MY VIEWS 1997 : October-December
October/01/97/ELAN: Re: SUSTAINABILITY: Another
voice from Mexico
Dear friends. This is what the aim of the list should be about. Trying
to identify and discuss new ways of understanding and dealing theoretically
and practically with the environmental/sustainability challenges in Latino
America. Not just the mere exchange of information and environmental
gossip about Latin America. Our obligation should be to say what our list
can contribute to gain a better understanding of and identify alternatives
ways of dealing with the environmental crisis in Latino America. Less
than that means that perhaps we are just "fishing".
I hope we will find a better topic related to the environment in
latino america other than "sustainability" or the "market".
I call for friends in latino america to post topics related to
sustainability. If I can contribute I will make an attempt to
provide my view to them.
The only child that I fear is the child of the imagination
"The greatest story ever told."
The best way of fighting an idea is with another idea
On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Barkin wrote:
> Dear ELANers-
> Once enunciated, it is obvious that it is precisely these people in the
> third world --those who have chosen to shout: "Stop the world, I want to
> get off!"-- who offer an important source of inspiration, resources, and
> knowledge to create the alternatives that we will all need as the
> globalized system and the part of the planet that it is poisoning is
> plunged into crisis sometime in the not too distant future. Can the
> models of local development, based on autonomous management of resources,
> and deliberate but partial integration into the world market economy,
> help us escape from the confines of the globalized society? This is the
> challenge and promise of those of us working to design strategies of
> sustainability and the reason why most of our work is with indigenous and
> peasant societies in the third world.
October/02/97/ELAN: Re: Barkin's comments
Dear Bud. It is funny. People in the ground said" yes, theory is one
thing, and practice is other" without realizing that "practice" without
theory is not scientific and so it can not be taken seriosly or is not
taken seriously in developed countries. Or has(is) practical
knowledge been taken seriourly in developed countries? Remenber, the
patenting process takes place because practical/traditional knoledge is
not scientific knowledge.
On the other hand, theory without practice in developing countries
is the "blood" of developed country's knowledge and models. Or do
you want to continue to mantain the separation: let's developing countries
do the practice and we in developed countries make the theories to
evaluate their traditional practices.? Is this pro-practice only?
Marx also said that "a cartel has the seeds of its own
destruction". Can sustainable development be considered a
"Cartel"?. or is this question too theoretical.
When ever somebody critized the current paradigm is usually
told: Okey, what is the alternative?. I posted a critic and an
alternative, which nobody attack directly. Now I asked, what is the
practical or theoretical alternative or the practical alternative is just
to tell me privately to shut up?
Greetings to all.
On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Bud wrote:
> Here I depart from addressing David's essay to addressing the list
> in general. Maybe it's a question of theory and praxis and of the relative
> emphasis we individually choose to give one or the other. But after the
> bath of theorizing that's been happening recently on this list, I for one
> would welcome more input from praxis. As Marx well understood, a good way
> to understand how the world works is to try to change it.
> Thanks and best wishes, Bud/Eldon
October/03/97/ELAN: My last posting on sustainability
Dear friends, it seems that once I tried to make the connection between
sustainability and the market/economics people got offended, instead of
presenting and supporting their views. I tried many times to focus the
attention on "types of market incentives", "allocation of resources",
"motivations:selfish/altruistic behavior" and "competing views" and
to show how they relate to sustainable development/sustainability, but
discussion was avoided. Now, Mr. Bass says it all: "the irony is that the
broader discussion concerns among other things means of allocating
resources". Yes, this is the core of the discussion, and when talking
about "allocating resources" we are talking about "Microeconomics" and
about one of its areas of study "the market". The main goal is to
efficiently allocate resources among competing ends. In the current model
"competing ends" refers only to "selfish competing ends" motivated by
economic based market incentives only. This is the "only invisible hand"
in the market. My argument has been that this is consistent with
"sustainable development", not with "sustainability". Why,
because if we add "non-economic based market incentives" then there could
be "more than one invisible hand" in the same market competing for the
same resources and the consequence of that "new model" are yet to be
documented. Hence, current microeconomic theory may not be appropriate to
deal with a different problem as it has been shown too that
Macro-economics approaches had to be made "green" too. I am very sorry if
I have made some of you uncomfortable and I am sending you my most sincere
apologies for the precious time I took from you, but remember "static
knowledge" may not hold on forever.
