cept when extended means that a microbe, a bird, a tree – everything has an ecological currency value when living and not dead. In this capitalist world, it probably needs to be tied to consumption; ie. in order to kill a tree you need to keep one alive. “ I also propose that thinking less for the benefit of the global, and that might mean less ethical (not acting upon Kants ‘Categorical imperative’ that suggests our acting should be tested upon its universal maxim) might work better for us. I see the ECO as a system where people can remain selfish and care only about their front door but do good for the bigger by the means of their selfishness. The issue of ownership is very much tied to this idea. If you posses/ own/relate to something you care more. I wonder if we can think of concrete ideas about how to apply the principles of economics to this parallel ECO finance market? In this market you want to become involved / get shares of a certain district/forest/plant species because his “ECO” value raises.... Is there no economist on this list? Have a nice weekend. Luna -------- Original Message -------Subject: Re: [Paralelo] Following up on Paralelo... Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:07:39 +0200 From: Koert van Mensvoort To: paralelo@listcultures.org
Dear Tapio, Esther, Luna and hello to others, Thank you for sharing your thoughts & posi-
tions on the idea of the ECO as a currency of environmental value. Luna, I am pleased you guided the debate back to an assessment of the ECO-currency. Rather than drowning in an infinite discussion about the proper use of metaphors and who’s a good artist, who is a moralist and who is being illustrative, I am eager to move on and practically discuss the pro’s and cons of the eco-currency. Even so, I don’t want to avoid any debate about the fundamentals, as it is important to know each others positions before working together. So, before focusing on the specifics of the ECO-currency, allow me to spend another email on the bigger picture. Tapio, I appreciated the careful formulation of your email and your ability to touch upon some profound issues that play a role in the discussion on whether economy=ecology. I agree it is a useful debate. Esther, I think you wrote an excellent response to Tapio’s email, pinpointing some of its moralistic tendencies and paternalistic attitude towards nature. I basically agree with everything you wrote (*) and will try to refrain from repeating your arguments. Additionally, however, I have some notes on matters that Esther did not yet touch upon: Tapio, we agree that “linking economy with ecology is fundamentally important” yet you argue that “to name economy ecology may hinder that project.” While reading your email I notice that, prior to your argument, you make two assumptions that are false or at least debatable. 1. You assume that if we consider economy as ecology, this implies giving up on any effort to control it and “let nature take its course”. 77