Fwd: Big Ph targets global food supply (ND, May-June 2026, p.41)

[Rosamma Thomas]

Big Pharma targets global food supply. Please check scanned article 

[Ashwani Vasishth]

Unfortunately for us, this is only one facet of complex reality.

RNA technologies, like AI, are morally neutral.  If one uses a hammer to kill someone, the hammer does not get charged with murder.  The person using the hammer is charged.

There are clear plus-sides to RNA technologies.

Yin and Yang.  You cannot have something "bad" without something "good," and vice versa.

There is a time-tested assertion that Western Binary Thinking (mechanistic, Newtonian, either-or, good-or-bad) is what's blocking us most.  Its never good-or-bad.  It's "good and bad."  If this was not the case, there'd be no dilemma.

So, as two additional points of information:

• https://share.google/aimode/mXYZE5VgTYclbK4Li
• A review on RNA technologies renaissance: a paradigm shift shaping the
  future of modern medicine (pdf attached, Abstract below).

RNA technologies have undergone a remarkable transformation from obscure curiosities to the vanguard of biomedical innovation. Once relegated to a passive role in the central dogma, RNA is now recognized as a structurally versatile and functionally dynamic molecule with the capacity to regulate, encode, and architect cellular processes. This review provides a comprehensive and integrative overview of contemporary RNA-based technologies, encompassing both fundamental biological insights and clinical translation. We begin by outlining the structural and functional diversity of coding and non-coding RNAs, laying the foundation for therapeutic platforms such as RNA interference, antisense oligonucleotides, and mRNA-based vaccines and protein replacement therapies. 

The challenges of delivery, immunogenicity, and molecular stability are addressed through advanced delivery systems, such as exosomes and hybrid nanocarriers. Undoubtedly, RNA nanotechnology emerges as both an engineering and therapeutic frontier, offering self-assembling structures for targeted drug delivery, including siRNA-loaded nanoparticles and aptamer-based constructs with clinical traction. Meanwhile, RNA-centric omics, ranging from direct RNA sequencing and single-cell transcriptomics to spatial gene expression profiling, offer unprecedented resolution for understanding disease pathophysiology, guiding personalized medicine, and developing biomarker-driven therapies. Despite significant hurdles in delivery, immune activation, and regulatory logistics, RNA technologies continue to evolve through modular design, AI-guided optimization, and systems-level integration. We conclude by exploring emerging trends that position RNA not just as a therapeutic tool, but as a universal language for precision biology. In this synthesis, RNA is reimagined not merely as a molecule, but as a platform dynamic, programmable, and central to the future of medicine. 

-- 

     Ashwani
        Vasishth         vasi...@ramapo.edu          (323) 206-1858 (cell)
                 https://www.linkedin.com/in/vasishth/
          --------------------------------------------------------
                  Professor of Sustainability (RETIRED)

                      http://ramapo.edu/ramapo-green
                  https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8272006/

              Co-founder and Advisor, Sustainable Jersey City
                       http://www.sustainablejc.org

On 6/16/26 1:16 PM, Rosamma Thomas wrote:

Big Pharma targets global food supply. Please check scanned article 

--
To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the whole list, select "reply to all".
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radical Ecological Democracy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radical_ecological_d...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAAuCJ0TMaA44%3D%2BK1JjR7W6ghXVYs0pvwuY50ftZ%2BhE7dJm0h6w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ashwani Vasishth]

A sentence got deleted,  Point to the monetizers--Moderna--not the technollogies

-- 

     Ashwani
        Vasishth         vasi...@ramapo.edu          (323) 206-1858 (cell)
                 https://www.linkedin.com/in/vasishth/
          --------------------------------------------------------
                  Professor of Sustainability (RETIRED)

                      http://ramapo.edu/ramapo-green
                  https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8272006/

              Co-founder and Advisor, Sustainable Jersey City
                       http://www.sustainablejc.org

[mp]

On 16/06/2026 19:54, 'Ashwani Vasishth' via Radical Ecological Democracy
wrote:

> Unfortunately for us, this is only one facet of complex reality.
>
> RNA technologies, like AI, are morally neutral.  If one uses a hammer to
> kill someone, the hammer does not get charged with murder.  The person
> using the hammer is charged.

The claim that technologies are morally neutral has been extensively
challenged for decades, yet it persists — a persistence that itself
invites questions about the power relations and interests sustained by
the neutrality thesis.

The hammer example is nevertheless peculiar because it shifts between
two quite different questions.

The first concerns whether technologies are value-neutral: what
intentions, assumptions, social relations, material extractions and
institutional arrangements enter into their design, production and
distribution; what actions they enable or constrain; and what kinds of
order they help reproduce.

The second concerns whether an artefact has the moral agency or legal
personality required to be charged with a crime.

The (jurisprudential) fact that a hammer is not prosecuted for murder
tells us only that it is not ordinarily treated as a legal or moral
agent. It tells us nothing about whether technologies embody values,
configure human action or distribute power and responsibility. Even the
strongest arguments against technological neutrality have generally not
depended upon treating the hammer itself as legally culpable. The
analogy therefore mistakes the absence of culpable agency for moral
neutrality.

More precisely, technologies need not possess intentions or moral
responsibility in order to be value-laden. Their designs and
sociotechnical arrangements can materialise assumptions, privilege some
purposes over others, make certain actions easier than others, and
distribute benefits, risks and capacities unevenly. This is particularly
important for heterogeneous systems such as AI and RNA technologies,
which are considerably less self-contained than a hammer.

...
..
.

[Ariel Salleh]

So good to read this, mp.
There is an urgent need for groups like Radical Ecological Democracy, Bioregionalists, and others to arm themselves with clear thinking about technology
as we move into an increasingly mechanised/digitalised world.
And as you point out below - "This is particularly important for heterogeneous systems such as AI and RNA technologies, which are considerably less self-contained than a hammer.”
I would like to see this list organising an international forum on what some call the new “technofeudalism” and how as fast as we are transforming our communities that is being undone by so called modernist forces.
Ariel

--
To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the whole list, select "reply to all".
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radical Ecological Democracy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radical_ecological_d...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/1278abb1-670a-4d48-a1e0-861a61dbb22a%40aktivix.org.

