The point of view presented in bolo bolo says that the “machine” has brought destruction and despair to the world by consuming time and resources. Consider an alternative view to the one discussed in the article of the “machine.”
What good, in your opinion, has the “planetary work machine” brought to human civilization?
What are your thoughts on the “planetary work machine?”
bolo bolo can be found at http://www.spunk.org/texts/misc/sp000137.txt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
First of all, I don't really understand exactly what the "planetary work machine" is. The author of this book defines this machine by saying that economy governs the machine. He says that everyone serves the machines purpose- and then he goes on to explain everyones role in the machine and its 3 essential elements. However, I think that this machine is just a system similar to the one talked about in "The Story of Stuff." If the planetary work machine functions right, that is most people on this Earths view of perfection.
This machine isn't as evil as the author makes it seem. The planetary work machine has connected a lot of the countries together- whether or not those connections are due to land exploitation. If everyone in the world relied on their own resources on their own land, there would be know interconnection between anyone. Hardly any technological or social advancements would be made.
None of knows 'exactly' what he means by 'planetary work machine'. Your comparison to the sysytem in the 'story of stuff' is valid.
I am glad to see your opposing point of view regarding the authors view of the 'machine' as all bad. Certainly the connections that have been gained through the machine have value and allow us to move forward as a society.
Does this 'machine' have concerns about the well being of the people and other life forms on the planet?
In one of my outside school classes, we were discussing the pros and cons to globalization. Within globalization, a huge contributing factor is the so called "machine". Although yes, there are a lot of cons: pollution, the growth of conglomerates, etc. But as Caroline said, without it, there would be no societal growth and no international connection. We would have isolated countries, and we could not survive without being interdependent on each other. There would be less cultural understanding and less cultural diffusion and no world markets.
I definitely think that the 'machine' does not take into account people and other life forms on the planet. As the reading says, the machine is governed by the economy and the economy, being that it is not an actual person, is not aware of the consequences that may occur if "it" tries to achieve perfection. The machine could maybe someday be conscious of other life forms and people, however at this moment the machine is completely focused on solely making money. If politicians and other people around the world try to govern the machine at least partially, then perhaps the things we now take for granted will still be available for generations to come. However, it is hard to come across a politician, or CEO or even a "normal" person that wants to save the environment before saving their wallet.
I think it is important to remember that societies did grow prior to globalization. The Mayans, Incas, Chinese, Mesopotanian, and many others rose to greatness both in size, but also culture, without the exploitation that is coming from the current capitalist expansion and destruction of the environment.
In fact, I would venture to say that culture has decreased as now many of us have become consumers with very little links to traditions and culture.
If we understood other cultures, perhaps we would stop trying to assimilate their cultures into the 'democratic, consumer' culture we live in here.
We must also remember that the goal of the machine, or corporation, is profit- from the top down. People do not look at their stocks and say "well, my stock dropped a little but that is ok because they are now practicing sustainable practices."
I think it is really interesting how humans have created this whole system of civilization that will ultimately lead to our downfall. Morbid as it may seem, this article argues its validity--without the complexity of human behavior, agriculture never would have come into existence, and humans would have lived happily and sustainably just like every other organism on earth. Humans are inevitable biological failures--our own intellectual capabilities have allowed us to use and manipulate our environment in ways no other organism can, and also have allowed us to destroy it.
Ironically, the "planetary work machine," as I understood it from the article, seems to be this abstract natural force that humans have disrupted, like a robot that has become uncoordinated and faulty. Humans created an abstract civilization system, in which the economy (something which is arguably intangible in itself) governs nearly all activity. We have built an elaborate system of intricacies that can only hurt us, and have somehow managed to extrapolate that to hurt our environment as well.
While the planetary work machine is in fact something good for the universe, as it regulates the natural course and order of things, humans have thrown it off kilter and exploited it to what we perceived as our own means. We have changed the machine so it now serves our own purpose, and have thus corrupted the pure form into something evil and derisive.
Matt, please don't reference me in your comment as someone who only cares about food and is completely fulfilled by it, because that is a very superficial way to look at someone and it is quite untrue as well.
Thanks
I stand by my point that life would be much simpler if humans did not have the capacity to think. Ignorance is bliss--if we didn't know any better, we would be satisfied with less and would not need to destroy everything around us to find pleasure. I recognize that that idea is morbid and pessimistic but I think it is also just realistic. No other organism has caused as much damage as we have, and no other organism has the potential for cognitive thought like we do. If we didn't have the imagination or ability to construct societies, economies, and technology, than we wouldn't have to deal with the problems that come with them. I'm not saying that we should just go live in caves and pretend civilization never happened; I'm just saying that it would be a lot easier if we hadn't had the potential in the first place.
Post a Comment