recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : self-sufficiency   9

Comunal: Taller de Arquitectura
“COMUNAL se funda en el año 2015 en la Ciudad de México por Mariana Ordóñez Grajales, arquitecta egresada de la Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán. En el año 2017 se asocia con el equipo la arquitecta Jesica Amescua Carrera, egresada de la Universidad Iberoamericana.

Para nuestro equipo, la arquitectura no es un objeto, es más bien un proceso social participativo, vivo y abierto, que permite a los pobladores expresar sus ideas, necesidades y aspiraciones, poniéndolos siempre en el centro de los proyectos y la toma de decisiones.

Abordamos los problemas de habitabilidad en comunidades rurales con una visión integral y compleja. Interesadas siempre en el planteamiento de soluciones adecuadas a las condiciones socioambientales de cada región, colaboramos con diversos profesionistas dependiendo de las necesidades de cada proyecto.

Nuestra labor conjuga la arquitectura y la ingeniería para la innovación tecnológica de sistemas constructivos con materiales regionales y la conservación de las tipologías vernáculas, lo cual resulta del intercambio de saberes entre pobladores, especialistas y técnicos.

Creemos firmemente en nuestra profesión como una herramienta que puede ayudar a mejorar la calidad de vida de las comunidades a través de procesos que detonen autonomía, empoderamiento y autosuficiencia.”



“MISIÓN
Colaborar en el mejoramiento de las condiciones de vida y el habitar de las comunidades rurales de nuestro país, así como en el rescate y fortalecimiento de la memoria territorial a través de procesos participativos integrales que detonen la valoración de los saberes locales, autonomía, intercambio de saberes, resiliencia y empoderamiento, poniendo siempre a los habitantes al centro de los procesos y la toma de decisiones

VISIÓN
Facilitar, de forma respetuosa y honesta, procesos comunitarios impulsados de forma autogestiva con el objetivo de mejorar las condiciones de habitabilidad de sus pobladores a través de un genuino intercambio de saberes.

FILOSOFÍA DE TRABAJO
Conscientes de la realidad que existe en las comunidades indígenas de nuestro país, en donde los derechos humanos básicos y constitucionales como la vivienda, la salud y la educación están muchas veces ausentes, cuestionamos y replanteamos el papel del arquitecto no solo como un profesional capaz de dar forma a espacios para dar refugio, sino como una entidad con la capacidad de responder a las necesidades de las comunidades a través de la gestión social, política y económica. Concebimos nuestro trabajo y compromiso de manera integral y sistémica, abordando todos los aspectos legales, políticos, sociales, económicos y ambientales necesarios para la consolidación de un proyecto comunitario.

PREMISAS DE TRABAJO
Creemos firmemente en nuestra profesión como una herramienta para mejorar la calidad de vida en las comunidades a través de procesos que detonan la autonomía, el empoderamiento y la autosuficiencia. En este sentido, nuestro trabajo se basa en las siguientes premisas:

1. Colocar a las comunidades como el actor principal de los procesos y la toma de decisiones en los proyectos que incidirán en su Hábitat.

2. Reconocer a los pobladores como sujetos de acción que tienen la capacidad de tomar las decisiones más adecuadas para su desarrollo. En este sentido, colaboramos con las comunidades para generar dinámicas de reflexión que abonen a dicha toma de decisiones.

3. Diseñar basándonos en los derechos humanos, así como en el rescate y la preservación de la sabiduría popular y la cosmovisión particular de las comunidades.

4. Partir de las capas culturales, ambientales, arquitectónicas y territoriales existentes en la región, tomando en cuenta los saberes constructivos tradicionales de los pueblos orginarios.

5. Fortalecer el diálogo y la conexión existente entre el territorio y las comunidades, a través de proyectos que aborden el uso de los bienes naturales mediante un enfoque sistémico.

6. Desarrollar estrategias sociales y arquitectónicas que detonen prácticas que influyan en las políticas públicas nacionales.

7. Promover proyectos enfocados al desarrollo comunitario integral y a la reducción de la vulnerabilidad en la región.

8. Generar mecanismos para que nuestro equipo colabore con las comunidades con la finalidad de generar autonomía y empoderamiento. Es decir, que las comunidades sean capaces de satisfacer sus necesidades de habitabilidad aún cuando nuestro equipo no se encuentre presente en la región.

9. Recuperar la construcción colectiva presente en la historia de las comunidades a través del tequio, faena o mano vuelta. Es decir, reconstruir no solamente el entorno físico sino también el tejido social.