[mp]

Conceptual arrangements of the stuff that surrounds can indeed be useful.

On that note: Technofeudalism is not a term I enjoy the sound of very much.

Presumably it invokes the progress myth to suggest that "we've gone
backwards" - back into those dark ages behind us.

Well, those were the says of commons and autonomy, even if held in a
feudal arrangement from which there was little (no?) absolute escape.

However, as we have seen in numerous social history studies, there were
access customs that provided food, fuel and building materials. No
romantic perspective here, but where is there any access to the bare
necessities of subsistence these days, when even the air that we breathe
and the water we drink is contaminated with capital filth?

Rather, I'd say that "we" progressed even further into the modern
lifescape, which is a dead end -- that first had to invent prehistory,
as Chris Gosden so neatly puts it:

".....A profound consideration is underway of the nature of long-term
human history. The major turning points we once identified—the invention
of farming, the growth of cities, and technological change—were not
events, but long-term processes, the effects of which were unpredictable.

At the heart of the older stories was the idea of progress from small,
egalitarian human groups moving in pursuit of wild resources to large,
sedentary, hierarchical polities based on mass production and
consumption of food and artefacts. Many popular accounts still tell a
story of progress.

These stories ultimately derive from the 19th century, when the
inventors of prehistory assumed progress as a central trait of human
history, ranging societies from the primitive to the civilized. A tale
told by the so-called civilized about the rise of civilization allowed a
calm presumption that history had been creating their personalities and
their lifestyle all along...".

...
..
.

[Ashwani Vasishth]

Very valid point, Ariel.  

But—without denying the rising power of techno-feudalism and the innate proclivity of all technologies to be more or less open to abuse, both of which I gladly concede—my broader point was that we ought not to use hard categories like good and evil.

Second, even technofeudalism is our responsibility first, not the technologies.

It just bugs me that we go all Luddite on technologies (RNA, AI Data Centers, whatever) while ignoring our own proclivity to abuse, in the single-minded pursuit of monetary profit. 

Sure, power centers like MNCs are always looking for the single bottom line advantage.  But we’ve had centuries to change this.  And yet it persists.  Generation after generation.

The amount of thought, caring and effort that is being poured into fighting what is commonly understood as “capitalism” boggles the mind.  What might we have done with our civilization if we had all that time back. 

I’m not at all saying, “resistance is futile.”  I am saying—following Donella Meadows—go as far upstream as you can, before intervening in systems. 

Let’s not muddle the distinction between symptom and disease.

Clear thinking is my quest.  I bow to the resisters.  My point is only—resistance, for the sake of resistance—can be very futile.

Remember that placard?  “System Change, not Climate Change”.  I accept this is way easier said than done.  But we’ll keep reinventing the wheel if we remain blinded by our silos. 

Do what you can is great.  And makes us feel gratification for fighting the good fight.  But it gets us little else. 

Your work is very necessary, Ariel.  It’s just not sufficient. 

-
 Ashwani
     Vasi...@ramapo.edu
          http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/AC3A1E53-39C1-4F13-8F2D-68B50BEAF3EF%40gmail.com.

[Ashwani Vasishth]

Dear MP,

I happily concede this, and do agree with you and Godsen.  That is part of the truth we seek.

But this is not systems thinking. 

Complex realities can only be seen as facets by any one viewer.  Holism remains a chimera. 

-
 Ashwani
     Vasi...@ramapo.edu
          http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth

--
To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the whole list, select "reply to all".
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radical Ecological Democracy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radical_ecological_d...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/e44150d8-7f8e-456c-87b9-f15fd8aa64dd%40aktivix.org.

[Ariel Salleh]

Ashwani Vashisth - Senior Technology Executive | AI Champion
in.linkedin.com › ashwani-vashisth
With 22 years of progressive technology leadership, I partner with C-suite executives to drive enterprise-wide digital transformation, operational excellence, ...
People named Ashwani Vashisth - Facebook
www.facebook.com › public › Ashwani-Vashisth
View the profiles of people named Ashwani Vashisth. Join Facebook to connect with Ashwani Vashisth and others you may know. Facebook gives people the...
8 "Ashwani Vashisth" profiles - LinkedIn
www.linkedin.com › pub › dir › Ashwani › Vashisth
Ashwani Vashisth. Senior Technology Executive | AI Champion | EUC, Software Engineering, SRE & Cloud Infrastructure Leader | Driving Digital Transformation ...
Imagens
Ver tudo







Ver tudo
Ashwani Vashisht (@ashwani_vashisht) - Instagram
www.instagram.com › ashwani_vashisht
2 followers · 1 following · 1 posts · @ashwani_vashisht: “”
ashwani Vashisht - YouTube
www.youtube.com › @ashwanivashisht2560
It is my endeavor to make you a good investor instead of becoming a buyer, if you want to understand real estate and want to learn, then stay connected with ...
Ashwani Vashisth - Corporate & Enterprises Sales | LinkedIn
in.linkedin.com › ashwani-vashisth-baa054140
Corporate & Enterprises Sales · Experience: Iris Waves Pvt Ltd · Education: Delhi University · Location: New Delhi · 169 connections on LinkedIn.
#trending #birthdaygirl #hindu | Ashwani Vashisth - Facebook
www.facebook.com › ... › Digital creator › Ashwani Vashisth › Videos
há 4 dias · Video. 󱡘. Ashwani Vashisth. 20h· 󰟠. 󳄫. #trending #birthdaygirl ... Ashwani Vashisth. 󱙿. Videos. 󱙿. #trending #birthdaygirl #hindu.
ASHWANI KUMAR VASHISHT | ZaubaCorp
www.zaubacorp.com › ASHWANI-KUMAR-VASHI...
ASHWANI KUMAR VASHISHT is a director registered with Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Their Director Identification Number (DIN) is 06754432. ASHWANI KUMAR ...
[PDF] Public Grievances Commission (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
it.delhigovt.nic.in › writereaddata › Odr201969986. Vashisth.pdf
Shri Ashwani Kumar Vashisth has filed a grievance in PGC on. 05.11.2018 regarding modification of structure in Flat No. 134 and. 135, Lal Jyoti Apartment ...

