21 Comments
-
(testing the comments-section)
-
admin
I think “comments” are working! And now on to content…. what do you think of this report? http://popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/40
-
That’s a great report – and a very important issue, I think!
I think the introduction says it all:
“Conventional wisdom, however, is not always wise. Placing the blame on population obscures the powerful economic and political forces that threaten the well-being of both people and the planet. It leads to top-down, target-driven population control programs that undermine voluntary family planning and women’s reproductive rights. It reinforces racism, promoting harmful stereotypes of poor people of color. And it prevents the kind of global understanding we need in order to reach across borders to work together for a more just, peaceful and environmentally sustainable world.”Some of my favourite points of what the ‘conventional wisdom’ is blocking out were:
- that a more dense population combined with a sustainable approach to agriculture and nature (stewarship and preservation of local crop varieties) has actually proven to support biodiversity and in that way environmental sustainability as such. And not as the ‘conventional wisdom’ would say lead to a heavier pressure on the soil.
- increase in population does not per se lead to violence and instability – choices in policy lead populations into unstability.
- conventional views of overpopulation stand in the way of greater global understanding and solidarity
So – I totally agree with the premise of the report. Focusing on population control from the perspective of ‘conventional wisdom’ is a very dangerous thing to do, as it links with discourses that too easily can lead to horrific decisions (such as policies for sterilization of women and one-child policies, just to name one aspect).
However I think it’s important – which the report also does – to distinct between population control and family planning. Where population control is a structural proces based on the assumption that an increasing population threathens national economy (causing all the harm mentioned in the above and a lot more), family planning on a local (family) level is an important tool for creating economical sustainability in the poor families (not having more children than you can afford to feed and send to school). At least this is what my impressions from what I’ve seen in southern India, spending time in a rural development organisation making an effort with counselling on family planning as one part of their work.
-
very interesting look on internet and democracy. if you are number of states in the arab world and in asia too are using abusing internet stop growth of free thought
like the term ipod liberalism
-
Thank you for the commment! Nice that people are reading
If you happen to have some interesting documentation/articles on government abuse of internet (maybe especially social media), I would be very happy if you would post a link etc. -
Solana
You need look no further than Global Voices Advocacy, of course
http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/
And the Access Denied Map has lots of examples too:
-
Perfect!
I should have known. I’ll dig right into it! -
Nice to read a text which takes into consideration the broad scope of technical and social changes which are needed. I think some other part of the movement (camp) talks about “Reclaiming power from below”. This is contradictory to greater public responsibility for public areas.
The important thing here is to get a public awareness about the many things which can and must be changed. One basic thing would be immigration studies and efforts to increase successful immigration.
I can not help thinking that it will be necessary to build new cities, lay out new farming areas as the climate changes. I do not think that we can stop the climate from changing.
-
@Donald: I totally agree on the fact that a broader and more nuanced scope of action must be taken in use if we want to have a realistic chance of not becoming another roadkill for the climate changes. Whether our mitigation efforts will have an effect and whether our emissions are just a small percent of the reason for the change, I dont know – and basically it’s not that important to me right now (at least not in the motivating kind of way). I agree with you that we’ll have have to figure out how to handle an enormous number of climate refugees from all over – I don’t think there’s any stopping it, and our nationalistic puppet masters in the government won’t be able to just send them back as they would probably like to grow accustomed to.
However, there’s one thing I’m not sure whether I agree upon:
You say: “I think some other part of the movement (camp) talks about “Reclaiming power from below”. This is contradictory to greater public responsibility for public areas.”
What do you mean by this? I tried to look in your blog (http://dax2.wordpress.com/) for a hint on the answer, and I found it in the post “Watt?”. Here (for the attention of other potential readers) you refer to a description of the intention behind Climate Camp on Dec 16th. Here you point at:
“We are indigenous peoples and farmers, workers and environmentalists, feminists and anticapitalists. Now, our diverse struggles for social and ecological justice are finding common ground in the struggle for climate justice, and in our desire to reclaim power over our own future” and their intention of (anticapitalist) reclaiming the power from the market. And comment:“Anticapitalists? Vi kan ikke undvære markeder og dermed kan vi ikke undvære kapital. Markederne er det eneste system som kan håndtere de millioner af beslutninger, der skal træffes hver dag i et civiliseret samfund.
