Re: Re(2): ideas of "appropriate technology" still respected?
Kenneth E. Loucks (mailto:keloucks@SPARTAN.AC.BROCKU.CA)
Mon, 30 Sep 1996 11:47:04 +0059
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9609301147.A19324-0100000@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 11:47:04 +0059
From: "Kenneth E. Loucks" <mailto:keloucks@SPARTAN.AC.BROCKU.CA>
Subject: Re: Re(2): ideas of "appropriate technology" still respected?
To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
>
> "If you have a technnological trend, as we've had for the last hundred
> years, for everything to become bigger and bigger, more and more complex,
> more and more capital-demanding, then of course more and more people get
> excluded. The thing is reserved forpeople already rich and powerful. Have
> "If our technology has been created mainly by the capitalist system, is it
> not probable that it bears the marks of its origin, a technology for the
> few at the expense of the masses, a technology of exploitation, a
> technology that is class-oriented, undemocratic, inhuman and also
> unecological and nonconservationist?"
>
> "The most telling example, of course, is the most advanced society in the
> modern world, the United States. Average income per head is over twice that
> of Britain or Western Europe; 5 or 6 percent of the world population using
> something like 35% of the world's output of raw materials- and not a happy
> place: great wealth in some places but utter misery, degradation,
> hopelessness, strife, criminality, escapism, sickness of body and mind
> almost everywhere; it is hard to get away from it. How is it possible, in
> a country that has more resources, more science and technology than anybody
> ever had in human history? People are questioning everything, every part of
> the superstructure -big business, big government, big academia; and very
> gradually, hesitantly, at long last they are beginning to question the
> basis of it all: technology."
>
> Peace
>
>
> Santiago
>
Doesn't sound much like peace rhetoric to me.