I normally don't jump in on these sorts of discussions but perhaps a bit of history and satire will help
http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/swift/modest.html
Prof. Timothy Devinney
UTS (office): +61 2 9514 3540
Global Numbers: +61 2 8006 0048 or +1 412 5677440 (if in USA)
Other Numbers:
Australia (Mob): +61 412 276 467
USA (Mob): +1 (847) 207 3202
Germany (Mob): +49 (151) 5316 7974
China (Mob): +86 (136) 5116 1087
Email:
Timothy.Devinney@uts.edu.au
Web 1 (Academic):
http://datasearch.uts.edu.au/business/staff/marketing/details.cfm?StaffId=4213
Web 2 (China Related):
http://vincitveritas.spaces.live.com/
Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tdevinney/
On 15/02/2010, at 4:00 AM, Mike Barnett wrote:
> One last crack at this. Charlie and I have been having some side discussions, but since my name is sullied from the last public post, and given that I study reputation, I'll have at it one more time and presume that Charlie will post this.
>
> It's intriguing that the moderator has labelled it a violation of community standards to call someone who has advocated cannibalism and war to cull the vast majority of the human race a sociopath. I think it's definitional. Perhaps Lionel is not serious, but he has put forth the proposal repeatedly and directly, and on that basis, the label fits. Perfectly. And that's the way I set it up -- if he is putting forth this proposal, he is a sociopath.
>
> It's even more intriguing that the moderator has characterized the call for mass culling as a good debate point, and a conversation worth starting. It's not. Population control is all good and desirable, but on the front end (birth control) not on the back end (mass slaughter).
>
> Furthermore, it is intriguing that ad hominem attacks on Bill Gates pour forth like rain, through the screen of the moderator, but when an ONE community member is described this way, it is not allowed.
>
> I don't have a clue how I'm on the wrong side of this. But for sake of avoiding ad hominem attack, I'll recall my prior post and instead state the following:
>
> "Pardon me, Prof. Boxer, but I disagree with eating humans and staring war to kill off 90% of the human population. Might we please find another solution to our energy challenge?"
>
> The British in me may yet win out! And Charlie has agreed that this is an acceptable framing.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
> ************************
> Michael L. Barnett
> Professor of Strategy, Said Business School, U. of Oxford
> Research Director, Oxford U. Centre for Corporate Reputation
> Fellow, St. Anne's College, University of Oxford
>
>
http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/research/people/Pages/MikeBarnett.aspx
>
> View my research on my SSRN Author page:
>
http://ssrn.com/author=414796
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion [mailto:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Wankel
> Sent: 14 February 2010 11:45
> To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: On canabalism and WWIII, population, and how to handle discourse on them in ONE-L
>
> As Moderator, I felt ambivalent about allowing Mike's below message.
> However, despite an obvious emotional ad hominem attack in it, it does
> address me and my place in this and decided we are professional enough to
> parse this. I apologize though to Lionel for permitting this lapse of
> collegiality. It is before dawn in the USA now so the participants at this
> moment are in other parts of the world (except me).
>
> First, it is NEVER acceptable to attack a person in our community rather
> than their ideas. Name-calling ("sociopath") are not collegial and do not
> belong in our forum such as ours and will be blocked. (In practice,
> "blocked" means sent back to their authors for revision and reposting).
>
> Second, certainly world population is one of the core problems for global
> sustainability. I am a native New Yorker and we pride ourselves on our
> tradition of theatre and art. As a sixties person, I came of age when
> political street theatre (mostly aimed at the Vietnam War) but also against
> nuclear power was thriving. I recall one time when I was part of a group of
> a thousand youths covered with yogurt (I'll spare you the lengthy
> explanation) ran across the boundaries of police precincts (going the wrong
> way down one-way streets to make vehicular use in keeping up with us
> impossible) shouting "First things first, the streets belong to the people!
> My point is that Lionel regardless of his support or lack of support for
> cannibalism has engaged us dramatically. In the New York artist community
> we still see the legacy of the sixties' aesthetic: "It is not whether is it
> beautiful or ugly, it is whether it stops you or not". I commend Lionel on
> being feisty and developing the kind of dialogue that would get our
> millennial learners steamed up. So, in sum, I come down the acceptability
> of mulling over the usefulness of WWIII and cannibalism (ideas) rather than
> ad hominem attacks and mudslinging. (Though, I do miss the exciting days of
> brawls and food-fights in my secondary school, sigh!)
