[Stoves] Discussion about decentalized versus centralised
Otto Formo
terra-matricula at hotmail.com
Sat Jan 4 14:32:48 CST 2014
Dear Paul A and Crispin,
I very much vote for the model of Richard S and that means:
We do not need to go back to the Iron-age, wherby they produced their own iron, from their own rawmaterials at local level and low cost.
BUT, we could or should bring IN the materials needed for a dencentralized production and assembly line.
This can even be flatpacks for stoves.....................
Nobody is claiming to build a steel work at every corner to provide stainless or mild steel to all and everybody.
(During my stay in West Africa in the early 1980`s, I came across so many road accidents and crashed cars and trucks, which seemed to provide "sufficient" materials for any steelwork needed.)
(I think, they still produce Peugeot in Nigeria?)
Welcome to the decentralisation camp..............:)
Otto
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 13:27:45 -0600
From: psanders at ilstu.edu
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Discussion about decentalized versus centralised
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>
<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
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140104/31d511b9/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list