VALORES
- Equidad de género
- Autonomía
- Autosuficiencia
- Solidaridad
- Empoderamiento
- Honestidad
- Respeto”
comuna  architecture  mexico  mexicodf  marianaordóñezgrajales  participation  participatory  rural  autonomy  empowerment  self-sufficiency 
8 weeks ago by robertogreco
The Rebel Alliance: Extinction Rebellion and a Green New Deal - YouTube
"Extinction Rebellion and AOC’s Green New Deal have made global headlines. Can their aims be aligned to prevent climate catastrophe?

Guest host Aaron Bastani will be joined by journalist and environmentalist George Monbiot and economist Ann Pettifor."
extinctionrebellion  georgemonbiot  gdp  economics  capitalism  growth  worldbank  2019  greennewdeal  humanwelfare  fossilfuels  aaronbastani  climate  climatechange  globalwarming  mainstreammedia  media  action  bbc  critique  politics  policy  currentaffairs  comedy  environment  environmentalism  journalism  change  systemschange  left  right  thinktanks  power  influence  libertarianism  taxation  taxes  ideology  gretathunberg  protest  davidattenborough  statusquo  consumerism  consumption  wants  needs  autonomy  education  health  donaldtrump  nancypelosi  us  southafrica  sovietunion  democrats  centrism  republicans  money  narrative  corruption  diannefeinstein  opposition  oppositionism  emissions  socialdemocracy  greatrecession  elitism  debt  financialcrisis  collapse  annpettifor  socialism  globalization  agriculture  local  production  nationalism  self-sufficiency  inertia  despair  doom  optimism  inequality  exploitation  imperialism  colonialism  history  costarica  uk  nihilism  china  apathy  inaction 
april 2019 by robertogreco
Thoughts on the sociology of Brexit - Political Economy Research Centre
"1. THE GEOGRAPHY REFLECTS THE ECONOMIC CRISIS OF THE 1970S, NOT THE 2010S



But consider the longer history of these regions as well. They are well-recognised as Labour’s historic heartlands, sitting on coalfields and/or around ship-building cities. Indeed, outside of London and Scotland, they were amongst the only blobs of Labour red on the 2015 electoral map. There is no reason to think that they would not stay red if an election were held in the autumn. But in the language of Marxist geographers, they have had no successful ‘spatial fix’ since the stagflation crisis of the 1970s. Thatcherism gutted them with pit-closures and monetarism, but generated no private sector jobs to fill the space. The entrepreneurial investment that neoliberals always believe is just around the corner never materialised.

Labour’s solution was to spread wealth in their direction using fiscal policy: public sector back-office jobs were strategically relocated to South Wales and the North East to alleviate deindustrialisation, while tax credits made low productivity service work more socially viable. This effectively created a shadow welfare state that was never publicly spoken of, and co-existed with a political culture which heaped scorn on dependency. Peter Mandelson’s infamous comment, that the Labour heartlands could be depended on to vote Labour no matter what, “because they’ve got nowhere else to go” spoke of a dominant attitude. In Nancy Fraser’s terms, New Labour offered ‘redistribution’ but no ‘recognition’.

This cultural contradiction wasn’t sustainable and nor was the geographic one. Not only was the ‘spatial fix’ a relatively short-term one, seeing as it depended on rising tax receipts from the South East and a centre left government willing to spread money quite lavishly (albeit, discretely), it also failed to deliver what many Brexit-voters perhaps crave the most: the dignity of being self-sufficient, not necessarily in a neoliberal sense, but certainly in a communal, familial and fraternal sense.

2. HANDOUTS DON’T PRODUCE GRATITUDE



While it may be one thing for an investment banker to understand that they ‘benefit from the EU’ in regulatory terms, it is quite another to encourage poor and culturally marginalised people to feel grateful towards the elites that sustain them through handouts, month by month. Resentment develops not in spite of this generosity, but arguably because of it. This isn’t to discredit what the EU does in terms of redistribution, but pointing to handouts is a psychologically and politically naïve basis on which to justify remaining in the EU.

In this context, the slogan ‘take back control’ was a piece of political genius. It worked on every level between the macroeconomic and the psychoanalytic. Think of what it means on an individual level to rediscover control. To be a person without control (for instance to suffer incontinence or a facial tick) is to be the butt of cruel jokes, to be potentially embarrassed in public. It potentially reduces one’s independence. What was so clever about the language of the Leave campaign was that it spoke directly to this feeling of inadequacy and embarrassment, then promised to eradicate it. The promise had nothing to do with economics or policy, but everything to do with the psychological allure of autonomy and self-respect. Farrage’s political strategy was to take seriously communities who’d otherwise been taken for granted for much of the past 50 years.

