***  Haus der Kulturen der Welt: Forum1 Archive  ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   [Date]: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:13:25 -0600
   [From]: Juan JosŽ D’az Infante <jdiazinfante@altamiracave.com>
     [To]: Cultural Exchange via Internet <forum1@hkw.kbx.de>
[Subject]: Denial is not a river in Egypt, mmh

Dear Ami

I do not want to make a catastrophe predictions, but on the other hand I can
not ignore the status of 75% of the globe and pretend everything is OK. To
have the right definition of the problem is the first step to solve it.

> Dear Juan,
> The examples you give prove that it is a difficult world, not
> that it is getting worse. Malthus did not make some general
> claim about poverty. Malthus made a very specific prediction.
> He claimed there would be a population crash
> because the rate of population growth is geometric, and the increase
> in food supply is arithmetic.  Population has not outstripped the
> food supply.
> The living conditions you describe in India are terrible.
> The living conditions in the tenements of ancient Rome were as bad or
> worse.
> Neither case proves the thesis of Malthus. If Malthus had been
> right, there would not be such a large population in Bombay, because
> there would be nothing for them to eat. Instead, we find that somehow
> there is enough food to sustain a miserable life, and population
> increases nonethless.

You are talking of the survivors, that does not mean nobody died, that
millions of children die of malnutrition and the fact that the whole numbers
are not there does not mean that they did not die.
Quality of life has to do with functions beyond breathing, not cheering the
fact that they did not die.


Why are futurist wrong:

> This is another predicted catastrophe that could well be true, or not.
> The virus that could kill mankind could crop up at any time,  just as the
> black plague grew out of the poverty of the middle ages. Or perhaps
> it will not.  The trick is to predict what really will happen.
>
> Among the experts the corporations hire it seems some do a better job (or
> are luckier) than others.
> The U.S. auto industry made some really bad mistakes in the 60s.

It is their job to be wrong. To understand this statement you actually would
need to have worked with some of them. As a project planner or
troubleshooter you hire this talent in order to change the outcome of the
natural trend of things. One example would be jurisprudence regarding
copyrights depending on the nature of new technology. (If someone is
interested in these dynamics I=B4ll be happy to extend on it)


Apples with apples and oranges with oranges, as my teacher of mathematics
always said...

>
> "This can only be recognized in the proper grammar... Truth is never badly
> written..."
>
> Many false prophecies have been well written. There is no reason in particular
> why the truth should be well written. Genesis is well written, especially
> in the King James version, while Darwin is often ponderous.
> Which is true?

True is always a misleading term and a moving target.There are valid and non
valid structures of thought . The knowledge of semiotics tends to clarify
the structures of grammar as structures of thought.It could be very clear in
the study of the sophists for example. Even when the sophists seemed correct
at first sight, the premises and conclusions were not properly constructed
(barbara, celarent, darii, feriio...).

By the way, Genesis and "The Origin of the Species" do not contradict each
other at any point. It was the very wrong interpretation of both what
created conflict. If you read "The Phenomenon of Man" by PT de Chardin
(jesuit priest that discovered the "Man of Pekin") you will find the
theoretical frame that puts together Genesis and The Beagle. It was John
XXIII that gave the imprimatur to such heretic writings under the following
saying: "I can not forbid what I can not understand"