>
> Third, let us get on with our discussion of related to organizations and the
> natural environment. To facilitate this I am going to block all backward
> looking commentary about this, though I might allow some helpful ones
> through.
>
> With sleeves still rolled-up,
> Charles
>
> ONE-L list director and brave soul
>
wankelc@stjohns.edu
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Barnett [mailto:
michael.barnett@sbs.ox.ac.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 6:21 AM
> To: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> Subject: RE: All we have to do is create a technology turning spent uranium
> rods into electricity .....
>
> Lionel, I was taking your posts to be sarcastic, but after a while, and with
> direct statements such as below, it is hard to continue to assume sarcasm.
> If you are serious in stating, directly, that killing humans for food or
> fomenting a third world war with the goal of killing 90% of the world's
> population, are good options, then I firmly and directly demand that you
> stop posting and get out of ONE. I don't want ONE to be even remotely
> tainted by a sociopath. Charles Wankel -- as moderator, you have taken on a
> duty that involves screening out, not just forwarding on, all outrageous
> filth; if that's not the case, then I have no clue why we have started a
> delayed posting system with moderator (a recent advance, but as I now see,
> perhaps a necessary one).
>
>
> In all seriousness,
> Mike
>
> PS If I have mistaken something here, please do let me know. It is hard to
> comprehend a post on an academic list that calls for an end to consumption,
> to be achieved through mass slaughter. Thus, I may just be too weirded out
> to know what the hell you're talking about, even though you've said it
> several times.
>
> ************************
> Michael L. Barnett
> Professor of Strategy, Said Business School, U. of Oxford
> Research Director, Oxford U. Centre for Corporate Reputation
> Fellow, St. Anne's College, University of Oxford
>
>
http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/research/people/Pages/MikeBarnett.aspx
>
> View my research on my SSRN Author page:
>
http://ssrn.com/author=414796
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lionel Boxer
> Sent: 14 February 2010 10:56
> To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: All we have to do is create a technology turning spent uranium
> rods into electricity .....
>
> I did not say nuclear energy is a good option. A good option is soilent
> green, or perhaps WWIII.
>
> We really have to stop consuming. Happiness occurs when you learn to admire
> without needing to desire. Sure, this will collapse economies, but then we
> will not need as much electricity.
>
> Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
> Associate of RMIT University -
lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
> Graduate School of Business
> my "Assessment of Quality Systems with Positioning Theory"
> now in a googe book - see link at
http://intergon.net
>>>> Debbie de Lange <
ddelange@SUFFOLK.EDU> 14/02/10 10:09 AM >>>
> To those who think that nuclear energy is or might be a good option, please
> read Normal Accidents by Charles Perrow.
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/Normal-Accidents-Living-High-Risk-Technologies/dp/0691
> 004129
>
> After this, think about all the costs and risks of nuclear technology from a
> complete life cycle perspective and weigh that against other options like
> truly clean, safe approaches such as solar, wind and tidal energy sources.
> It's not as if it's harder to develop these latter approaches (and others
> that would fall into the clean, safe, renewable category) than nuclear -
> it's just that we've had an incredibly powerful nuclear power industry
> pushing that agenda such that the political will (and investment) has been
> one sided, against the other technologies.
>
> I previously worked in the energy industry. I can tell you that they are a
> bunch of dinosaurs and as they go extinct, they will take us with them, if
> we listen to them.
>
> I also worked for IBM and never listen to Bill Gates :-) At work, we passed
> a computer game around that allowed us to throw pies at his face (ha, ha!).
> By the way, there was also a study done that wind energy could power the
> world many times over without any other energy sources. Why do we need
> "traveling wave reactors, etc." when we have the sun?! I do not understand
> how anyone could be so naive as to listen to Bill Gates and the nuclear
> industry.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dr. Debbie de Lange
> Strategy and International Business
> Suffolk University
> Sawyer Business School
> 8 Ashburton Place
> Boston, MA
> USA 02108-2770
> 617-573-8794