This doesn’t necessarily have to translate into nationalistic pride or racism (although might well do), but does at the very least mean no longer being laughed at. Those that have ever laughed at ‘chavs’ (such as the millionaire stars of Little Britain) have something to answer for right now, as Rhian E. Jones’ Clampdown argued. The willingness of Nigel Farrage to weather the scornful laughter of metropolitan liberals (for instance through his periodic appearances on Have I Got News For You) could equally have made him look brave in the eyes of many potential Leave voters. I can’t help feeling that every smug, liberal, snobbish barb that Ian Hislop threw his way on that increasingly hateful programme was ensuring that revenge would be all the greater, once it arrived. The giggling, from which Boris Johnson also benefited handsomely, needs to stop.

3. BREXIT WAS NOT FUELLED BY A VISION OF THE FUTURE



Thatcher and Reagan rode to power by promising a brighter future, which never quite materialised other than for a minority with access to elite education and capital assets. The contemporary populist promise to make Britain or American ‘great again’ is not made in the same way. It is not a pledge or a policy platform; it’s not to be measured in terms of results. When made by the likes of Boris Johnson, it’s not even clear if it’s meant seriously or not. It’s more an offer of a collective real-time halucination, that can be indulged in like a video game.
The Remain campaign continued to rely on forecasts, warnings and predictions, in the hope that eventually people would be dissuaded from ‘risking it’. But to those that have given up on the future already, this is all just more political rhetoric. In any case, the entire practice of modelling the future in terms of ‘risk’ has lost credibility, as evidenced by the now terminal decline of opinion polling as a tool for political control.

4. WE NOW LIVE IN THE AGE OF DATA, NOT FACTS

One of the complaints made most frequently by liberal commentators, economists and media pundits was that the referendum campaign was being conducted without regard to ‘truth’. This isn’t quite right. It was conducted without adequate regard to facts. To the great frustration of the Remain campaign, their ‘facts’ never cut through, whereas Leave’s ‘facts’ (most famously the £350m/week price tag of EU membership) were widely accepted.

What is a ‘fact’ exactly? In her book A History of the Modern Fact, Mary Poovey argues that a new way of organising and perceiving the world came into existence at the end of the 15th century with the invention of double-entry book-keeping. This new style of knowledge is that of facts, representations that seem both context-independent, but also magically slot seamlessly into multiple contexts as and when they are needed. The basis for this magic is that measures and methodologies (such as accounting techniques) become standardised, but then treated as apolitical, thereby allowing numbers to move around freely in public discourse without difficulty or challenge. In order for this to work, the infrastructure that produces ‘facts’ needs careful policing, ideally through centralisation in the hands of statistics agencies or elite universities (the rise of commercial polling in the 1930s was already a challenge to the authority of ‘facts’ in this respect).

This game has probably been up for some time. As soon as media outlets start making a big deal about the FACTS of a situation, for instance with ‘Fact check’ bulletins, it is clear that numbers have already become politicised. ‘Facts’ (such as statistics) survived as an authoritative basis for public and democratic deliberation for most of the 200 years following the French Revolution. But the politicisation of social sciences, metrics and policy administration mean that the ‘facts’ produced by official statistical agencies must now compete with other conflicting ‘facts’. The deconstruction of ‘facts’ has been partly pushed by varieties of postmodern theory since the 1960s, but it is also an inevitable effect of the attempt (beloved by New Labour) to turn policy into a purely scientific exercise.

The attempt to reduce politics to a utilitarian science (most often, to neo-classical economics) eventually backfires, once the science in question then starts to become politicised. ‘Evidence-based policy’ is now far too long in the tooth to be treated entirely credulously, and people tacitly understand that it often involves a lot of ‘policy-based evidence’. When the Remain camp appealed to their ‘facts’, forecasts, and models, they hoped that these would be judged as outside of the fray of politics. More absurdly, they seemed to imagine that the opinions of bodies such as the IMF might be viewed as ‘independent’. Unfortunately, economics has been such a crucial prop for political authority over the past 35 years that it is now anything but outside of the fray of politics.

