Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Fwd: the Future is Indigenous...

Expand Messages
  • Richard Balfour
    ... Richard Balfour Strategic Planner ò SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute 7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC
    Message 1 of 15 , 17 Dec, 2017


      Begin forwarded message:

      From: Norberto Rodriguez <norbertorvega@...>
      Date: December 17, 2017 8:02:28 AM PST
      To: undisclosed-recipients:;
      Subject: the Future is Indigenous...

           Hugo Blanco is one the greatest indigenous leaders from Latin America. We all could learn a little bit from his visions.   Here are couple of interviews with him: 




      norberto rodriguez


      Richard Balfour  
      Strategic Planner
      • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

      7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
      Balfour Strategic Planning
      www.plancanada.com

      • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

      balfourarch@...











    • Jada Thacker
      Richard, thanks for sending.  Although I fully empathize with Blanco s views, I don t think the near-term future will be indigenous for the mass of
      Message 2 of 15 , 18 Dec, 2017
        Richard, thanks for sending. 

        Although I fully empathize with Blanco's views, I don't think the near-term future will be "indigenous" for the mass of humanity. But the past certainly was. As obvious as it is, this fact is rarely conceded by current "environmentalists" or anybody else.

        How pathetic it is for Moderns to cast about, frantically seeking "models of sustainability," when it was we Moderns who intentionally annihilated the last sustainable societies on Earth! Agri-business/industrialism -- and all its vaunted accomplishments, cultural, scientific, and technological -- has indeed produced innumerable artifacts that might have been convenient for humans living in "indigenous" sustainable societies 12,000 years ago. But it has never produced a single thing necessary for the survival of those societies. Quite the opposite.

        Considering this self-evident fact, it appears that human "progress" since the advent of civilization has been only a series of vain attempts to solve the problems it has caused. Moreover, civilization -- not being satisfied with even that astronomical level of futility -- has now "progressed" to inventing even more problematic solutions for problems that do not even exist: choose your favorite lethal pharmaceutical or addictive smartphone as examples.

        So, yeah, Blanco is on to something big. But like Marx, I'm afraid he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope: global society in general is not reverting inexorably toward "indigenous" communalism, but "progressing" catastrophically away from it.

        Jada 

           


        On Sunday, December 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


         


        Begin forwarded message:

        From: Norberto Rodriguez <norbertorvega@...>
        Date: December 17, 2017 8:02:28 AM PST
        To: undisclosed-recipients:;
        Subject: the Future is Indigenous...

             Hugo Blanco is one the greatest indigenous leaders from Latin America. We all could learn a little bit from his visions.   Here are couple of interviews with him: 




        norberto rodriguez


        Richard Balfour  
        Strategic Planner
        • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

        7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
        Balfour Strategic Planning
        www.plancanada.com

        • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

        balfourarch@...













      • alpert@skil.org
        Jada and Richard (Two people I greatly respect) I am aways afraid to jump into these conversations. 1) the indigenous never had a stable society. Given
        Message 3 of 15 , 18 Dec, 2017
          Jada and Richard     (Two people I greatly respect)

          I am aways afraid to jump into these conversations.


          1) the indigenous never had a stable society.

          Given another one or two thousand  years 
          with no intervention from the outside world each tribe world
          would  have ended in our present condition.
          Why, because they are the same genetic stock with just slightly
          different path through their  physical world. 

          What should be made clear in this conversation is that 
          we in our present condition have enough cognitive process
          to know we are not going to make it on our present course. 

          For the result of 7.6 billion sets of behavior to direct 
          a course toward a sustainable
          we need a new social contract with additional 
          constraints on normal personal behavior. 

          Normal behavior won’t cut it and we know it. 

          the ball is in our court…..

          for my solution. 

          I would be glad to read anyone’s else'’s.

          comments welcome. 

          jack
            



          Jack Alpert      PhD   Director:
          Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory    http://www.skil.org
          (C) 913 708 2554      alpert@...     skype: SKILdog
          13617 W. 48th Street Shawnee, KS  66216





          On Dec 18, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


          Richard, thanks for sending. 

          Although I fully empathize with Blanco's views, I don't think the near-term future will be "indigenous" for the mass of humanity. But the past certainly was. As obvious as it is, this fact is rarely conceded by current "environmentalists" or anybody else.

          How pathetic it is for Moderns to cast about, frantically seeking "models of sustainability," when it was we Moderns who intentionally annihilated the last sustainable societies on Earth! Agri-business/industrialism -- and all its vaunted accomplishments, cultural, scientific, and technological -- has indeed produced innumerable artifacts that might have been convenientfor humans living in "indigenous" sustainable societies 12,000 years ago. But it has never produced a single thing necessary for the survival of those societies. Quite the opposite.

          Considering this self-evident fact, it appears that human "progress" since the advent of civilization has been only a series of vain attempts to solve the problems it has caused. Moreover, civilization -- not being satisfied with even that astronomical level of futility -- has now "progressed" to inventing even more problematic solutions for problems that do not even exist: choose your favorite lethal pharmaceutical or addictive smartphone as examples.

          So, yeah, Blanco is on to something big. But like Marx, I'm afraid he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope: global society in general is not reverting inexorably toward "indigenous" communalism, but "progressing" catastrophically away from it.

          Jada 

             


          On Sunday, December 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


           


          Begin forwarded message:

          From: Norberto Rodriguez <norbertorvega@...>
          Date: December 17, 2017 8:02:28 AM PST
          To: undisclosed-recipients:;
          Subject: the Future is Indigenous...

               Hugo Blanco is one the greatest indigenous leaders from Latin America. We all could learn a little bit from his visions.   Here are couple of interviews with him:  




          norberto rodriguez


          Richard Balfour  
          Strategic Planner
          • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

          7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
          Balfour Strategic Planning
          www.plancanada.com

          • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

          balfourarch@...















        • Jada Thacker
          Hello again Jack. I don t think your views and mine are incompatible.  Your assumption that all communal societies would have eventually evolved into
          Message 4 of 15 , 18 Dec, 2017
            Hello again Jack. I don't think your views and mine are incompatible. 

            Your assumption that all communal societies would have eventually evolved into civilized (hierarchical) societies may well be valid. But, at the time of their extinction, they had not yet done so -- although they had existed for about 300,000 years. My point is that hierarchical societies, which have existed for about  3% of our species' lifespan, destroyed the much longer-lived communal societies, thus precluding their further evolution. Whether or not their further social evolution would have occurred, and why, is a matter of conjecture. 

            The fact appears to be that human societies have demonstrated a proclivity to evolve toward less survival forms than those from which the originated. As you say, this self-destructive may be genetically determined, but I cannot imagine how such a genetic determinant could have evolved, given current consensus on the function of natural selection.

            That said, I believe your point about humans now needing "a new social contract with additional constraints on normal personal behavior" is exactly right. But why should we expect a species that has for 10,000 years demonstrated its proclivity to "evolve toward extinction" to do any such thing -- and over a time frame of decades, no less?

            The "social contract" of communalism was that the survival of the (usually consanguine) group took precedence over individual liberty This was necessary accomplished voluntarily, because no legitimate coercive power existed. The "social contract" of hierarchy is that the survival of the leadership (royalty, the state, corporations) takes precedence over individual liberty. This in every case has required the use of coercive power over he follower-ship.

            So it seems to me that, while we both agree on the need for "additional constraints on normal personal behavior," the question of whose behavior we are talking about is of paramount importance. In the present world, where just eight men have the same economic power as approximately the poorest 3.3 billion humans, the answer to the question seems pretty obvious to me. But should we expect those in power to abdicate it for the good of the whole? Not on your life -- literally.

            Jada

             





            On Monday, December 18, 2017 10:56 AM, "'alpert@...' alpert@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


             
            Jada and Richard     (Two people I greatly respect)

            I am aways afraid to jump into these conversations.


            1) the indigenous never had a stable society.

            Given another one or two thousand  years 
            with no intervention from the outside world each tribe world
            would  have ended in our present condition.
            Why, because they are the same genetic stock with just slightly
            different path through their  physical world. 

            What should be made clear in this conversation is that 
            we in our present condition have enough cognitive process
            to know we are not going to make it on our present course. 

            For the result of 7.6 billion sets of behavior to direct 
            a course toward a sustainable
            we need a new social contract with additional 
            constraints on normal personal behavior. 

            Normal behavior won’t cut it and we know it. 

            the ball is in our court…..

            for my solution. 

            I would be glad to read anyone’s else'’s.

            comments welcome. 

            jack
              



            Jack Alpert      PhD   Director:
            Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory    http://www.skil.org
            (C) 913 708 2554      alpert@...     skype: SKILdog
            13617 W. 48th Street Shawnee, KS  66216





            On Dec 18, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


            Richard, thanks for sending. 

