From: "Lowe Laclau" <lowelaclau-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: ecology work? ecology workers?
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:46:44 -0400
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Michael, </P>
<P><BR><EM>Some immediate concerns:<BR>1) Where is the line between ecology work and work in healthcare? There is a<BR>continuum of relevant biological knowledge.</EM></P>
<P>However, ecological work to me seems to correspond directly to a medium of operation and not the specific health of something that occupies that medium. Thus the health of ones household itself as opposed to the health of its residence first. The former being far more inclusive. <BR><EM>2) Are owner-managers of small farms ecology workers?</EM></P>
<P>I wouldn't say so. In so far as their main objective is to feed themselves and make something of a profit, they will definitely operate (unless they are for some reason morally inclined) with a willingness to accept undesirable externalities if that makes a tradeoff on productivity more likely. In fact, since it is environmental standards that increasingly impinge upon their externalities (such as the extremely important crackdown on nitrate pollution), I would tend to think their consciousness is increasingly un-ecological unless they are organic farmers. <BR><EM>3) Ecological knowledge on a small scale is highly diverse and specific, tending<BR>to vary with locality. Would increasingly succesful circulation of consciousness<BR>about ecology work tend to correspond with an increasingly abstract conception<BR>of "ecology" itself? </EM></P>
<P>This depends on how one conceives of "abstract" I would think... ecology is a science and analysis of environments. As such the specificity of difference types of ecological knowledge is what is most valuable about it. Its ability to be placed anywhere at any time. Everything has an environment, everything has varying degrees of "friction" in terms of conditions of circulation, production, health etc. so everything can be analyzed from an ecological perspective. Mental and social ecologies are just as relevant as what are traditionally termed "environmental" ones. </P>
<P><EM>Would this more closely mirror the ("instrumental") capitalist perspective on environmental dynamics (and hence be more susceptible to recuperation by capital/the state)? </EM></P>
<P>I would say that depending on the radicality of the ecological proposals one is looking at, ecological concerns are increasingly a problem or hinderance to the capitalist perspective on environmental dynamics. The capitalist perspective relies upon the idea that production is done for productions sake only, that the purpose of life is to make money and die. The importance of ecology for todays world is the fact that it challenges this usurping of "value" (of the valuable). Costs do not precede from profit to society, but social costs first then the health of financial markets.</P>
<P><BR><EM>4) Could unified struggles based on "ecology work" really circulate between<BR>urban and rural populations? Or does capital impose qualitatively different<BR>types of strain on urban environments and rural ecosystems?<BR></EM></P>
<P>Well, the latter is certainly true, but I think that NGO's and private interest groups are proving that their can be successful circulation of struggle between these communities. I haven't the time to list examples right now however... perhaps later.</P>
<P>cheers,</P>
<P>Lowe</P></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: <a href='http://g.msn.com/1HM1ENUS/c144??PS=47575'>Click Here</a><br></html>
--- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005