Re: [microsound] mp3 redux

[dbuchwald <dagmar.buchwald@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

dj spw wrote:

> Technology is a natural part of human evolution.
> Man is a natural part of nature.

Partly.  Unfortunately mankind also seems to be endowed with an exceptional hubris.
I don't think other species believe that they are the ones in control of
everything.  By the way, there are a lot of human cultures who don't think that
either.  walrus and the carpenter threw in the term "evil", although I feel
uncomfortable about that word, if there's something I would align with it it is the
notion that "we are in control" and that "we can control everything".

> Humans are the more dominant species making other animals and
> living organisms obsolete.

"Obsolete"????   It is probably hopeless to convince you of the intrinsic worth of
organisms other than humans.  But at least you would concede that you can't feed on
air?  Try to survive a single day without all the parasites within you which digest
your food for you.

>
> Mankind's only hope of not destroying the environment is the
> advancement of technology.
> i.e., energy alternatives to fossil fuels, products that are not as
> destructive to the environment,

such as atomic power plants?

> space exploration so the world is not
> overpopulated ect., ect...

To bring that way of thinking to other planets too?  Then I'd rather see the whole
thing go down the drain and give it over to the cockroaches.

We are the empire, yeah!  That's what the Romans thought too.  I am waiting for that
Endsieg to come, but hopefully I am not going to experience it.