            Although I fully empathize with Blanco's views, I don't think the near-term future will be "indigenous" for the mass of humanity. But the past certainly was. As obvious as it is, this fact is rarely conceded by current "environmentalists" or anybody else.

            How pathetic it is for Moderns to cast about, frantically seeking "models of sustainability," when it was we Moderns who intentionally annihilated the last sustainable societies on Earth! Agri-business/industrialism -- and all its vaunted accomplishments, cultural, scientific, and technological -- has indeed produced innumerable artifacts that might have been convenientfor humans living in "indigenous" sustainable societies 12,000 years ago. But it has never produced a single thing necessary for the survival of those societies. Quite the opposite.

            Considering this self-evident fact, it appears that human "progress" since the advent of civilization has been only a series of vain attempts to solve the problems it has caused. Moreover, civilization -- not being satisfied with even that astronomical level of futility -- has now "progressed" to inventing even more problematic solutions for problems that do not even exist: choose your favorite lethal pharmaceutical or addictive smartphone as examples.

            So, yeah, Blanco is on to something big. But like Marx, I'm afraid he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope: global society in general is not reverting inexorably toward "indigenous" communalism, but "progressing" catastrophically away from it.

            Jada 

               


            On Sunday, December 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


             


            Begin forwarded message:

            From: Norberto Rodriguez <norbertorvega@...>
            Date: December 17, 2017 8:02:28 AM PST
            To: undisclosed-recipients:;
            Subject: the Future is Indigenous...

                 Hugo Blanco is one the greatest indigenous leaders from Latin America. We all could learn a little bit from his visions.   Here are couple of interviews with him:  




            norberto rodriguez


            Richard Balfour  
            Strategic Planner
            • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

            7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
            Balfour Strategic Planning
            www.plancanada.com

            • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

            balfourarch@...

















          • Ruben Nelson
            Jada, I write because your post exemplifies how easily we in the Modern world apply concepts to pre-modern peoples as if their mental worlds were essentially
            Message 5 of 15 , 18 Dec, 2017

              Jada,

               

              I write because your post exemplifies how easily we in the Modern world apply concepts to pre-modern peoples as if their mental worlds were essentially like ours, when clearly, they were not.

               

              This is not just a picky point.  It suggests the we moderns have a tendency to systematically misconstrue our experience of pre-modern folks, especially pre-settled folks – whom we see as uncivilized.   The broader question it raises, is this:  If we are comfortable, as we appear to be, with our deep ignorance of the subtle ways that we who are “modern” construe the world, what confidence should we have that our readings of the present have much validity, let alone our readings of the past or our anticipations of the future?

               

              Specifically, you speak of the “social contract” of pre-settled peoples.  I suggest that this is an anachronistic category mistake.  I know of no evidence that pre-settled peoples thought in terms of a social contracts.  Rather, they thought in terms of themselves as “the people” with no concept analogous to our Modern individual.  Without the concept of persons as primordial individuals – a very recent concept even in the “West” – one cannot have a social contract.  Among pre-settled peoples there are no “individual” persons who would make the contract.

               

              Ruben

               

              Ruben Nelson

              Executive Director

              Foresight Canada

              www.foresightcanada.com

               

              FC Logo FINAL colour 123 KB colour

               

               

               

              From: gaiapc@... [mailto:gaiapc@...]
              Sent: December 18, 2017 12:32 PM
              To: gaiapc@...
              Subject: Re: [gaiapc] Fwd: the Future is Indigenous...

               

               

              Hello again Jack. I don't think your views and mine are incompatible. 

               

              Your assumption that all communal societies would have eventually evolved into civilized (hierarchical) societies may well be valid. But, at the time of their extinction, they had not yet done so -- although they had existed for about 300,000 years. My point is that hierarchical societies, which have existed for about  3% of our species' lifespan, destroyed the much longer-lived communal societies, thus precluding their further evolution. Whether or not their further social evolution would have occurred, and why, is a matter of conjecture. 

               

              The fact appears to be that human societies have demonstrated a proclivity to evolve toward less survival forms than those from which the originated. As you say, this self-destructive may be genetically determined, but I cannot imagine how such a genetic determinant could have evolved, given current consensus on the function of natural selection.

               

              That said, I believe your point about humans now needing "a new social contract with additional constraints on normal personal behavior" is exactly right. But why should we expect a species that has for 10,000 years demonstrated its proclivity to "evolve toward extinction" to do any such thing -- and over a time frame of decades, no less?

               

              The "social contract" of communalism was that the survival of the (usually consanguine) group took precedence over individual liberty This was necessary accomplished voluntarily, because no legitimate coercive power existed. The "social contract" of hierarchy is that the survival of the leadership (royalty, the state, corporations) takes precedence over individual liberty. This in every case has required the use of coercive power over he follower-ship.

               

              So it seems to me that, while we both agree on the need for "additional constraints on normal personal behavior," the question of whose behavior we are talking about is of paramount importance. In the present world, where just eight men have the same economic power as approximately the poorest 3.3 billion humans, the answer to the question seems pretty obvious to me. But should we expect those in power to abdicate it for the good of the whole? Not on your life -- literally.

               

              Jada

               

               

               

               

               

               

              On Monday, December 18, 2017 10:56 AM, "'alpert@...' alpert@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:

               

               

              Jada and Richard     (Two people I greatly respect)

               

              I am aways afraid to jump into these conversations.

               

               

              1) the indigenous never had a stable society.

               

              Given another one or two thousand  years 

              with no intervention from the outside world each tribe world

              would  have ended in our present condition.

              Why, because they are the same genetic stock with just slightly

              different path through their  physical world. 

               

              What should be made clear in this conversation is that 

              we in our present condition have enough cognitive process

              to know we are not going to make it on our present course. 

               

              For the result of 7.6 billion sets of behavior to direct 

              a course toward a sustainable

              we need a new social contract with additional 

              constraints on normal personal behavior. 

               

              Normal behavior won’t cut it and we know it. 

               

              the ball is in our court…...

               

              for my solution. 

               

              I would be glad to read anyone’s else'’s.

               

              comments welcome. 

               

              jack

                

               

               

               

              Jack Alpert      PhD   Director:
              Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory    http://www.skil.org
              (C) 913 708 2554      alpert@...     skype: SKILdog
              13617 W. 48th Street Shawnee, KS  66216



               

              On Dec 18, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

               

               

              Richard, thanks for sending.. 

               

              Although I fully empathize with Blanco's views, I don't think the near-term future will be "indigenous" for the mass of humanity. But the past certainly was. As obvious as it is, this fact is rarely conceded by current "environmentalists" or anybody else.

               

              How pathetic it is for Moderns to cast about, frantically seeking "models of sustainability," when it was we Moderns who intentionally annihilated the last sustainable societies on Earth! Agri-business/industrialism -- and all its vaunted accomplishments, cultural, scientific, and technological -- has indeed produced innumerable artifacts that might have been convenientfor humans living in "indigenous" sustainable societies 12,000 years ago. But it has never produced a single thing necessary for the survival of those societies. Quite the opposite.

               

              Considering this self-evident fact, it appears that human "progress" since the advent of civilization has been only a series of vain attempts to solve the problems it has caused. Moreover, civilization -- not being satisfied with even that astronomical level of futility -- has now "progressed" to inventing even more problematic solutions for problems that do not even exist: choose your favorite lethal pharmaceutical or addictive smartphone as examples.

               

              So, yeah, Blanco is on to something big. But like Marx, I'm afraid he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope: global society in general is not reverting inexorably toward "indigenous" communalism, but "progressing" catastrophically away from it.

               

              Jada 

               

                 

               

              On Sunday, December 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:

               

               

               

               

              Begin forwarded message:



              From: Norberto Rodriguez <norbertorvega@...>

              Date: December 17, 2017 8:02:28 AM PST

              To: undisclosed-recipients:;

              Subject: the Future is Indigenous...

               

                   Hugo Blanco is one the greatest indigenous leaders from Latin America. We all could learn a little bit from his visions.   Here are couple of interviews with him:  

               

               

               


              norberto rodriguez

               

               

              Richard Balfour  
              Strategic Planner
              • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

              7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
              Balfour Strategic Planning
              www.plancanada.com

              • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

              balfourarch@...









               

               

               

               

               

            • Stanley N Salthe
              Jada -- Concerning: The fact appears to be that human societies have demonstrated a proclivity to evolve toward less survival forms than those from which they
              Message 6 of 15 , 18 Dec, 2017
                Jada --

                Concerning:
                The fact appears to be that human societies have demonstrated a proclivity to evolve toward less survival forms than those from which they originated. As you say, this self-destructive may be genetically determined, but I cannot imagine how such a genetic determinant could have evolved, given current consensus on the function of natural selection.