[Ashwani Vasishth]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/vasishth

I grew up in India till i was 34.  I’ve been working on whole system sustainability at least from 1972, long before “sustainability” showed up. 

I am grounded in the roots of what is commonly called non-binary, non-dualistic, mechanistic thinking.

-
 Ashwani
     Vasi...@ramapo.edu
          http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/C7BF865F-3B3C-4D58-BC01-4841A527190D%40gmail.com.

[Wallgren Thomas]

Thanks Ashwani  Ariel and all.

This is a very important conversation.

The best place to continue it will be the World Social Forum in Cotonou, Benin 4-8 August. Can we do an event together there?

I hope you will come to Cotonou, and that Niklas and Vijay will also come. We have written on technology on similar lines. (I attach an example.)  Niklas is working on a book on the philosophy of technology, and I, too. am keen to deepen my understanding.

Solidarity,

Thomas

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAFxHvk%2B37DJap%3Ddky%2BRoLvG9FTvU4u9rPKm6ijeiTX2oS8EF-A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Helena Paul]

I want to respond to mp’s points, which i find really important.

I wonder, for example, supposing the use of AI is limited to very specific applications, under human control, it seems that it may be useful. But like a hammer, which can be used to make furniture or smash someone’s skull, its human users are the ones responsible. 

I have a question for you, mp:

The corporation is a legal person - incorporated or given a body - and thus separate from its owners, who thus avoid responsibility for its actions. It is potentially immortal, possessed of limited liability and its sole obligation is to return a profit to its shareholders. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gave the corporation, as a legal person, certain human rights, such as the right to lobby.  It is able to act with impunity, to use tools such as digital transformation freely. Its actions - the actions of its owners - are devastating the planet, but its owners are not held responsible for this and the corporation cannot be held responsible for its actions either - it is a tool like a hammer, that can be used for good and bad ends.  And, while it continues to generate profit, that is all that matters to the humans involved.

It is corporations whose human servants/scientists have developed AI etc - for profit, primarily. if some of its uses are positive and others are negative all that matters is ‘returns on investment'.

So what can we do to tackle this destructive monster we have created, that only pursues its own interests - profit? And whose shareholders and directors are not held responsible for the devastation it causes? And which is currently destroying the planet’s living systems at a huge rate...

Please see this RED article, where i’ve tried to set out these issues, which i see as fundamental.

https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/challenging-corporate-power-and-rights-has-never-been-so-important/

thanks,

Helena

On 17 Jun 2026, at 14:22, Ashwani Vasishth <ashwani....@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/vasishth

I grew up in India till i was 34.  I’ve been working on whole system sustainability at least from 1972, long before “sustainability” showed up. 

I am grounded in the roots of what is commonly called non-binary, non-dualistic, mechanistic thinking.

-
 Ashwani
     Vasi...@ramapo.edu
          http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth

On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 9:11 AM Ariel Salleh <ariels...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ashwani Vashisth - Senior Technology Executive | AI Champion
in.linkedin.com › ashwani-vashisth
With 22 years of progressive technology leadership, I partner with C-suite executives to drive enterprise-wide digital transformation, operational excellence, ...
People named Ashwani Vashisth - Facebook
www.facebook.com › public › Ashwani-Vashisth
View the profiles of people named Ashwani Vashisth. Join Facebook to connect with Ashwani Vashisth and others you may know. Facebook gives people the...
8 "Ashwani Vashisth" profiles - LinkedIn
www.linkedin.com › pub › dir › Ashwani › Vashisth
Ashwani Vashisth. Senior Technology Executive | AI Champion | EUC, Software Engineering, SRE & Cloud Infrastructure Leader | Driving Digital Transformation ...
Imagens
Ver tudo

<attachment.jpeg>
<attachment.jpeg>
<attachment.jpeg>
<attachment.jpeg>
<attachment.jpeg>
<attachment.jpeg>

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAFxHvk%2BecDYLxhDvaLs%3DZuLNws8trOGrm%3DOeEzboCG8UiRTS%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[mp]

----


What is to be done? The perennial question — and the answers depend on
scale and scope, I would suggest.

The easy answer is that we must act from all angles and at every scale.

This also requires abandoning neutrality theses and resisting appeals to
“human nature” that naturalise historically specific technologies,
institutions and power relations.

We should probably also recover Luddism from the caricature of
technophobia.

The Luddites were not indiscriminate enemies of machinery. They resisted
particular technologies as they were deployed through property and
labour relations that transferred control from skilled workers to
owners, reduced wages and degraded working conditions.

Their struggle concerned not technology in isolation, but who owned it,
who governed it, who benefited from it and what forms of life it
displaced. In other words: technology to them was not morally neutral.

But first - or in the bigger scheme of things - I would argue that we
need to understand the monster, as you call it:

That is: We must decode it and reverse-engineer its functions.

In one sense this is relatively straightforward, because much of its
operating system exists in the letter and practice of the law.

Katharina Pistor’s The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and
Inequality is especially, and unusually! - useful here:

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691178974/the-code-of-capital

Corporate power does not arise only because corporations have become
rich enough to capture governments. Their wealth, power and durability
are themselves constituted through law. Corporate power is embedded in a
wider legal architecture through which selected assets are coded as capital.

Corporate personhood, limited liability, asset partitioning, trusts,
property and intellectual-property rights, secured credit and bankruptcy
priority operate alongside transnational mechanisms such as recognition
of foreign law, jurisdictional choice and investor–state arbitration.

These arrangements give some claims priority over others, protect them
through time, make them enforceable across borders and, in finance,
allow certain privileged private credit claims to be converted into — or
pledged for access to—state-backed money.

No need for conspiracy theory: we are rather dealing with a conspiracy
_practice_. The privilege is produced through ordinary, decentralised
legal practice: private lawyers construct the arrangements, while states
provide the statutes, courts and coercive enforcement that make them
effective.

The practical task is therefore not really to tax wealth after it has
accumulated, that actually sanctions their behaviour as legal and OK;
nor simply to appeal to corporations to behave responsibly, of course.

It is, rather, to identify, challenge and rewrite the legal code that
produces and protects their power.

Decode how corporate assets and protections are constructed.

Deprivilege claims that externalise costs and evade responsibility.