Den eneste måde at begrænse kapitalers og markeders negative indflydelse er ved central regulering af kapitalens “gambling” instinkter.
Jeg er bange for at “from below” er en ide om noget, der minder om kommunisme af den slags, som suspenderer markedskræfterne og fremmer nepotisme, korruption og fattigdom.”
(Sorry about the Danish parts, but I was too lasy to translate it).And here is the core of why I had a feeling that we didn’t agree upon the importance of ‘Reclaiming the power’. I agree that we need some form of a market, but a market-based economy in the classical sense is undemocratic and inherently hazardous, which is also your point (central regulering, herover). BUT – what do we do when the central powers believe in privatizaton and the freedom of the market? How do we make it clear, that we – as a people – do not agree that our future should be decided by irresponsible capitalist actors? I think you have to look very far (all the way to Bangladesh) to find a CSR-policy which is more than a cosmetic cover-up, so why should we believe in the good of market-kind?
But maybe the whole thing here is inherent in the interpretational flexibility of ‘capitalism’ and ‘anti-capitalism’. I think of it as a gradient rather than a binary decision – it might not be like that for everyone (especially not for hardcore anti-capitalists
) -
RieThank you Casper…
-
interesting link, casper, tachtical tech is by the way one of the most interesting actors on the field – maybe we should invite one of them on for a skype-talk later on? – we have three of their toolkits at the office, just ask bjørn for it wednesday (on video, on mobile tech and on maps). c u
-
Really? That would be great! I definitely have to see one of those toolkits. I really think that it would be an interesting input of something less traditional!
-
MelissaGreat link, Casper! Thanks!!
-
AdrianI think we should go on inviting them seriously I would like to learn more from them
-
I feel the same way, Adrian!
-
I had the chance to learn about Tactical Technology Collective at the International School for Digital Transformation in Porto / July.
They’re doing great work on communicating for Advocacy. I am pretty sure they will be happy to offer you their toolkits and guides (which are just awesome, by the way
! Just send them an email telling about what you are doing!
-
Rie
I can imagine that we should be like a trader to make better participation methods (having no pre understandings). But I think it is dangerous to say that we are like a trader, because we have a culture, and a pre understanding, and I think we need to be aware on what that is and work with it….
-
I think you’re quite right and having just read the Simmels essay in which he proposes the metaphor of the trader, I’d mean he would agree too, though he doesn’t specifically says it in the essay The Stranger (http://www.depaul.edu/~dweinste/intro/stranger.htm).
Just to add some more Simmel to this thread, I decided to add some ‘favourite quotes’ at the end… maybe this is bad manners in the blogging world? Feel free to correct me
-
I’ll see if I can’t get a hold of one of these kits tomorrow! I’m really curious!
-
Hi Casper, great choice of photo
I hope that finding and choosing photos will keep being a fun thing, though.I wholeheartedly agree with Peter and others who have said that Twitter, like all social media, and in fact technology in general, are not inherently good or bad – it depends on how they are used. But it’s also true that some peole get too stuck on the medium and can’t seem to look past it. And there’s definetely a learning curve, but it seems that you guys are doing pretty well experimenting, discussing, trying new things. It gets tiring to be constantly be talking about tools as opposed to the interesting uses of those tools, but they are both sides of the same coin and it’s all part of the learning process.
Anyway, I guess my main point is that while technology & social media are only what you make of them, you should still have fun using them otherwise action and mobilisation won’t happen. If you’re not excited about what you’re trying to spread to others, who will?
-
joyce
Great Casper,I like the way of using picture and link. It is very cool.
3 Trackbacks
-
[...] has questioned about superficial green revolution. Casper wrote about the obvious limitations of the individual approach – and the problems of the communal alternative. Josephine wrote a thought piece which was triggered by the idea of climate friendly [...]
-
[...] has questioned about superficial green revolution. Casper wrote about the obvious limitations of the individual approach – and the problems of the communal alternative. Josephine wrote a thought piece which was triggered by the idea of climate friendly [...]
-
[...] has questioned about superficial green revolution. Casper wrote about the obvious limitations of the individual approach – and the problems of the communal alternative. Josephine wrote a thought piece which was triggered by the idea of climate friendly [...]