Until next time;
On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Bass wrote:
>The irony is that the broader discussion concerned, among other things,
>means of allocating resources.]
October/05/97/ELAN: Re: Abuse of the list
Dear friends. I am the student Dr. G… refers. This is the second
time I see him getting angry to people critizising the working of the
current economic development model. He was doing the same thing in
RESECON when they were critizing there "the assumption of continuous
growth" and they were calling for alternatives. I did not know that you
need to have a Ph.D. to have common sense. This seems to be the case
in Dr. G…’s world?. Are you teaching your students to think or to
follow you?. I would have been happy to hear your "professional opinion"
on the subject, but maybe one day right.
"You sent the message through the list and answer through the list."
On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Dr. G… wrote:
>My direct communication with one of the offenders
> resulted in this juvenile response:
> Dear Dr. G…. I follow a simple rule. If you send a message to me
> through the list, I answer to the list. If you send a message to me
> directly I answer to you directly. That is what I was advised to do.
> And that is what I will do.
October/12/97/ELAN: Comunicacion cientifica y dinamica
Estimados Amigos. La dinamica de grupo que se dio como resultado de la
extension de mi topico "sostenibilidad" puede ser usada como un caso
tipico de casi todas las listas de discusion donde "ideas" por naturaleza
encuentran aceptacion(una audiencia pasiva) o critica(una audiencia
reactiva) o una conbinacion de las dos. Con el objeto de aprender un poco
mas hacerca de situaciones naturales consistentes con "la dinamica de
grupos" voy a compartir con ustedes un article que mande a la lista redCLA
cuando se discutia el topico relacionado a la dinamica de la comunicacion
cientifica en redCLA. En mi opinion, el mismo comentario es consistente
con la comunicacion cientifica en ELAN que se dio como resultado de mis
participaciones. Saludes a todos y como siempre, comentarios
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Toledo/Lucio Munoz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: RedCLA <REDCLA@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Subject: Communicacion cientifica y redCLA
Estimados amigos. A qui estan unos comentarios en cuanto a este
tema con el objeto de traer esta discusion en una forma mas directa
en cuanto a sus implicaciones para nuestra lista redCLA.
En 1952 Salomon Asch publico un libro llamado "Sicologia Social"
en el cual el establece que hay cuatro condiciones para que exista
1) Apertura: lo que significa no agenda escondida, todo es hecho en
publico y lo que parece ser es;
2) Un campo comun: objetivos comunes, viviendo en le mismo mundo y
3) Similaridad sicologica: preocupaciones similares, percepciones
4) Confianza mutua: respeto es la base de la relacion entre los miembros
sin importar las diferentes opiniones.
Salomon sostiene que la apertura entre los miembros del grupo y el
campo comun entre ellos interactuan mutuamente. A medida que el nivel de
apertura y de campo comun se fortifican, el grado de similaridad
sicologica aumenta. Una ves estos tres factores son fuerstes, entonces la
confianza mutua se establece. Es solamente en este paso o cuarta
dimension que la comunicacion effectiva, cientifica o no, se lleva acabo.
Una ves que hay confianza mutua, el grupo puede beneficiarse de la
interaccion de los miembros y cada mienbro puede beneficiarse de su
coneccion individual con los otros. Estos beneficios de la confianza
mutua lleva la participacion activa de todos los miembros de el grupo y a
la elaboracion de programas de accion conjunta y planificacion para que
los objetivos que el grupo establecio se cumplan. Finalmente, la
participacion efectiva de todos los miembros en todos los topicos
importantes de acuerdo a los objetivos de el grupo fortalece el grado de
apertura existente y el grado de campo comun, cerrando asi el circulo de
la comunicacion effectiva.
