|
|
Post by workerscommunes on Feb 24, 2005 8:50:05 GMT -5
"2. To obtain the highest standard of living possible whilst respecting the eco-system which supports us."
"8. To support scientific research into areas which have the potential to help us or our environment (...)"
In light of recent comments made on the topic of primitivism, I thought we should address the problem posed by the fact that two of our founding aims link tACA to scientific and technological process.
Perhaps the founding aims/principles may seem unneccessary to some but I think it would be good to have a consensus on what we consider to be our core values in order to strengthen regional solidarity. We need to modify these two so that they do not restrict us to either semi-tecnological or primitivist lifestyles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anarchic Tribes on Feb 26, 2005 19:31:22 GMT -5
Hiya,
it's a good point. What do you think then?
As far as research goes, I'm not into the idea. We've done enough already, let's starts applying it in the manner suggested.
|
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on Feb 28, 2005 9:52:42 GMT -5
How abouts...
"2. To ensure everyone is garuanteed the essentials they require in order for them to lead their chosen lifestyle, so long as this lifestyle is not harmful to others or the environment which supports us."
and...
"8. To work towards repairing the damage done by excessive technology by limiting its use but applying it to more useful causes where appropriate. The right to scientific freedom should be respected as long as it is sustainable."
|
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on Mar 4, 2005 10:02:00 GMT -5
No other comments anyone? I'll take your silence as a big unanimous "go ahead and change them WC!"  |
|
|
|
Post by Liberaregno on Apr 10, 2005 5:52:10 GMT -5
i'm personally against the 8th rule: How abouts... "8. To work towards repairing the damage done by excessive technology by limiting its use but applying it to more useful causes where appropriate. The right to scientific freedom should be respected as long as it is sustainable." ...repairing the damage done by excessive technology by limiting its use... The right to scientific freedom should be respected as long as it is sustainable.i don't think technology is the problem, i think how we today use it is. so limiting technology limits the human imagination, creativity and wonder about natural philosophies/and sciences. the other problem i find is again that how can you possibly limit the scientific freedom if something is not sustainable? i mean who knows what will prove out sustainable and what not? who will then limit a scientist's breakthrough discoveries? the government? the neighbour? i think in an anarchist society people should have the right to do what ever they will, without physically or mentally hurting anybody, with their bodies and minds as long as they are not hurting anybody elses right to do the same thing. so therefore controlling such things as technology would be, in my opinion, not possible nor acceptable in anarchist society. |
|
|
|
Post by allers on Apr 12, 2005 17:40:03 GMT -5
Chaos theory anyone?
Mandelbot was rigth,it is beautiful
|
|
|
|
Post by Liberaregno on Apr 13, 2005 6:40:18 GMT -5
what in god is going through your head now? care to explain ?  einstein was professor, the maniac it's science overrunning us today n' the blashphemy i'm gonna do's not against the god it's against the anti-god who doesn't anythin' anti-god to be universal edit: typo |
|
|
|
Post by allers on Apr 13, 2005 15:22:28 GMT -5
what in god is going through your head now? care to explain ? einstein was professor, the maniac it's science overrunning us today n' the blashphemy i'm gonna do's not against the god it's against the anti-god who doesn't anythin' anti-god to be universal edit: typo we are indeed primitive and nobody proved it is not universal and like einstein said once "what the fuck? ?? i thought i was smart, i onlyforgot i was not alone." Cryptic enought? |
|