Recode law around ecological integrity, collective use, labour, care and
democratic control.

Commons, here we come!

Hasta la victoria siempre.

Postscript on intellectual property

Intellectual-property rights are conceptually revealing because the
system can mobilise the legitimate concerns of academics, artists and
intellectual workers to reinforce the wider architecture of exclusive
and transferable private property.

There was Napster and digital music; now there is generative AI. In both
cases, opposition to new forms of technological extraction can be
channelled into demands for stronger proprietary control. The risk is
that critical resistance to one group of corporations ends up
strengthening the legal machinery through which corporate capital
encloses knowledge more generally.

But the problem is not that authors, artists or researchers should
accept uncompensated appropriation. The question is what institutional
response follows. Consent, attribution, remuneration, collective
bargaining, commons governance, copyleft and non-transferable moral
rights need not entail ever stronger corporate intellectual-property
monopolies.

The foot-shooting occurs when resistance to corporate technological
enclosure is translated directly into an expansion of the proprietary
legal code on which corporate power already depends.

On 17/06/2026 16:18, Helena Paul wrote:
> I want to respond to mp’s points, which i find really important.
>
> I wonder, for example, supposing the use of AI is limited to very specific applications, under human control, it seems that it may be useful. But like a hammer, which can be used to make furniture or smash someone’s skull, its human users are the ones responsible.
>
> I have a question for you, mp:
>
> The corporation is a legal person - incorporated or given a body - and thus separate from its owners, who thus avoid responsibility for its actions. It is potentially immortal, possessed of limited liability and its sole obligation is to return a profit to its shareholders. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gave the corporation, as a legal person, certain human rights, such as the right to lobby. It is able to act with impunity, to use tools such as digital transformation freely. Its actions - the actions of its owners - are devastating the planet, but its owners are not held responsible for this and the corporation cannot be held responsible for its actions either - it is a tool like a hammer, that can be used for good and bad ends. And, while it continues to generate profit, that is all that matters to the humans involved.
>
> It is corporations whose human servants/scientists have developed AI etc - for profit, primarily. if some of its uses are positive and others are negative all that matters is ‘returns on investment'.
>
> So what can we do to tackle this destructive monster we have created, that only pursues its own interests - profit? And whose shareholders and directors are not held responsible for the devastation it causes? And which is currently destroying the planet’s living systems at a huge rate...
>
> Please see this RED article, where i’ve tried to set out these issues, which i see as fundamental.
> https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/challenging-corporate-power-and-rights-has-never-been-so-important/
>
> thanks,
>
> Helena
>
>
>
>
>> On 17 Jun 2026, at 14:22, Ashwani Vasishth <ashwani....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/vasishth
>>
>> I grew up in India till i was 34. I’ve been working on whole system sustainability at least from 1972, long before “sustainability” showed up.
>>
>> I am grounded in the roots of what is commonly called non-binary, non-dualistic, mechanistic thinking.
>> -
>> Ashwani

>> Vasi...@ramapo.edu <mailto:Vasi...@ramapo.edu>
>> http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth

>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 9:11 AM Ariel Salleh <ariels...@gmail.com <mailto:ariels...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Ashwani Vashisth - Senior Technology Executive | AI Champion

>>> in.linkedin.com <http://in.linkedin.com/> › ashwani-vashisth

>>> With 22 years of progressive technology leadership, I partner with C-suite executives to drive enterprise-wide digital transformation, operational excellence, ...
>>> People named Ashwani Vashisth - Facebook

>>> www.facebook.com <http://www.facebook.com/> › public › Ashwani-Vashisth

>>> View the profiles of people named Ashwani Vashisth. Join Facebook to connect with Ashwani Vashisth and others you may know. Facebook gives people the...
>>> 8 "Ashwani Vashisth" profiles - LinkedIn

>>> www.linkedin.com <http://www.linkedin.com/> › pub › dir › Ashwani › Vashisth

>>> Ashwani Vashisth. Senior Technology Executive | AI Champion | EUC, Software Engineering, SRE & Cloud Infrastructure Leader | Driving Digital Transformation ...
>>> Imagens
>>> Ver tudo
>>> <attachment.jpeg>
>>> <attachment.jpeg>
>>> <attachment.jpeg>
>>> <attachment.jpeg>
>>> <attachment.jpeg>
>>> <attachment.jpeg>
>>>
>>> Ver tudo
>>> Ashwani Vashisht (@ashwani_vashisht) - Instagram

>>> www.instagram.com <http://www.instagram.com/> › ashwani_vashisht

>>> 2 followers · 1 following · 1 posts · @ashwani_vashisht: “”
>>> ashwani Vashisht - YouTube

>>> www.youtube.com <http://www.youtube.com/> › @ashwanivashisht2560

>>> It is my endeavor to make you a good investor instead of becoming a buyer, if you want to understand real estate and want to learn, then stay connected with ...
>>> Ashwani Vashisth - Corporate & Enterprises Sales | LinkedIn

>>> in.linkedin.com <http://in.linkedin.com/> › ashwani-vashisth-baa054140

>>> Corporate & Enterprises Sales · Experience: Iris Waves Pvt Ltd · Education: Delhi University · Location: New Delhi · 169 connections on LinkedIn.
>>> #trending #birthdaygirl #hindu | Ashwani Vashisth - Facebook

>>> www.facebook.com <http://www.facebook.com/> › ... › Digital creator › Ashwani Vashisth › Videos

>>> há 4 dias · Video. 󱡘. Ashwani Vashisth. 20h· 󰟠. 󳄫. #trending #birthdaygirl ... Ashwani Vashisth. 󱙿. Videos. 󱙿. #trending #birthdaygirl #hindu.
>>> ASHWANI KUMAR VASHISHT | ZaubaCorp

>>> www.zaubacorp.com <http://www.zaubacorp.com/> › ASHWANI-KUMAR-VASHI...

