Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961009154417.22340J-100000@acy1.digex.net> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 17:58:26 -0400 From: Tu and Bob Myers <mailto:tuandbob@ACY.DIGEX.NET> Subject: Re: Re[4]: Appropriate Technology To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Michael Patterson wrote in part:> In some cultures, there is no such thing as germs, but they exist.
> ---OK. Yet germs don't cause disease; lowered immunity causes, or
> is, disease.
A picky, but irrelevant, point: Germs cause disease, low immunity allows the germs to multiply to the point where they adversely effect the host.
> In those cultures, the concept of "germs" may well be
> irrelevant. Heightened immune systems, as in Chinese medicine, are
> far more practical than any knowledge of germs.
The germs still exist.
> Quarks and hadrons exist independent of belief, too, but one can
> live a nice life without ever knowing about them.
Yes!
> I don't know the Urdu concept for bad, but (I'm pretty sure) there
> is one.
> ------In Farsi, a closely related language, the precise sounding of
> their concept for bad is exactly like "bad". It's even spelled
> "bad", such as it can be with the Arabic alphabet. "Bad" is a
> judgement, which demands a standard measurement, which is
> culturally based. What is bad in one culture may not be in
> another. There are cultures where such judgements are irrelevant,
> because they seek balance rather than judgement. I personally
> like the ancient Hawaiian model of "bad", which is only that which
> intentionally hurts other beings, but of course that's a personal
> preference. There are many other definitions of bad.
The concept of Farsi speaking people also existed before you told me about it.
> There are a lot of concepts I don't have, but those concepts exist.
> Just because the concept is not conceived, does not mean the
> concept doesn't exist.
> ------That is a very interesting model/belief system on what
> reality is about. It is and can only be a model/belief system.
No! It's part of, not the whole of, a model/belief system of reality.
> The map is not the territory.
Yes!
> Let's go on the inanimate object model, though. As a belief
> system, it limits intelligence to, presumably, animate beings.
Yes!
> There are cultures which claim to derive considerable knowledge
> and useful information from what we call inanimate objects.
OK. The culture derives, the object does not actively impart.
> To
> Australian aborigines, for one example, Ayer's Rock is alive and
> sentient. The "inanimate object" model may be associated with the
> grossly out of balance culture we live in. Someone else mentioned
> the desacralization of nature in Western culture. Models, once
> formed, are applied elsewhere, by extension.
As sailors say in a situation where something is improperly (a value judgment) applied, "Stand by for heavy rolls!".
> Felix Dzerzhinsky,
> the first director of Stalin's Secret Police, regarded people as
> inanimate objects, or to bowdlerize his more earthy phrase,
> "excrement factories".
Show's what a low value he placed on humans. Also shows a hole in his logic-can't be an inanimate object and create (manufacture excrement).
> This belief system was directly tied to his
> willing and even joyous murder of tens of thousands of human
> beings.
True. His values didn't/don't agree with mine, nor the people I choose to associate with.
> Belief systems and models of reality guide behavior. They are our
> values, they are not value free at all. A more traditional way to
> say this is that we ARE our stories, we act out the stories we
> know. In the "inanimate object" model, water is merely H2O, a
> resource to be used.
OK so far, and no conflict.
> Pollution doesn't matter, because it is someone else's problem,
Oops. Not true in my (value) judgment.
> [It is] a "separate object".
No. It is a description of (a) "separate object(s)" interacting undesirably (a value judgement made by humans) with (an)other "separate objects(s)", a condition, possibly the result of the (mis)use of a technology
> In the Apache model
> of water, it is the blood of Earth Mother, giving life to all her
> children, a physical metaphor of spirit, something to approach and
> use with reverence in the circle of life, rather like the Taoist
> model of water. Water pollution might be likened to doing
> something extremely gross during, say, High Mass. It is not my
> place to say which model is correct. I will say that the Apache
> model didn't lead to groundwater so polluted it can't be imbibed,
> million dollar cleanup efforts on groundwater that don't work, and
> so forth.
Following those teachings/premissis by humans not misusing technology resulted in the earth not being damaged beyond restoration to previous conditions without human intervention. I consider that behavior "good"
> I will say that I like the Apache model better, it at least has
> some beauty, which most Western models lack.
I like it also. It conveys the idea "Don't misbehave, i.e. don't misuses technology".
> What was it you
> said? Just because the concept is not conceived, doesn't mean it
> doesn't exist?
I did, and still do.
> Hmmm. Maybe water IS Earth Mother's blood. And
> that model is certainly no less valid than your "inanimate object"
> model.
Could not have said it wasn't, you proposed it in your reply to me. Don't say it now. Perfectly good comparison, water "performs" many of the same functions for the earth as blood does for living beings.
As you pointed out, the map/model is not the territory.
None of the above has anything to do with the false premise of ascribing value/intent to technology/idea/object, rather than making a value judgment on the result of the use of an idea/technology/object.
A last attempt to separate the idea/technology/object from it's use.
Technology enables mercury to be separated from other materials, purified. Is that technology "good' or "bad".
Using the mercury to make filling for teeth seems (a) "good" (use). Perhaps the technology to purify mercury is "good".
Mercury wetted electric switches have less resistance than unwetted switches. That uses less electricity, which uses less coal/oil/atomic energy, resulting in less pollution. Perhaps the technology to purify mercury is "good".
Mercury was used in beaver skin hat making. Ever heard of the term "mad as a hatter"?. Mercury poisoning. Perhaps the technology to purify mercury is "bad".
Consider the mercury poisoning of the people in Japan who ate the fish that concentrated the mercury from the processing plants. Perhaps the technology to purify mercury is "bad".
I know you won't let me forget the pollution caused by the unused filling material going where ever it goes. Perhaps the technology to purify mercury is "bad".
Nor will you let me forget the pollution caused by the mercury and other things used to manufacture the switches. Perhaps the technology to purify mercury is bad.
You'll also remind me of the pollution caused by the chemicals and unpurified mercury escaping from the mercury purification factory. Perhaps the technology to purify mercury is bad.
Five agin, only two for - just gotta be "bad"
I believe that, in general but not always, the use of technology that harms is a bad use of technology.
I believe that "technology" by itself is neither good nor bad.
I also believe we're headed for the same goal by different routes, and reaching that goal is worthwhile (good).
__ AR
Bob