Great Casper,I like the way of using picture and link. It is very cool.
Hi Casper, great choice of photo
I hope that finding and choosing photos will keep being a fun thing, though.
I wholeheartedly agree with Peter and others who have said that Twitter, like all social media, and in fact technology in general, are not inherently good or bad – it depends on how they are used. But it’s also true that some peole get too stuck on the medium and can’t seem to look past it. And there’s definetely a learning curve, but it seems that you guys are doing pretty well experimenting, discussing, trying new things. It gets tiring to be constantly be talking about tools as opposed to the interesting uses of those tools, but they are both sides of the same coin and it’s all part of the learning process.
Anyway, I guess my main point is that while technology & social media are only what you make of them, you should still have fun using them otherwise action and mobilisation won’t happen. If you’re not excited about what you’re trying to spread to others, who will?
I’ll see if I can’t get a hold of one of these kits tomorrow! I’m really curious!
I think you’re quite right and having just read the Simmels essay in which he proposes the metaphor of the trader, I’d mean he would agree too, though he doesn’t specifically says it in the essay The Stranger (http://www.depaul.edu/~dweinste/intro/stranger.htm).
Just to add some more Simmel to this thread, I decided to add some ‘favourite quotes’ at the end… maybe this is bad manners in the blogging world? Feel free to correct me
I can imagine that we should be like a trader to make better participation methods (having no pre understandings). But I think it is dangerous to say that we are like a trader, because we have a culture, and a pre understanding, and I think we need to be aware on what that is and work with it….
I had the chance to learn about Tactical Technology Collective at the International School for Digital Transformation in Porto / July.
They’re doing great work on communicating for Advocacy. I am pretty sure they will be happy to offer you their toolkits and guides (which are just awesome, by the way
!
Just send them an email telling about what you are doing!
I feel the same way, Adrian!
I think we should go on inviting them seriously I would like to learn more from them
Great link, Casper! Thanks!!
Really? That would be great! I definitely have to see one of those toolkits. I really think that it would be an interesting input of something less traditional!
interesting link, casper, tachtical tech is by the way one of the most interesting actors on the field – maybe we should invite one of them on for a skype-talk later on? – we have three of their toolkits at the office, just ask bjørn for it wednesday (on video, on mobile tech and on maps). c u
[...] has questioned about superficial green revolution. Casper wrote about the obvious limitations of the individual approach – and the problems of the communal alternative. Josephine wrote a thought piece which was triggered by the idea of climate friendly [...]
[...] has questioned about superficial green revolution. Casper wrote about the obvious limitations of the individual approach – and the problems of the communal alternative. Josephine wrote a thought piece which was triggered by the idea of climate friendly [...]
[...] has questioned about superficial green revolution. Casper wrote about the obvious limitations of the individual approach – and the problems of the communal alternative. Josephine wrote a thought piece which was triggered by the idea of climate friendly [...]
Thank you Casper…
@Donald: I totally agree on the fact that a broader and more nuanced scope of action must be taken in use if we want to have a realistic chance of not becoming another roadkill for the climate changes. Whether our mitigation efforts will have an effect and whether our emissions are just a small percent of the reason for the change, I dont know – and basically it’s not that important to me right now (at least not in the motivating kind of way). I agree with you that we’ll have have to figure out how to handle an enormous number of climate refugees from all over – I don’t think there’s any stopping it, and our nationalistic puppet masters in the government won’t be able to just send them back as they would probably like to grow accustomed to.
However, there’s one thing I’m not sure whether I agree upon:
You say: “I think some other part of the movement (camp) talks about “Reclaiming power from below”. This is contradictory to greater public responsibility for public areas.”
What do you mean by this? I tried to look in your blog (http://dax2.wordpress.com/) for a hint on the answer, and I found it in the post “Watt?”. Here (for the attention of other potential readers) you refer to a description of the intention behind Climate Camp on Dec 16th. Here you point at:
“We are indigenous peoples and farmers, workers and environmentalists, feminists and anticapitalists. Now, our diverse struggles for social and ecological justice are finding common ground in the struggle for climate justice, and in our desire to reclaim power over our own future” and their intention of (anticapitalist) reclaiming the power from the market. And comment:
“Anticapitalists? Vi kan ikke undvære markeder og dermed kan vi ikke undvære kapital. Markederne er det eneste system som kan håndtere de millioner af beslutninger, der skal træffes hver dag i et civiliseret samfund.
