So he went from actively helping a community to just fending for himself?
The tribe had been getting richer for a decade, and during the two years he was there he watched as the villagers began to adopt the economics of modernity. They sold the food from their fields—quinoa, potatoes, corn, lentils—for cash, which they used to purchase things they didn't need, as Suelo describes it. They bought soda and white flour and refined sugar and noodles and big bags of MSG to flavor the starchy meals. They bought TVs. The more they spent, says Suelo, the more their health declined. He could measure the deterioration on his charts. "It looked," he says, "like money was impoverishing them."
Speak for yourself.
The only reason we don't cut people like him — who are plainly capable of contributing but choose to freeload instead — off from the services they're consuming is because the enforcement mechanism would probably cost more (in actual cost, obnoxiousness to everyone else, general lost freedom) than just letting them do it.
Wild Nature, outside civilization, runs on gift economy: "freely give, freely receive."
His system only works if there's a surplus in the larger society and it doesn't seem to me that he's unclear on this point.
Wild Nature, outside civilization, runs on gift economy: "freely give, freely receive." Thus it is balanced. World civilization runs on consciousness of credit and debt (knowledge of good & evil); thus it is imbalanced. What nation on earth can even balance its own budget or environment? Gift Economy is Faith, Grace, Love - the message at the heart of every religion, though rejected by virtually every religious institution. The proof is inside you: Wild Nature is your True Nature, crucified by commercial civilization.
The fact is, the human race is a net loss for the universe itself
I don't think anything I said beyond that was particularly controversial.
I think you'll find many people who will give a thumbs up to allowing everyone access to libraries, regardless of whether it would be easier to disallow access for certain arguably non-contributing people.I've never met anyone who has held, nor do I think a reasonable person could actually hold, that position in the way you're stating it
I think you'll find many people who will give a thumbs up to allowing everyone access to libraries, regardless of whether it would be easier to disallow access for certain arguably non-contributing people.
as opposed to perhaps placing a very high value on open access and being willing to tolerate a lot of free-riding behavior (however we want to define free-riding in the context of a library) in order to achieve that.
« Older Please accept this dead carcass as an affirmation... | One more for the stationary fetishists Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments