From:   Ashley Anderson <>
Sent time:   Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:38:06 AM
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Re: Hypocrisy

IMO, If a person feels cognitive dissonance about using technology sold by corporations, and that is getting in their way as an effective agent of change, they should stop using them. Those who are resolved about the issue should keep using them as tools. It's about streamlining your own conscience.

I'd rather have a close enough, self-reliant enough, and healthy enough community around me that I didn't need to go far for a communication fix. But the world has some serious fixin' to be done. So, with that, I hit "send", which blasts a bit of coal-fired electricity through servers (or something), to people I probably sat next to last week without knowing it. I'm fine with that for now. 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:00 AM, gail zawacki <> wrote:
We are already well past sustainable production of anything - we are in overshoot by any method of accounting.  The sheer number of people is unsustainable.  Plus, the environment is so degraded that species extinctions are unstoppable.

The only hope humans have of surviving is to reduce our numbers and revert to local, small-scale communities based on permaculture.

Available arable land is about to shrink dramatically, from extreme weather events that we are already seeing from climate change - droughts and floods - and sea level rise.

Suggested reading:

John Harte, UC Berkeley, Climate Shock: puts the world on notice from Forbes, of all places

Elizabeth Kolbert Laughs at extinction: Enter the Age of the Anthropocene, radio interview

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Aaron Gemmill <> wrote:
one important way for industrial economy to advance would be a radical shift toward sustainable production. there are many obstacles to this, but science isn't one of them.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:23 PM, gail zawacki <> wrote:
It's based on science.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:05 PM, J.A. Myerson <> wrote:
That is an unbelievably reactionary position to take.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:03 AM, gail zawacki <> wrote:
Charles, I have a suspicion that "advanced industrial economy that is sustainable" involves an oxymoron.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Charles <> wrote:
Do not be Luddites. We want an advanced industrial economy. We just
want it to be ever more democratic and sustainable, until we have the
kind of modern society that actually has a chance of prosperous
survival, rather than what we have now.

On Oct 18, 11:34 am, Harrison Schultz <> wrote:
> Woah, this article about the Adbusters largest private donor
> - stockbroker backer Robert S. Halper supports my point.  It seems as if
> members of the 1%, class traitors, god bless them have been helping us all
> along...
> H.
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Harrison Schultz <>wrote:
> > I agree with the sentiments about using the tools of the system against the
> > system and this is in fact what I've been attempting to do since before day
> > one of this movement, as this leak and deliberate misinterpretation of a
> > personal email I sent Micah White will verify...
> >
> > I would point out as someone who works in the marketing/advertising
> > industry while supporting this movement that many of the most scathing and
> > damning critiques of the system come from individuals who actually work
> > within the system.  I've met several radicals specifically within the
> > advertising industry who repress their beliefs just enough in order to work
> > and support their families.  I've met plenty of business leaders, although
> > not necessarily anyone from the 1%, who support what we are doing such as my
> > current boss and mentor as well as my former mentor who has actually taken
> > the time to visit me at camp several times now.
> > The traditional battle lines between labor and capital no longer apply.  If
> > we are serious about facilitating an actual revolution which I know we all
> > are then I would argue that it is vital to seize the most cutting edge means
> > of production especially if they happen to have been developed in some cases
> > by truly amoral corporations.  I think it's also important not to alienate,
> > but to ally ourselves with our supporters from the business world.  I
> > further believe along those same lines that it's important for those of us
> > who are able to do so to actually earn and "occupy" key positions and exert
> > our influence precisely within those companies we would most like to see
> > transformed if not obliterated because I believe that it's naive and wishful
> > to assume that they'll change themselves as a direct result of any of our
> > resentful rantings.
> > Hypocrisy is only a problem for puritans not for revolutionaries.
> > In solidarity,
> > Harrison
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Jon Good <>wrote:
> >> Sparkles to that, Lauren. It's another insidious thing corporations
> >> do, having a fictional entity take credit for the work of actual
> >> people.
> >> On Oct 18, 2011, at 8:18 AM, Lauren <> wrote:
> >> > I'll also note that cellular and wireless communications are pretty
> >> > damn essential to areas with limited physical infrastructure.

J.A. Myerson