regards Juan


> Ami
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Juan Jos=E9 D=EDaz Infante <jdiazinfante@altamiracave.com>
> To: PEACE <ami_iss@netvision.net.il>
> Sent: =E9=E5=ED =F9=EC=E9=F9=E9 14 =E3=F6=EE=E1=F8 1999 08:16
> Subject: Charlie Brown is OK while Mafalda is f, really worried
>
>
> Ami
>
>> you wrote
>> For example, Malthus predicted population explosion
>> would be a showstopper, but it did not happen. Not Yet.
>
> Charlie Brown is Ok while Mafalda gets really worried:
>
> If we speak of the World, China and India are half of it...
>
> Let us center in a city like Mumbay or Calcuta. A couple of years ago,in
> Mumbay, out of 9 million people 5 million of them lived in the floor they
> were standing on in the street. The figures are not getting better I woul=
d
> consider it a soon to be showstopper. 5% of the population of Mexico is
> totally out of reach technologically (electricity), the figure is actuall=
y
> the population of Guadalajara, 5 million people. In 1994 in Peru, the arm=
y
> could not defend the population against the Guerrrilla (Sendero Luminoso)=
,
> they would only send soldiers to give away bullets to the civilians so th=
ey
> could defend themselves. The virus that could kill mankind could be very
> well gestating in Rwanda due to the total lack of sanitation of the bruta=
l
> killings, most of the water supply has been contaminated and certain
> mutations have been detected (intelligent viruses). There is a very
> important international lobbying to make vitamins prescription medicines,
> since science started making man stronger the viruses and bugs (bacteria)
> have become also stronger. Today there is only one antibiotic of full
> spectrum left. Mexico City has 200 pollution alerts, and 80 pollution
> emergencies a year just in the air. 2 months of the year DF gets thermal
> inversion. Maybe 6 or 7 years ago CNN ran a story of pictures taken from =
a
> US satellite that show how the pollution comes from underground industrie=
s
> that "turn on" at night. Let us not forget that Mrs Carabias (Secretary o=
f
> Environment) lost the forests two years ago with a major environmental
> dissaster. In another mail we=B4ll touch the slums of Sao Paulo or Rio...
>
> You do not notice the showstopper. I do not think your opinion would be
> shared by the Curds (totally misled by the US), a woman in Chechetnia, a
> small baby in Poland, a priest in Tibet, an average citizen of Timor or a
> catholic in Rwanda.
>
> We are very lucky to afford such light opinions. We can afford them as lo=
ng
> as countries like Mexico are in the loop of creating systematic poverty.
> Employment does not create wealth. Wealth is a concept.
>
>
>> You seem to be claiming (if I understand) that the formation of the
>> CIA based on the predicted need for information, could somehow
>> be used to predict the importance of the computer and information
>> industry 30 years later.
>
> The information industry has nothing to do with the computer, it has alwa=
ys
> been there. And it is still there without computers being necessary.
> The analyst of information is what is indispensable. Even my chofer has
> access to a computer, that does not mean that he has access to informatio=
n
> and even less to the wealth of what information can give. The computer is=
 a
> medium to get or communicate info. Computers are tools,  the screwdriver =
is
> not the engine.
>
> Proportionally speaking and
> As a matter of fact there is not that much useful information out there. =
I
> remember making presentations for Mr Azcarraga in the 80=B4s in video forma=
t,
> 3 minute long. It meant 150 words for decisions of millions.
>
> Last year I designed a system to deliver information to very high executi=
ves
> and politicians. 3 times a day 10 lines in two 4x5 cards synthesizing 36
> newspapers and 8 TV channels.
> So one thing is the value of the right information and another one the
> mirage of info as bulk, even today the term content and knowledge have
> varied drastically of what it used to be.
> There is a lot of garbage information also out there and as we say in
> computer lingo GI-GO (Garbage in, Garbage out)
>
>> futurist predictions have not done well.
>
> In order to have futurist predictions you need to pay the right expert.
> Technology trends today have been planned for the next 10 years. Companie=
s
> like General Dynamics know what you are going to be buying in the year 20=
10
> and how. Companies like Dupont know your exact needs in the year 2005. Th=
e
> cost of this is brutal and of course is not available to the public. The
> public is eager for best sellers and not accurate descriptions that their
> life is going to be exactly the same in 10 years.
>
>
>>predicting novelty (Internet for example). In trying to understand
>> how culture or society will be affected by the Internet and other
> technologies,
>> we need precisely that kind of interactive predictive ability - and we d=
on't
>> have it.
>
> Corporate networks and Internet have been around for a long time.For exam=
ple
> the software of Fernando Flores=B4s "Coordinator", we were using it in 1987=
.
> The theoretical framework was already set in part by him and by Macluhan.
> After all communications is all about language
>
>> Regarding the Soviet Union, there is nobody, I think, who now says
>> "I knew it was happening, I said so, and nobody listened." The CIA
>> certainly did not know and missed the mark. I do not recall seeing
>> any argument that the USSR was on the verge of falling apart prior
>> to Gorbachev. So I am not sure your argument:
>>  "On the other hand if someone told you at the time
>> you probably disregarded it because it was not your personal
>> opinion-position" has any relevance - because I am not sure
>> anyone had that opinion and I certainly never heard it - did you?.
>
> At that time I was working as a consultant for 52 magazines, with monthly
> meetings. I was also working in marketing for the Televisa Group (280
> industries). I heard a lot of things. Including an amateur composer, Boby
> Sours that at the time was thinking of writing an opera "Lenin Desacre".
>
>
>> Nonetheless, you have raised an interesting
>> point. If a new, correct opinion is expressed, and it is contrary to
>> accepted "wisdom" -  how do we recognize it?
>> It is naive to think that the truth will be self-evident or triumph of i=
ts
>> own accord.
>
> This can only be recognized in the proper grammar... Truth is never badly
> written...
>
> Juan