In place of facts, we now live in a world of data. Instead of trusted measures and methodologies being used to produce numbers, a dizzying array of numbers is produced by default, to be mined, visualised, analysed and interpreted however we wish. If risk modelling (using notions of statistical normality) was the defining research technique of the 19th and 20th centuries, sentiment analysis is the defining one of the emerging digital era. We no longer have stable, ‘factual’ representations of the world, but unprecedented new capacities to sense and monitor what is bubbling up where, who’s feeling what, what’s the general vibe.

Financial markets are themselves far more like tools of sentiment analysis (representing the mood of investors) than producers of ‘facts’. This is why it was so absurd to look to currency markets and spread-betters for the truth of what would happen in the referendum: they could only give a sense of what certain people at felt would happen in the referendum at certain times. Given the absence of any trustworthy facts (in the form of polls), they could then only provide a sense of how investors felt about Britain’s national mood: a sentiment regarding a sentiment. As the 23rd June turned into 24th June, it became manifestly clear that prediction markets are little more than an aggregative representation of the same feelings and moods that one might otherwise detect via twitter. They’re not in the business of truth-telling, but of mood-… [more]
uk  politics  brexit  future  willdavies  2016  policy  eu  data  facts  markets  neolibersalism  history  economics  class  classism  nationalism  racism  self-sufficiency  dignity  nancyfraser  jamesmeeksubsidies  rhianjonesopen  democracy  adamramsey  anthonybarnett  donaldtrump  marypoovey  stability  growth  destruction 
june 2016 by robertogreco
Orion Magazine | Thoughts in the Presence of Fear
"I. The time will soon come when we will not be able to remember the horrors of September 11 without remembering also the unquestioning technological and economic optimism that ended on that day.

II. This optimism rested on the proposition that we were living in a “new world order” and a “new economy” that would “grow” on and on, bringing a prosperity of which every new increment would be “unprecedented”.

III. The dominant politicians, corporate officers, and investors who believed this proposition did not acknowledge that the prosperity was limited to a tiny percent of the world’s people, and to an ever smaller number of people even in the United States; that it was founded upon the oppressive labor of poor people all over the world; and that its ecological costs increasingly threatened all life, including the lives of the supposedly prosperous.

IV. The “developed” nations had given to the “free market” the status of a god, and were sacrificing to it their farmers, farmlands, and communities, their forests, wetlands, and prairies, their ecosystems and watersheds. They had accepted universal pollution and global warming as normal costs of doing business.

V. There was, as a consequence, a growing worldwide effort on behalf of economic decentralization, economic justice, and ecological responsibility. We must recognize that the events of September 11 make this effort more necessary than ever. We citizens of the industrial countries must continue the labor of self-criticism and self-correction. We must recognize our mistakes.

VI. The paramount doctrine of the economic and technological euphoria of recent decades has been that everything depends on innovation. It was understood as desirable, and even necessary, that we should go on and on from one technological innovation to the next, which would cause the economy to “grow” and make everything better and better. This of course implied at every point a hatred of the past, of all things inherited and free. All things superseded in our progress of innovations, whatever their value might have been, were discounted as of no value at all.

VII. We did not anticipate anything like what has now happened. We did not foresee that all our sequence of innovations might be at once overridden by a greater one: the invention of a new kind of war that would turn our previous innovations against us, discovering and exploiting the debits and the dangers that we had ignored. We never considered the possibility that we might be trapped in the webwork of communication and transport that was supposed to make us free.

VIII. Nor did we foresee that the weaponry and the war science that we marketed and taught to the world would become available, not just to recognized national governments, which possess so uncannily the power to legitimate large-scale violence, but also to “rogue nations”, dissident or fanatical groups and individuals – whose violence, though never worse than that of nations, is judged by the nations to be illegitimate.

IX. We had accepted uncritically the belief that technology is only good; that it cannot serve evil as well as good; that it cannot serve our enemies as well as ourselves; that it cannot be used to destroy what is good, including our homelands and our lives.

X. We had accepted too the corollary belief that an economy (either as a money economy or as a life-support system) that is global in extent, technologically complex, and centralized is invulnerable to terrorism, sabotage, or war, and that it is protectable by “national defense”

XI. We now have a clear, inescapable choice that we must make. We can continue to promote a global economic system of unlimited “free trade” among corporations, held together by long and highly vulnerable lines of communication and supply, but now recognizing that such a system will have to be protected by a hugely expensive police force that will be worldwide, whether maintained by one nation or several or all, and that such a police force will be effective precisely to the extent that it oversways the freedom and privacy of the citizens of every nation.

