Non fundamentalist Christians

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, probably not the best posed question. However, it is difficult when dealing with wild generalizations isn't it? So would you prefer a modern working secular government (not a dictatorship in Africa) to a historical theocracy (feel free to pick your favorite). Remember that we are talking about whether life in general has improved and whether a shift f ...[text shortened]... of the people.
I also think that you are often confusing technocracy with capitalism.

a) Secular vs. theocracy. I think this boils down to what country I'd like to have lived in. Probably the Netherlands. Theocracy-wise, Bhutan.
b) Here I beg to differ: Europe as a whole treated non Europeans with supreme inhumanity. See Von Trotha in Namibia, 1904, for a non Nazi German example. Then see Rhodes, Kitchener, Leopold II, etc, etc.
c) The Belgian Congo got the job done!
d) Australian Aboriginal, Native American societies furnish easy examples of societies that have broken down, neither maintaining old ways nor assimilating successfully with new orders without complete loss of cultural identity.

Will respond further later.

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, probably not the best posed question. However, it is difficult when dealing with wild generalizations isn't it? So would you prefer a modern working secular government (not a dictatorship in Africa) to a historical theocracy (feel free to pick your favorite). Remember that we are talking about whether life in general has improved and whether a shift f ...[text shortened]... of the people.
I also think that you are often confusing technocracy with capitalism.

a) (additional): Baghdad under Haroun Al Raschid would have been an interesting place to be. Or India between Asoka and the Golden Age of the 6th century. Depending of course on my social context; these hypotheticals are fun, but not so practical (probably better to have been a domestic slave in imperial Rome than a subject of Japanese medical experimentation or a 'three-strikes-and-out' prisoner in a for-profit US correctional facility.)
e) Well we probably broadly agree here that leadership, not efficiency, would be required to transform these situations. For me, it would be seeing what economic alternatives there are for the communities most miners come from. It's insane that a man must work underground to support often two families at a time. I'd say it's the mining corporations responsibly to diversify their social capital portfolio. Automate, cut jobs underground, find things for the unemployed to do. Some corporations in other sectors are already doing this. Trouble with mining is the C19 model has worked so well for its shareholders for so long. Now it's broken though.

I note that IKEA has made a statement of its intention to become 'forest positive' (plant more than it fells). That sounds positive ...

g) I'm not convinced. Zambians are now dependent on hydropower and kapenta. And the price of power is going up a lot. Time for a new plan?

h) Unfortunately there is always the hidden agenda of corruption. Popular uprisings do furnish useful information (I am amazed that you discount them) which in the case of Myanmar can be traced back to a mining contract railroaded through an illegitimate approval process primarily for the benefit of the Chinese state-owned company that has the contract. Efficiency not topping the agenda ... Perhaps the most efficient system is more bottom up, people adopting locally appropriate solutions rather than conforming to central planning, which tends to eliminate difference for the sake of administrative convenience.

Larger scales can mean bigger problems if by upscaling you disrupt a higher order system. Eg. Three Gorges dams are said to have contributed to landslides and even earthquakes, with great loss of life.

Russian history is incredible, you won't waste your time. The most futuristic society of all time!

As for China: well, yes, ideology produced a few humdingers for that country. And China adhere to central planning, which is not sustainable. A great many of its insta-cities are ghost towns ... Oddly enough you can see a Chinese-built ghost town in Angola, outside Luanda: it's too expensive for the vast majority of Angolans to live in. The idea that 'if you build it, they will come' is a bit unrealistic. Which yields the scary realisation that China's technocrats (and Russia's before) inherit a legacy of political fantasy which, slowly but surely, they are seeking to overturn with facts.

Sorry if this is waffly, I've been typing through flu - thanks to you, you fiend ...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
a) Secular vs. theocracy. I think this boils down to what country I'd like to have lived in. Probably the Netherlands. Theocracy-wise, Bhutan.

