Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991210104152.0080eeb0@idiom.com> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:41:52 -0800 From: Marc Krizack <mailto:commissar@IDIOM.COM> Subject: Re: Environment-Related Technologies - not babbling To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
With all due respect to the combattants, I think it is time to call it quits. Please show some respect and consideration for the other members of the list. Please, just let it go.At 10:25 AM 12/10/1999 -0600, Douglas Hinds wrote: >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
>
>
**************************** Marc L. Krizack 2233 California Street Berkeley, CA 94703 USA Tel/Fax (510) 548-3652 Alternate email: mailto:krizack@sfsu.edu