|
Dear Judith,
I fully support your idea. This
takes us to down-to-earth fields. The Internet, on the good side, is our main
tool. This is the reason I promote E-journal idea very much. This journal will
play an important role by providing a right avenue to many with good ideas
and practices needing dissemination-circulation and by attracting others to
hook in. It may cover scientific, technological, sociological and creative...
fields within the RR's framework.
If my understanding is correct
'Relational Modelling' may provide a sound base in environmental
application of RR's ideas.
My best,
Ayten
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 3:06
PM
Subject: Re: Recycling, Rosennean
Style...
Ayten Aydin wrote: Any scientific findings
and practical experiences need to be widely
disseminated. People are more intelligent than what we usually think they
are, even at times they let themselves guided as flocks by their
shepherds.
I love your optimism, Ayten. It's good to be reminded that just
because 51% of Americans behaved like sheep in the last election doesn't
necessarily mean they ARE sheep. I tend to become cynical in my anger, which
is not constructive or productive and I can at least recognize THAT. When
people are afraid, they tend to cut away all reasoning except the very basic
necessary for survival. It's a more primitive mode of brain activity. I think
that is what was responsible for the outcome of our election; the politics of
fear was invoked. It was invoked on several fronts, which is why it worked as
well as it did.
I agree with your assessment, also, which has given me the seed
of an idea. Many years ago, in college, I had an assignment for a mass media
class I had taken as one of my electives. The assignment was to
"design a new magazine which filled some unnoticed market niche". I designed
"Environment New York". It was intended to be sort of like Time Magazine,
only it was an environmental news magazine for the State, with a lot of
practical information and timely legislative information, and I designed it to
teach a more Rosennean mode of approach to the innumerable environmental
problems we faced-- so it would have a global reach in terms of educating New
Yorkers about aspects of global problems which have local impact, (and vice
versa!)...etc. Perhaps it's time to resurrect this idea and combine it with
BioTheory. It would not be a New York based focus anymore, of course, because
that would not be appropriate. But environmental applications for Rosennean
Ideas is one of my own dearest hopes for development of my father's
work.
I'll have to let these ideas cook a bit.....
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 2:09
AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Recycling,
Rosennean Style...
Judith, Dan, Leo, all concerned,
A few quick thoughts on what Judith says:
There are things which informed individuals can do
without waiting governments take corrective actions on present environmental
problems, both in cities and country sides. It is now
important that american people act individually as US Government has
not ratified Kyoto Protocol (reducing gas emissions) which yesterday
declared operational and the RESPONSIBILITY moved to the grassroot.
Any scientific findings and practical experiences need to
be widely disseminated. People are more intelligent than what we
usually think they are, even at times they let themselves
guided as flocks by their shepherds.
Such a move springing up from grassroots may carry with
it very many other positive actions to establish a more meaningful democracy
and provide a good example in the right direction. Every cloud has its
silver lining.
regards,
Ayten
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005
4:47 PM
Subject: Re: Recycling, Rosennean
Style...
I think Ayten's point is very well posed. What may once have
been possible to entrust purely to Nature's way of remediation, in
Nature's time scale, would not be enough at our current level of global
overpopulation and that level is continually growing. Ultimately, Nature
will take care of our problem for us if we don't take care of it for
ourselves, but it will be very unpleasant...
So, we can look at a number of things we could
do to improve the situation. My favorite is to live smarter, as a
species. But I have few illusions that this is going to happen fast enough
to really prevent climate change or worsening of other global forms of
damage. My country just re-elected George W. Bush!!!! (Forgive me a
primal scream.....) It would require a massive unified effort to
reorganize our ways of doing everything, from what we build our houses out
of, and how we build them, to how we supply all our physical needs (food,
power, water, etc), to how we get around (transportation) to how we
run our industries, to how we handle inevitable waste flows...
To make such sweeping changes at the pace humanity is used to would
take generations, and that will be too late to prevent many of the global
changes, I fear.
Failing that, then ways to slow down the global climate
and other environmental changes, whilst working to encourage the human
reorganizational changes, would be my second choice. What I suspect will
happen is that as global climate changes manifest themselves in ways
that scare humanity, there will be far more interest and willingness to
embrace the wider-scale, more difficult reorganization of our ways of
doing things. We at least have a chance, then, of "beating the clock"; our
efforts at slowing down the changes may just provide us with enough time
to prevent the worst of the global climate shifting. What I'm most
concerned about is the kind of "system oscillation" my father spoke of,
which happens when systems are destabilized. He said the oscillation
is very difficult to stop and will continue until it runs its course
and the system regains equilibrium. If we can avoid
destabilizing global climate to that extent, we can consider ourselves
very, very lucky.
So, to that end, where would our efforts best be spent? What
is both feasible and do-able, in terms of application of Rosennean
Complexity? That's what got me to thinking about the molecular
recycling/reconfiguration idea in the first place. I'm sure there are
plenty of other applications we could come up with, on this group, so I
suggest a brainstorming session. Who's game?
Judith Rosen
PS: I'm currently researching, thanks to Leo's suggestions
for links and databases, the nature of Dioxin molecules... Specifically,
the worst of the dioxin compounds is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
It's created by burning things with chlorine in them, or processes which
use chlorine with other hydrocarbons... so garbage incineration, paper
mills, PVC plastic manufacturing, Pesticide manufacturing, etc..... The
trouble with dioxins is that they mimic hormones in living organisms, so
they have all sorts of widespread effects. Worse; they persist in the
environment and bioaccumulate in fat (which females mobilize when
they are pregnant or nursing-- dosing the developing embryos and
newly born with it). I chose dioxin as my research subject because I've
been reading about it for twenty years; ever since my first pregnancy,
during the Reagan years, which was also the beginning of my environmental
activism (Coincidence? Not!). Dioxin is a bigger problem
now than ever.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005
3:01 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Recycling,
Rosennean Style...
Leo, Dan
A query on the following:
"Perhaps in
a glance towards Judith's desire for a practical approach,
one could
develop the appropriate higher-level "soil" analogy in terms
of the
functional strata of an integral recycling framework for
the
myriad waste products that we produce.
Nature does this stuff
so very well."
Once, still in remote areas now, it was/is
believed that running water will
not get polluted as it
purifies the waste by oxiganating it while flowing.
Nature does
this stuff so very well was therefore a correct statement to
make,
also for soil. We have since then realized that it was the matter
of
quantity. We have never experienced the effects of present
quantities and
varieties of waste. Both flowing water/shores
and soil get polluted and in
times and places die for
good!
What is then the practical value of trusting the nature's
inherent ability
to purify or transform the waste naturally? In this
connection I would go
along with Leo's view:
"I would imagine
in practical terms there is more to be done in raising
awareness of
'total system accounting' than in any underlying
technology or
science. " I would add:
with a lot and effective public education and
consciousness raising
activities also with a continuing research to
produce supporting scientific
proofs and perhaps some remedial
solutions.
Ayten
----- Original Message -----
From:
"Leo Caves" <***>
To: <***>
Sent:
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Recycling, Rosennean
Style...
> Dan, I think your comments on the importance
and role of the soil in
> the wider system are very interesting
and pertinent.
> Perhaps in a glance towards Judith's desire for a
practical approach,
> one could develop the appropriate
higher-level "soil" analogy in terms
> of the functional strata of
an integral recycling framework for the
> myriad waste
products that we produce.
> Nature does this stuff so very
well.
>
Leo
>
>
|