Hi 3WD
I like your model.
3WD:
Under the MoQ for individual patterns to be "sustainable" they must:
1. Maintain sufficient stablity to exist over time.
2. Be sufficiently flexible and changable to allow evolution to higher
levels of value.
ROG:
I would rewrite #2 as "Be sufficiently flexible and changable to adapt to
changing conditions." I see emergence to a higher level per the MOQ as a
rare exception. There are after all only 4 levels.
3WD:
And while maintaining these qualities realize:
3. That higher levels may dominant the lower, but are dependent on the
lower ones for existence. So higher level patterns that destablize lower
ones or visa versa, to the extent that they endangered the whole or
significant parts of the hierarchy, do so at their own peril.
ROG:
I agree.
3WD:
First let's be very clear that the lead in question is hugely complexed,
emotionally charged, and in the end boils down to a point 3 question of.
"Do American values, all of them in total, significantly threaten or
endanger the whole of life on earth?"
Roger, I'm sure would answer a qualified, but emphatic, NO!
ROG:
Hmmmm. I guess I would say we are on the right general track to
sustainability, at least compared to many other parts of the world. However,
I would say that further value evolution is still in order.
3WD:
Make no doubt about it under the MoQ "global warming" is one of those
type 3 issues.
ROG:
Yes, I would say that all three rules apply. To sustain our society we must
maintain stability, increase versatility/adaptability and ensure that the
levels don't conflict or undermine each other. I agree that the Kyoto
agreement really misses the boat on number 3. In addition, I would suggest
that investments in alternative sources of clean renewable energy (my
recommendation) would improve the situation from the perspective of both the
last two rules.
3WD:
In this
case the social, economic, and political one are trying to dominate or
have seriously co-opted the intellectual ones of science. Or it is also
possible that a misguided intellectual pattern, a worldview, and
philosophy is at work....
ROG:
I also suspect that there are some strong hidden agendas in some
environmentalist positions.
"realizing the environmentalist's dream of an egalitarian society based on
rejection of
economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the
food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources
much more equally.''
I believe that the world that such environmentalists aspire to would actually
be less equipped to respond to environmental issues.
I do believe, however, that we are probably affecting global warming, though
it has not yet been proven. What has been proven is that petroleum is a
dirty source of energy with a limited supply. My suggestion is that we do a
widespread, multinational, multi-decade initiative to develop affordable,
clean, renewable, SUSTAINABLE sources of energy. Kinda like the space
program, but including more nations. This would increase economic growth,
technology and science; strengthen our stability and adaptability; and it
would foster support between levels.
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:20 BST