So you see Buddhism as a theistic religion? The Wikipedia page talks of lots of wars/conflicts, monarchy etc. Do you think you would have been better off there than in the Netherlands today?

b) Here I beg to differ: Europe as a whole treated non Europeans with supreme inhumanity. See Von Trotha in Namibia, 1904, for a non Nazi German example. Then see Rhodes, Kitchener, Leopold II, etc, etc.
I am not certain what you are disagreeing with. That Europeans in general were both racist and inhumane in their conquests is not something I would dispute. That it was a result of efficiency - I would dispute.

c) The Belgian Congo got the job done!
And your point is?

d) Australian Aboriginal, Native American societies furnish easy examples of societies that have broken down, neither maintaining old ways nor assimilating successfully with new orders without complete loss of cultural identity.
Neither society was perfect originally and neither is an example of evolution towards greater efficiency or secular societies. Both are examples of exploitation and deliberate, systematic destruction of one group by another. I suspect I am loosing track of what you are trying to argue and it is quite possible I haven't properly expressed my own opinion.

One of my favorite bones of contention with rwingett, is this:
He argues for 'buy local' which is more inefficient than current globalisation but, he claims, would benefit small producers.
I on the other hand argue for globalization which brings with it enormous efficiencies.
If local producers are pushed out of business due to their higher production costs then I say let them do something else that is more productive.
If this system results in increasing income inequality then we should address that rather than trying to break the system. As I said, I am not a capitalist and think that some of the larger scale efficiencies should be managed either by governments or worker owned co-operations.
I believe that 'buy local' is protectionism and is designed to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you see Buddhism as a theistic religion? The Wikipedia page talks of lots of wars/conflicts, monarchy etc. Do you think you would have been better off there than in the Netherlands today?

Here I beg to differ: Europe as a whole treated non Europeans with supreme inhumanity. See Von Trotha in Namibia, 1904, for a non Nazi German example. Then s buy local' is protectionism and is designed to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

I say your emphasis is completely backwards. You advocate creating an efficient system first and foremost, while worrying about equality later. I say we need to build an equal system first and worry about efficiency later (if at all).

The fact is that greater efficiency can only be had at the price of increased hierarchy, social stratification and specialization, the loss of autonomy and the subjugation of individuals to the technical processes they serve. In other words, efficiency is the root cause of inequality. They are irreducibly linked. The idea that a continued emphasis on efficiency will somehow lead to greater equality is therefore absurd.

What is urgently needed is to build a humane and egalitarian social system first. Whether it be efficient or not is a secondary (or tertiary) concern. Only in this sort of arrangement can efficiency be made to serve the interests of greater equality (if it can indeed be done at all). Egalitarianism must take the primary position to make sure (as much as possible) that efficiency serves human (and humane) interests and not abstract interests divorced from reality.

My persistent and ever-present example are the Hutterite communities of the western US and Canada. Communally owned, egalitarian, religious communities that rely on appropriate technology (as opposed to the continued maximization of technology). As social justice is their primary concern, there is no crime, no poverty, no inequality and yet they manage to be efficient by their own standards (if not by those of western economists). It is my considered opinion that their social arrangements are vastly superior to the miasma of western consumerist culture.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you saying you know the reason why theists would shy away from this topic?

No. Obviously, I'm saying they haven't. Go read the thread again.

/eyeroll

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
g) I'm not convinced. Zambians are now dependent on hydropower and kapenta.

Dependant or not, hydroelectric power is the only significant source of electricity in Zambia at this time.
In addition the lake provides enormous economic benefits in terms of fishing and tourism far exceeding anything that would have existed in its absence.

And the price of power is going up a lot.
And where would it be without Kariba?

Time for a new plan?
Yes, we need more hydroelectric dams. At this point in time, hydroelectric and solar are the best options for Zambia.

h) Unfortunately there is always the hidden agenda of corruption.
Yes, that is always a factor in big projects.