XII. Or we can promote a decentralized world economy which would have the aim of assuring to every nation and region a local self-sufficiency in life-supporting goods. This would not eliminate international trade, but it would tend toward a trade in surpluses after local needs had been met.

XIII. One of the gravest dangers to us now, second only to further terrorist attacks against our people, is that we will attempt to go on as before with the corporate program of global “free trade”, whatever the cost in freedom and civil rights, without self-questioning or self-criticism or public debate.

XIV. This is why the substitution of rhetoric for thought, always a temptation in a national crisis, must be resisted by officials and citizens alike. It is hard for ordinary citizens to know what is actually happening in Washington in a time of such great trouble; for all we know, serious and difficult thought may be taking place there. But the talk that we are hearing from politicians, bureaucrats, and commentators has so far tended to reduce the complex problems now facing us to issues of unity, security, normality, and retaliation.

XV. National self-righteousness, like personal self-righteousness, is a mistake. It is misleading. It is a sign of weakness. Any war that we may make now against terrorism will come as a new installment in a history of war in which we have fully participated. We are not innocent of making war against civilian populations. The modern doctrine of such warfare was set forth and enacted by General William Tecumseh Sherman, who held that a civilian population could be declared guilty and rightly subjected to military punishment. We have never repudiated that doctrine.

XVI. It is a mistake also – as events since September 11 have shown – to suppose that a government can promote and participate in a global economy and at the same time act exclusively in its own interest by abrogating its international treaties and standing apart from international cooperation on moral issues.

XVII. And surely, in our country, under our Constitution, it is a fundamental error to suppose that any crisis or emergency can justify any form of political oppression. Since September 11, far too many public voices have presumed to “speak for us” in saying that Americans will gladly accept a reduction of freedom in exchange for greater “security”. Some would, maybe. But some others would accept a reduction in security (and in global trade) far more willingly than they would accept any abridgement of our Constitutional rights.

XVIII. In a time such as this, when we have been seriously and most cruelly hurt by those who hate us, and when we must consider ourselves to be gravely threatened by those same people, it is hard to speak of the ways of peace and to remember that Christ enjoined us to love our enemies, but this is no less necessary for being difficult.

XIX. Even now we dare not forget that since the attack of Pearl Harbor – to which the present attack has been often and not usefully compared – we humans have suffered an almost uninterrupted sequence of wars, none of which has brought peace or made us more peaceable.

XX. The aim and result of war necessarily is not peace but victory, and any victory won by violence necessarily justifies the violence that won it and leads to further violence. If we are serious about innovation, must we not conclude that we need something new to replace our perpetual “war to end war?”

XXI. What leads to peace is not violence but peaceableness, which is not passivity, but an alert, informed, practiced, and active state of being. We should recognize that while we have extravagantly subsidized the means of war, we have almost totally neglected the ways of peaceableness. We have, for example, several national military academies, but not one peace academy. We have ignored the teachings and the examples of Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and other peaceable leaders. And here we have an inescapable duty to notice also that war is profitable, whereas the means of peaceableness, being cheap or free, make no money.

XXII. The key to peaceableness is continuous practice. It is wrong to suppose that we can exploit and impoverish the poorer countries, while arming them and instructing them in the newest means of war, and then reasonably expect them to be peaceable.

XXIII. We must not again allow public emotion or the public media to caricature our enemies. If our enemies are now to be some nations of Islam, then we should undertake to know those enemies. Our schools should begin to teach the histories, cultures, arts, and language of the Islamic nations. And our leaders should have the humility and the wisdom to ask the reasons some of those people have for hating us.

XXIV. Starting with the economies of food and farming, we should promote at home, and encourage abroad, the ideal of local self-sufficiency. We should recognize that this is the surest, the safest, and the cheapest way for the world to live. We should not countenance the loss or destruction of any local capacity to produce necessary goods.

XXV. We should reconsider and renew and extend our efforts to protect the natural foundations of the human economy: soil, water, and air. We should protect every intact ecosystem and watershed that we have left, and begin restoration of those that have been damaged.