                S:  Natural selection 'cannot foresee the future', and works only, as it were, step by step.  So, we look for genetic determinants of behaviors that in the short run (the only cogent 'force') would only gradually (indetectably) parlay into mass social systems. Even while these latter are becoming liminal, individual behaviors could be selected locally that might foster yet more aggregation globally.  I think that what might be of more interest here would be what is known as 'group selection' (still controversial among the neoDarwinians!).  This could involve competition -- ALL selection is competition -- between social groups for you-name-it. The successful strategies would be mediated by folks having genetic determinants that have little to do with individual survival, like, maybe, those demonstrated by trump.

                STAN 

                On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                 

                Hello again Jack. I don't think your views and mine are incompatible. 

                Your assumption that all communal societies would have eventually evolved into civilized (hierarchical) societies may well be valid. But, at the time of their extinction, they had not yet done so -- although they had existed for about 300,000 years. My point is that hierarchical societies, which have existed for about  3% of our species' lifespan, destroyed the much longer-lived communal societies, thus precluding their further evolution. Whether or not their further social evolution would have occurred, and why, is a matter of conjecture. 

                The fact appears to be that human societies have demonstrated a proclivity to evolve toward less survival forms than those from which the originated. As you say, this self-destructive may be genetically determined, but I cannot imagine how such a genetic determinant could have evolved, given current consensus on the function of natural selection.

                That said, I believe your point about humans now needing "a new social contract with additional constraints on normal personal behavior" is exactly right. But why should we expect a species that has for 10,000 years demonstrated its proclivity to "evolve toward extinction" to do any such thing -- and over a time frame of decades, no less?

                The "social contract" of communalism was that the survival of the (usually consanguine) group took precedence over individual liberty This was necessary accomplished voluntarily, because no legitimate coercive power existed. The "social contract" of hierarchy is that the survival of the leadership (royalty, the state, corporations) takes precedence over individual liberty. This in every case has required the use of coercive power over he follower-ship.

                So it seems to me that, while we both agree on the need for "additional constraints on normal personal behavior," the question of whose behavior we are talking about is of paramount importance. In the present world, where just eight men have the same economic power as approximately the poorest 3.3 billion humans, the answer to the question seems pretty obvious to me. But should we expect those in power to abdicate it for the good of the whole? Not on your life -- literally.

                Jada

                 





                On Monday, December 18, 2017 10:56 AM, "'alpert@...' alpert@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                 
                Jada and Richard     (Two people I greatly respect)

                I am aways afraid to jump into these conversations.


                1) the indigenous never had a stable society.

                Given another one or two thousand  years 
                with no intervention from the outside world each tribe world
                would  have ended in our present condition.
                Why, because they are the same genetic stock with just slightly
                different path through their  physical world. 

                What should be made clear in this conversation is that 
                we in our present condition have enough cognitive process
                to know we are not going to make it on our present course. 

                For the result of 7.6 billion sets of behavior to direct 
                a course toward a sustainable
                we need a new social contract with additional 
                constraints on normal personal behavior. 

                Normal behavior won’t cut it and we know it. 

                the ball is in our court…...

                for my solution. 

                I would be glad to read anyone’s else'’s.

                comments welcome. 

                jack
                  



                Jack Alpert      PhD   Director:
                Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory    http://www.skil.org
                (C) 913 708 2554      alpert@...     skype: SKILdog
                13617 W. 48th Street Shawnee, KS  66216





                On Dec 18, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                Richard, thanks for sending.. 

                Although I fully empathize with Blanco's views, I don't think the near-term future will be "indigenous" for the mass of humanity. But the past certainly was. As obvious as it is, this fact is rarely conceded by current "environmentalists" or anybody else.

                How pathetic it is for Moderns to cast about, frantically seeking "models of sustainability," when it was we Moderns who intentionally annihilated the last sustainable societies on Earth! Agri-business/industrialism -- and all its vaunted accomplishments, cultural, scientific, and technological -- has indeed produced innumerable artifacts that might have been convenientfor humans living in "indigenous" sustainable societies 12,000 years ago. But it has never produced a single thing necessary for the survival of those societies. Quite the opposite.

                Considering this self-evident fact, it appears that human "progress" since the advent of civilization has been only a series of vain attempts to solve the problems it has caused. Moreover, civilization -- not being satisfied with even that astronomical level of futility -- has now "progressed" to inventing even more problematic solutions for problems that do not even exist: choose your favorite lethal pharmaceutical or addictive smartphone as examples.

                So, yeah, Blanco is on to something big. But like Marx, I'm afraid he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope: global society in general is not reverting inexorably toward "indigenous" communalism, but "progressing" catastrophically away from it.

                Jada 

                   


                On Sunday, December 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                 


                Begin forwarded message:

                From: Norberto Rodriguez <norbertorvega@...>
                Date: December 17, 2017 8:02:28 AM PST
                To: undisclosed-recipients:;
                Subject: the Future is Indigenous...

                     Hugo Blanco is one the greatest indigenous leaders from Latin America. We all could learn a little bit from his visions.   Here are couple of interviews with him:  




                norberto rodriguez


                Richard Balfour  
                Strategic Planner
                • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                Balfour Strategic Planning
                www.plancanada.com

                • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

                balfourarch@...


















              • Jada Thacker
                Ruben, I agree with you, except for your unwarranted charge of my anachronistic thinking. I do not believe communal people had similar thought processes to
                Message 7 of 15 , 18 Dec, 2017
                  Ruben,

                  I agree with you, except for your unwarranted charge of my anachronistic thinking. I do not believe communal people had similar thought processes to ours at all. In fact, we can do better than believe otherwise. We know they did not.

                  That's an important point: we Moderns don't have to fantasize or presuppose how pre-civilized people lived because we observed very such societies and even studied some of them in some depth before they were extinguished or co-opted. I'm not philosophizing or rhapsodizing about such people, but am drawing comparisons and conclusions based upon Modern, sometimes scientific, empiricism.

                  Do you think I apostrophized the term "social contract" in my previous message for no reason? I did so because I believe the term, as famously laid down by the likes of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, is absolute bunk. To give credit to the existence of such a "social contract" would require a person to believe that a majority of the population voted to allow others to rule over their life and death according to whim. I'd like to count the ballots in that election, but nobody seems able to produce them.

                  Additionally, I do not "see" pre-modern people "as uncivilized." They were absolutely uncivilized because they literally had no "civilization," which is historically defined as a society than has developed cities. ("Civilization" is derived from the Latin "civitas" meaning "city.") In this light for example, North American Indians were not only uncivilized (having no cities), but were also prehistoric (having no written history) and also Stone Age people (having no metallurgy). These are just facts, not value judgments.

                  Jada




                  On Monday, December 18, 2017 2:02 PM, "'Ruben Nelson' RubenNelson@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                   
                  Jada,
                   
                  I write because your post exemplifies how easily we in the Modern world apply concepts to pre-modern peoples as if their mental worlds were essentially like ours, when clearly, they were not.
                   
                  This is not just a picky point.  It suggests the we moderns have a tendency to systematically misconstrue our experience of pre-modern folks, especially pre-settled folks – whom we see as uncivilized.   The broader question it raises, is this:  If we are comfortable, as we appear to be, with our deep ignorance of the subtle ways that we who are “modern” construe the world, what confidence should we have that our readings of the present have much validity, let alone our readings of the past or our anticipations of the future?
                   
                  Specifically, you speak of the “social contract” of pre-settled peoples.  I suggest that this is an anachronistic category mistake.  I know of no evidence that pre-settled peoples thought in terms of a social contracts.  Rather, they thought in terms of themselves as “the people” with no concept analogous to our Modern individual.  Without the concept of persons as primordial individuals – a very recent concept even in the “West” – one cannot have a social contract.  Among pre-settled peoples there are no “individual” persons who would make the contract.
                   
                  Ruben
                   
                  Ruben Nelson
                  Executive Director
                  Foresight Canada
                   
                  FC Logo FINAL colour 123 KB colour
                   
                   
                   
                  From: gaiapc@... [mailto:gaiapc@...]
                  Sent: December 18, 2017 12:32 PM
                  To: gaiapc@...
                  Subject: Re: [gaiapc] Fwd: the Future is Indigenous...
                   
                   
                  Hello again Jack. I don't think your views and mine are incompatible. 
                   
