the founder of www.bagelhole.org, a not for 
profit project to share information about low-tech, sustainable methods to 
help individuals and communities become more self-reliant, self-sustainable, 
and autonomous.

We believe that what is lacking among progressive people is a proactive, 
grassroots, focus. Perhaps, building a low-tech, sustainable infrastructure 
globally, by utilizing the internet to disseminate and gather the necessary 
information to move towards a critical mass over the next.... (however long 
it takes) could be that focus.

High tech is amazing and more and more the world is dependent upon it. Y2k 
was an interesting experience for those of us who took it seriously. In 1998, 
I became aware of the potential devestation inherent in the worst case 
scenerio that y2k presented. It was presented to me by people who's 
intelligence, knowledge, and skills I respected. This is how the bagelhole 
project was started. It was a response to the potential, inherent dangers of 
global,societal collapse due to overreliance on computers and high tech in 
general. I certainly don't feel guilty or ashamed for taking this threat 
seriously. I was greatly relieved when nothing significant happened. Because 
I was aware that the world went into y2k utterly unprepared. I learned the 
lesson of y2k: We need to be prepared on a global scale for collapse, due to 
our increasing reliance on the amazing but vulnerable high tech. Low tech is 
the anecdote for high tech.

It is easy for low tech to be overlooked next to high tech. Just as 
indigenous cultures in the past were considered primitive and savage, so it 
is with low tech today.

It is also my opinion that as long as the twin nemesis, capitalism and 
tolerance for the existence of sovereign entities (other than that of the 
individual), dominate the planet, people will be forced to compromise 
themselves and everything else in the name of survival. I will not go into a 
discourse about why this is so, as it seems that it should be obvious. If, 
however, you should want me to further explain, I would be happy to.

I mention the above, because I don't really believe that any lasting peace 
will exist as long as these twin cancers metasticize the Earth. People can 
imagine, petition, pray, plead, and protest as much as they choose, and I 
don't say that any of these things are wrong, but I don't think any of it 
will realistically halt the onslaught of the devestation, as it hasn't so 
far. At the same time, I believe that violence tends to beget violence and 
therefore do not think violence is a suitable response either.

No one can accurately predict the fall of the current form of civilization. 
Historically, all civilizations pass, the longest being the Egyptian 
civilization of 3000 years. We all know that our present civilization is 
based on unsustainable practices and it seems unlikely that it will against 
all odds perpetuate itself forever. It has shown itself to be highly 
resilient. 

One good thing about this strategy for achieving a culture of peace is that 
if we build a low-tech infrastructure in the shadow of the skyscraper, we 
will be gaining leverage and strength each and every step of the way. Each 
individual as well as community will gain as they learn how to grow their own 
organic food, implement healthy sanitation methods, renewable energy, etc. 
Individuals will save money, live more healthfully, and recreate community. 
For these reasons alone, it is a valid strategy.

But for those of us who like to dream, it holds even greater possibilities. 
Imagine, if you will, by creating a safety net through low tech means, such 
that if disaster, natural or otherwise should hit, locally, nationally, or 
globally, everyone could be saved, while the electricity is down for one 
week, one month, it wouldn't have to be down for too long, before things 
would completely unravel, people might get used to communal living, like the 
idea of supporting one another in this hand to mouth way where money loses 
all meaning, and decide never to go back to the work a day insanity that they 
had taken for granted so long and the paradigm shift (which has become a 
cheap cliche, like a pair of dimes) might occur without bloodshed and quite 
naturally. That would be the ultimate goal of this project/focus/strategy. It 
certainly wouldn't be guarenteed, it may seem quite unlikely, but it couldn't 
be denied that through proper preparation, the possibility would exist.

I should also mention, that quite serendipidously, we have come across what 
may well be the cutting edge way to grow food, with or without land. It is 
called "vertical aquaponics". And we are working on ironing out the kinks, 
perhaps, soon with the scientists of Cuba. Suffice it to say that an 
apartment dweller with sunlight, could in a 4'x4'x6' space grow 2-400 
vegetables and herbs and some fish. Once it is built, it requires only 
monitoring and harvesting. So the 2 things that have made growing your own 
food unfeasible for most, insufficient time and space is finally overcome. 2 
liter plastic pop bottles as plant holders arranged in vertical columns is 
what makes this particular type of aquaponics unique. This would be a great 
first step towards helping individuals and communities become more 
self-reliant.

Kind Regards,
Tom
San Francisco
www.bagelhole.org