Meridian Institute

Comment

Comment by Marita Topmiller on November 23, 2009 at 12:05am

Change is the constant. Melding our desires to a shared vision of the
future will help us refine our community focus so we take less missteps.

I believe in that definition of prosperity as well. As a board member
on the Marion Cnty Council of PTAs, when inclusion was first promoted,
I gave an interview on Channel 6 in which I said, "Our community is a
body. If one member of the body is suffering, the entire body suffers.
As a community we need to look for ways to engage everyone at their
highest and best."

Matt is stretching our vision of ourselves outside our "body" as it were.

Comment by Matt Theobald on November 22, 2009 at 10:17am

Regional cooperation and coordination is more important than boundry based resources in this part of the country. Due to population, geographic spread. If we only think of Indiana as a physical State, and not an idea that can be branded beyond it's boundaries we will be limited in growth in the regional to global economy.

Comment by Matt Theobald on November 22, 2009 at 10:13am

America has a corporate memory for change. Indiana may have been at its height at the turn of the 19th century in the innovative culture of the motor car. It is important for our current culture to realize our predecessors had this appetite, though seemingly change may seem faster and more global. It was to them too, relatively. Change never stops. It is vital to be radical and get to the root of who we are in order to accept who we are going to become.
The past is important. It is an anchor. But sometime you have to weigh it against the future. I'd enjoy supporting this group as a participant. Looking forward to what you are creating.

Comment by Tim Storey on November 22, 2009 at 6:51am

I like that definition of prosperity. I don't think that's what people really have in mind when they use it. It's people exploring alternative meanings (or true meanings), or just plain alternatives, that solve problems -so thank you Scott. I really appreciate the fact that this conversation is happening here.

I wasn't clear in my last comment. I put the word jobs in quotes because I was trying to convey a concern that planners sometimes just want any source for "jobs". Marita's example of a huge industrial animal farm could provide jobs, for instance. The huge landfills provide jobs, as well as tipping fees for the county -as well as methane. As long as someone is willing to support these industries, in the name of providing jobs, for instance, they won't change very quickly, even though the public dislikes them and there are alternatives. The free market system doesn't seem to be the problem, so let me be clear that I'm not against it. But it seems like there are forces within the free market that distort relationships and choices when they become too powerful. I haven't read enough about it, but it seems like something closer to "distributivism" is worth considering. It seems like this gives an economic base without the likelihood of distortion caused by large corporations. The food movement is a good example of this. It's not that locally grown food has taken the majority of the market, but people do recognize the benefits of a less centralized food supply source. One benefit along the lines of the point I'm trying to make, is that it adds richness to a community. People generally like to see vegetables and fruit being grown. It's another nearby enjoyable experience. It might not be the most "efficient" way to provide food, but it's local production (the act, not just the product) provides benefits that aren't accounted for just by looking at price. There has been plenty written about the importance and value of the relationship between the producer and the consumer. When a producer is local, providing goods for its employees and their friends and family, there's a relationship and an accountability that goes beyond corporate PR and legal efforts. I think it's E.F. Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" where some of these ideas were discussed.

I don't disagree that we need abundant clean energy, but I really think we need to reassess our use of energy. It seems like, in the name of "standard of living" we rely way too much on external energy. I also think it's important to remember that many of our desires for using energy (mode of transportation, labor saving devices, size of home, etc.) are driven by our neighbors and advertising. The idea that we are going to have/need(desire) a relatively infinite energy source has been planted in our heads over the last 60 years or so. Yes, if we keep going the way we have been, then that will probably be true. But using external energy has consequences no matter what the source is -land space, pollution, waste products, etc. When people say our "economy" is based on it, they ignore the possibility that it doesn't need to play nearly as big of a role. I'd say we can have prosperity, Scott's definition, with much less energy use. Sure, keep working on clean energy, but at the same time question the value of the ways we use it. Unfortunately, advertising only works for people who stand to make money by the message. We tend to see non-commercial advertising as preachy. And lately, it seems like our libertarian reactions are stronger than ever. (I'm a conservative, but I can't imagine that group, in general, taking very kindly to messages promoting lifestyle changes in order to save energy.) On the other hand, we're all over buying something new because the device is said to be more energy efficient than our old one. No thought is given to the embodied energy to make the product, it's durability, or whether we need it in the first place. That brings me to a completely different topic that I'd like to start somewhere -repair vs. replacement. Could someone tell me how I could get that conversation going? I'm new at this. Thanks.