                  Your assumption that all communal societies would have eventually evolved into civilized (hierarchical) societies may well be valid. But, at the time of their extinction, they had not yet done so -- although they had existed for about 300,000 years. My point is that hierarchical societies, which have existed for about  3% of our species' lifespan, destroyed the much longer-lived communal societies, thus precluding their further evolution. Whether or not their further social evolution would have occurred, and why, is a matter of conjecture. 
                   
                  The fact appears to be that human societies have demonstrated a proclivity to evolve toward less survival forms than those from which the originated. As you say, this self-destructive may be genetically determined, but I cannot imagine how such a genetic determinant could have evolved, given current consensus on the function of natural selection.
                   
                  That said, I believe your point about humans now needing "a new social contract with additional constraints on normal personal behavior" is exactly right. But why should we expect a species that has for 10,000 years demonstrated its proclivity to "evolve toward extinction" to do any such thing -- and over a time frame of decades, no less?
                   
                  The "social contract" of communalism was that the survival of the (usually consanguine) group took precedence over individual liberty This was necessary accomplished voluntarily, because no legitimate coercive power existed. The "social contract" of hierarchy is that the survival of the leadership (royalty, the state, corporations) takes precedence over individual liberty. This in every case has required the use of coercive power over he follower-ship.
                   
                  So it seems to me that, while we both agree on the need for "additional constraints on normal personal behavior," the question of whose behavior we are talking about is of paramount importance. In the present world, where just eight men have the same economic power as approximately the poorest 3.3 billion humans, the answer to the question seems pretty obvious to me. But should we expect those in power to abdicate it for the good of the whole? Not on your life -- literally.
                   
                  Jada
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                  On Monday, December 18, 2017 10:56 AM, "'alpert@...' alpert@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                   
                   
                  Jada and Richard     (Two people I greatly respect)
                   
                  I am aways afraid to jump into these conversations.
                   
                   
                  1) the indigenous never had a stable society.
                   
                  Given another one or two thousand  years 
                  with no intervention from the outside world each tribe world
                  would  have ended in our present condition.
                  Why, because they are the same genetic stock with just slightly
                  different path through their  physical world. 
                   
                  What should be made clear in this conversation is that 
                  we in our present condition have enough cognitive process
                  to know we are not going to make it on our present course. 
                   
                  For the result of 7.6 billion sets of behavior to direct 
                  a course toward a sustainable
                  we need a new social contract with additional 
                  constraints on normal personal behavior. 
                   
                  Normal behavior won’t cut it and we know it. 
                   
                  the ball is in our court…...
                   
                  for my solution. 
                   
                  I would be glad to read anyone’s else'’s.
                   
                  comments welcome. 
                   
                  jack
                    
                   
                   
                   
                  Jack Alpert      PhD   Director:
                  Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory    http://www.skil.org
                  (C) 913 708 2554      alpert@...     skype: SKILdog
                  13617 W. 48th Street Shawnee, KS  66216



                   
                  On Dec 18, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                   
                   
                  Richard, thanks for sending.. 
                   
                  Although I fully empathize with Blanco's views, I don't think the near-term future will be "indigenous" for the mass of humanity. But the past certainly was. As obvious as it is, this fact is rarely conceded by current "environmentalists" or anybody else.
                   
                  How pathetic it is for Moderns to cast about, frantically seeking "models of sustainability," when it was we Moderns who intentionally annihilated the last sustainable societies on Earth! Agri-business/industrialism -- and all its vaunted accomplishments, cultural, scientific, and technological -- has indeed produced innumerable artifacts that might have been convenientfor humans living in "indigenous" sustainable societies 12,000 years ago. But it has never produced a single thing necessary for the survival of those societies. Quite the opposite.
                   
                  Considering this self-evident fact, it appears that human "progress" since the advent of civilization has been only a series of vain attempts to solve the problems it has caused. Moreover, civilization -- not being satisfied with even that astronomical level of futility -- has now "progressed" to inventing even more problematic solutions for problems that do not even exist: choose your favorite lethal pharmaceutical or addictive smartphone as examples.
                   
                  So, yeah, Blanco is on to something big. But like Marx, I'm afraid he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope: global society in general is not reverting inexorably toward "indigenous" communalism, but "progressing" catastrophically away from it.
                   
                  Jada 
                   
                     
                   
                  On Sunday, December 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                   
                   
                   
                   
                  Begin forwarded message:


                  From: Norberto Rodriguez <norbertorvega@...>
                  Date: December 17, 2017 8:02:28 AM PST
                  To: undisclosed-recipients:;
                  Subject: the Future is Indigenous...
                   
                       Hugo Blanco is one the greatest indigenous leaders from Latin America. We all could learn a little bit from his visions.   Here are couple of interviews with him:  
                   
                   
                   

                  norberto rodriguez
                   
                   
                  Richard Balfour  
                  Strategic Planner
                  • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                  7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                  Balfour Strategic Planning
                  www.plancanada.com

                  • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

                  balfourarch@...









                   
                   
                   
                   
                   


                • Peter Venton
                  Jada, Immanuel Kant who wrote a century after Hobbes identified the idea of universal rights as the product on an enlightened consciousness on the part of a
                  Message 8 of 15 , 18 Dec, 2017

                    Jada,

                    Immanuel Kant who wrote a century after Hobbes identified the idea of universal rights as the product on an enlightened consciousness on the part of a progressive species that has become capable of erecting self-governing institutions that recognize the primacy of right (e.g. the right to peace or a sustainable environment). In Kant’s view, rights are universal because they defend the fundamental autonomy of all people and they can be known by everyone who is rational.  The problem is the portion of the species who are enlightened is a minority unable to advance/educate/govern the majority. Perhaps there was a time in Ancient Athens when conditions might have been otherwise.  Good citizenship makes it possible and Locke’s prescriptions were universal education for all in good citizenship – the implicit prerequisite for enlightenment.   As one of our modern Canadian leaders has said, without good citizenship the game is given over to corporations and spin doctors.

                     

                    Peter

                     

                    From: gaiapc@... [mailto:gaiapc@...]
                    Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 4:14 PM
                    To: gaiapc@...
                    Subject: Re: [gaiapc] Fwd: the Future is Indigenous...

                     

                     

                    Ruben,

                     

                    I agree with you, except for your unwarranted charge of my anachronistic thinking. I do not believe communal people had similar thought processes to ours at all. In fact, we can do better than believe otherwise. We know they did not.

                     

                    That's an important point: we Moderns don't have to fantasize or presuppose how pre-civilized people lived because we observed very such societies and even studied some of them in some depth before they were extinguished or co-opted. I'm not philosophizing or rhapsodizing about such people, but am drawing comparisons and conclusions based upon Modern, sometimes scientific, empiricism.

                     

                    Do you think I apostrophized the term "social contract" in my previous message for no reason? I did so because I believe the term, as famously laid down by the likes of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, is absolute bunk. To give credit to the existence of such a "social contract" would require a person to believe that a majority of the population voted to allow others to rule over their life and death according to whim. I'd like to count the ballots in that election, but nobody seems able to produce them.

                     

                    Additionally, I do not "see" pre-modern people "as uncivilized." They were absolutely uncivilized because they literally had no "civilization," which is historically defined as a society than has developed cities. ("Civilization" is derived from the Latin "civitas" meaning "city.") In this light for example, North American Indians were not only uncivilized (having no cities), but were also prehistoric (having no written history) and also Stone Age people (having no metallurgy). These are just facts, not value judgments.

                     

                    Jada

                     

                     

                     

                    On Monday, December 18, 2017 2:02 PM, "'Ruben Nelson' RubenNelson@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                     

                     

                    Jada,

                     

                    I write because your post exemplifies how easily we in the Modern world apply concepts to pre-modern peoples as if their mental worlds were essentially like ours, when clearly, they were not.

                     

                    This is not just a picky point.  It suggests the we moderns have a tendency to systematically misconstrue our experience of pre-modern folks, especially pre-settled folks – whom we see as uncivilized.   The broader question it raises, is this:  If we are comfortable, as we appear to be, with our deep ignorance of the subtle ways that we who are “modern” construe the world, what confidence should we have that our readings of the present have much validity, let alone our readings of the past or our anticipations of the future?

                     

                    Specifically, you speak of the “social contract” of pre-settled peoples.  I suggest that this is an anachronistic category mistake.  I know of no evidence that pre-settled peoples thought in terms of a social contracts.  Rather, they thought in terms of themselves as “the people” with no concept analogous to our Modern individual.  Without the concept of persons as primordial individuals – a very recent concept even in the “West” – one cannot have a social contract.  Among pre-settled peoples there are no “individual” persons who would make the contract.

                     

                    Ruben

                     

                    Ruben Nelson

                    Executive Director

                    Foresight Canada

                     

                    FC Logo FINAL colour 123 KB colour

                     

                     

                     

                    From: gaiapc@... [mailto:gaiapc@...]
                    Sent: December 18, 2017 12:32 PM
                    To: gaiapc@...
                    Subject: Re: [gaiapc] Fwd: the Future is Indigenous...