Lo descrito anteriormente es lo que en teoria todos los grupos
creados por un objetivo comun deberian de ser(comportarse). Pero como
dijo Wilfred Bion en su libro clasico "Experiencias en grupos", en todo
grupo hay dos tipos de dinamicas de grupos: 1) un grupo activo; y 2) un
grupo reactivo. Es el grupo reactivo, el sostiene, el que complica el
funcionamiento de el grupo como un todo ya que este grupo usualmente es
bien emocional, no cooperativo e intolerante.
Bion tambien sostiene que el grupo reactivo tiene tres tipos de
defensas a su disposicion para reaccionar:
a) Dependencia: necesita un lider para sobrevivir todo el tiempo. Sin
lider, no hay grupo;
b) Pelea-retirada: Cuando el grupo esta en pelea con fuerzas externas al
grupo o internas en el caso de sub-grupos porque se sienten amenazados
como grupos, necestitan un lider para pelear. Cuando este grupo considera
que la mejor estrategia es "la retirada" abondonan a los lideres y asi
asugurarse que la existencia de ese grupo como grupo continua;
c) Parejas: en este caso, comunicacion es fuerte entre parejas y pequenos
grupos bajo de agua pero el estado de los problemas no cambia. Las
parejas o subgrupos estan esperando el aparecimiento de una idea nueva o
lider nuevo para mantener los objetivos de el grupo pequen~o o
pareja vivos y activos, pero en realidad las parejas no quieren que esta
nueva idea o lider se materialize. Las parejas, bion dice, en
verdad no quieren tener otra mala experiencie(como la idea o lider
anterior) asi es que necesitan mantener una fantasia.
Para finalizar, conbinando la teoria de Asch sobre las condiciones
de comunicacion effectiva y la teoria de Bion sobre la existencia
simulatanea de fuerzas activas y reactivas en todo grupo, se establecen
los lineamientos teoricos que nos pueden ayudar a mejorar la calidad de
esta lista y entender lo que algunas veces parece irracional(errores,
imprudencias, vulgaridades, ofensas, reproches.....) pero que en realidad
no son mas que manifestaciones de la dinamicas de grupos clasificadas
racionalmente como "fuerzas reactivas" de las dinamicas de grupos.
Como dice, Bion, es necesario neutralizar y/o usar las fuerzas reactivas
para que los objetivos perseguidos por las fuerzas activas o la lista se
materializen. Aca creo que todos los miembros de la redCLA podemos
aportar un poco.
Mis disculpas con anticipacion si escribi mucho.
Saludes a todos.
Todo lo anterior se encuentra sumarizado en el capitulo seis de
Emery et al, The search conference.
The only child that I fear is the child of imagination.
" The greatest story ever told"
The best way of fighting an idea is with another idea.
October/21/97/ELAN: RE: Cambiotech on ELAN
One of the weaknesses of Jeff's posting is that basically all types of
technological breakthroughs may lead to a similar chain reaction in
developing countries that he described and which may worsen the conditions
of the weak in society which can be seen as the negative externalities.
His comment does not look at the positive externalities. On the other
hand, Javier refers only to the positive externalities of
technology and little reference to the potential negative externalities.
The question to ask is "is it possible to figure out what the
net externality of technological progress is? It seems that
technology(free or paid) is not group neutral and so is bound to increase
social tension in developing countries. For example, if
agri-bio-technology were free it can only be used by the ones who have
land(which may be the minority). If agri-bio-technology is paid for, as
it is, it can only be used by the ones who can afford it(again, it may
be the minority). So we seem to have a paradox in which a world without
technology would lead to an increase in social tensions in developing
countries at a lower pace, but perhaps to an increase in tensions between
developing countries and developed countries as developing countries fall
further behind. Any ideas to possible ways of dealing with the apparent
On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Javier - CIB wrote:
> Hello ELAN members,
> I wish to reply Jeff's comments:
> QUOTE: "In the past, every advance in ag science also raised
> land value, widening the gulf between haves and havenots, making more
> landless, pouring refugees into cities. Is that good for peasants? No,
> can't be. Not until every increase in land value is directed to all
> residents can new ag tech help campesinos." UNQUOTE.
