[Stoves] Discussion about decentalized versus centralised

Paul Anderson psanders at ilstu.edu
Sat Jan 4 13:27:45 CST 2014


Stovers,

1.   Congratulations to us all for actually keeping the discussion 
related to the Subject line for so many messages. :-)

2.   The "mind set" of the centralized advocates (not all, but for many, 
and increasingly so as the entity gets bigger) tend to have a more 
financially-focused objective OF THE ENTITY THAT HAS RESOURCES AND 
LONGEVITY, while the decentralized advocates tend toward the 
financially-focused objective OF A SMALL OPERATION TRYING TO SURVIVE 
WITH A VERY SMALL BASE.

Neither is inherently bad, but when the big and centralized entity 
*_comes mainly from outside of an area_* that has primarily small and 
decentralized entities, it can hurt the small entities.

It is a judgement call whether the big outsider (or the "acquired local 
entities that represent the big outsider") should have that much 
influence.   That is why in some cases tariffs and other barriers are 
erected.

A troublesome analogy is that of the colonial powers of 1700 to 1950 
that were are the big entities that "supposedly" brought progress to 
their colonies.   Some colonial rulers did better than other (for 
themselves or for the local people).

Colonial powers were not outlawed, they only became out-dated and they 
changed methods from political/military rule to forms of economic 
influence.

What does this have to do with Stoves?   A lot, but not something that 
can be decided at an ETHOS discussion or on-line, but that should be 
discussed.

Do we have any concrete examples of small decentalized that made it big 
while staying small?   I previously mentioned the Kenyan Ceramic Jiko 
(KCJ  ===  even earned its own acronym!!!).   Any others?

Paul    (currently in the decentralized trenches of gasifier stove work 
in Uganda.)

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

I think the comments below by Richard and Michael are worth reading, if you are new to this discussion.

On 1/3/2014 12:11 PM, Richard Stanley wrote:
> Dear Michael in Marujo, and all others of the decentralisation camp,
>
> In thinking a bit more about it, seems that as I write from my I Mac 
> or call thru the iphone, centralisation of certain things is a good 
> thing. What  is not good, as many others have said or implied 
>  here, is the incumbent growth of non accountability, transparency, 
>  flexibility of design and involvement and localised responsibility 
> that keeps the centrailsed operation honest. Whats not good as well in 
> the centralised model,  is the carbon footprint of mass distribution 
> form production centers Whats
> Even more 'not good' about a priori centralised thinking, is the 
> attendant infestation of  the posturing, power plays and positioning 
> and image maintenance that so often overrides the core purpose of the 
> centralised production effort in the first place.. (cheaper, better 
> quality etc etc...).
>
>  The wonderful fact of the matter is that the sheer logistics, 
> communications access, and cultural and political differences will 
> continue to make it near impossible to ever reach the burgenoning 
> majority of the globe's population by this model.
> We have to learn, in that politically long incorrect saying, to bring 
> the mountain to Mohammed --to adapt design not only FOR but WITH and 
> WITHIN the population of potential adapters.
> The trick is how to do this get paid for it and assure that those who 
> are using it will get paid for it as well each according to their own 
> skills, and interests.
> But even that is not enough; We need to have the input of all 
> concerned for, no one of us is as smart as all of us.
>
> The question becomes how to adapt, integrate, learn with and from the 
> 'engagees'   as active and equal participants  in the process, all the 
> while assuring each participant's option for  accessing their market 
> for training and their own product sales. Thats a difficult pill to 
> swallow for most of the good technical minds we encounter here in the 
> west. Its not so difficult for the technician academic, trainer or 
> producer from most nations south to anywhere else south though.  For 
> that I feel sorry for the former group. They are  missing a lot.
>
> I am not playing mother Theresa here: Its just common sense You do not 
> move forward in your line of work in such a way as to  cause others to 
> be left behind as a result. All you wind up with in your with is a 
> defensive lifestyle lived behind gated communities. For what ? Our 
> fello citisens of the shared planet  need the option for access (and 
> admittedly many may decide to not take that option) to make it 
> themselves, otherwise you have what we now have instability, resource 
> mining, environmental imbalance, political upset, military investment 
>  etc etc... globally under the guide of the free market unregulated 
> systems.
>
> Really, isn't this just all common sense? where is the rocket science 
> and why don't we seem to get it?
>
> * So I'd vote, along with many of us,  for centralisation for those 
> products that demand very specialised and very highly skilled 
> resources but only where subcomponents cannot be made locally but 
> starting from the platform of of thinking localised and inclusive and 
> networked and engaged as possible. *
> Aluta continua,
> Richard / Ashland
>
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:39 AM, <mtrevor at ntamar.net 
> <mailto:mtrevor at ntamar.net>> <mtrevor at ntamar.net 
> <mailto:mtrevor at ntamar.net>> wrote:
>
> Interesting discussion it is surprising how wide spread around the 
> world the support for decentralization is even with
> its problems warts and whiskers.
> Growing up in the middle of the 20th century  I remember when there 
> were A & Ps,  IGAs  Rexalls
> Texacos etc. scattered all across the United States. people were 
> optimistic and the future bright.
> Then came the alphabet soup CFOs CEOs MBA and the Walmarta, Enrons,  
> the dotcoms and all the rest.
> Now we have the 1 % and the greatest misdistribution of wealth known 
> to mankind.
> Some how I just do not feel comfortable about the idea of massive 
> centralization.
> But then again consider what would happen today if Abraham Lincoln was 
> caught returning some little old lady's cash
> by one of todays CFOs or MBAs
> Curmugeonly In Majuro,
> Michael N Trevor
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140104/23627005/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list