Dagmar

>
>
> on 1/25/03 11:03 PM, dbuchwald at dagmar.buchwald@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > I always liked the idea that ants and cockroaches will outlive us...  I am a
> > big
> > cockroach fan.  I am also in for the super-organism concept.  On the other
> > hand
> > exactly that concept should teach us not to behave like cancer cells, which is
> > something we've begun to do -- everyone doing his/her 'own' thing giving a
> > shit
> > how it affects the larger whole.  That's what I meant.  And, pardon if I was
> > not
> > well informed, I really thought stuff like plastic would never rot, virtually
> > NEVER.  I also don't think that mineral oil will form again after it has been
> > used -- but then again who cares?  Nobody needs it but us...:)  And we didn't
> > need it for the largest part of our evolution either...
> >
> > Howard Bloom's book sounds interesting.  Similar ideas are presented in Joel
> > de
> > Rosnay's book 'homo symbioticus'.  In English: 'The Symbiotic Man: A New
> > Understanding of the Organization of Life  and a Vision of the Future'
> > (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0071357440/qid=1043557184/sr=8-
> > 2/ref=sr_8_2/002-2722945-4371221?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
> >
> > Dagmar
> >
> > walrus and the carpenter wrote:
> >
> >> good point. but do you mean don't decay in the sense that a product made by
> >> man doesn't decay within his lifetime? Just because something will not decay
> >> in our lifetime doesn't mean it will not be overtaken by nature. Nature will
> >> likely not be defeated by all of this man made pollution. It could even
> >> survive a major worldwide global thermo nuke war(think the movie wargames
> >> http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/wargames.htm ). We might be gone
> >> but the bees and insects and oceans would likely overflow with lifeforms, in
> >> fact there's quite a large amount evidence to support this with the
> >> dinosaurs having come and gone and now man rising up from the shadows of the
> >> genetic stew brought from the ocean.
> >> no flame intended on my part either
> >>
> >> maybe another book for microsounders to read is "The Lucifer Principle" by
> >> Howard Bloom http://howardbloom.net/lucifer/about.html
> >> being how it's likely to be found in a library or ordinary bookstore and it
> >> relates to microsound on a variety of levels. who knows?
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "dbuchwald" <dagmar.buchwald@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: "microsound" <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 3:37 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [microsound] mp3 redux
> >>
> >>> Hm, I am not sure whether you can really compare nature's reproductive
> >> abundance
> >>> with the large-scale output of products by humans -- products which don't
> >> decay
> >>> and do not dissolve back into the natural flow of (re-)production but
> >> which use
> >>> a large amount of natural 'ressources' (don't like the word; it already
> >> reflects
> >>> a certain view of nature, that is: a large storehouse from which to take
> >>> whatever we want).
> >>>
> >>> Just a remark in passing.  I don't intend to open up a flame about
> >> ecology.
> >>>
> >>> Dagmar
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> walrus and the carpenter wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Cool off. It's all going to your head and coming out wrong. Your
> >> arguments
> >>>> deny biology and nature...something you nor I can stop. Nature is a
> >> massive
> >>>> copying mutating machine that blows your rationizations to fragments.
> >> What
> >>>> about evil? Get used to it because it's in everyone's genes. Do you
> >> think
> >>>> that every executive and artist out there in the world is god's little
> >>>> angel? Of course not, neither are they all devils. But the most
> >> proactive
> >>>> and reproducing groups are the most successful. Redundencies are
> >> completely
> >>>> necessary in humans and most definitely in nature. To deny this is like
> >>>> fighting a war on some drugs. If you really want to fight piracy close
> >> down
> >>>> every reproducing plant in the world...call back every cd-recorder, make
> >> the
> >>>> rain go away and make the sun shine for all of us. But i'll be the first
> >> to
> >>>> go on record and say that your ideas about nature are a moral blasphemy
> >>>> towards god's creation just as the illegalization of plants/nature is a
> >>>> paradox of capitalism and freedom's natural biological functions.
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: "jan.l" <jl@xxxxxxx>
> >>>> To: "microsound" <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 4:50 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [microsound] mp3 redux
> >>>>
> >>>> Why should anyone need to report their income or lifestyle to you? Why
> >> do
> >>>> you need this information? Do you see yourself as material for at strong
> >>>> leader (maybe in uniform?) that knows everyone elses best and you will
> >> then
> >>>> decide who gets what and which lifestyle you think they should adher to?
> >>>>
> >>>> Personally I dislike shorts. Lets join forces. I can shoot anyone
> >> wearing
> >>>> shorts and you can beat artists until you get all their income
> >> statements
> >>>> and decide what they can have for dinner tonight and which one are
> >> allowed
> >>>> to have a car or wife & children.
> >>>>
> >>>> All these rationalisations for stealing IP are becoming more & more
> >>>> ridiculous. Why not just relax, look at yourself in the mirror every
> >> morning
> >>>> and say "I am a greedy little thief" and then to hell with it and
> >> continue
> >>>> saving your money by copying all the stuff you want. Heck, even the RIAA
> >>>> might go for that deal ;=)
> >>>>
> >>>> You are trying wildly to separate out certain people/activities in
> >> society
> >>>> as some kind of paria - free for everyone to hunt down and capitalize
> >> from.
> >>>> In this case composers/musicians. Next week? Taxi drivers? Homosexuals?
> >>>> Muslims?
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it o.k. to do just anything because technology makes it possible? Is