Popular uprisings do furnish useful information
Most often about what hidden interests are there, not what the people themselves want nor what would benefit them most.

(I am amazed that you discount them)
I discount them at face value. Without more research, they should not be interpreted as 'this project is bad'.

which in the case of Myanmar can be traced back to a mining contract railroaded through an illegitimate approval process primarily for the benefit of the Chinese state-owned company that has the contract.
Yet you tried to portray it is a negative against hydro-electric power. You just proved my point.

Larger scales can mean bigger problems if by upscaling you disrupt a higher order system. Eg. Three Gorges dams are said to have contributed to landslides and even earthquakes, with great loss of life.
There is not doubt whatsoever that problems come with dams. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the pros vs the cons. The alternative is lots of little community run coal mines. Please add up the loss of lives from those (including the pollution costs), then do a comparison. Simply pointing out bad things about dams does not help your case.

And China adhere to central planning, which is not sustainable.
So you claim, but I doubt you can support it.

A great many of its insta-cities are ghost towns ...
Yes, many mistakes are made, but you haven't even proven that these insta-cities were a failure. There are ghost towns all over the US too.

Oddly enough you can see a Chinese-built ghost town in Angola, outside Luanda:
Corruption rears its ugly head.

Originally posted by rwingett
I say your emphasis is completely backwards. You advocate creating an efficient system first and foremost, while worrying about equality later. I say we need to build an equal system first and worry about efficiency later (if at all).

No, I advocate both. At no point have I suggested that one comes prior to the other or should be given priority. I don't believe as you do that they are in conflict with each other.

My persistent and ever-present example are the Hutterite communities of the western US and Canada. Communally owned, egalitarian, religious communities that rely on appropriate technology (as opposed to the continued maximization of technology). As social justice is their primary concern, there is no crime, no poverty, no inequality and yet they manage to be efficient by their own standards (if not by those of western economists). It is my considered opinion that their social arrangements are vastly superior to the miasma of western consumerist culture.
And I do not entirely dispute that. However I do not think some of your other arguments are justified nor demonstrated by the Hutterites.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I advocate both. At no point have I suggested that one comes prior to the other or should be given priority. I don't believe as you do that they are in conflict with each other.

My persistent and ever-present example are the Hutterite communities of the western US and Canada. Communally owned, egalitarian, religious communities that rely on appr r I do not think some of your other arguments are justified nor demonstrated by the Hutterites.

Efficiency is not a fixed goal. Its pursuit is not sated at any particular level. A fixation with efficiency requires one to continue pursuing ever greater degrees of efficiency, with no end in sight.

Do you claim that these advances (if they may be labelled such) can be reached without increasing hierarchy, command structures, social stratification and greater degrees of specialization? It seems patently obvious to me that the technological advances that spur efficiency are the prime cause for the conditions mentioned above. They will all advance in lockstep together. Unless, of course, you have a social structure that purposefully and diligently strives to decouple their trajectories by placing a premium on egalitarianism over that of efficiency. One where the latter may be gained, but never at the price of the former.

Originally posted by rwingett
Efficiency is not a fixed goal. Its pursuit is not sated at any particular level. A fixation with efficiency requires one to continue pursuing ever greater degrees of efficiency, with no end in sight.

Do you claim that these advances (if they may be labelled such) can be reached without increasing hierarchy, command structures, social stratification and ...[text shortened]... er that of efficiency. One where the latter may be gained, but never at the price of the former.

Corruption is a form of inefficiency: surely the most egregious.

With luck, China has just taken a positive step:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/world/asia/china-mandates-social-risk-reviews-for-big-projects.html?hp&_r=0

(twhitehead, especially for you).

Originally posted by rwingett
Efficiency is not a fixed goal. Its pursuit is not sated at any particular level. A fixation with efficiency requires one to continue pursuing ever greater degrees of efficiency, with no end in sight.