>>> ASHWANI KUMAR VASHISHT is a director registered with Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Their Director Identification Number (DIN) is 06754432. ASHWANI KUMAR ...
>>> [PDF] Public Grievances Commission (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

>>> it.delhigovt.nic.in <http://it.delhigovt.nic.in/> › writereaddata › Odr201969986. Vashisth.pdf

>>> Shri Ashwani Kumar Vashisth has filed a grievance in PGC on. 05.11.2018 regarding modification of structure in Flat No. 134 and. 135, Lal Jyoti Apartment ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Jun 2026, at 10:02 am, Ashwani Vasishth <ashwani....@gmail.com <mailto:ashwani....@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Very valid point, Ariel.
>>>
>>> But—without denying the rising power of techno-feudalism and the innate proclivity of all technologies to be more or less open to abuse, both of which I gladly concede—my broader point was that we ought not to use hard categories like good and evil.
>>>
>>> Second, even technofeudalism is our responsibility first, not the technologies.
>>>
>>> It just bugs me that we go all Luddite on technologies (RNA, AI Data Centers, whatever) while ignoring our own proclivity to abuse, in the single-minded pursuit of monetary profit.
>>>
>>> Sure, power centers like MNCs are always looking for the single bottom line advantage. But we’ve had centuries to change this. And yet it persists. Generation after generation.
>>>
>>> The amount of thought, caring and effort that is being poured into fighting what is commonly understood as “capitalism” boggles the mind. What might we have done with our civilization if we had all that time back.
>>>
>>> I’m not at all saying, “resistance is futile.” I am saying—following Donella Meadows—go as far upstream as you can, before intervening in systems.
>>>
>>> Let’s not muddle the distinction between symptom and disease.
>>>
>>> Clear thinking is my quest. I bow to the resisters. My point is only—resistance, for the sake of resistance—can be very futile.
>>>
>>> Remember that placard? “System Change, not Climate Change”. I accept this is way easier said than done. But we’ll keep reinventing the wheel if we remain blinded by our silos.
>>>
>>> Do what you can is great. And makes us feel gratification for fighting the good fight. But it gets us little else.
>>>
>>> Your work is very necessary, Ariel. It’s just not sufficient.
>>>
>>> -
>>> Ashwani

>>> Vasi...@ramapo.edu <mailto:Vasi...@ramapo.edu>

>>> http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 8:17 AM Ariel Salleh <ariels...@gmail.com <mailto:ariels...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So good to read this, mp.
>>> There is an urgent need for groups like Radical Ecological Democracy, Bioregionalists, and others to arm themselves with clear thinking about technology
>>> as we move into an increasingly mechanised/digitalised world.
>>> And as you point out below - "This is particularly important for heterogeneous systems such as AI and RNA technologies, which are considerably less self-contained than a hammer.”
>>> I would like to see this list organising an international forum on what some call the new “technofeudalism” and how as fast as we are transforming our communities that is being undone by so called modernist forces.
>>> Ariel
>>>
>>> On 17 Jun 2026, at 8:36 am, mp <m...@aktivix.org <mailto:m...@aktivix.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16/06/2026 19:54, 'Ashwani Vasishth' via Radical Ecological Democracy wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately for us, this is only one facet of complex reality.
>>>> RNA technologies, like AI, are morally neutral. If one uses a hammer to kill someone, the hammer does not get charged with murder. The person using the hammer is charged.
>>>
>>>
>>> The claim that technologies are morally neutral has been extensively challenged for decades, yet it persists — a persistence that itself invites questions about the power relations and interests sustained by the neutrality thesis.
>>>
>>> The hammer example is nevertheless peculiar because it shifts between two quite different questions.
>>>
>>> The first concerns whether technologies are value-neutral: what intentions, assumptions, social relations, material extractions and institutional arrangements enter into their design, production and distribution; what actions they enable or constrain; and what kinds of order they help reproduce.
>>>
>>> The second concerns whether an artefact has the moral agency or legal personality required to be charged with a crime.
>>>
>>> The (jurisprudential) fact that a hammer is not prosecuted for murder tells us only that it is not ordinarily treated as a legal or moral agent. It tells us nothing about whether technologies embody values, configure human action or distribute power and responsibility. Even the strongest arguments against technological neutrality have generally not depended upon treating the hammer itself as legally culpable. The analogy therefore mistakes the absence of culpable agency for moral neutrality.
>>>
>>> More precisely, technologies need not possess intentions or moral responsibility in order to be value-laden. Their designs and sociotechnical arrangements can materialise assumptions, privilege some purposes over others, make certain actions easier than others, and distribute benefits, risks and capacities unevenly. This is particularly important for heterogeneous systems such as AI and RNA technologies, which are considerably less self-contained than a hammer.
>>>
>>> ...
>>> ..
>>> .
>>>
>>> --
>>> To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the whole list, select "reply to all".
>>> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radical Ecological Democracy" group.

>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radical_ecological_d...@googlegroups.com <mailto:radical_ecological_d...@googlegroups.com>.

>>> To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/1278abb1-670a-4d48-a1e0-861a61dbb22a%40aktivix.org.
>>>
>>> --
>>> To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the whole list, select "reply to all".
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radical Ecological Democracy" group.

>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radical_ecological_d...@googlegroups.com <mailto:radical_ecological_d...@googlegroups.com>.

>>> To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/AC3A1E53-39C1-4F13-8F2D-68B50BEAF3EF%40gmail.com.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the whole list, select "reply to all".
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radical Ecological Democracy" group.

>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radical_ecological_d...@googlegroups.com <mailto:radical_ecological_d...@googlegroups.com>.
>>> To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/C7BF865F-3B3C-4D58-BC01-4841A527190D%40gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/C7BF865F-3B3C-4D58-BC01-4841A527190D%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>>
>>
>> --
>> To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the whole list, select "reply to all".
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radical Ecological Democracy" group.

>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radical_ecological_d...@googlegroups.com <mailto:radical_ecological_d...@googlegroups.com>.
>> To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAFxHvk%2BecDYLxhDvaLs%3DZuLNws8trOGrm%3DOeEzboCG8UiRTS%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAFxHvk%2BecDYLxhDvaLs%3DZuLNws8trOGrm%3DOeEzboCG8UiRTS%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>

[Helena Paul]

mp, thank you very much for your comprehensive reply. 

I would add that Investor State Dispute Settlements are a perfect example of corporations using the law against states. Chevron Texaco wrecked large swathes of Ecuador extracting oil (i saw it myself), so Ecuador brought a case against them - and C-T responded with a case against Ecuador - for damaging their reputation. No damages have been paid by C-T.

