petition

I have a problem with the petition presented to us by elohimjl.
Whether or not this list is the right place for a petition is not 'my
call'. My concern is with the assumptions in the text.

Some of these assumptions are:
    1) that the corporate person is not also a human person; and that
a corporation is by definition, corrupt;
    2) that the individual, defined as a citizen, is somehow
inherently good, just, non-destroying, non-polluting while the
corporate individual is the 'polluter and exploiter'.

I'm afraid that I don't see the validity of this polarity. From what
I've seen, individuals, ordinary citizens, are heavily involved in
'pollution' and 'exploitation'. They are quite capable of violations
of laws, of theft, of indifference to the well-being of their
neighbours, of a focus on short-term economic gain, etc, etc.

I'm not aware that 'we the peoples ' have "always spoken out and acted
when there is injustice". It is the ordinary citizen that is more
likely to become a member of an opinionated popular ideology and to
take part in hate crimes: - whether in Ireland, the Middle East,
Bosnia, Rwanda, etc, etc.

Local cultures and knowledge practices are not always, in themselves,
the right type of knowledge for a changing economy. The peasant
farmer, and local knowledge are able to sustain only his own extended
family, and neither can cope with the need for a new technology that
will feed the increased population of his society.
Genuine harmony with nature? What does this mean? There are basic
'forces of interaction' in our cosmos; these are interactional, but
these interactions are not always homogenous and without conflict.
Indeed, conflict, with its concomitant dissipation of one entity to
another, is a basic reality of nature...within the atomic as well as
the biological realms.
Quality outcomes to local communities are a result, not merely of work
by individuals, but also of work by collectives, ie, corporations and
governments.
Democracy is a basic requirement for a 'just growth', but small local
communities and individuals are not, by genetic construction,
inherently democratic. A small community can well be a reactionary
close-minded cult.

Democracy works best with individuals who are 'skeptical', critical,
knowledgeable and whose economy gives them the freedom to move. These
behavioural qualities are found within both corporate and
non-corporate individuals. And, in particular, someone in business and
the economy, had better be critical and skeptical, and grounded in
real hard facts - or- another individual (corporate or not) will
remove them.

3)Another assumption is that corporations and development paradigms
destroy peoples and nature. I think that it's individuals who do both.
If you do away with a corporation, you will not do away with someone
polluting a river or setting fire to the forest.

4) Rejecting technologies and products that endanger nature, health
and life etc? Just about anything we develop, anything at all, will
and must have an effect on nature. That is the reality of our
networked cosmos. One thing affects another thing. Bring sheep to the
European grasslands in the 14th century, and you will change the
ecology and economy.

5) Patenting of nature? I'm afraid I have no idea what this means.

6) Reclaim nature and the rights of indigenous peoples and local
communities. This suggests that Nature is a static whole, but nature,
as a dynamic biomass, is evolving and changing. Therefore - what is
being reclaimed? Indigenous peoples? These peoples (and I'm an
anthropologist) were living in small communities. Their economic
infrastructures are capable of supporting only small populations. How,
given the enormous increase in world population since the 14th
century - how are you proposing to deal with the support of this
population? Most certainly, small scale indigenous economies and
small scale political systems cannot support or organize, large
communities. It simply doesn't work.

7) To reclaim our national gov'ts and the UN from corporate take-over.
 My response to this - is that the era of the nation-state, able to
support its own population within its own territory, is over. The
population of the world is simply too large for single self-supporting
nations.
And - I question the inherent definitions of corporations as corrupt.
Many national governments were and are corrupt.

What I think needs to be done, is that a global economy and political
infrastructure has to be developed. This is obviously being developed,
first, by private corporations. This can't last, and the next stage
would be a world gov't. At the moment, the US is fighting that. But -
it will come.

Edwina Taborsky
39 Jarvis St. #318
Toronto, Ontario M5E 1Z5
(416) 361.0898
Received on Tue Jul 16 21:58:19 2002