XXVI. The complexity of our present trouble suggests as never before that we need to change our present concept of education. Education is not properly an industry, and its proper use is not to serve industries, either by job-training or by industry-subsidized research. It’s proper use is to enable citizens to live lives that are economically, politically, socially, and culturally responsible. This cannot be done by gathering or “accessing” what we now … [more]
via:anne  education  capitalism  economics  wendellberry  peace  war  terrorism  consumerism  food  farming  sustainability  9/11  violence  humanism  environment  children  parenting  responsibility  military  self-sufficiency  technology  technosolutionism  progress  innovation  nature  decentralization  newworldorder  growth  degrowth  prosperity  labor  work  poverty  freemarket  business  corporatism  freetrade  vulnerability  freedom  civilrights  government  security  peaceableness  islam  soil  air  water  thrift  care  caring  saving  conservation  agriculture 
november 2015 by robertogreco
TEDxTijuana - Aaron Gutierrez - Logica de enjambres - YouTube
"Born in Tijuana, Baja California, Aaron Gutierrez Cortes was raised in the dual sensibilities of the Tijuana-San Diego region. He studied at The Southern California Institute of Architecture [SCI-Arc] and at the University of London. Founded Amorphica Design Research Office in 1999. His body of work has been published internationally in publications such as Arquine [Mexico City], La Tempestad [Mexico City], Pasajes de Arquitectura y Critica [Madrid], Architectural Design [London] and Architectural Review [London] among others. Since 2006, Aaron has lectured at several universities and international institutions like the University of Calgary, MIT in Boston, Colegio de Arquitectos of Mexico City, Louisiana State University and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art among others. Since 2009 he serves as professor of architectural design at the Universidad Iberoamericana del Noroeste. He is currently the Principal Architect at Amorphica, an emerging Architecture, Urban Design and Research collective studio that evolves projects internationally with the intention of developing reactive design intelligence passionately focused on social and spatial self-sufficiency."

[See also: http://amorphica.com/
http://amorphica.com/tierra.html
https://vimeo.com/25884670 ]
aarongutierrezcortes  tijuana  mexico  architecture  2011  schools  design  poverty  sandiego  amorphica  schooldesign  lcproject  sustainability  environment  studioclassroom  self-sufficiency 
may 2013 by robertogreco
No disrespect intended toward Emily Dickinson, but . . . « Re-educate Seattle
"In this case—and I would argue that this principle is universal—academic content and skills serve as a means towards helping the student mature from childhood to adulthood, from a novice learner dependant on others to a self-directed one that is capable of greater independence.

We spend a lot of time in schools worrying about the product of learning, and not nearly enough on the process."
stevemiranda  processoverproduct  process  projectbasedlearning  projects  teaching  learning  schools  education  pscs  tcsnmy  self-directedlearning  maturity  dependence  interdependence  independence  self-sufficiency  pugetsoundcommunityschool  pbl 
february 2011 by robertogreco
Lloyd’s Blog
"Lloyd Kahn is the editor-in-chief of Shelter Publications, an independent California publisher. Shelter Publications specializes in books on building and architecture, as well as health and fitness. Lloyd’s latest book is Builders of the Pacific Coast."
lloydkahn  building  homes  housing  houses  tinyhomes  self-sufficiency  energy-efficiency  architecture  blogs  books  environment  sustainability  shelter  recycling  design  glvo 
november 2010 by robertogreco
They're On Their Own. Why I'm not paying for college. By Meagan Francis for Babble.com's "Bad Parent" column.
"Do I want my kids to have a better life than me? Depends what you mean by "better." I want them to learn how to be self-sufficient and responsible. I want them to find a career that both puts food on the table and feeds their souls. I want them to be loving, kind, generous, compassionate, and down-to-earth. I believe they can get there whether they have a Ph.D or a GED; whether they have student loan or zero debt; whether they work with their hands or pursue academia. How they get there is up to them, and I believe they're bright, creative, and resourceful enough to figure it out. In their adult lives, my kids will struggle. They will fail. They will also succeed. I will love them and encourage them when they do either."
parenting  money  colleges  universities  careers  investment  self-sufficiency  education 
july 2009 by robertogreco
Pasta&Vinegar » If as a citizen you can no longer fix your own car...
"If as a citizen you can no longer fix your own car – which is a quite recent phenomenon - because it is software driven, you have lost more then your ability to fix your own car, you have lost the very belief in a situation in which there are no professional garages, no just in time logistics, no independent mechanics, no small initiatives. (…) Any change in the background, in the axioms that make up the environment has tremendous consequences on the level of agency of citizens. They become helpless very soon, as they have no clue how to operate what is ‘running in the background’, let alone fix things if they go wrong. As such, Ambient intelligence presumes a totalizing, anti-democratic logic.“
design  software  freedom  repair  maintenance  democracy  diy  agency  ambientintelligence  brokensystems  self-sufficiency  dependence  internet  hardware  cars  repairing 
february 2009 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read