Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
demand reduction in the USUK bloc in WWII was linked with war rhetoric, as in "comply with rationing to defeat the Evil Hun," thus invoking vengeful and hateful feelings and nationalist jingo to justify the voluntary (and involuntary) hardships.  they weren't called Survival Gardens, they were called Victory Gardens.  there was an effort to make people on the home front feel that they too were warriors, they too had a share in the "glory and heroism" of war, they were Doing Their Bit to Defeat Hitler, a personalised enemy.

one could easily imagine selling a renewable energy programme in the US based on anti-Arab racism and war metaphors:  Be a Patriot and Defeat the Evil Sheikhs by Riding Your Bike to Work!  some have already ventured into this memespace (Maher, for one).  but the WWII rhetoric counted on a "victory is within our grasp" model, i.e. we will suffer privations and hardships for N years and then we will win and live happily ever after ("tomorrow, just you wait and see").

but throttling back the industrial destruction machinery to a survivable rate is not a temporary "special period" after which we will all get to live in Jetsons-land or over the rainbow -- it implies a permanent alteration of lifestyle and culture requiring a commitment more similar to religious or political conversion, i.e. declaring allegiance to a cause greater than one's own lifetime.  here is where "for our children" is a useful handle for people trying to get a grip on the seriousness/urgency of the situation --  although the level of selfishness in popular consumer culture today is so extreme that even this may not work any more.

I dunno.  I am flummoxed.  I think the most promising avenue of social transformation is food and health -- that is about as personal as it gets.  and while there may be (self-interested) downsides to giving up cars, say, there are no downsides to eating really good fresh local food -- it tastes better and it's better for the eater's personal health, as well as being socially altruistic and so on.  it's win-win-win.  in this instance, hedonism seems to align with conscience rather than pulling against it.  

after all, the conflict between industrialism and health -- health of workers, health of communities, health of the public, health of ecosystems, health of the biosphere -- is really the whole point.  industrialism undermines health, even as it delivers more and more elaborate and expensive workarounds, bandaids, and desperate interventions to patch up the damage.  health is a big concern for affluent people in consumerlandia;  it may be here that the mirror can be held up that shows the madness of hyperconsumerism for what it is:  really, really, really bad for our health.  and food is where it gets up close and personal.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Tue Dec 4th, 2007 at 08:15:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Quoting my compadre Stan in a recent post at FS (slightly edited):

The existence of a Doomsday Seed Vault run by Agribiz seems a fitting post in conjunction with Wirzba's reflections through what might be rightly described as a Christian agrarian socialist perspective (he wrote the intro for Wendell Berry's booked collection of essays entitled The Art of the Commonplace [...]

Each day I become more convinced by the aggregation of evidence that a food-praxis mode of resistance must be thrown into the middle of the political mix. In the Food and Finance pamphlet we have over at IA, we've attempted to unpack finance as a dominator practice, but the important point is that this domination is exercised over and through food... so this relation of money as a dominator-medium to our most recurrent dependency is there for any of us who want to drop down from the theoretical clouds and put the living human body back into our politics.

From the underground food movements described in Sandor Katz' excellent book (The Revolution Will Not Be Microwaved), to the feminist food praxis of Susan Bordo and Penny Van Esterik, to the issues related to climate change that have now captured the attention (if not the clarity) of the general American public... this is an issue that goes both broad and deep. And it is deeply, disruptively political, whether you are challenging a homeowners association on the right to grow a vegetable garden to asking elected officials why they ocntinue to subsidize Archer-Daniels-Midland, Monsanto, and Cargill.



The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Dec 5th, 2007 at 02:29:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What language is that?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Dec 6th, 2007 at 10:31:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
English, last I looked :-)  if you want to contest one or more points raised, go right ahead;  surely ET readers are not easily scared by polysyllables, even unfamiliar ones :-)

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu Dec 6th, 2007 at 07:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
About the vault --

This is a project started and sustained by the government of Norway. I doubt that short-sighted profit-maximizers in agribusiness are looking at post-doomsday profits from their contributions. The views in the article you cite are out of line. The goddamn vault is built for to last for generations, to survive a nuclear war and the melting of Antarctica. That isn't about corporations hording seeds for themselves. It have something to do with people who feel a little bit as I do. The purpose of the project hits me in the gut with a feeling that is deep and hard to describe, but somehow central to who I am.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Thu Dec 6th, 2007 at 06:27:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The purpose of the project hits me in the gut with a feeling that is deep and hard to describe

me too.  but not, I think, the same feeling.

to know that those who are busiest burning down the house are investing in a fireproof safe does not make me feel anything other than... hmmm... a kind of futile, smouldering rage.  Monsanto has made it their business and deliverate policy to pollute the genomes of cultivars worldwide, and they have the insufferable chutzpah to claim a do-gooder prize for investing in a last-ditch seed vault... no, somehow it just makes me want to heat up some tar and pluck a few chickens.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu Dec 6th, 2007 at 07:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Engdahl does not seem to have his facts straight.