> I agree with these concerns but I disagree on the source of the above
> indicated problems. Campesinos' conditions of life are not there
> forever, as it was not the case for peasants in developed countries 200
> years ago at the beginning of the industrial revolution, or even at the
> beginning of the green revolution. Some developing countries (e.g.
> Cuba), have profoundly transformed the status of campesinos through land
> reform, education, investment, science and technology. In developing
> countries the social problem of campesinos will remain unsolved so far
> the inequities derived from undemocratic socio-political structures are
> not changed, starting from the fair use of land. We are talking about
> land ownership reform, roads, education, access to credits and technical
> assistance (e.g. agri-food biotechnologies adapted to their local
> conditions). It belongs to campesinos and voters to enforce sustainable
> political decisions from their own governments.
> Meanwhile, biotechnology development is unstoppable, as human
> creativity. Indeed, the world population is expected to double by the
> year 2030 to 12 billion and there is not any other way to increase food
> production to keep pace with population growth. The question is how
> best to feed billions of additional people without destroying much of
> the planet by the excessive use of fossil fuels, agri-chemicals and
> marginal lands. We believe that developing countries have interest to
> look forward and try to get ready for taking advantage of this new
> technological revolution. Indeed, biotechnology has the potential to
> increase food production, reduce the dependency of agriculture on
> chemicals, lower the cost of raw materials, and reduce the negative
> environmental impacts associated with conventional production methods
> (biofertizers, biopesticides, transgenic plants, etc).
> This implies not only technology transfer and commercialization, but
> also the creation of national policies and regulatory systems to take
> care of environmental and social concerns, to raise public awareness and
> education, to train senior researchers and entrepreneurs on how to
> manage innovation in biotechnology, to promote sound policies for local
> R&D planning, as well as to promote strategic alliances, joint ventures
> & co-investment with more advanced firms/institutions in order to share
> knowledge and markets. CamBioTec, a Canadian-sponsored initiative, is a
> network of 6 focal point institutions working on all these aspects with
> the mission to promote the sustainable development of commercial
> biotechnology in 5 Latin American countries: Argentina, Chile, Colombia,
> Cuba and Mexico. The idea is to help them make better use of their
> scarce human and economic resources, and take advantage of opportunities
> for biotechnology appropriation through strategic alliances with
> Canadian and Latin American centres and firms. More information about
> CamBioTec can be found on CIB's website.
October/29/97/ELAN: Sostenibilidad y el role de el asesor
Estimados amigos, hace poco me hice miembro de la lista Econonomia
Ambiental en America Latina y como siempre con un espiritu positivo decidi
introducirme y compartir otras ideas que resultaron como parte de la
dinamica de mi proceso de validacion de resultados en Centro America.
Me gustaria saber tambien cual es la opinion de los amigos/amigas en ELAN
al respecto tambien y con ese objetivo estoy enviando copia de mi
introduccion y preguntas a ustedes. Sus comentarios son bienvenidos.
Saludes desde Vancouver;
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Toledo/Lucio Munoz <email@example.com>
To: Economia Ambiental en América Latina <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Estimados Amigos, mi nombre es Lucio Munoz. Son un
Canadiense-Salvadoren~o actualmente trabajando en un doctorado relacionado
con la deforestacion en centro america. Parte de la justificacion de mi
tesis es que metodologias tradicionales de investigacion como estudios
cualitativos detallados y estudios cuantitativo condensados no son
consistentes con las limitaciones locales en paises subdesarrollados desde
el punto de vista costo-effectivo and flexibilidad methodologica.
Ademas que no son apropiados para suportar programas de planificacion
regionales consistentes con las condiciones locales. Se argumenta la
necesidad de buscar metodologias no-tradicionales que sean mas
consistentes con las condiciones locales y su dinamica y se propone
una nueva metodologia no tradicional y se demuestra como funcionaria en el
caso de centro america y como se compararia con los resultados de las
otras metodologias existentes a pesar de su simplicidad.