Comment by Scott T. Massey on November 21, 2009 at 9:52pm

These comments cover a lot of ground. So here's a stab at some level of response.

My background is philosophy. Lust for the future is a good thing, from my perspective, not a problem. The problem that I mentioned earlier is a lack of imagination and vision--that is the problem inside us. To avoid this, we displace responsibility for low motivation to external forces, like commercialism.

Soon after moving to Indiana, the local news reported a problem with removing snow from the side streets in Indianapolis. The city employee interviewed said "the problem is the streets are too small for the city's new snow plows." That completely missed the point--the problem was the city bought snow plows too big for most of the streets. The problem was not the size of the streets--which are outside our control--the problem was the decision, which was in our control.

From the studies I've done, I've concluded that there really is no such thing as a pure need. All need is defined by its purpose in relation to us as human beings and so is shaped by our character and desire. A pure need would have no human meaning, if it could be defined. What do we really need? X calories? But what are those calories provided by? Should they have flavor, or to be a real need, should they have no flavor at all? How is the difference between flavorless calories and calories with a certain flavor determined? Isn't it by reference to a human defined value or desire? No matter how basic and minimal we go, all "needs" are colored by human perception and desire. This is not a bad thing. It means we choose all the way down.

So I think we should define the summon bonum, the ultimate good, not in terms of illusive basic "needs", but in terms of expansive desire. We are responsible, and we choose all the needs and desires we pursue. The question is one of the value of our choice.

Commerce is the showcase of desire. It is a glimpse into the theatre of human desire, in all its forms--from ridiculous to glorious. The expansion of commerce is good because it expands the capacity of all people to externalize their desires. Of course, such an open process reveals foolish choices. Is there a sphere of human action in which there are no foolish choices? Commerce is perhaps the most open, inclusive, chaotic, and transparent expression of desire.

As Plato argued in the Republic, the just society optimizes the externalization of desire, the pursuit of noble service, and the realization of wisdom. These are not either-or choices for society, but both-and choices. A just society chooses to be wise, noble, and abundant.

So, yes, it is good for our communities to offer the opportunity for prosperity. Prosperity is an inclusive term that does not just mean financial capacity. It means "to prosper" to "flourish" to be "fully human" in all dimensions. To aspire to reach the fullest measure of our humanity.

That seems to me a worthy cause. But I may be wrong.

Be of good cheer.

Scott

Comment by Marita Topmiller on November 21, 2009 at 9:39pm

Globalization: China owns the US. The Euro has replaced the currency of
how many separate nations. How long till the Amero is introduced?

I still remember when Wal Mart bragged that they only sold American
manufactured goods. But our desire of cheap stuff is stronger than
our desire for American stuff - it's hard to find American stuff. But
we all want stuff.

Comment by Marita Topmiller on November 21, 2009 at 9:34pm

It is about jobs too, Tim. Each area of the state needs an economic base.
We don't want people starting meth labs to earn money. We don't want
our neighbor's home sitting vacant. We don't want our neighbors standing
in bread lines. To be happy, I think, we need the body to be fed. Unfortun-
ately, people need money to buy food.

We need industry - not just any industry - not the gigantic, industrial
animal farms a friend of mine has been fighting in Rush County. We
do need to think about our legacy.

We do need clean energy and fusion is taking too long to sort out.