The Arctic Doomsday Seed Vault

I hate to be the one to spoil a good rumor, and just when it was just taking off....but, there are several factual errors in the report that started this thread. Let me just cite the one that has gained the most traction on this board: Monsanto is NOT involved in funding the Seed Vault, directly or indirectly. Not a penny. The Vault is being built by Norway and paid for by the government, 100%. The operating costs will be paid by the Global Crop Diversity Trust and Norway, 100%. (at a MUCH lower cost than reported in some media) How do I know all of this? I am the Executive Director of the Trust. We receive NO funding from Monsanto, neither does the Norwegian government! Monsanto has had no involvement in the planning, implementation or funding of the facility. None.

Since you should not trust everyone who claims to be the Executive Director of the Trust, there homepage is a good place to start.

The Global Crop Diversity Trust

The Global Crop Diversity Trust was founded by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Bioversity International, acting on behalf of the foremost international research organizations in this field (CGIAR). The Trust is currently jointly hosted in Rome by FAO and Bioversity International.

The Global Crop Diversity Trust

Australia (AusAID)
Brazil (EMBRAPA)
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation/UN Foundation
Canada (CIDA)
CGIAR Centres
Colombia (Ministry of Agriculture)
DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred
Egypt (Ministry of Agriculture)
Ethiopia
Gatsby Charitable Foundation
Germany
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Grains Research and Development Corporation
India (Ministry of Agriculture)
International Seed Federation
Ireland (Irish Aid)
Italy (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
New Zealand (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry)
Norway (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
Rockefeller Foundation
Sweden (Sida)
Switzerland (SDC)
Syngenta AG
Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture
Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme
United Kingdom
United Nations Foundation
United States of America (USAID)
World Bank - CGIAR

Please download this document on funds pledged and raised to date

The pdf shows that the only corporate money making it into the top ten are the Gates foundation. Otherwise it is governments, Sweden and Norway being the largest donors.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Dec 7th, 2007 at 10:19:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If Monsanto and Syngenta have nothing to do with it then the creepiness factor diminishes enormously.  Bill Gates is kinda creepy, but even the Dark Lord of Bad Code is not in the same league with those two.

I will allow the tar pot to cool down, and the chickens can stop eying me anxiously.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Fri Dec 7th, 2007 at 07:29:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Syngenta is on the list but I doubt that their 1,247 million (including their foundation) out of 140 millions buy them much influence.

Rechecking the list, I realise that I checked the wrong column when comparing the amounts in my last comment. I checked the one with different currency nominations. Rechecking I would change my statement to: The pdf shows that the only corporate money making it into the top nine are the Gates foundation. Otherwise it is governments, Great Britain and Norway being the largest donors after the Gates foundation.

Grains Research & Development Corporation is number ten with 5 millions, Sygenta (including their foundation) eleven and Dupont Pioneer Hi-breed on position twelve. I would place it in despiccable attempts to buy forgiveness for their sins (with money coming from the same sins), but it is not close to control over it.

Their board looks pretty solid too, including
The Global Crop Diversity Trust

Vice-Chair: Wangari Maathai (Kenya)
Professor Wangari Maathai was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004 for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace.

And they have their board agendas online, which is good for transparency.

So I think they are the real deal. But there are many other good targets for the tar...

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Dec 8th, 2007 at 01:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
DeAnander:
here is where "for our children" is a useful handle for people trying to get a grip on the seriousness/urgency of the situation --  although the level of selfishness in popular consumer culture today is so extreme that even this may not work any more.

I don't see this working at all. It works for people who already get it, and marginally for people who are a little behind.

To the people who don't get it all, it means nothing. (Conservatives don't do empathy or reality, remember.)

DeAnander:

there are no downsides to eating really good fresh local food -- it tastes better and it's better for the eater's personal health, as well as being socially altruistic and so on.  it's win-win-win.  in this instance, hedonism seems to align with conscience rather than pulling against it.  

This doesn't work either, unfortunately. The food may be good but who wants to do menial cooking work, except as an occasional hobby?

And health is hardly a big draw. Fitness could be, but health - not so much, I think.

DeAnander:

I dunno.  I am flummoxed.

I'm not. I just don't like any of the solutions that are likely to work in practice because none of them are pleasant.

The most promising approach is probably A Movement - international, positive rather than oppositional, popularised by soundbites and repetition, possibly quasi-religious.

The Greens already have this, but they're not socially or politically coherent enough, and they have too much faddy Birkenstock baggage to be taken seriously. (As non-Greens would see it.)

The challenge would be getting governments to play along. Somehow I don't see that happening. And Al Gore's Powerpoint politics aren't enough of a substitute.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Dec 6th, 2007 at 02:58:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The most promising approach is probably A Movement - international, positive rather than oppositional, popularised by soundbites and repetition, possibly quasi-religious.

bingo..ravers planting trees...

semisnark

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Dec 6th, 2007 at 05:21:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series