                     

                     

                    Hello again Jack. I don't think your views and mine are incompatible. 

                     

                    Your assumption that all communal societies would have eventually evolved into civilized (hierarchical) societies may well be valid. But, at the time of their extinction, they had not yet done so -- although they had existed for about 300,000 years. My point is that hierarchical societies, which have existed for about  3% of our species' lifespan, destroyed the much longer-lived communal societies, thus precluding their further evolution. Whether or not their further social evolution would have occurred, and why, is a matter of conjecture. 

                     

                    The fact appears to be that human societies have demonstrated a proclivity to evolve toward less survival forms than those from which the originated. As you say, this self-destructive may be genetically determined, but I cannot imagine how such a genetic determinant could have evolved, given current consensus on the function of natural selection.

                     

                    That said, I believe your point about humans now needing "a new social contract with additional constraints on normal personal behavior" is exactly right. But why should we expect a species that has for 10,000 years demonstrated its proclivity to "evolve toward extinction" to do any such thing -- and over a time frame of decades, no less?

                     

                    The "social contract" of communalism was that the survival of the (usually consanguine) group took precedence over individual liberty This was necessary accomplished voluntarily, because no legitimate coercive power existed. The "social contract" of hierarchy is that the survival of the leadership (royalty, the state, corporations) takes precedence over individual liberty. This in every case has required the use of coercive power over he follower-ship.

                     

                    So it seems to me that, while we both agree on the need for "additional constraints on normal personal behavior," the question of whose behavior we are talking about is of paramount importance. In the present world, where just eight men have the same economic power as approximately the poorest 3.3 billion humans, the answer to the question seems pretty obvious to me. But should we expect those in power to abdicate it for the good of the whole? Not on your life -- literally.

                     

                    Jada

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                    On Monday, December 18, 2017 10:56 AM, "'alpert@...' alpert@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                     

                     

                    Jada and Richard     (Two people I greatly respect)

                     

                    I am aways afraid to jump into these conversations.

                     

                     

                    1) the indigenous never had a stable society.

                     

                    Given another one or two thousand  years 

                    with no intervention from the outside world each tribe world

                    would  have ended in our present condition.

                    Why, because they are the same genetic stock with just slightly

                    different path through their  physical world. 

                     

                    What should be made clear in this conversation is that 

                    we in our present condition have enough cognitive process

                    to know we are not going to make it on our present course. 

                     

                    For the result of 7.6 billion sets of behavior to direct 

                    a course toward a sustainable

                    we need a new social contract with additional 

                    constraints on normal personal behavior. 

                     

                    Normal behavior won’t cut it and we know it. 

                     

                    the ball is in our court…...

                     

                    for my solution. 

                     

                    I would be glad to read anyone’s else'’s.

                     

                    comments welcome. 

                     

                    jack

                      

                     

                     

                     

                    Jack Alpert      PhD   Director:
                    Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory    http://www.skil.org
                    (C) 913 708 2554      alpert@...     skype: SKILdog
                    13617 W. 48th Street Shawnee, KS  66216


                     

                    On Dec 18, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                     

                     

                    Richard, thanks for sending.. 

                     

                    Although I fully empathize with Blanco's views, I don't think the near-term future will be "indigenous" for the mass of humanity. But the past certainly was. As obvious as it is, this fact is rarely conceded by current "environmentalists" or anybody else.

                     

                    How pathetic it is for Moderns to cast about, frantically seeking "models of sustainability," when it was we Moderns who intentionally annihilated the last sustainable societies on Earth! Agri-business/industrialism -- and all its vaunted accomplishments, cultural, scientific, and technological -- has indeed produced innumerable artifacts that might have been convenientfor humans living in "indigenous" sustainable societies 12,000 years ago. But it has never produced a single thing necessary for the survival of those societies. Quite the opposite.

                     

                    Considering this self-evident fact, it appears that human "progress" since the advent of civilization has been only a series of vain attempts to solve the problems it has caused. Moreover, civilization -- not being satisfied with even that astronomical level of futility -- has now "progressed" to inventing even more problematic solutions for problems that do not even exist: choose your favorite lethal pharmaceutical or addictive smartphone as examples.

                     

                    So, yeah, Blanco is on to something big. But like Marx, I'm afraid he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope: global society in general is not reverting inexorably toward "indigenous" communalism, but "progressing" catastrophically away from it.

                     

                    Jada 

                     

                       

                     

                    On Sunday, December 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                     

                     

                     

                     

                    Begin forwarded message:

                     

                    From: Norberto Rodriguez <norbertorvega@...>

                    Date: December 17, 2017 8:02:28 AM PST

                    To: undisclosed-recipients:;

                    Subject: the Future is Indigenous...

                     

                         Hugo Blanco is one the greatest indigenous leaders from Latin America. We all could learn a little bit from his visions.   Here are couple of interviews with him:  

                     

                     

                     


                    norberto rodriguez

                     

                     

                    Richard Balfour  
                    Strategic Planner
                    • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                    7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                    Balfour Strategic Planning
                    www.plancanada.com

                    • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

                    balfourarch@...








                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                  • Jada Thacker
                    Yes, Stan, exactly so: natural selection cannot foresee the future. This is why I am dubious of any claim that humans are somehow more genetically determined
                    Message 9 of 15 , 18 Dec, 2017
                      Yes, Stan, exactly so: "natural selection cannot foresee the future." This is why I am dubious of any claim that humans are somehow more genetically determined to "fail" compared to any other organism. We are the evolutionary product of our past behavior -- which evidently worked, but only in the environment that then existed, or we would not be alive today. I don't think humans have a genetic determinant for failure, but that humans have a genetic ability to discover and open a sequence of Pandora's boxes that effectively change our productive and reproductive environment: how to make tools, fire, agriculture, fossil-fueled industrialism, drugs, nuclear power.

                      So I don't believe our genetic evolution determined what we would do, only our ability to discover how to do it. If memory serves, the ability to discover stuff un-discoverable to other living things is what got Adam and Eve fired from a pretty sweet gig.


                      On Monday, December 18, 2017 2:45 PM, "Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                       
                      Jada --

                      Concerning:
                      The fact appears to be that human societies have demonstrated a proclivity to evolve toward less survival forms than those from which they originated. As you say, this self-destructive may be genetically determined, but I cannot imagine how such a genetic determinant could have evolved, given current consensus on the function of natural selection.

                      S:  Natural selection 'cannot foresee the future', and works only, as it were, step by step.  So, we look for genetic determinants of behaviors that in the short run (the only cogent 'force') would only gradually (indetectably) parlay into mass social systems. Even while these latter are becoming liminal, individual behaviors could be selected locally that might foster yet more aggregation globally.  I think that what might be of more interest here would be what is known as 'group selection' (still controversial among the neoDarwinians!).  This could involve competition -- ALL selection is competition -- between social groups for you-name-it. The successful strategies would be mediated by folks having genetic determinants that have little to do with individual survival, like, maybe, those demonstrated by trump.

                      STAN 

                      On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                       
                      Hello again Jack. I don't think your views and mine are incompatible. 

                      Your assumption that all communal societies would have eventually evolved into civilized (hierarchical) societies may well be valid. But, at the time of their extinction, they had not yet done so -- although they had existed for about 300,000 years. My point is that hierarchical societies, which have existed for about  3% of our species' lifespan, destroyed the much longer-lived communal societies, thus precluding their further evolution. Whether or not their further social evolution would have occurred, and why, is a matter of conjecture. 

                      The fact appears to be that human societies have demonstrated a proclivity to evolve toward less survival forms than those from which the originated. As you say, this self-destructive may be genetically determined, but I cannot imagine how such a genetic determinant could have evolved, given current consensus on the function of natural selection.

                      That said, I believe your point about humans now needing "a new social contract with additional constraints on normal personal behavior" is exactly right. But why should we expect a species that has for 10,000 years demonstrated its proclivity to "evolve toward extinction" to do any such thing -- and over a time frame of decades, no less?

                      The "social contract" of communalism was that the survival of the (usually consanguine) group took precedence over individual liberty This was necessary accomplished voluntarily, because no legitimate coercive power existed. The "social contract" of hierarchy is that the survival of the leadership (royalty, the state, corporations) takes precedence over individual liberty. This in every case has required the use of coercive power over he follower-ship.

                      So it seems to me that, while we both agree on the need for "additional constraints on normal personal behavior," the question of whose behavior we are talking about is of paramount importance. In the present world, where just eight men have the same economic power as approximately the poorest 3.3 billion humans, the answer to the question seems pretty obvious to me. But should we expect those in power to abdicate it for the good of the whole? Not on your life -- literally.