La justificacion de mi tesis parece ser consistente con lo que
reporta Arturo Lopez/IUCN/95 con respecto a la lecciones aprendidas de la
implementacion de 25 proyectos/programas en latino america:
1) no existe una receta para las strategias, lo que implica la necesidad
de flexibilidad metodologica; y 2) adaptacion a las condiciones locales,
lo que indica la necesidad de consistencia metodologica con las
Durante el proceso de pasar un cuestionario sencillo en
centro america varias preguntas surgieron. Me gustaria explorar
una de ellas con ustedes, ya que me imagino que muchos de estudes
estan actualmente trabajando en esos proyectos. La pregunta se
refiere a el role que los asesores/technicos desempen~an en estos projectos:
Es el role de los technicos/asesores "agente de cambio" o "agente
de control"? Si agente de control, cual es la estrategia a seguir para
lograr autogestion?. Si agente de cambio, a que punto el
asesor termina la cogestion?. Finalmente, cual de los dos roles es mas
cercano a el objetivo de "sostenibilidad"?. Sus comentarios son bienvenidos
y los voy a contestar a medida que el tiempo me lo permita.
Reciban un saludo muy cordial desde Vancouver;
November/01/97/ELAN: Re Kees Jansen Question
Aren't we asking the wrong question?. Rational expectations would be a
simple explanation to why NGOs(corporations or fundations) put(collect)
their money to finance projects in Latino America. The questions should
be whether or not the roles of NGOs in latino america has made easier or
more difficulty the path toward sustainability. The need for NGOs arose
because it was thought that government beaurocracies were too inefective
reaching the needed, but are NGOs more effective than government
institutions all the time?. Are projects designed by fundations and
corporations more consistent with local realities than projects designed
by government officials?. Neil Byron(CIFOR 1997) just published a
reviewed of 50 years of forestry projects in order to determined why they
have failed and he concluded that faulty designed is the cause of failure:
PROJECTS DO NOT REFLECT LOCAL REALITIES AND NEEDS so those that
those who control de process are at fall(donors, national governments,
consulting companies). Part of the problem he suggest is that government
beaurocracies are inefective indicating that this is the reason why NGOs
are better than government beurocracies in reaching the needed target
groups. As most people have mentioned in this discussion corporations and
fundations may be bound by the same faulty design as donor projects,
whether by choice or lack of choice.
In my study in central america I found some evidence that
perceptions can serve as reference to indicate this possibility and that
the sustainability goals of governments and NGOs may be in contradiction
with each others, yet all of them prevail under the unbrella of
Proving that the coming of NGOs with the environmental crises
has made it more difficult to move toward sustainability may not be
difficult, but to me that is not as important as to answer the question,
how can we improve the efficiency of the interaction of government and
NGOs officials so that the needed gets more and the local system get more
sustainable and the question of how the "accepted" faulty design could be
fixed again for the betterness of the target groups?.
Your comments are welcome.
Greetings from Vancouver.
On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Ronald wrote:
> Dear Kees,
> A study of the social and environmental impact on Latin America of US
> conservation organizations and the foundations and corporations that
> finance them is something important waiting to be done. Do you suppose we
> could talk a foundation into supporting such a study?
> people working in Latin America. A study would have to interview these
> people as well as those who have found themselves hindered by big
> conservation policies.
> I think JCW hit it on the head. The "evil" comes from faulty design.
> whatever the "external" costs. Environmental organizations' job is stand
> in their way, pressure government to do its job of controlling corporate
> excesses. But since these organizations now depend on corporate dollars
> (directly or filtered through foundations) they have backed off. They
> probably need to be scrapped, but the important thing is who is going to do
> their job?
November/03/97/ELAN: SUSTAINABLE BY DESIGN? ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCE USE
My posting referred to the need to know whether or not the coming
of NGOs as a result of the supposed inefficiency of "top-down" government
structures in delivering services to target groups has made the path
toward sustainability easier or not. Your posting does not seem to have
direct relationship with the above and orginal discussion about the "role
of NGOs in latino america". However, It can be proven that 1) top-down
approaches are sufficient, but not necessary for sustainable development
to take place; 2) bottom-up approaches are also sufficient, but no
necessary for sustainable development to take place; and that 3) the
interaction/melting of top-down and bottom-up approaches are necessary
and sufficient for "sustainability" to take place(sustainability = strong
sustainable development). The above could/can also be explained
by looking at human/group behavior, whether they have practical or ideal
goals. Moreover, the above could be used to explain that the exponential
increased in NGOs in latino america(central america)since the 1980s does
not necesarily leads to a development position closer to sustainability
at the local level as compared to the situation before their coming or
does not necesarly means an easier transition toward sustainability.
