-=> Quoting Charles Beams to Michael Martinez <=-
 MM>CB> Another place to look is modern day Africa where emerging third world 
 MM>CB> nations are trying to claw and scratch their way into the modern age. 
 MM>
 MM>The only reason they're trying to claw their way, is because that's the
 MM>only hope they have to buffer the onslaught of being overrun by powerful
 MM>industrial countries who strip them of their natural resources.  They 
 MM>haven't asked for it.
 CB> This is an interesting take on the situation in Africa.  Perhaps it is
 CB> unfair of me to project my view of the world on a nation I've never 
 CB> lived in - I had assumed that since many of the nations were
 CB> attempting  to modernize that they WANTED to modernize.  Do you have
 CB> any reason to  believe they are trying to "buffer the onslaught of
 CB> being overrun by powerful industrial countries" other than YOUR
 CB> projections? 
Read Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States.  It gives
a lot of examples, starting from 1492.
 MM>Consider your wording : "leading the world".  Do you think that to
 MM>lead the world is an honorable goal?
 CB> Yes.
 
I don't.  I consider it rude, offensive, and uncalled for to impose our
standards on other cultures.  There's many Cherokee, Navajo and Pueblo
Indians where I live to testify to the same.
 MM>To impose your thoughts of what things should be like on other 
 MM>cultures, more often than not against their will; to fashion a world 
 MM>economy which makes only a few people rich, but which you as a 
 MM>country must participate in or else become poorer than you were before 
.
 CB> There have been others before Illich who have dreamed of Utopian 
 
I don't think Illich dreams of a utopia at all.  He advocates a greater
degree of fairness, entirely plausible and do-able, and I say would be
very appealing to most people if they were media-detoxified and given
the chance to hear about it.
 MM>It's the only thing that recieves federal funding.
 CB> I don't believe that only people who receive federal funding can be
 CB> successful. 
Did you read what I'm saying.  I'm saying school gets the pickings when
it comes to federal support for learning institutions.  It's not fair
and it _doesn't_ promote learning.
 MM>It's the only place with well-equipped labs and fancy computers.  
 MM>It's the only place, outside of corporate labs, where up-to-date 
 MM>research is done.
 CB> I thought you (under the guise of advocating Illich's work) were
 CB> arguing  that this should all be done away with - that anyone, whether
 CB> trained or  not, should be able to operate fancy equipment?  Now I'm
 CB> confused. 
AS long as distribution and access to equipment
and skills-centers and so forth is _fair_, not one-sided, then I don't
care whether there's fancy, up-to-date equipment or not.
 CB> For my clarification - are you arguing (as I thought you were) that
 CB> all  certification for jobs (college profs was one you've mentioned in
 CB> the  past) should be done away with (anyone who wants to teach in a
 CB> college  should be able to walk onto the campus and begin teaching),
Yes.
 CB> or
 CB> are you  arguing that anyone who wants to earn that certification
 CB> should have the  right to without prior conditions (anyone can go to
 CB> college even if they  didn't graduate from high school)?
No.  There should be no certification.
 MM>School is accredited, it's got the stamp of approval.  If you don't 
 MM>make it in school, forget it, you're going to rot.
 CB> Well, I see SOME truth in that - education is a ticket to a better 
 CB> lifestyle in the U.S., but everyone is told that going in - no
 CB> surprises  there.  But more to the point, it is not a hard and fast
 CB> rule.  I'm sure  we can find lots of well-educated people who are
 CB> unhappy, some working  in much worse jobs than they ever imagined, and
 CB> there are many people  who are poorly educated who are doing well.  I
 CB> think it's more a matter  of what each individual does with his or her
 CB> life than it is what the  government, employers and associates set up
 CB> as the "rules." 
Sure it is.  But the difference is that under the current system, the
range of options afforded most people is severely limited, when it doesn't
have to be.  But the only way to open it up, is to abolish the schooling/
educational system.
Illich is saying that the art of _learning_ shouldn't be sold as if it
is a commodity.  In today's world, education is a commodity.  Look at
how you use the word:  "education is a ticket to a better life".  Substitute
"shampoo" for "education", and you've got a shampoo commercial.  Substitute
"Mercedes" and you've got a car commercial.  Did you ever see the movie
Bladerunner?  Remember the part where the blimps are floating up above
advertising the Off-shore Worlds, the Key to a Better Life.  The audience
realizes that it's an empty promise, because the movie is taken from
the standpoint of a person, the protagonist, who has deliberately stayed
on the dying earth.  Education is perhaps a bit less shoddy than _empty_,
but the alternatives, Illich's alternatives -- which aren't utopian
but are common sense ideas -- are rich and full.
 MM>CB> Can you point to any models of nations, or classes of people, that
 MM>CB> have succeeded based on the model you're promoting?
 MM>
 MM>Every current third-world fringe culture and most pre-19th century
 MM>world cultures.
 CB> I'm not sure I understand this very well either.  As I understand it, 
 CB> people in pre-19th century civilization were, for the most part, very 
 CB> poor.
No, there's a big difference.  _Poverty_ is modern.  And there is
plenty of that today.  The Mexicans, poor white trash and
blacks in the ghettos.  We've still got a LOT of poor in this world,
and as you can see by looking at our own inner cities, education doesn't
improve that at all.
Now, do you consider being poor a bad thing?  I consider it bad, only
if there are at the same time very rich people who hoard the goods.
Otherwise, I don't see it as "poverty".  For example, the native
American indians, before we got here.  They weren't poor.  They are
now.  We forced them into "modern" poverty.
 CB> Are you suggesting that's
 CB> a better way  of life, or do you know something of these cultures that
 CB> I don't? 
I think so.  I see no need for fancy cars, new body oils, new improved
programming on TV, or virtually any new product.  We've already conquered
infectious diseases with very simple antibiotics.  Now it would only take
a fraction of the money we spend on cancer research to wipe out infectious
disease around the world including third-world countries.  We've already
developed very useful tools that help us shape our environments -- pulleys,
levers, motors, etc..  There's no need to continually upgrade this stuff,
at least until we can first make it available to suit people's basic
needs in assisting their daily tasks world-wide.
-mike
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]
---------------