Your reflections on the Luddites are exactly right.  As you say:

Their struggle concerned not technology in isolation, but who owned it, who governed it, who benefited from it and what forms of life it displaced. In other words: technology to them was not morally neutral.

And I agree that 'much of its operating system exists in the letter and practice of the law.’

BUT ALSO in the ever more intensive and intrusive use of advertising, which turns us all into ‘consumers’ rather than citizens. Note (i quote this at the end of the article, but i repeat here:):

In 1924 Edward Bernays wrote Propaganda, where he said: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”

Since corporate profiteering is putting the planet and its ecosystems and inhabitants at risk, it seems urgent that take action. How would you suggest we proceed?!

best wishes,

Helena

[mp]

On 18/06/2026 14:10, Helena Paul wrote:

> Since corporate profiteering is putting the planet and its ecosystems and inhabitants at risk, it seems urgent that take action. How would you suggest we proceed?!
>

Big, perennial question concerning any and all civilisational mode of
organisation based on a small elite ruling through central command and
control, extraction (debt; taxation; ploughing/grains) and enslavement.

Much has been said and done about this throughout the ages.

I have nothing substantial to add, but here's some of the highlights
I've encountered on the road to freedom.

From revolution to non-reformist reforms (cf. Gorz), all angles and all
pressure points and all people are valid as a starting point.

Perform a gradual, steady disentanglement from empire's clutches.

Never fully realisable, of course, as the spectacle and violence of
empire now extends to all spectacles and spheres.

Hakim Bey's Temporary Autonomous Zone, seed commons, collective land
projects and so on are needed everywhere.

From the mundane to the all-encompassing: withdraw as much as possible.

Nothing will happen from the keyboard, the office chair or desk.

All symbolic action, like critique, strengthens the empire: it merely
shows where holes should be plugged, polished and prepped.

If one is stuck there for life/existential reasons, then:

Dismantle the discourses of growth, whether they pop in agriculture,
medicine or technology; and refuse to participate. Say no to external
authority of/over life.

And when it comes to things like computers and networks (not that I
really believe it matters too much, but it is a good exercise and an
internal signal and symbolism: make our own!): i.e. use Free/Open Source
Software - that is, Linux and not Windows and Apple and Google (as we do
here, generating revenue for Alphabet).

In other words, all theories of change are valid entry points to the
future, until they aren't.

Finding the lines of flight, escape and focus on rebuilding commons
through mutual aid, care and co-operation in alliances with the rest of
the complex web of life is pretty much all "we" can do; and ensure we
have joy, fun and dance while we do so!

...
..
.

[Ariel Salleh]

Quoting from below - but not clear if it's Helena. or mp. or both …?

"Nothing will happen from the keyboard, the office chair or desk."

[Ashwani Vasishth]

Nothing good will happen just from activism.  Policy and thoughtfulness have a place too.   

It’s not a binary choice.  That’s “Western” mechanistic thinking—either-or.

We’re not in a battle, Ariel .  We both want meaningful change.  There’s always more than one way to get there.

We’re not up against an engineering-style problem.  We don’t have to agree on articulating “the problem.”  My point is—since there’s not a single problem there is unlikely to be a single “correct” answer.

Your depiction of root causes and my depiction of root causes may not agree, that does not make one of us right and the other wrong.

It’s too simple-minded to propose any one answer or approach is enough or sufficient. 

Activism is necessary.  It’s very far from sufficient.  Deliberation and action are companions, not in conflict. 

I don’t have any intention to do battle.  But if I see an issue being misframed—and so leading to error—I reserve the right to speak up. 

It takes real hubris to think you have the only way forward. 

Ever have something bad happen to you?  And after the shock, found yourself saying—it really was for the best?

RNA “technologies” do both good and harm.  Live with it. 

-
 Ashwani
     Vasi...@ramapo.edu
          http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth

[Ashwani Vasishth]

MP, you say:

Nothing will happen from the keyboard, the office chair or desk.

I think what you mean to say is “just” from.

Exactly as nothing will ever happen just from walking the streets in protest.

Yin and yang, always. 

-
 Ashwani
     Vasi...@ramapo.edu
          http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth

[Tom Abeles]

i believe that such plans are in motion. I would suggest the writings of Arturo Escabar on the Global tapestry of alternatives and the efforts toward the Pluiriverse, and Ashish Kolthari on the Global Tapestry

--
To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the whole list, select "reply to all".
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radical Ecological Democracy" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radical_ecological_d...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAFxHvkJwN4gmksxgy2Xv5k5fdOme2UQBWExAB1OpEHDKQKFK_g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vasishth, Ashwani]

I agree, Tom, that Ashish and their Pluriverse and the GTA model are both proper and necessary.  Absolutely.

We need them.  But not just them.  Pluriverse IS the a solid addition.

There are certainly more than a few ways to point to root causes.  So we need the GTAs and the Pluriverses. But to believe any one way will get us there is insupportable. 

The 3,500 billionaires (and now a trillionaires), and many of them either in India or from India, the increasing levels of wealth disparity, the stark influence of money on politics (and so on policy).  Tell me these are not as or more important. 

I could go a very long time on this.  Show me that any one action will break all these intractable issues.

It’s a copout to point to “capitalism” or the “single minded pursuit of monetary profit.”

Even if this is so—you going to topple a status quo that has endured for many centuries?

Join the club.  And an even longer litany of efforts to displace, replace, reformulate or destroy “capitalism.”

Understand.  I am not bereft of hope and I’m not throwing up my hands. But pipe dreams are not a useful way forward. 

There are no “silver bullets” to be had.  We slog on as best we can.  And do all we can.  We can only be sure the present will not endure. 