I wish others participate in this discussion if not it will be
taken/made as a personal discussion again.
Greetings to all;
On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, JC W..wrote:
> Human behaviors and factors (e.g., values, institutions, policies)
> that influence and motivate those behaviors are central to any
> understanding and mitigation/elimination of negative externalities. With
> structure of the acting human system - specifically, a participative
> democratic organizational structure will encourage project efficiency and
> outcome sustainability through ideal-seeking behavior. While bureaucratic
> structures (regardless of their design) foster a well-known series of
> pathological disorders through goal-seeking behavior which translate into
> less than optimal performance and unsustainable outcomes.
November/03/97/ELAN: Re: Appropriate ELAN Discussions
I did not say that NGOs were Evil, a yet those posting seem to be
appropriate discussion and my posting is not. I just said that the coming
of NGOs in developing countries may not have lead to the expected
efficiency gains in reaching the target groups as planned and that a
better interaction between government and NGOs structures may be needed,
which seems to be consistent with Ron Mader research interests.
The original postings of this discussion requested the participation of
all members of this list and I felt I could provide an honest, but
twisting view which could be tested if there was interest in improving
the efficiency in reaching target groups. I am sorry if I bother you.
On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Serge wrote:
> Dear Elaneros:
> Can we ensure that private dialogues between elaners be kept away from the
> ELAN list. We really don't need to start this all over again.
> And no this is not an attempt by an employee of a multinational NGO to
> silence discussion etc. This is not a conspiracy.
November/05/97/ELAN: TOO MUCH TOO MUCH
I just sent this e-mail to Mr. B. without realizing that I was not
sending copy to ELAN. This may be my last message.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:23:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Toledo/Lucio Munoz <email@example.com>
Subject: This is not fair and too much
Dear Friends, specially Latino Americans. It seems that
everything I post bothers some people in this list and they are trying to
use anything they can find to stop my right to participate as a member of
this list and violate the freedom of ideas. Are not these principles
part of the code of ethic of this list?.
Mr. B. told me before not to post the full original
message in my replies, if you check my postings after I was advised to do
that I have complied: I have just posted the segments of the original
posting relevant to my reply to provide the context, AND YET STILL THERE
SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM.
Everybody else seemed to post the original message back without
being reprimanded, which can be easily established by checking
their previous postings. Unbelievable.
I ONLY WITHDREW VOLUNTARY FROM A LIST WHEN I MADE A MISTAKE. I
USUALLY SAY THAT I AM SORRY FOR ANY MISTAKE MADE AND THEN I WITHDREW.
THIS TIME, I HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING WRONG. SINCE I CAN NOT WITHDRAW
VOLUNTARILY UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I BEG MR. B. TO TAKE ME OFF THE
LIST SO HAPPINESS FOR THOSE OPPOSED TO DIFFERENT IDEAS COMES BACK.
PLEASE, DO IT RIGHT AWAY.
"Lo que esta a la vista no necesita anteojos".
My best wishes to all and until next time.
Sorry for posting your full short original message!
On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, B. wrote:
> I ask you once again to be respectful of our diverse membership. PLEASE
> DO NOT ADD THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO YOUR REPLIES. This involves
> significant volume without improving the quality of your contributions.
> I hope you will decide to participate as a responsible member of our
> group by acceding to this request
November/07/97/ELAN: one solution to list discord is...
Dear Friends. I would be happy to join this option ELAN-D if available
so that we can exchange ideas without worrying about "aparent"
negative externalities. If there is interest, then I am in. Perhaps
this may lead to more participation from "latino americans". Thanks Bud
for the suggestion.
