Seventy% - Topic: blog

Hans-Peter Rot on blog

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:18:12 +0000

That's the pot calling the kettle black [;)]

legodude on blog

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:10:24 +0000

Trying to increase the number of posts, Martin?

Legodude
Member
http://www.paraply.org/havard

legodude on blog

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:08:47 +0000

Trying to increase the number of posts, Martin?

Legodude
Member
http://www.paraply.org/havard

Martin Christy on blog

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:43:52 +0000

There's a few in the bag not quite got ready yet ... soon. Been busy updating the review technology for new reviewers ;)

Martin Christy
Editor
http://www.seventypercent.com

Martin Christy on blog

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:43:23 +0000

There's a few in the bag not quite got ready yet ... soon. Been busy updating the review technology for new reviewers ;)

Martin Christy
Editor
http://www.seventypercent.com

Hans-Peter Rot on blog

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:36:15 +0000

Yeah, Martin seems to be slacking off a little bit [;)]

Masur on blog

Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:42:39 +0000

The blog has not been updated since 22 February 2005. This is a new breaking record Martin. What's up?

"Porcelana: The Holy Grail of Pure Criollos" (Maricel E. Presilla)

Hans-Peter Rot on blog

Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:02:16 +0000

You said that society is its own environment and that it creates supply and demand. The latter statement is true, but these two issues need to be addressed separately and cannot be equated as the same thing. I think that's the problem here. The environment is society's constraints within in which it lives. Society draws from the environment, utilizes its resources: the environment is a non-living entity. But I see where you're coming from. Your perspective stems from a human interaction approach, where EVERY conceivable object a person can interact with becomes THAT environment. Well, you have to consider a biological reality, a cultural reality, and then the physical environmental reality, each of which is a constituent of our overall humanity. It's not easy to lump everything into one category and develop a unified theory that explains the machinations of humanity. Therefore, you cannot speak of society and environment as the same thing. Society, to some degree, is created by the local environment, then as that culture evolves via technological advancements, cross-cultural interaction occurs, new environments are introduced, and new demands are imposed upon society. Of course, all this leads to the theories of culutral evolution, mode of production, etc., but that's another story.

alex_h on blog

Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:41:01 +0000

'monte, this seems strange to me...' ;)

no, but seriously, i think i see what you're getting at. but that argument would support my opinion where i thought you were trying to contradict it. is that right?

Hans-Peter Rot on blog

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:06:10 +0000

I was relating how society's actions are based on its environment, and the more technologically advanced a society becomes, the more detached it becomes from the environment, i.e. the less reliant it becomes on what it has to offer locally. The automobile was a technological innovation that introduced new demands (e.g. gas), which in fact, were unobtainable in the local environment. As a result, we've drilled holes in the middle of the ocean to tap even more resources that our natural surroundings could not provide for us, i.e. we've broken our natural environmental constraints to seek new resources. This is the result of technology, and indeed, the two, along with society, are related and work in a cycle where each one is dependent upon the other. The more technologically advanced a society becomes, the more demands it requires, so as a result, it tames the environment even more to harness more energy for itself and the new demands that it has created for itself. Then, the whole thing spreads. Such is the case with chocolate, automobiles, and well, everything else.

alex_h on blog

Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:35:36 +0000

ok, granted: exposure, yes; demand varying according to culture, ok. but what's this you're saying about environment? i don't really get it.

Hans-Peter Rot on blog

Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:12:19 +0000

Again, alex, exposure is the important factor to consider. The reason why chocolate is craved on such a wide scale is because most of Western society has been exposed to it. If one hasn't eaten chocolate in his life, then how can he crave that particular food specifically? I also point out that chocolate consumption occurs mainly in Western society and not in pre-Industrial societies or in smaller scale societies. Sure, it has its roots in Mesoamerican history, but it's been populairzed and commodified to such a Western extent, that it has essentially lost all of its ancient associations. Such detachment occurs often, and indeed, I think that this is one strong factor contribtuing to the "Mexican chocolate" or "chile chocolate" popularity, which seeks to reunite the two and place chocolate back in its contextual association. How many people have shocked espressions on their faces when they hear of the pairing of chocolate and chile? Quite a few, and this, imo, is the result of a Western globalization pattern in the chocolate scheme.

As society grows and becomes more technologically advanced, the environment becomes less of a factor for its society because there is less for that society from which to draw. In other words, the resources and energy provided by the environment have been harnessed so efficiently that minimal effort is required to use it, and as a result, life becomes "easier," luxuries become commodities: hence, any complications exerted onto that society by the environment have been eliminated because solutions have been solved to overcome them.

Supply and demand is something created by the society and differs on a cultural basis. Of course, environments will differ accordingly and incongruously, but that's the beauty of it all: diversity and humankind's ability to ADAPT to various conditions. Society A's needs might differ tremendously from Society B's, based on environmental circumstances, but if you Westernize the two and provide the two with the same technology, then sure, different outcomes will result based on what's presented to them, but essentially the same needs will be fulfilled: food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. As the technology becomes more sophisticated, the less energy we expend utilizing and harnessing the environment's resources, and thus we all become the same industrialized society, with of course varying cultural heritages and practices. This is where the demand changes too, because as technology evolves, demands do likewise, but that's another story....

alex_h on blog

Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:26:21 +0000

you're right, monte, maybe truffles would have a greater appeal. i can't say. but i've heard chocolate is the food most craved. that could cause some movement in the supply/demand department ;)

you say we act less on our environment? but we are our own environment. we create and sustain supply and demand.

Hans-Peter Rot on blog

Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:56:07 +0000

No, but I was referring mainly to the idea and the actual manifestation of it via the invention of the automobile. Indeed, it's the technological innovation that's important here and not what it has become. Humankind acts on its environment and as society becomes more complex, the environment has less of an impact on it. Hence, the 3.4 cars per household [;)] We've harnessed enough energy and transformed it into productivity to such a high degree that we can afford such luxuries. When Western society utilized the new energy, i.e. automobiles, it grew and exapanded. Our prior constraints were therefore broken, and we were allowed to move up the clutural "evolutionary" scale, as it were.

Sebastian on blog

Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:38:49 +0000

True, to a point, but I'm going to venture a guess that the average american family doesn't own 3.4 cars out of necessity 8-)