-- 
    Ashwani
       Vasishth      
Professor of Sustainability (Retired) from Ramapo College of New Jersey
vasi...@ramapo.edu         
(323) 206-1858 (cell)
                  

[Tom Abeles]

hi ashwani, all,

if you believe what you wrote, you might as well take up weaving during the day and pulling it apart at night as in the 

greek tragedy 

people united can not be defeated and the other cliches

----------------------------------------

There is no quick fix. what would you propose.  any solution requires either a benevolent dictator as described in history, see david graber, or a global revolution which could lead to a dead planet as we have a glimps in Iran

--------------------

understand change is slow  what is happening and its possibilities is trending to a Pluriverse which is happening globally with a developing pieces reflected in the thinking of Escobar and others, many of whom are in western, democratic think tanks and political circles including international bodies not without resources. Global Tapestry is a small window to that community which is wide and deep

[Vasishth, Ashwani]

My central point is—looking for solutions, in any “I’ve solved it” sort of way IS the problem. 

If we can’t be happy to have made a difference, we’ve only ourselves to blame.

[Tom Abeles]

Ashwani, you see a problem but you are like chicken little who cries that the sky is falling and are frustrated, not that others don't see it but they also don't seem, like you, to either have an answer or won't join chicken little as a  chorus.

Thinking in a western frame, there are parties that function because there are critical foundations that under pin there culture. Western solution are to rip these and attempt to restructure in a "better" model. Escobar and others look for commonalities and then networks interwoven. Only here it is recognized that all are in motion which does not attempt to change the extant relationships within each element which avoids the problems of a codified, captureable system which you are fighting and trying to recruit others and which is failing.

The concepts developing within both GTA and the Pluriverse focus on the weavings are different and are slow, deliberate and evolving. 

What happens when those like Musk and others end up like Scrooge McDuck sitting on their piles of bitcoins on Mars or in cyberspace?

  .

[Ashish Kothari]

Thanks, colleagues, for this discussion - which I wish would be more of a dialogue than a debate :) 

Since my name and that of Arturo Escobar and the Pluriverse approach have been taken, I would like to briefly respond. Firstly, our approach is by no means singular or universal or homogenous ... the v. term pluriverse suggests a multiplicity of approaches and strategies, based also on multiple worldviews of how we do/would like to relate to each other and th rest of nature. Secondly, it consists of both resistance against the forces of destruction and injustice (themselves of many kinds) as also the construction of alternatives, some continuing from ancient times (and therefore not really 'alternatives' in their own context, but taking on this character in relation to today's dominant economy/polity/society) and some from within the belly of the industrial beast, so to speak ... and some hybrids of the two. Third, an absolutely crucial facet is the attempt to bring these diverse approaches together for sharing, collective thinking/visioning/action, solidarity, and much more ... but on a horizontal plane of mutual respect rather than dominated by any one approach or one group of people. Hence the Global Tapestry of Alternatives (or many of its constituents and partners from 'national' to regional to global levels). Fourth, the approaches are of course aiming at fundamental transformations away from the various 'isms' that plague us, but they also respect that in the short run they would include transitional reforms such as policy shifts at national and international levels .. with the proviso that such reforms are leading to transformations and not simply strengthening the status quo. Fifth, in whatever we do, we bring nature (including humans) to the core ... enabling also the agency of all of life. Sixth, we try to take an intersectional approach (such as the Flower of Transformation approch of one of GTA's weavers, Vikalp Sangam, see ), and try to bring this to bear on issues such as technology, of finance, or governance - do these lead to justice in all the spheres of the Flower, or do they make some worse. So for instance, with AI or GMOs or big pharma tactics, we ask if they are leading to more or less democratic rights, more or less negative ecological impacts, more or less human benefit, and so on. And of course, there will be nuances in saying 'yes' or 'no', there will be grays, but one can perhaps try to gauge what the overall direction is. 

I can think of other elements but for the moment this should suffice - and of course there is much more detail in what has been produced by not only GTA but several other collaborating networks. And yes, as far as I know none of us are saying we have all the solutions, much less saying we have the solution. Innovative solutions are emerging from communities, from nature, from civil society, sometimes even from govt and academia - but especially from grounded communities, and GTA attempts to give them more attention than has been given by dominant institutions so far.  

Will any of this work? who knows. But those of us who are trying are passionate about the attempt, even if we can't see the end-result. I believe that some of the most revolutionary processes in history are of this nature, whether it is the anti-colonial struggles of the late 19th/early 20th century, or the mobilisation of labour forces to combat exploitation, or the feminist uprisings that have countered at least some forms of patriarchy/toxic masculinity despite these being thousands of years old. I believe the rising (slowly) ecological movements are of a similar nature. I'm currently in the so-called 'Wild Coast' of S. Africa, just spent 5-6 days with the Amadiba people who have successfully staved off mining, oil/gas exploration (by powerful Shell corp), and more 'development' - so far at least. There is inspiration in such struggles for all of us. 

I'm glad this discussion is happening ... the RED list was created for such conversations, but has not often been used as such. My only request is that language and tone remain one of dialogue and moving the issue ahead, rather than accusatory, hostile, sarcastic, etc. I am not pointing to anyone in particular! :) 

thanks, 

ashish 

Ashish Kothari
Apt 5 Shree Datta Krupa
908 Deccan Gymkhana
Pune 411004, India
https://ashishkothari.in

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAC0ykQF4itnyviWiwDu4Ne9FKTxTNDxcqAgANCPgpiSMe8mPBg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ashwani Vasishth]

Tom, it seems we see very different facets  of same reality.  

I’d assert that most folks around me are acting like your chicken little.  The sky is falling claim seems to come from the majority of “activists” looking to “save the world.”

The world does not need saving.  Read Lovelock’s original work. The only reason we humans exist is because the “climate” changed—over ages—to make the planet habitable for us.  And it will keep changing, even if we drastically cut GHG emissions from human activity.

We still ignore the basic principles of evolution. 

We set up two bookends—utopia and dystopia.  But refuse to see Kevin Kelley’s assertion that the proper path is Protopia—neither a world without problems nor a world bereft of woes.  

Dinky little pokes.  Incremental change.  Never “solutions,” never “we did it.”  Never victory and celebration.  Never “done.”  Always the strife.

Then what value is your collective urge to find solutions?  Your

My second big point is, we’re not dealing with machines.  We face living, deeply interpenetrated, looped and webbed systems.  Tweak one thing, something else pops up there.  Every action—whatever our intent—will inevitably have adverse reactions. 

What if there is no final happy ending?  What if the work is the thing?  No resolution to the challenges we’ll face?