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Bud wrote:
> First a practical suggestion for list problems. There is an option in
> between having open-ended discussion on the list and banishing those
> talkers to private one-on-one email. A few weeks ago I mentioned that ELAN
> briefly had a second list, ELAN-D, reserved for discussion. It didn't
> "take" at that time, but my sense is that there's been considerable
> turnover in ELAN subscribers, so it might take now. Timmons, who along
> with David, has invested much time and energy in mounting and maintaining
> the ELAN list (thanks, guys!) could describe better than I the experience
> with ELAN-D. It's the middle option.
November/14/97/ELAN: Re: ELAN-D
Dear Ronald. This solution would be incomplete because what is important
from a discusion is the spill over effect: the negative/positive comments
made by some are excellent feedback for others with similar psicological
mind and interests. This spillover effect is very limited with a two
people discussion, specially when it goes down to the cathegory of
personal arguments(whether or not there where more than two opinions at
each time). I will give a try to ELAN-D. I will still get the
news from ELAN and then, if I find something interesting for discussion, I
will bring those points to ELAN-D. I am very bussy too, but I always
enjoyed positive and constructive discussions and try to make the time for
it, specially if the spillover effect may go to "Latino America". As soon
as I can make some time I will see how the discussion in ELAN-D can be
started with a strong foot and becomes more participative.
Greetings to all;
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Ronald wrote:
> 1. Establish a general agreement that one post comments to a given thread
> only once and respond individually after that.
> 2. Establish a moderator mechanism, someone who arbitarily decides if a
> posting is of sufficient general interest.
November/25/97/ELAN:RE: environment, immigration &
This could be a good topic for discussion in ELAN-D. Can somebody tell me
where the messages to ELAN-D should be sent?. I have been trying to send,
but the address I have did not work.
December/12/97/ELAN: Kyoto agreements/CO2 policy
Queridos Amigos. Basado en los acuerdos en Kyoto, Japan con respecto
a el calentamiento climatico y a la creacion de una politica de CO2 como
una forma de contrarestarlo, me gustaria mencionar que los ideas que yo
trate de compartir con ustedes hace unos meses parece que no estaban
fuera de el marco de posibilidades y es claro que ahorita las presiones en
controlar el uso y production de los recursos renovables de energia en
paises subdesarrollados va a aumentar. Es de esperar que las industrias
que controlan la produccion y venta de fuentes de energian no-renobable
tienen ahorita el incentivo economico de controlar o crear endustrias en
el area de recursos renobables para estabilizar el mercado energetico en
el futuro y tener mas flexibilidad. Ejemplo, las companias petroleras
tienen que moverse en esta direccion de acuerdo a una ley simple the
control de mercado. Lo mismo, como el beneficio de crear emisiones en
condiciones actuales es mayor que el costo de comprar bosques o pagar por
reforestar (sinks) mis comentarios sobre las consequecias potenciales de
esto para paises subdesarrollados hechos anteriormente son hoy mas
cercanos a la realidad que el dia que hice mis comentarios esotericos.
Este tema en mi opinion, necesita mas atencion ahorita en paises
subdesarrollados porque es posible que de la forma que la politica de
control de CO2 va ahorita es posible que en el nuevo sistema las
condiciones sociales y economicas de la persona promedio
se empeoren debido a la posibilidad de desencadenar un proceso masivo de
conversion de areas no forestales a forestales y de protection de bosques
todavia no protegidos sin bases fuertes de planificacion a largo plazo.
Mis saludos a todos;
December/18/1997/ELAN: Kyoto Japan/the reality check
Dear Friends, after all the ideas discussed around sustainability and the
CO2 policy previously were not too esoteric at all and some of them became
realistic after the meeting in Kyoto, Japan. Now, the CO2 policy is hear
to stay and the analysis made and the questions raised still hold. I just
want to bring the attention to two questions:
1) What will the rational economic man do in response to this policy?
2) What will the rational environmental man do to in response to the
The anwers to these questions will highlight the unsustainability
of development in the short and medium term as they adjust their positions
at the expense of the rational social men.
Greetings y FELIZ NAVIDAD;
Note: I tried to test the participation in ELAN-D and nobody did.