Joubin,

First, regarding the parallel discussion surrounding various e-cash models:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010710/wr/markets_internet_gold_dc_1.html

Not sure what to think of it. Perhaps a reliable old idea with a technology
spin on it?


Regarding 'Diversity in Unity'...

I have to admit... the more I consider the issues which yourself and fellow
contributors have noted in this forum, the less positive interest I have in
P2P or other architecture approaches -- and I'm a techie. Regarding the
questions below, I think everyone would agree that technology has
accelerated communication (and information exchange). I feel that this
reduces quality of life in the sense that people need and usually benefit
from physically interacting with each other. I don't want live in an
isolation cell or a virtual reality room. Interacting with a computer or a
telephone is much shallower and nowhere near as engaging.

It's too bad this group couldn't get together for a heated debate at
Joubin's alpine retreat...

> ..
>
> OK. Now that we have cleared up the miscommunication, and wishing to
> return the dialogue to the topic at hand, I again pose to you this
> question:
>
> What has contributed to the demise of the family in the West?

Corporate (and secondarily government) interests, imho. They re-wrote the
social infrastructure. You spend all your time with strangers, earning
money with which you use to pay other strangers. You must have a credit
rating, education, social security number (in the US), etc. Having a stable
family life isn't required. You must play within the infrastructure
provided.

I spent some time in a remote part of Mexico, along the Baja peninsula.
They do not need any of the modern infrastructure (crap listed above), only
each other. [Interestingly, the US government used to grow poppies (for
drug experiments on soldiers) there in the 1940's and 1950's. Anyway...]
The ranch didn't have a phone or lights, and was basically self-sufficient.
Here in civilization, I need a number of corporate interests to survive, and
spend less time with my family than I should. There is no question in my
mind who has a better quality of life.

Although one of the Mexican telecos are running fiber down the length of
Baja, so who knows how much longer they'll have to live without broadband...

I don't know that P2P technology will address their or my life 'better'.
Maybe if they are used to disconnect urban living requirements from
corporate interests and slow life down something positive will come of it...


> Has telecommunication technology played a role in this demise?
>
> If yes, was this an intended, or unintended, consequence of
> deployment of certain communication technologies?

Well, since the above interests are focused on profit, and operating
efficiency plays a key role there, and since telecommunications present an
revolutionary efficiency increase...there may be a connection there. ;)

I personally view it as an 'acceleration' of life (compared to how things
would move in the absence of telecomm). Also, I tend to view electronic
communication systems and corporate growth as intertwined; that they drive
each other in a sense...


> And is there a lesson here for us and the deployment of these
> advanced communication systems?

Trick question? If nothing else, these advanced communication systems
should be controlled by governments and not solely by corporations. Too
much power in the hands of the very few. At least current government models
are less efficient and more inept than decision making, compared to
corporate structures.


regards,

Bernie