> >> it
> >>>> o.k. to shoot liberals just because we have the technolgy (guns)? Is it
> >> o.k.
> >>>> for every pervert to listen and watch their neighbors make love just
> >> because
> >>>> the technology to secretly spy on them is available? Is it o.k. for Dow
> >> to
> >>>> ignore Bhopal just because they can get away with it?
> >>>>
> >>>> Still you *can* have your file-sharing within todays system without
> >> making
> >>>> everyone using it a greedy little person. Simply make your case to the
> >>>> artists/composers/musicians and if it is as good as you say it is ..
> >> they
> >>>> will come in droves and happily surrender their IP to anyone who needs
> >> free
> >>>> content to improve their site-profits (morpheus, kazaa and whatever
> >> sites
> >>>> there are). Some may not give up their IP rights and work for nothing  -
> >>>> but why not just ignore those few and let them have their way - just let
> >>>> them grumpily sit in their corner guarding their stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>>> There's a moral point that continually comes up regarding downloading -
> >>>> support
> >>>>> the indie labels if you download. This indie boosterism doesn't do it
> >> for
> >>>> me.
> >>>>> As much as I'd like to lend a hand to other artists, this capitalist
> >> world
> >>>>> forces me to be more practical. There is an idea that artists should be
> >>>> able to
> >>>>> earn enough money from their creative endeavors to support themselves
> >> and
> >>>> their
> >>>>> families. I would love to be a part of that (sometimes questionably)
> >>>> enviable
> >>>>> group; however, I doubt many people aside from the superstars and other
> >>>>> major-label-supported performers are doing so. To those list members
> >> with
> >>>> CDs
> >>>>> out, remind us if the income from sales of your CDs is your only or
> >> major
> >>>>> source of income. If it is, would you be kind enough to tell us not
> >> your
> >>>>> income, but a self-assessment of your standard of living (lower-class
> >> by
> >>>>> American standards and proud of it, comfortably middle-class,
> >> rich-as-hell
> >>>> and
> >>>>> not done yet)?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The continuing death of labels (such as Strictly Rhythm
> >>>>> http://www.discjockey101.com/oct2002.html) means that labels aren't
> >> keeping
> >>>> up
> >>>>> with the times. They are offering an obsolete product. Some people
> >> continue
> >>>> to
> >>>>> promote packaging (case, liner notes, hand-drawn/printed art) as a
> >>>>> justification for the production of CDs. However, it's arguable that
> >> these
> >>>> are
> >>>>> contributors to environmental problems. The mining of the aluminum at
> >> the
> >>>> core
> >>>>> of the CD destroys wildlife habitats, the solvents used in sputtering
> >> the
> >>>>> aluminum disc with plastic are toxic, the use of the plastic in the
> >> cases
> >>>>> supports Bush's oil empire, the cardboard in the sleeves brings down
> >> more
> >>>>> trees, the manufacturing process uses too much electricity which wastes
> >>>>> resources, the selling of the CD in stores through distributors
> >> promotes an
> >>>>> inefficient delivery system, and so on. Why buy such a product when it
> >> is
> >>>>> available, minus all drawbacks, for free on the web? There is the moral
> >>>>> argument that I should buy it because not to is stealing. However, if
> >>>> buying it
> >>>>> means supporting and affirming all of the aforementioned ills, wouldn't
> >>>>> downloading be at least in morally neutral territory?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The only arguments I hear on various lists are moral ones. Why do all
> >>>> writers
> >>>>> ignore the economic side of this, imho, primarily economic issue? What
> >> is
> >>>> the
> >>>>> product that an artist can provide that is compelling enough to buy? I
> >> have
> >>>> a
> >>>>> well for my water; why would I pay the city for their water system?
> >> Live
> >>>>> performing is one aspect. Jello Biafra moans about the
> >>>>> artists-as-traveling-minstrel, and given the poor environmental
> >> conditions
> >>>> of
> >>>>> most venues (cigarette smoke, drunken spectators, competition with the
> >>>>> meat-market background), I can see his point. Those of you who are
> >> selling
> >>>> CDs
> >>>>> and performing live, what is the breakdown, percentage-wise, in the
> >> income?
> >>>>> Steve Albini writes (http://www.negativland.com/albini.html) that for
> >> most
> >>>>> major label bands, the CD is already a vehicle for promoting a tour
> >> (the
> >>>> only
> >>>>> real source of income).  Interestingly, farmers have been facing a
> >> severe
> >>>>> downturn in the price of their commodity. Without subsidies, farming in
> >>>> America
> >>>>> isn't profitable. The same goes for American manufacturing. In our
> >> world,
> >>>>> everything has become too easy to make and so there is too much of it.
> >> Core
> >>>>> economic issues are being challenged in ways that haven't been before.
> >>>>> Capitalism relies on scarcity and unlimited resources (sounds absurd
> >> from
> >>>> the
> >>>>> start, doesn't it?). We are rapidly facing the end of scarcity (at
> >> least
> >>>> for
> >>>>> many information-based products) and the end of unlimited resources
> >> (oil,
> >>>> land,
> >>>>> wood, others).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So the real question is: how can artists make a living at art in this
> >>>> economic
> >>>>> situation? For me, donations aren't a viable answer; I already find the
> >>>>> Salvation Army guy at Christmas to be a nuisance. What is a compelling
> >> and
> >>>>> morally-superior product that an artist can produce to make a
> >> reasonable
> >>>>> income? While it's clear that the problems with capitalism are
> >>>> long-standing,
> >>>>> it doesn't appear that other viable systems are forthcoming. I realize
> >> it's
> >>>> a
> >>>>> little OT, but can anyone recommend recent writing (preferably
> >> web-based)
> >>>>> discussing these problems? Anyone know any outstanding articles on gift
> >>>>> economics?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Renick
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org

------------------------------