                      Jada

                       





                      On Monday, December 18, 2017 10:56 AM, "'alpert@...' alpert@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                       
                      Jada and Richard     (Two people I greatly respect)

                      I am aways afraid to jump into these conversations.


                      1) the indigenous never had a stable society.

                      Given another one or two thousand  years 
                      with no intervention from the outside world each tribe world
                      would  have ended in our present condition.
                      Why, because they are the same genetic stock with just slightly
                      different path through their  physical world. 

                      What should be made clear in this conversation is that 
                      we in our present condition have enough cognitive process
                      to know we are not going to make it on our present course. 

                      For the result of 7.6 billion sets of behavior to direct 
                      a course toward a sustainable
                      we need a new social contract with additional 
                      constraints on normal personal behavior. 

                      Normal behavior won’t cut it and we know it. 

                      the ball is in our court…...

                      for my solution. 

                      I would be glad to read anyone’s else'’s.

                      comments welcome. 

                      jack
                        



                      Jack Alpert      PhD   Director:
                      Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory    http://www.skil.org
                      (C) 913 708 2554      alpert@...     skype: SKILdog
                      13617 W. 48th Street Shawnee, KS  66216





                      On Dec 18, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                      Richard, thanks for sending.. 

                      Although I fully empathize with Blanco's views, I don't think the near-term future will be "indigenous" for the mass of humanity. But the past certainly was. As obvious as it is, this fact is rarely conceded by current "environmentalists" or anybody else.

                      How pathetic it is for Moderns to cast about, frantically seeking "models of sustainability," when it was we Moderns who intentionally annihilated the last sustainable societies on Earth! Agri-business/industrialism -- and all its vaunted accomplishments, cultural, scientific, and technological -- has indeed produced innumerable artifacts that might have been convenientfor humans living in "indigenous" sustainable societies 12,000 years ago. But it has never produced a single thing necessary for the survival of those societies. Quite the opposite.

                      Considering this self-evident fact, it appears that human "progress" since the advent of civilization has been only a series of vain attempts to solve the problems it has caused. Moreover, civilization -- not being satisfied with even that astronomical level of futility -- has now "progressed" to inventing even more problematic solutions for problems that do not even exist: choose your favorite lethal pharmaceutical or addictive smartphone as examples.

                      So, yeah, Blanco is on to something big. But like Marx, I'm afraid he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope: global society in general is not reverting inexorably toward "indigenous" communalism, but "progressing" catastrophically away from it.

                      Jada 

                         


                      On Sunday, December 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                       


                      Begin forwarded message:

                      From: Norberto Rodriguez <norbertorvega@...>
                      Date: December 17, 2017 8:02:28 AM PST
                      To: undisclosed-recipients:;
                      Subject: the Future is Indigenous...

                           Hugo Blanco is one the greatest indigenous leaders from Latin America. We all could learn a little bit from his visions.   Here are couple of interviews with him:  




                      norberto rodriguez


                      Richard Balfour  
                      Strategic Planner
                      • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                      7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                      Balfour Strategic Planning
                      www.plancanada.com

                      • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

                      balfourarch@...




















                    • Jada Thacker
                      Peter, I am not an expert on Kant. But, with all due respect to his philosophical reputation, he is not regarded as the mentor of the German Idealist school
                      Message 10 of 15 , 18 Dec, 2017
                        Peter,

                        I am not an expert on Kant. But, with all due respect to his philosophical reputation, he is not regarded as the mentor of the German Idealist school for nothing. In my view, he hardly "identified the idea of universal rights as the product on an enlightened consciousness on the part of a progressive species...[etc.]" He did not "identify" anything; he just made this stuff up off the top of his head, just like Hobbes's armchair theory about the egregious behavior of "man in a state of nature," and Locke's fantasy about "natural law" bequeathing "natural rights" -- but apparently only to humans who were not owned by others. Same for the Ancient Greek idealism that conveniently ignores inconvenient facts about how the elite of their class-based agricultural societies got fed, including themselves.

                        I hold that society does not subsist upon ideas, words, beliefs, and especially not money. It subsists upon energy resources. How it subsists depends upon who controls the energy resources available to them and to those of others. As for Kant's "universal rights," I will counter with the admittedly crass rejoinder: "when you have them by the balls, their heads will follow."  Ideally, this dynamic should not prevail. Materialistically, it is the only thing that does. Please don't shoot the messenger, here. Reality wasn't my idea.

                        We all gotta eat, rights notwithstanding. And Kant didn't die of starvation. I hope we can agree on that.

                        Jada 








                        On Monday, December 18, 2017 6:34 PM, "'Peter Venton' peter.venton@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                         
                        Jada,
                        Immanuel Kant who wrote a century after Hobbes identified the idea of universal rights as the product on an enlightened consciousness on the part of a progressive species that has become capable of erecting self-governing institutions that recognize the primacy of right (e.g. the right to peace or a sustainable environment). In Kant’s view, rights are universal because they defend the fundamental autonomy of all people and they can be known by everyone who is rational.  The problem is the portion of the species who are enlightened is a minority unable to advance/educate/govern the majority. Perhaps there was a time in Ancient Athens when conditions might have been otherwise.  Good citizenship makes it possible and Locke’s prescriptions were universal education for all in good citizenship – the implicit prerequisite for enlightenment.   As one of our modern Canadian leaders has said, without good citizenship the game is given over to corporations and spin doctors.
                         
                        Peter
                         
                        From: gaiapc@... [mailto:gaiapc@...]
                        Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 4:14 PM
                        To: gaiapc@...
                        Subject: Re: [gaiapc] Fwd: the Future is Indigenous...
                         
                         
                        Ruben,
                         
                        I agree with you, except for your unwarranted charge of my anachronistic thinking. I do not believe communal people had similar thought processes to ours at all. In fact, we can do better than believe otherwise. We know they did not.
                         
                        That's an important point: we Moderns don't have to fantasize or presuppose how pre-civilized people lived because we observed very such societies and even studied some of them in some depth before they were extinguished or co-opted. I'm not philosophizing or rhapsodizing about such people, but am drawing comparisons and conclusions based upon Modern, sometimes scientific, empiricism.
                         
                        Do you think I apostrophized the term "social contract" in my previous message for no reason? I did so because I believe the term, as famously laid down by the likes of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, is absolute bunk. To give credit to the existence of such a "social contract" would require a person to believe that a majority of the population voted to allow others to rule over their life and death according to whim. I'd like to count the ballots in that election, but nobody seems able to produce them.
                         
                        Additionally, I do not "see" pre-modern people "as uncivilized." They were absolutely uncivilized because they literally had no "civilization," which is historically defined as a society than has developed cities. ("Civilization" is derived from the Latin "civitas" meaning "city.") In this light for example, North American Indians were not only uncivilized (having no cities), but were also prehistoric (having no written history) and also Stone Age people (having no metallurgy). These are just facts, not value judgments.
                         
                        Jada
                         
                         
                         
                        On Monday, December 18, 2017 2:02 PM, "'Ruben Nelson' RubenNelson@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                         
                         
                        Jada,
                         
                        I write because your post exemplifies how easily we in the Modern world apply concepts to pre-modern peoples as if their mental worlds were essentially like ours, when clearly, they were not.
                         
                        This is not just a picky point.  It suggests the we moderns have a tendency to systematically misconstrue our experience of pre-modern folks, especially pre-settled folks – whom we see as uncivilized.   The broader question it raises, is this:  If we are comfortable, as we appear to be, with our deep ignorance of the subtle ways that we who are “modern” construe the world, what confidence should we have that our readings of the present have much validity, let alone our readings of the past or our anticipations of the future?
                         
                        Specifically, you speak of the “social contract” of pre-settled peoples.  I suggest that this is an anachronistic category mistake.  I know of no evidence that pre-settled peoples thought in terms of a social contracts.  Rather, they thought in terms of themselves as “the people” with no concept analogous to our Modern individual.  Without the concept of persons as primordial individuals – a very recent concept even in the “West” – one cannot have a social contract.  Among pre-settled peoples there are no “individual” persons who would make the contract.
                         
                        Ruben
                         
                        Ruben Nelson
                        Executive Director
                        Foresight Canada
                         
                        FC Logo FINAL colour 123 KB colour
                         
                         
                         
                        From: gaiapc@... [mailto:gaiapc@...]
                        Sent: December 18, 2017 12:32 PM
                        To: gaiapc@...
                        Subject: Re: [gaiapc] Fwd: the Future is Indigenous...
                         
                         
                        Hello again Jack. I don't think your views and mine are incompatible. 
                         