Comment by Tim Storey on November 21, 2009 at 8:52pm

There's something about the "jobs" focus/rationale that's troubling to me. Talking about jobs doesn't seem to get us anywhere better than we are. Providing "jobs" is just feeding a system that many of us would say needs a major redesign -and a fresh look at why we do what we do. I don't want to get into specifics, because specific examples derail the discussion. I think this discussion was touching on the question of what an "economy" is about, what really makes people happy, etc. Yes, we all need something to do, we all need food and shelter, etc., but to rely on the usual metrics and assumptions about traditional (of late) economy seems like a mistake. People seem to need a purpose for inspiration/motivation. That purpose can be money, but it doesn't have to be. It can be "leaving a legacy", but I've never been comfortable with prideful aspirations. It can be "progress" for the future, but that's anyone's definition. So much of what we consider "good" or "improving the standard of living" is so arbitrary and I'm afraid it's driven mostly by media/advertising for their own purposes. There's so much to enjoy about the simplest things, if we're allowed. (I appreciate the comments about the windmills. I live near an area that has been completely transformed by thousands upon thousands of acres of windmills. The novelty wore off after the first 20 and now it's a nightmarish scene from War of the Worlds as far as the eye can see. ) I'm pretty sure we can be convinced of about anything. We can be convinced that we "need" 60K jobs for every household in the region because we "need" to have good 401Ks and send our kids to college, and buy large TV's, and 2,500 sq ft houses, and new cars, and trips to Florida, etc. We can be convinced that we don't need these things to be happy and that the pursuit of them is actually getting in the way. Are we worse capitalists because we don't believe bigger/faster/more is really doing anything for us? I would really like to see Indiana embrace the potential beauty that it has in every county. Push the history, culture, natural features, food, etc. For some counties, the history includes heavy industry, and that's fine since it's been there for 100 years. But do we need to "develop" every region into a commercial area of one sort or another? I'd like to see us tone it down a bit on the promises of development. I'd like to see us be thoughtful enough to consider that Indiana could be appreciated more from within and without by adjusting our strategy. I assume our goal is happiness, it's our strategy that we might question.

Sorry for a bit of rambling there.

Comment by Marita Topmiller on November 21, 2009 at 7:43pm

Scott also mentions "A Smart Energy Future for Indiana".

When the Hoover Dam was built in the 30's, it was built with public money.
It stimulated the economy by providing thousands of jobs. The electricity
from the Hoover Dam is still electrifying alot of the southwest today and
its a clean form of energy.

Indiana produces a lot of coal emissions. The landfill on the south side
of town is filling up, but they're producing methane at that landfill and
using it to power a greenhouse. A group I know is in conference to
build power plants that burn trash. From what I've seen solar and wind
power produce Mickey Mouse energy in ratio to the amount of land they
use versus nuclear generating stations and yes, even coal and oil.

Indiana is not a good candidate for solar. Perhaps used on individual
buildings, solar/wind/geothermal combined could provide all or much
of the energy the building needs. None of which produce waste.

We still must address car emisssions and that is something we can do on
the local level by improving our public transportation system. I also read
we have new corporation in Kokomo working on the electric car.

We desire our needs to be met. We desire a healthy economy. We desire
safe streets for our children to walk. We desire an education system that
prepares our children to meet the design and employment needs of the
future. We need jobs, since Indiana lost much of its manufacturing base.
Kudos to the Governor who has been successfully courting some manufac-
turing from Asia.

If the problem is inside ourselve, maybe that's a nod toward the attitude
toward self interest that dumps public funds into short sighted projects
that dissipate that money rather than using it to build something for
the community good. Perhaps it also refers to the wholesale "give away"
of publicly owned land, in places like Kansas, to corporate barons. The
railroads did foster an economic boom and employed thousands. (referring
to an article in Front Porch)

Comment by James Harris on November 21, 2009 at 6:42pm

Not all needs are colored by desire.
"Real" needs; physcial, emotional and spiritual are just that, needs. Though I do agree, that the majority of what we may consider needs, are simply desires.

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last