Den eneste måde at begrænse kapitalers og markeders negative indflydelse er ved central regulering af kapitalens “gambling” instinkter.
Jeg er bange for at “from below” er en ide om noget, der minder om kommunisme af den slags, som suspenderer markedskræfterne og fremmer nepotisme, korruption og fattigdom.”
(Sorry about the Danish parts, but I was too lasy to translate it).
And here is the core of why I had a feeling that we didn’t agree upon the importance of ‘Reclaiming the power’. I agree that we need some form of a market, but a market-based economy in the classical sense is undemocratic and inherently hazardous, which is also your point (central regulering, herover). BUT – what do we do when the central powers believe in privatizaton and the freedom of the market? How do we make it clear, that we – as a people – do not agree that our future should be decided by irresponsible capitalist actors? I think you have to look very far (all the way to Bangladesh) to find a CSR-policy which is more than a cosmetic cover-up, so why should we believe in the good of market-kind?
But maybe the whole thing here is inherent in the interpretational flexibility of ‘capitalism’ and ‘anti-capitalism’. I think of it as a gradient rather than a binary decision – it might not be like that for everyone (especially not for hardcore anti-capitalists
)
Nice to read a text which takes into consideration the broad scope of technical and social changes which are needed. I think some other part of the movement (camp) talks about “Reclaiming power from below”. This is contradictory to greater public responsibility for public areas.
The important thing here is to get a public awareness about the many things which can and must be changed. One basic thing would be immigration studies and efforts to increase successful immigration.
I can not help thinking that it will be necessary to build new cities, lay out new farming areas as the climate changes. I do not think that we can stop the climate from changing.
Perfect!
I should have known. I’ll dig right into it!
You need look no further than Global Voices Advocacy, of course
http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/
And the Access Denied Map has lots of examples too:
http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/projects/maps/
Thank you for the commment! Nice that people are reading
If you happen to have some interesting documentation/articles on government abuse of internet (maybe especially social media), I would be very happy if you would post a link etc.
very interesting look on internet and democracy. if you are number of states in the arab world and in asia too are using abusing internet stop growth of free thought
like the term ipod liberalism
That’s a great report – and a very important issue, I think!
I think the introduction says it all:
“Conventional wisdom, however, is not always wise. Placing the blame on population obscures the powerful economic and political forces that threaten the well-being of both people and the planet. It leads to top-down, target-driven population control programs that undermine voluntary family planning and women’s reproductive rights. It reinforces racism, promoting harmful stereotypes of poor people of color. And it prevents the kind of global understanding we need in order to reach across borders to work together for a more just, peaceful and environmentally sustainable world.”
Some of my favourite points of what the ‘conventional wisdom’ is blocking out were:
- that a more dense population combined with a sustainable approach to agriculture and nature (stewarship and preservation of local crop varieties) has actually proven to support biodiversity and in that way environmental sustainability as such. And not as the ‘conventional wisdom’ would say lead to a heavier pressure on the soil.
- increase in population does not per se lead to violence and instability – choices in policy lead populations into unstability.
- conventional views of overpopulation stand in the way of greater global understanding and solidarity
So – I totally agree with the premise of the report. Focusing on population control from the perspective of ‘conventional wisdom’ is a very dangerous thing to do, as it links with discourses that too easily can lead to horrific decisions (such as policies for sterilization of women and one-child policies, just to name one aspect).
However I think it’s important – which the report also does – to distinct between population control and family planning. Where population control is a structural proces based on the assumption that an increasing population threathens national economy (causing all the harm mentioned in the above and a lot more), family planning on a local (family) level is an important tool for creating economical sustainability in the poor families (not having more children than you can afford to feed and send to school). At least this is what my impressions from what I’ve seen in southern India, spending time in a rural development organisation making an effort with counselling on family planning as one part of their work.
I think “comments” are working! And now on to content…. what do you think of this report? http://popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/40
(testing the comments-section)