                        Your assumption that all communal societies would have eventually evolved into civilized (hierarchical) societies may well be valid. But, at the time of their extinction, they had not yet done so -- although they had existed for about 300,000 years. My point is that hierarchical societies, which have existed for about  3% of our species' lifespan, destroyed the much longer-lived communal societies, thus precluding their further evolution. Whether or not their further social evolution would have occurred, and why, is a matter of conjecture. 
                         
                        The fact appears to be that human societies have demonstrated a proclivity to evolve toward less survival forms than those from which the originated. As you say, this self-destructive may be genetically determined, but I cannot imagine how such a genetic determinant could have evolved, given current consensus on the function of natural selection.
                         
                        That said, I believe your point about humans now needing "a new social contract with additional constraints on normal personal behavior" is exactly right. But why should we expect a species that has for 10,000 years demonstrated its proclivity to "evolve toward extinction" to do any such thing -- and over a time frame of decades, no less?
                         
                        The "social contract" of communalism was that the survival of the (usually consanguine) group took precedence over individual liberty This was necessary accomplished voluntarily, because no legitimate coercive power existed. The "social contract" of hierarchy is that the survival of the leadership (royalty, the state, corporations) takes precedence over individual liberty. This in every case has required the use of coercive power over he follower-ship.
                         
                        So it seems to me that, while we both agree on the need for "additional constraints on normal personal behavior," the question of whose behavior we are talking about is of paramount importance. In the present world, where just eight men have the same economic power as approximately the poorest 3.3 billion humans, the answer to the question seems pretty obvious to me. But should we expect those in power to abdicate it for the good of the whole? Not on your life -- literally.
                         
                        Jada
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                        On Monday, December 18, 2017 10:56 AM, "'alpert@...' alpert@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                         
                         
                        Jada and Richard     (Two people I greatly respect)
                         
                        I am aways afraid to jump into these conversations.
                         
                         
                        1) the indigenous never had a stable society.
                         
                        Given another one or two thousand  years 
                        with no intervention from the outside world each tribe world
                        would  have ended in our present condition.
                        Why, because they are the same genetic stock with just slightly
                        different path through their  physical world. 
                         
                        What should be made clear in this conversation is that 
                        we in our present condition have enough cognitive process
                        to know we are not going to make it on our present course. 
                         
                        For the result of 7.6 billion sets of behavior to direct 
                        a course toward a sustainable
                        we need a new social contract with additional 
                        constraints on normal personal behavior. 
                         
                        Normal behavior won’t cut it and we know it. 
                         
                        the ball is in our court…...
                         
                        for my solution. 
                         
                        I would be glad to read anyone’s else'’s.
                         
                        comments welcome. 
                         
                        jack
                          
                         
                         
                         
                        Jack Alpert      PhD   Director:
                        Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory    http://www.skil.org
                        (C) 913 708 2554      alpert@...     skype: SKILdog
                        13617 W. 48th Street Shawnee, KS  66216


                         
                        On Dec 18, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                         
                         
                        Richard, thanks for sending.. 
                         
                        Although I fully empathize with Blanco's views, I don't think the near-term future will be "indigenous" for the mass of humanity. But the past certainly was. As obvious as it is, this fact is rarely conceded by current "environmentalists" or anybody else.
                         
                        How pathetic it is for Moderns to cast about, frantically seeking "models of sustainability," when it was we Moderns who intentionally annihilated the last sustainable societies on Earth! Agri-business/industrialism -- and all its vaunted accomplishments, cultural, scientific, and technological -- has indeed produced innumerable artifacts that might have been convenientfor humans living in "indigenous" sustainable societies 12,000 years ago. But it has never produced a single thing necessary for the survival of those societies. Quite the opposite.
                         
                        Considering this self-evident fact, it appears that human "progress" since the advent of civilization has been only a series of vain attempts to solve the problems it has caused. Moreover, civilization -- not being satisfied with even that astronomical level of futility -- has now "progressed" to inventing even more problematic solutions for problems that do not even exist: choose your favorite lethal pharmaceutical or addictive smartphone as examples.
                         
                        So, yeah, Blanco is on to something big. But like Marx, I'm afraid he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope: global society in general is not reverting inexorably toward "indigenous" communalism, but "progressing" catastrophically away from it.
                         
                        Jada 
                         
                           
                         
                        On Sunday, December 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                         
                         
                         
                         
                        Begin forwarded message:
                         
                        From: Norberto Rodriguez <norbertorvega@...>
                        Date: December 17, 2017 8:02:28 AM PST
                        To: undisclosed-recipients:;
                        Subject: the Future is Indigenous...
                         
                             Hugo Blanco is one the greatest indigenous leaders from Latin America. We all could learn a little bit from his visions.   Here are couple of interviews with him:  
                         
                         
                         

                        norberto rodriguez
                         
                         
                        Richard Balfour  
                        Strategic Planner
                        • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                        7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                        Balfour Strategic Planning
                        www.plancanada.com

                        • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

                        balfourarch@...








                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         


                      • Richard Balfour
                        Jada I agree with your assessment but in some idealistic manner trying to find routes to rediscover paths to the ideal and some pattern of community on the
                        Message 11 of 15 , 19 Dec, 2017
                          Jada
                          I agree with your assessment but in some idealistic manner trying to find routes to rediscover paths to the ideal and some pattern of community on the downslope more in touch with nature, based on no way cities can be sustained and access to land and in a friendly, low tech, low energy mode.  This is something we cannot escape as energy and systems go into melt down, fast or slow.   The hard part is the fact that such futures, even the best of them are a harder life than the present, and hard to sell.  The masses just keep hoping the bad news will end.  This is the Zombie, Mummy, Werewolf Elf set of outlooks. Zombie is unaware and in denial and just says feed me, the Mummy just woke up but has no idea WTF to do, the werewolf mentality is aware, on the move, and looking to harvest what he can on the downslope and the elf, often aware a long time and quietly trying to find his way back to nature in order to survive.  Call it tribal or communal, the move has to be as peaceful and community oriented as possible to succeed.

                          In looking at this bountiful corner of the planet, my earlier numbers on in migration from outside and out migration from the cities was too optimistic, this is not Africa or the tropics, we do have winters, the impact of numbers, the limits to growth applied, the environmental footprint I am testing in a number of ways suggest as we have discussed, is that all places are in overshoot and to accept any more from anywhere is a disaster. Just the same, testing some options going through the bottleneck we are entering, this place might be able to take a doubling under duress if very restrictive approaches to resettlement are applied.  So many paths to failure, few avenues of passage.
                          r

                          On 2017-12-18, at 8:22 AM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] wrote:

                           

                          Richard, thanks for sending. 

                          Although I fully empathize with Blanco's views, I don't think the near-term future will be "indigenous" for the mass of humanity. But the past certainly was. As obvious as it is, this fact is rarely conceded by current "environmentalists" or anybody else.

                          How pathetic it is for Moderns to cast about, frantically seeking "models of sustainability," when it was we Moderns who intentionally annihilated the last sustainable societies on Earth! Agri-business/industrialism -- and all its vaunted accomplishments, cultural, scientific, and technological -- has indeed produced innumerable artifacts that might have been convenient for humans living in "indigenous" sustainable societies 12,000 years ago. But it has never produced a single thing necessary for the survival of those societies. Quite the opposite.

                          Considering this self-evident fact, it appears that human "progress" since the advent of civilization has been only a series of vain attempts to solve the problems it has caused. Moreover, civilization -- not being satisfied with even that astronomical level of futility -- has now "progressed" to inventing even more problematic solutions for problems that do not even exist: choose your favorite lethal pharmaceutical or addictive smartphone as examples.

                          So, yeah, Blanco is on to something big. But like Marx, I'm afraid he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope: global society in general is not reverting inexorably toward "indigenous" communalism, but "progressing" catastrophically away from it.

                          Jada 

                             


                          On Sunday, December 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                           


                          Begin forwarded message:

                          From: Norberto Rodriguez <norbertorvega@...>
                          Date: December 17, 2017 8:02:28 AM PST
                          To: undisclosed-recipients:;
                          Subject: the Future is Indigenous...

                               Hugo Blanco is one the greatest indigenous leaders from Latin America. We all could learn a little bit from his visions.   Here are couple of interviews with him: 




                          norberto rodriguez


                          Richard Balfour  
                          Strategic Planner
                          • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                          7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                          Balfour Strategic Planning
                          www.plancanada.com

                          • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

                          balfourarch@...















                          Richard Balfour  
                          Strategic Planner
                          • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                          7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                          Balfour Strategic Planning
                          www.plancanada.com

                          • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

                          balfourarch@...











                        • Steve Kurtz
                          If you haven’t read this short book of 6 lectures, I recommend that you do. I taught a 6 session short course on it some years ago at the elder college in
                          Message 12 of 15 , 20 Dec, 2017
                            If you haven’t read this short book of 6 lectures, I recommend that you do. I taught a 6 session short course on it some years ago at the elder college in Portland Maine. 


                            Steve

                            On Dec 18, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                            Richard, thanks for sending. 

                            Although I fully empathize with Blanco's views, I don't think the near-term future will be "indigenous" for the mass of humanity. But the past certainly was. As obvious as it is, this fact is rarely conceded by current "environmentalists" or anybody else.

                            How pathetic it is for Moderns to cast about, frantically seeking "models of sustainability," when it was we Moderns who intentionally annihilated the last sustainable societies on Earth! Agri-business/industrialism -- and all its vaunted accomplishments, cultural, scientific, and technological -- has indeed produced innumerable artifacts that might have been convenient for humans living in "indigenous" sustainable societies 12,000 years ago. But it has never produced a single thing necessary for the survival of those societies. Quite the opposite.

                            Considering this self-evident fact, it appears that human "progress" since the advent of civilization has been only a series of vain attempts to solve the problems it has caused. Moreover, civilization -- not being satisfied with even that astronomical level of futility -- has now "progressed" to inventing even more problematic solutions for problems that do not even exist: choose your favorite lethal pharmaceutical or addictive smartphone as examples.

                            So, yeah, Blanco is on to something big. But like Marx, I'm afraid he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope: global society in general is not reverting inexorably toward "indigenous" communalism, but "progressing" catastrophically away from it.

                            Jada 

                               


                            On Sunday, December 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                             


                            Begin forwarded message:

                            From: Norberto Rodriguez <norbertorvega@...>
                            Date: December 17, 2017 8:02:28 AM PST
                            To: undisclosed-recipients:;
                            Subject: the Future is Indigenous...

                                 Hugo Blanco is one the greatest indigenous leaders from Latin America. We all could learn a little bit from his visions.   Here are couple of interviews with him:  




                            norberto rodriguez


                            Richard Balfour  
                            Strategic Planner
                            • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                            7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                            Balfour Strategic Planning
                            www.plancanada.com

                            • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

                            balfourarch@...















                            —————————————
                            Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                            Voltaire (1770)

                          • Steve Kurtz
                            Here’s an intro: https://rauserbegins.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/a-short-history-of-progress.pdf ... ————————————— Doubt is not a
                            Message 13 of 15 , 20 Dec, 2017
                              Here’s an intro:

                              https://rauserbegins.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/a-short-history-of-progress.pdf

                              On Dec 20, 2017, at 6:05 AM, Steve Kurtz <kurtzs@...> wrote:

                              If you haven’t read this short book of 6 lectures, I recommend that you do. I taught a 6 session short course on it some years ago at the elder college in Portland Maine. 

                              —————————————
                              Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                              Voltaire (1770)

                            • alpert@skil.org
                              Richard’s perception of the utility of cities derives from his clear view of a civilization in overshoot. He reports on civilization collapse as.the thing
                              Message 14 of 15 , 20 Dec, 2017
                                Richard’s perception of the utility of cities
                                derives from his clear view of a civilization in overshoot. 

                                He reports on civilization collapse
                                as.the thing coming at him like a freight train. 
                                Not being in a city is like getting off the tracks.

                                However, the same calculations show that cities 
                                in the none overshoot case
                                may be the only way to maintain and expand 
                                science and art and limit conflict.

                                See SKIL Note 100 ==> A Sustainable Civilization     ——   What does a sustainable civilization look like.

                                Cheers

                                jack




                                Jack Alpert      PhD   Director:
                                Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory    http://www.skil.org
                                (C) 913 708 2554      alpert@...     skype: SKILdog
                                13617 W. 48th Street Shawnee, KS  66216





                                On Dec 19, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                Jada

                                I agree with your assessment but in some idealistic manner trying to find routes to rediscover paths to the ideal and some pattern of community on the downslope more in touch with nature, based on no way cities can be sustained and access to land and in a friendly, low tech, low energy mode.  This is something we cannot escape as energy and systems go into melt down, fast or slow.   The hard part is the fact that such futures, even the best of them are a harder life than the present, and hard to sell.  The masses just keep hoping the bad news will end.  This is the Zombie, Mummy, Werewolf Elf set of outlooks. Zombie is unaware and in denial and just says feed me, the Mummy just woke up but has no idea WTF to do, the werewolf mentality is aware, on the move, and looking to harvest what he can on the downslope and the elf, often aware a long time and quietly trying to find his way back to nature in order to survive.  Call it tribal or communal, the move has to be as peaceful and community oriented as possible to succeed.

                                In looking at this bountiful corner of the planet, my earlier numbers on in migration from outside and out migration from the cities was too optimistic, this is not Africa or the tropics, we do have winters, the impact of numbers, the limits to growth applied, the environmental footprint I am testing in a number of ways suggest as we have discussed, is that all places are in overshoot and to accept any more from anywhere is a disaster. Just the same, testing some options going through the bottleneck we are entering, this place might be able to take a doubling under duress if very restrictive approaches to resettlement are applied.  So many paths to failure, few avenues of passage.
                                r

                                On 2017-12-18, at 8:22 AM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] wrote:

                                 

                                Richard, thanks for sending. 

                                Although I fully empathize with Blanco's views, I don't think the near-term future will be "indigenous" for the mass of humanity. But the past certainly was. As obvious as it is, this fact is rarely conceded by current "environmentalists" or anybody else.

                                How pathetic it is for Moderns to cast about, frantically seeking "models of sustainability," when it was we Moderns who intentionally annihilated the last sustainable societies on Earth! Agri-business/industrialism -- and all its vaunted accomplishments, cultural, scientific, and technological -- has indeed produced innumerable artifacts that might have been convenient for humans living in "indigenous" sustainable societies 12,000 years ago. But it has never produced a single thing necessary for the survival of those societies. Quite the opposite.

                                Considering this self-evident fact, it appears that human "progress" since the advent of civilization has been only a series of vain attempts to solve the problems it has caused. Moreover, civilization -- not being satisfied with even that astronomical level of futility -- has now "progressed" to inventing even more problematic solutions for problems that do not even exist: choose your favorite lethal pharmaceutical or addictive smartphone as examples.

                                So, yeah, Blanco is on to something big. But like Marx, I'm afraid he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope: global society in general is not reverting inexorably toward "indigenous" communalism, but "progressing" catastrophically away from it.

                                Jada 

                                   


                                On Sunday, December 17, 2017 1:48 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                 


                                Begin forwarded message:

                                From: Norberto Rodriguez <norbertorvega@...>
                                Date: December 17, 2017 8:02:28 AM PST
                                To: undisclosed-recipients:;
                                Subject: the Future is Indigenous...

                                     Hugo Blanco is one the greatest indigenous leaders from Latin America. We all could learn a little bit from his visions.   Here are couple of interviews with him:  




                                norberto rodriguez


                                Richard Balfour  
                                Strategic Planner
                                • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                                7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                                Balfour Strategic Planning
                                www.plancanada.com

                                • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

                                balfourarch@...















                                Richard Balfour  
                                Strategic Planner
                                • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                                7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                                Balfour Strategic Planning
                                www.plancanada.com

                                • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

                                balfourarch@...













                              • Ruben Nelson
                                Steve is quite right about Ronald Wright. His 2004 Massey Lectures are short, literate, accessible – a mind stretching reflection on the human prospect.
                                Message 15 of 15 , 20 Dec, 2017

                                  Steve is quite right about Ronald Wright.  His 2004 Massey Lectures are short, literate, accessible – a mind stretching reflection on the human prospect.

                                  Ruben

                                   

                                  Ruben Nelson

                                  Executive Director

                                  Foresight Canada

                                  www.foresightcanada.com

                                   

                                  FC Logo FINAL colour 123 KB colour

                                   

                                   

                                   

                                  From: gaiapc@... [mailto:gaiapc@...]
                                  Sent: December 20, 2017 4:09 AM
                                  To: gaiapc@...
                                  Subject: Re: [gaiapc] the Future is Indigenous...

                                   

                                   

                                  Here’s an intro:

                                   

                                  https://rauserbegins.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/a-short-history-of-progress.pdf



                                  On Dec 20, 2017, at 6:05 AM, Steve Kurtz <kurtzs@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  If you haven’t read this short book of 6 lectures, I recommend that you do. I taught a 6 session short course on it some years ago at the elder college in Portland Maine. 

                                   

                                  —————————————

                                  Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                                  Voltaire (1770)

                                   

                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.