From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:35:13 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Oct12.225119.16722@netcom.com> beast@netcom.com (J. Kintscher) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.194732.25893@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct10.075735.8668@netcom.com> beast@netcom.com (Master) writes:
>>>I agree.  The thing that really gets me about these people who want us to
>>>make as many of the things we use as possible (including growing our own
>>>food) is that they don't seem to realize just how much time we would actually
>>>spend doing these things.  
>>
>>Do you ? Do you know that I can grow 80% of my summer diet and about
>>30% of a winter one on 300 square feet with less than 10 hours of work
>>a week ? 
>
>More power to you.  Personally, I'd rather spend those ten hours doing
>other things (eg intellectual pursuits and entertainment, which are not
>mutually exclusive).  Also, you presuppose that everyone has 300 sq. ft. to
>use for gardening.

No. I didn't presuppose anything. I simply implied that I, like
Jefferson, would be happier it if everyone *could* have 300 sq. ft to
do so with if they chose, and that most people would choose to do so.

>>					 The more labor intensive day-to-day
>>>survival is, the lower the standard of living is.
>>
>>Ridiculous, unless your only measure of standard-of-living is based
>>around material goods. 
> 
>My measure of standard of living is how much leisure time one has when
>compared to how much time is spent on day-to-day survival.

So what's leisure time ? I don't see a distinction between "work" and
"play" in what I do (which makes me extraordinarily fortunate), so *I'd*
have to define it as things that I don't *have* to do to stay alive.
I'd like to claim that under the social system I'm trying to imagine,
you'd have more leisure time by this definition that you do right now.
If you can offer an alternate definition that makes sense in a society
that doesn't divide human activity into work & play, I'm all ears.
 
>>However, I believe that the knowledge we find around us today can be
>>used, not to go backwards, but to combine elements of less machinized
>>societies with the relative comfort we enjoy. Such a life might not be
>>rich in electronic widgets, but I suspect that it would be healthier,
>>more full of laughter, wine, food, friendships, travels, reading,
>>writing, art, and perhaps even speculative engineering. In short, it
>>would be focus on more of things most human beings want in their lives
>>without disconnecting them from the things they can never escape.
>
>How is this mutually exclusive with "electronic widgets"?  

Its not, but I suspect that their perceived utility would drop. I may
well be wrong on that, though. 
							    We are
>performing intellectual discourse using some fairly complex "electronic
>widgets".  These "electronic widgets" give me acess to a whole world of
>people to discuss ideas with I wouldn't otherwise have acess to.

Indeed. And the only way I can justify this to myself is to believe
that such activity is not mutually exclusive with the world in which I
would like to live. I don't know if this is self-deception, or actual
truth. Many concerned with Silicon Valley politics would tell me that
its a deception. Perhaps they're crazy. Perhaps I should listen more.
Who can tell ?

-- paul


-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion