Message-ID: <15434.991210@acnet.net> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:25:57 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds <mailto:dmhinds@acnet.net> Subject: Re: Environment-Related Technologies - not babbling To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Kerry Miller, Thursday, December 09, 1999, wrote:KM> I apologize for making you angry and incoherent;
Fat chance. Just as it isn't *me* that makes *you* so blatantly rhetorical.
KM> ... hadn't realized that 'addressing' you would be such a sensitive KM> issue, since all of our posts have been on a public list, where KM> anyone is free -- more than welcome, in fact -- to join the KM> conversation.
Conversation? That's what you call it?
>> KM> It looked for a moment that we had found agreement on the idea that
>> KM> language is in fact a technology like any other;
WE have found agreement on nothing, nor have you made a valid point yet. No one is transferring language technologies in the context of this thread, and if your use of language on this list is so cavalier, it's not surprising it hasn't functioned elsewhere either.
>> KM> that 'transferring' it cannot be a unilateral 'laying down the
>> KM> law' of what is reality,
Language certainly tends to become unilateral when having to deal with someone whose only purpose is gratuitously and groundlessly argumentative, as demonstrated by the content of your previous recent posts to me, but that was not my choice.
All I've accomplished so far where you're concerned is reduce the presence of the mockery and gibberish that has filled your earlier posts to me, and focus your attention on the purpose of both the list and this thread (which I had called for a number of of posts ago) after recently stating my intention to recur to the list's administrator if needed. But I can be satisfied with that, at least.
>> KM> or practical, or 'sensible';
That would be a good place to start: I suggest you at least attempt that!
DH>> We don't transfer it (although we *can* transfer language skills DH>> - but >> that's another issue), we *employ* it to transfer other DH>> things - >> such as sustainable agricultural technology or a DH>> better future for all >> those involved.
KM> You may use it to *point to other things that you believe are sustainable KM> or better, but Im sure you will acknowledge
As usual, you presume an awful lot.
KM> that until one succeeds in establishing that belief on the part of KM> the 'beneficiary,' those things are hardly 'transferred.'
*THAT'S* exactly what this thread was all about. How nice that you finally got to the point. I refer you to my post directed to Turlough Guerin on Oct. 6 and reproduced below. But rather than "belief", my emphasis was on "trust and respect" (which I can highly recommend to *you*), given that it's difficult to believe in anything that's beyond one's own experience.
KM> Frankly, all I had hoped to point out by taking up your note to KM> Turlough was that that simple statement is *recursive.
Your are obviously referring to your own never-sufficiently-simple previous statements, but then that too is typical of the involuted and recursive arguments you seem to favor.
KM> It is not a solution to a problem (or even a tool to apply to a KM> solution) until one has *addressed the transfer of belief -- and KM> (again, I'm sorry to say) pointing to your beliefs, however KM> strongly, does not a transfer make.
No. Nor is any understanding likely to occur when engaged in a fruitless discussion with someone whose motives are not constructive. Once again, I refer you to my post of Oct 6 (which I attach below) with the subject: "Re: Environmental Technology Transfer to China & SE Asia", before casting doubt on my premise: First you must gain the trust of those with whom you're dealing, and that can be done only by demonstrating that one is worthy of that trust, which itself only be done over time.
How nice that after all your meandering you've decided to finally adapt the position I've taken from he start, but it's unfortunate that you so conveniently forget that "detail".
Lastly, although the task of promoting Technology Transfer is central to Turlough's original post, my own work doesn't require any of this, since what I myself do occurs only when contracted to growers who have already asked for Technology Transfer as part of an integral, collaborative package. Therefore, the trust and respect is already there in place.
Also important is the fact that my own presence and function occurs within the context of a *national* (rather than foreign) NGO development organization, which I happen to represent - and as mentioned, when we go in it's because we were invited. We are already beyond the point of whatever lack you have tried to portray (or rather, embody).
>> KM> that not only the *committment of the parties of the first and
>> KM> second parts but the *presence of a third is involved. (Did you
>> KM> 'say' so?
I said that this is sometimes the case, referring to technology transfer (not language transfer, which was *your* last postulation). The point being, if someone (like you) hasn't earned the trust of those with whom you must deal, it's wise to enlist the help of those who *have* already earned that trust.
In my own case, involving another third party sometimes occurs at the Organizational level - rather than at a Technology Transfer level, since our projects are instituted exclusively with legally constituted entities and where these do not yet exist, we help the growers form them.
This may occur in conjunction with one of the established larger entities dedicated to the activity of farm group organization itself. These are known here as Leagues, Syndicates, Unions or Farmer Centrals. However, while potentially powerful, dealing with these organisms occurs in an extremely delicate environment, due to the variety and nature of the many interests involved.
Also, when working with groups which are already legally constituted, you frequently find that they lack the ability to fully exercise the attributes they require, due to an inadequate formulation of their articles of incorporation, which often fail to fully relate to the laws under which they are incorporated (that empower them), and / or other pertinent and sometimes newer laws. In that context, when a group *is* already legally constituted, you generally find that they *were* organized in the context of a parent organization with whom you may have to coordinate, if you want positive results. You must respect the antecedents of the situation, and this is often hard for northern westerners to accept.
KM> Didnt we agree the purpose of the list is the transfer of technology?
I can't say that you have agreed with anything I've stated thus far (except once "appropriating" it) and I haven't seen any pertinent, original statements from you either, but DEVEL_L's subscription page defines it as follows:
"DEVEL-L provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and information on a wide range of issues and topics related to technology transfer in international development; for example, technologies, communications in development, sustainable agriculture, women in development, the environment, small enterprise development, meetings, book reviews."
In general, the focus of the "communications in development" referred to, deals with enabling the access and use of communications technologies.
KM> In the absence of other technologies
The methods and technologies we use in our work have been described above.
KM> (but the presence of a certain amount of dogmatism of one colour KM> and another),
Only on your part, and for totally shortsighted and / or selfish reasons.
KM> why shouldnt we look diagnostically (at least!) at the technology KM> of language?
To be perfectly blunt, your own use of language, particularly where precision is required, shows you to be far below the level we require for the work we do. Therefore,rather than retrace your shortcomings with you (particularly when instead of getting credit for doing so, you fight me every step of the way). I'd rather not. We work with no one under those circumstances.
You can "look diagnostically" at whatever you like, but I prefer you left me out of it as I'd rather collaborate with those who really do have problems to attend within my area of competence. (In your case, I am neither a Dr. nor a social worker and don't feel I've received the kind of respect due on your part, much less any deep understanding. I see mainly perversity and / or confusion, with an overdose of sarcasm).
KM> As for the sustainabilty of *any other human endeavour, please excuse KM> my skepticism.
Understand, rather than excuse. You were and apparently remain confused by your own unhealthy motives. (Are you getting paid for the time you spend on the Internet by any chance)?
KM> When 'sustainable conversation' is so poorly understood, after KM> all, what are the chances of even recognizing 'sustainable KM> agriculture'?
Sustainable anything requires conditions that *are* recursive - that which endures over time *is* sustainable. But as was stated below in relation to medical doctors, having good intentions is basic to beginning any successful endeavor. And I haven't found that to be true on your part, whether the issue be agriculture or conversation. So the issue of poor understanding is recursive on your own end.
*I* recognize that there are no "chances of even recognizing" anything, when dealing with one set on non-recognition. Perhaps you consider your use of language agile. I myself find it perverse, as already stated.
DH>> Language itself is one of the mediums used to that end. If you DH>> want to quote me, do so. But your interpretations, analogies and DH>> paraphrasing have been inaccurate.
KM> Can you help debug my 'methodology'? I can improve my accuracy only KM> when the errors are pointed out.
Gladly. Read on.
I am going to take you up on that (and assume for the moment that the request was made sincerely), by quoting a comment made to me by a friend, Professor and world famous oral surgeon (much in demand as a speaker in international events), a few years back.
In Spanish, what he said was that "in order for a doctor to be a good doctor, it is basic that his intentions also be good. This is consonant with the Oath of Hypocrites that all doctors must take in (many if not) all countries before initiating medical practice and insists that above all, he do no harm. Therefore, regardless of the level of his technical expertise, if his intentions are not good, if the desire to help is not present, he can *not* be a good doctor."
Try that, the principle is universal. I suggest you begin by explaining to me and everyone else here on DEVEL_L, just what it is that you do, and what have you done that's prepared you to do that.
I certainly would be interested in knowing this and I'm sure others would be as well, just to put things in a little better perspective and understand the basis for the "expertise" with which you "dissect" (or misconstrue) my statements.
KM> (Isn't that called 'learning'?)
It's called learning when there's a desire to learn. When there is none, it's called rehabilitation, and is not always voluntary or rehabilitating.
<big snip of irrelevant material>
KM> in short, to sustain Devel-L (for instance) as a *viable part of KM> the universe of developmental discourse, instead of a minor KM> footnote to what is actually happening in the world.
Do tell us about it. But first please practice it yourself.
Then, after you've managed to have done this successfully for a good while, please do get back to me.
Meanwhile, rather than discuss it with someone both unsympathetic and far removed from our work (or possibly any work - I'll be waiting for the data solicited above to confirm or deny this), I'll be busy doing it. (Which after all, is what I've recommended all along).
Douglas Hinds CeDeCoR, A.C.
P.S.
The post reproduced below was sent in response to a previous post, which I also include below. After complying with the recommendation / request made above regarding your background, any further discussion on the subject matter of the thread should be directed to the author of the original post. (Good luck, Turlough).
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
DMH DEVEL_L post of Oct 6:
Subject: Re: Environmental Technology Transfer to China & SE Asia Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:39:36 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds <mailto:dmhinds@acnet.net> Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. To: "Turlough F. Guerin" <mailto:turloughg@HOTMAIL.COM> CC: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU References: 1
Hi Turlough,
...I'm afraid I can't help with anything specific to China and SE Asia. Never the less, the problems involved are not foreign (I believe), to what I've experienced in SE Mexico and I can see a conceptual difficulty relative to the way the problem is put forth.
Apparently, you've taken on responsibility for developing a study for a group of Western (Australian, specifically) companies who provide environmental technology, commercially. Since I know your work, I'm confident you'll do a credible, commendable job; but there are a couple of drawbacks to the approach. First of all, (please correct me if I'm making any false assumptions), the undeclared goal is to one side of what needs to be done.
The target audience (not those who've asked for the study, but rather the Chinese and SE Asian peasant - another assumption of mine - farmers); are undoubtedly amenable to whatever's capable of lowering production costs, raising the quality and improving the marketability of the crops they grow. However, like anything else, the chances of achieving that goal depend on who is promoting the technology, and how they're going about it.
The first thing that's going to have to happen is demonstrate that the person or persons behind the promotion are worthy of the respect and trust that must precede achieving the stated or unstated goal, and that can not be done quickly.
The second thing that's going to have to happen is demonstrate that the technology involved is capable of achieving what I mentioned above, and represents the best option available. The things that are to be sold - are they really capable of doing that?
In short, to me the cart is before the horse, and I recognize that you yourself are not to blame. There are no easy answers, especially when there's a marketing rather than a socially oriented goal involved, but a lot of grass roots organizing has to be carried out by people who can serve as bridges, in order for the rest of it to happen, if that is really what's needed there.
Hope that helps. I personally believe that there's no avoiding the approach I'm attempting to illustrate here. It's going to have to be done, eventually.
Douglas Hinds CeDeCoR, A.C. (Center for Rural and Community Development) Cordoba, Veracruz mailto:dmhinds@acnet.net
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
Subject: Environmental Technology Transfer to China & SE Asia Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 11:21:30 PDT From: "Turlough F. Guerin" <mailto:turloughg@HOTMAIL.COM> To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Greetings:
I am currently based in Singapore working as an independent environmental advisor, and am interested to learn about some of the successes (and failures) you may know of with regard to western companies attempting to transfer environmental technologies into China and SE Asia. I am particularly interested in Australian companies (but do not want to limit discussion on these).
To give you more context,I am trying to pull together some of the key learnings from individuals and companies who have been involved in bringing technology (particularly those technologies with an environmental focus and derived from Australia) into mainland China and more generally, into SE Asian countries. And when I say technology, I include both so-called hard and soft technologies i.e. soft including environmental management advice. What I am trying to do is get some sort of profile together of what conditions have been associated with both successes and failures in such technology transfer.
Particularly, I am interested to know:
What is unique (if anything) about transferring Australian environmental technologies to China and SE Asia and what have we (i.e practitioners) learnt so far?
What are the specific technical areas (examples) where Australian entrepreneurs might successfully sell environmental technologies to China and SE Asia?
How can the small entrepreneur, who has an excellent product, breach the so-called "Asian castle wall"?
Why have certain activities of technology transfer been successful and others not?
What are the research areas (that the government and private sector) should be pursuing?
I would be interested to get your feedback and perhaps other leads or contacts you may have in helping me find such information.
Turlough