![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Feb. 18th, 2012
Mostly For Ariadne Part 2
Feb. 18th, 2012 09:20 amFirst Floor:
Second Floor:
Elevations:
Ariadne:
I think the roof of the tower got cropped in the side-view. You get the idea, though. Feel free to swipe and alter/printout these.
Second Floor:
Elevations:
Ariadne:
I think the roof of the tower got cropped in the side-view. You get the idea, though. Feel free to swipe and alter/printout these.
This is revised and expanded from a piece I posted elsewhere:
Can you look beyond the current system, which really, truly doesn't work? Can you imagine a system where some minimal effort is expected from everyone; and where extra effort or creative solutions to problems are rewarded by regard or reputation rather than by unequal access to resources? And of course some people will excel, while others coast or slack off. But if everyone had food and drink aplenty, and clothing suitable to the climate, and a roof over his/her head, and there was plenty to go around, which there is these days... I can’t see any purpose to the money economy other than to concentrate control of resources in the hands of a few rapacious thugs.
Out of our foolish desire to deprive a few slackers of the comforts of civilization, we have created a System that punishes the "non-materially shrewd" (thank you H.P.Lovecraft!) with hunger and homelessness. Libertarians and Objectivists say such people are stupid and claim that *they deserve their fate*. There is IMO, nothing ethical, inevitable, or excusable in that attitude or the System that engenders it. My one hope is that we have set up this foul creation mostly unconsciously. If we collectively wake up, and start to see the economy as a construct which we could ‘alter or abolish’, we might be able to start talking about alternatives. I’ve proposed some, fictionally and in essay form. I like the idea of ‘generalized self-management in a moneyless economy’, but I’m a cranky old anarchist and know most people don’t agree with me. I don't ultimately care if we wind up using money or not, as long as the idea that children deserve to starve because their parents aren't good at making money gets kicked into the dustbin of history. On my less pessimistic days, I think there's about one chance in 10,000 that we'll survive as a species long enough to evolve a better culture and economics. That's a little long winded, but WTH.
Can you look beyond the current system, which really, truly doesn't work? Can you imagine a system where some minimal effort is expected from everyone; and where extra effort or creative solutions to problems are rewarded by regard or reputation rather than by unequal access to resources? And of course some people will excel, while others coast or slack off. But if everyone had food and drink aplenty, and clothing suitable to the climate, and a roof over his/her head, and there was plenty to go around, which there is these days... I can’t see any purpose to the money economy other than to concentrate control of resources in the hands of a few rapacious thugs.
Out of our foolish desire to deprive a few slackers of the comforts of civilization, we have created a System that punishes the "non-materially shrewd" (thank you H.P.Lovecraft!) with hunger and homelessness. Libertarians and Objectivists say such people are stupid and claim that *they deserve their fate*. There is IMO, nothing ethical, inevitable, or excusable in that attitude or the System that engenders it. My one hope is that we have set up this foul creation mostly unconsciously. If we collectively wake up, and start to see the economy as a construct which we could ‘alter or abolish’, we might be able to start talking about alternatives. I’ve proposed some, fictionally and in essay form. I like the idea of ‘generalized self-management in a moneyless economy’, but I’m a cranky old anarchist and know most people don’t agree with me. I don't ultimately care if we wind up using money or not, as long as the idea that children deserve to starve because their parents aren't good at making money gets kicked into the dustbin of history. On my less pessimistic days, I think there's about one chance in 10,000 that we'll survive as a species long enough to evolve a better culture and economics. That's a little long winded, but WTH.
An answer I sent to some liberal guy, made up mostly of potentially annoying questions:
Ok, so is there a way out of our current mess within the System? Is the current economy capable of developing into a sustainable economy? Or do we have to look beyond it? That's what I'm writing about, in fiction and non. Can a system be created that uses money but doesn't create elites? Is it possible to have elites but not environmental collapse? Can you show me, historically, a top-down system that didn't eventually collapse its local ecosystem? Would a moneyless, self-managed system do any better? Or would well-informed assemblies, with the power to control local events, go ahead and damage or destroy the local ecosystem for short term benefit? We already know that letting economic elites manage the Commons is a bad idea; would the common people seizing power and collectively managing the Commons be any better? If not, are we doomed to some kind of creeping fascist state that eventually becomes ecologically aware and forces 'better' practices on the masses? Or will racoon archaeologists of the future be studying the 'End Quaternary Event' and the extinction of the human species, puzzling over what caused such a catastrophe? These are not rhetorical questions. I study and think about this stuff a lot, and I don't have answers. The essay you skimmed is full of my opinions, what are your opinions? I am not too interested in the opinions of academic elites who are invested in the continuation of the System, rationalized. This medium offers us a chance to exchange our own ideas, and I think we should use it that way while we can.
Ok, so is there a way out of our current mess within the System? Is the current economy capable of developing into a sustainable economy? Or do we have to look beyond it? That's what I'm writing about, in fiction and non. Can a system be created that uses money but doesn't create elites? Is it possible to have elites but not environmental collapse? Can you show me, historically, a top-down system that didn't eventually collapse its local ecosystem? Would a moneyless, self-managed system do any better? Or would well-informed assemblies, with the power to control local events, go ahead and damage or destroy the local ecosystem for short term benefit? We already know that letting economic elites manage the Commons is a bad idea; would the common people seizing power and collectively managing the Commons be any better? If not, are we doomed to some kind of creeping fascist state that eventually becomes ecologically aware and forces 'better' practices on the masses? Or will racoon archaeologists of the future be studying the 'End Quaternary Event' and the extinction of the human species, puzzling over what caused such a catastrophe? These are not rhetorical questions. I study and think about this stuff a lot, and I don't have answers. The essay you skimmed is full of my opinions, what are your opinions? I am not too interested in the opinions of academic elites who are invested in the continuation of the System, rationalized. This medium offers us a chance to exchange our own ideas, and I think we should use it that way while we can.