Talk:Managing Abundance, Not Chasing Scarcity: Difference between revisions
Poor Richard (talk | contribs) (Yanka) |
Poor Richard (talk | contribs) (Yaka) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Let me see how much of this I understand. | Let me see how much of this I understand. | ||
1. Abundance-based economy is based on equitable sharing. The system elements and boundary conditions are not clear to me. What is the quantity of resource (forest) to be shared and what are the populations (various communities local to the resource and remote populations with various lifestyles) among which it is to be shared? Suppose one | 1. Abundance-based economy is based on equitable sharing. The system elements and boundary conditions are not clear to me. What is the quantity of resource (forest) to be shared and what are the populations (various communities local to the resource and remote populations with various lifestyles) among which it is to be shared? Suppose one Yaka-person-lifestyle requires several acres. My lifestyle requires only a small amount of paper products--maybe .05 acre per year, or 1 acre for sustainable harvest. Does equitable sharing imply we should get equal allocations? It seems somewhat against the general drift of the article that each Yaka requires/gets far more resource than I do. But maybe I don't belong in the picture at all. I am unclear about this. Should everyone on earth be entitled to a Yaka-sized plot of forest? If so, then what is the population carrying capacity of all existing forest? Do we get rid of any excess people in order to share equitably? If equitable does not mean equal, what are the rules of equitable apportionment? The rules developed by Yaka for their own use probably wont work for people with other lifestyles, population densities, etc. So what exactly have we learned from the Yaka that is translatable to non-Yakas? | ||
2. The | 2. The Yaka lump loggers and conservationists together because both exclude them. If Yaka-style land use is not destructive, then the answer is they should not be excluded and conservationists are just idiots for doing so. I am provisionally willing to believe that for now. | ||
3. Conservationists are either idiots or collaborators for not adequately restricting logging. Implication: the conservation preserves are merely tokens, and even that is used to offset (read green light) exploitation elsewhere. Conclusion from premises given: green-washing con game. I'm provisionally willing to believe this, but the | 3. Conservationists are either idiots or collaborators for not adequately restricting logging. Implication: the conservation preserves are merely tokens, and even that is used to offset (read green light) exploitation elsewhere. Conclusion from premises given: green-washing con game. I'm provisionally willing to believe this, but the Yaka anthropology (much of the article) has little or nothing to do with it. | ||
Have I left anything out? | Have I left anything out?--[[User:Poor Richard|Poor Richard]] 00:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 00:58, 11 September 2011
Let me see how much of this I understand.
1. Abundance-based economy is based on equitable sharing. The system elements and boundary conditions are not clear to me. What is the quantity of resource (forest) to be shared and what are the populations (various communities local to the resource and remote populations with various lifestyles) among which it is to be shared? Suppose one Yaka-person-lifestyle requires several acres. My lifestyle requires only a small amount of paper products--maybe .05 acre per year, or 1 acre for sustainable harvest. Does equitable sharing imply we should get equal allocations? It seems somewhat against the general drift of the article that each Yaka requires/gets far more resource than I do. But maybe I don't belong in the picture at all. I am unclear about this. Should everyone on earth be entitled to a Yaka-sized plot of forest? If so, then what is the population carrying capacity of all existing forest? Do we get rid of any excess people in order to share equitably? If equitable does not mean equal, what are the rules of equitable apportionment? The rules developed by Yaka for their own use probably wont work for people with other lifestyles, population densities, etc. So what exactly have we learned from the Yaka that is translatable to non-Yakas?
2. The Yaka lump loggers and conservationists together because both exclude them. If Yaka-style land use is not destructive, then the answer is they should not be excluded and conservationists are just idiots for doing so. I am provisionally willing to believe that for now.
3. Conservationists are either idiots or collaborators for not adequately restricting logging. Implication: the conservation preserves are merely tokens, and even that is used to offset (read green light) exploitation elsewhere. Conclusion from premises given: green-washing con game. I'm provisionally willing to believe this, but the Yaka anthropology (much of the article) has little or nothing to do with it.
Have I left anything out?--Poor Richard 00:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)