Do you claim that these advances (if they may be labelled such) can be reached without increasing hierarchy, command structures, social stratification and ...[text shortened]... er that of efficiency. One where the latter may be gained, but never at the price of the former.

I'm all for technology, but not on a hierarchical basis. Eg. instead of massive hydroelectric schemes, I would prefer a network of pumped storage dams operating in conjunction with wind and solar, running off a nuclear (thorium) baseline. No need for population displacement, phase out coal ... Note too that the energy efficiency market is estimated to be larger than the energy market (in South Africa).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm all for technology, but not on a hierarchical basis. Eg. instead of massive hydroelectric schemes, I would prefer a network of pumped storage dams operating in conjunction with wind and solar, running off a nuclear (thorium) baseline. No need for population displacement, phase out coal ... Note too that the energy efficiency market is estimated to be larger than the energy market (in South Africa).

If we accept that technologically advanced societies are not fated to destroy themselves (of which I'm not convinced), then I would be cautiously in favor of technology as well. After all, even the Hutterites are increasingly making a living from manufacturing, as opposed to agriculture. But I see technology and efficiency as being two sides of the same coin. When divorced from any moral considerations, they result in catastrophic harm. And moral considerations are given second shrift in a society which views greater technology as being the panacea for all of its ills.

Originally posted by rwingett
If we accept that technologically advanced societies are not fated to destroy themselves (of which I'm not convinced), then I would be cautiously in favor of technology as well. After all, even the Hutterites are increasingly making a living from manufacturing, as opposed to agriculture. But I see technology and efficiency as being two sides of the same coi ...[text shortened]... nd shrift in a society which views greater technology as being the panacea for all of its ills.

I share your opinion.

I highly recommend Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy - he's thought through the theory thoroughly and has devised a plausible, somewhat Minoan techno-anarchy for Mars circa 3000 AD. (The narrative arc takes you through the 1000 years).

Originally posted by rwingett
Efficiency is not a fixed goal. Its pursuit is not sated at any particular level. A fixation with efficiency requires one to continue pursuing ever greater degrees of efficiency, with no end in sight.

I do not have a fixation with efficiency nor do I advocate having one. What I argue is that attacking efficiency simply because you see it as bad, is an error. The worlds problems will not be solved by making things less efficient.
Worse, we have become so dependant on efficiency that our planet cannot sustain its current population in the inefficiently societies that you and Bosse de Nage are advocating. We cannot all move back to the land as there is simply not enough land to move back to.

Do you claim that these advances (if they may be labelled such) can be reached without increasing hierarchy, command structures, social stratification and greater degrees of specialization?
Yes, I do. But I am less convinced that those things are necessarily bad.

It seems patently obvious to me that the technological advances that spur efficiency are the prime cause for the conditions mentioned above. They will all advance in lockstep together. Unless, of course, you have a social structure that purposefully and diligently strives to decouple their trajectories by placing a premium on egalitarianism over that of efficiency. One where the latter may be gained, but never at the price of the former.
And I don't necessarily disagree with you. What I disagree with is attacking efficiency for the sake of attacking it, and claiming the above whilst in reality promoting selfish economic policies such as protectionism designed to benefit the rich and further harm society as a whole rather than fix it.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I share your opinion.

I highly recommend Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy - he's thought through the theory thoroughly and has devised a plausible, somewhat Minoan techno-anarchy for Mars circa 3000 AD. (The narrative arc takes you through the 1000 years).

I've read the first one: Red Mars. Thought highly of it. I'll get around to the next two eventually.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Worse, we have become so dependant on efficiency that our planet cannot sustain its current population in the inefficiently societies that you and Bosse de Nage are advocating. We cannot all move back to the land as there is simply not enough land to move back to.

I'm not advocating that at all. I'm advocating a smarter, flatter structure. South Africa's moving towards it with IPPs. The societies I mentioned were merely examples of societies broken by Western expansion - as examples of efficiency being a double-edged sword. Calling something a double-edged sword doesn't mean deploring it, it means handle with care.