What if all we can do with life is to live it, as best we can?  Satisfice, as Herbert Simon had it, in his 1947 work—that people do not look to optimize or maximize benefits, but instead settle for a good enough solution. 

For me, the value of the AshIshs , the Ariels, the Norbert-Hodges, the Heinbergs and so on is—is that they find, compile and assemble stories of successes, in localization, in alternatives, proof that the mainstream story, the dominant narrative, globalization, corporatization and neo-liberalism are NOT the only stories to be told. 

What I object to in this context is the implied hubris that we—collectively or otherwise—can make our problems go away, or that these or some other sets of tactics will “win the battle” for us.  

The Pluriverse work is spot on, as a strategy.  What I object to is the use of that model to shape tactics.

I’ve gotten a lot from Ashish and RED, and I bow to you. 

At Rio, Ashish gave me a really useful principle of subsidiarity—decision making OUGHT to devolve to the people most impacted by the consequences of the decision. 

But this only aspirational.  

That’s where we go wrong, the tactics.  This is not a “battle” to be won or lost. It’s an unending struggle, and “victory” is not on the script.

If you don’t like endless effort, don’t play.

-
 Ashwani
     Vasi...@ramapo.edu
          http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth

[Helena Paul]

I’m a bit confused by the discussion, but would like to ask the following question:

We have constructed and empowered the corporation over a period of 400 years approximately. Its sole obligation is profit, it is immortal and has basic impunity, limited liability and rights as a legal person etc, so why shouldn’t we try and change that at least? Since it is a human construct, i can see no reason why humans should not change it, in the interests of the majority.

Helena

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAFxHvkKU%2BWfUfe66QTDKr5m3nJO4MqMhbNaMc51%2B5ZoBbSZpMA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Uygar Ozesmi]

I think we should and with urgency, please see attached manuscript - the rerefence is:

Gücüm, S. and Özesmi U., (1923) İyi Şirket (Good Company). Yeşil Politika Serisi, Yeni İnsan Yayınevi, Istanbul, 96p

[Ashwani Vasishth]

Ashish, I’ve been on your side since we met at Rio.   Your Pluriverse work—with many others, I know—is spot on.  What you say below is also spot on, and meshes neatly with what I’ve taken from all of you.

My problem is, there’s a substantial difference between your actual Pluriverse approach as you articulate it below and what I see here on this list.  

Here, there is a clear quest for “winning solutions” rather than compiling many different strategies—all necessary, all insufficient in themselves—and somehow weaving them in some synthesizing way.  To create a whole system approach that is actually a win-win-win.

There I’m entirely with you. 

But it seems the actual nuances and implications of the Pluriverse approach are harder to get at when we insist on seeing this as a battle to be won or lost.

Combat is not a good model for your own approach. 

True collaboration  Is hard work.

What was that about “my house has many rooms…”? 

But discussions here too often devolve into whose right and whose wrong. 

-
 Ashwani
     Vasi...@ramapo.edu
          http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/bbf1e58d-189b-41be-a58c-4c6f5e87285d%40riseup.net.

[Ashwani Vasishth]

Helena,

Yes…spot on.  I agree.

We made the system, so we SHOULD have the right to change them.  But we built too well.  And the people that benefit from “our creation” are now more powerful than we are.

Once Dr Frankenstein created his monster, he no longer had authority over it. 

Many things we have caused to emerge—from the Stone Age on to today’s AI boom—there’s living things and there’s things that behave as though they were alive.  Look at the Greek idea of teleology.  As Ariel suggested early on.  Human constructs can act as though they have purpose

-
 Ashwani
     Vasi...@ramapo.edu
          http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth

[Tom Abeles]

Ashish's comments are critical given the exchanges above:

1) There is a difference when one is concerned by the concentration of wealth within the current capitalistic frame, the power that wealth commands and the impact on the planet and its inhabitants

2) There are cracks in the capitalists practices, fragile, but trending, positively, in many dimensions and need of consideration

3) Ashish mentions that the ideas embodied in GTA have related fragilities.

We are at a series of tipping points; both have the blood of the other; How to reconcile the differences and realize that the opportunities are the hurdles.

 Most of the focus in the above discussions have been past/presence; what would a future vision (s) reveal for consideration given points 1-3 above and the future of either system and the possibilities. Are we blindsiding ourselves by not exploring the plethora of possibilities  The White Queen in Alice said "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast,

Tom Abeles

tab...@gmail.com

Minneapolis, MN and Kigali, Rwanda

[Ashwani Vasishth]

Hi Tom,

I agree, and that is precisely my point. We must explore the "plethora of possibilities."

To me, this is the core insight I’ve taken from the Pluriverse and the Global Tapestry of Alternatives: it is a multiplicity of approaches. "Wicked problems" are, by definition, unsolvable, but we can—and must—make a difference. I don't see this perspective as defeatism, and I'm certainly not giving up.

I am simply realistic enough to recognize that we cannot easily dismantle problems that have been embedded in our global social fabric for centuries.

I remain hopeful; I have simply scaled my own ego to a more appropriate size.

You want to defeat that multiheaded beast you so glibly call “capitalism?”  Go ahead, fight the hydra.  

I’m satisfied with making a difference.

Ashwani
      vasi...@ramapo.edu

-
 Ashwani
     Vasi...@ramapo.edu
          http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth

[Vasishth, Ashwani]

By the way, this IS ONE root issue with most “climate activists.”  Their strident call is to “stop climate change.”  This works well to rile up protests and push activists to act.  But sets everybody up for dejection.

Sure, LOTS of examples of “hopeful” stories to buck the crowd’s moral up, even as we have evidence that—in point of fact—that we’re losing ground hand over fist. 

A few “victories” don’t win the war. 

And that’s the problem with war metaphors.

No room for win-win-win resolutions.  

That’s the MAGA play book. Us and them, and the winner takes all.

We have to learn to cohabit the planet. Else we all lose. 

[Uygar Ozesmi]

Dear Ashwani,

We do have to co-inhabit the planet as humanity and other living beings, and as you said before, existence might not be a utopia, and we need to co-exist well enough.

In that co-existence MAGA tactics (us versus them) are also used as successfully in the environmental movement. It’s not the tactics that matter it is about letting everyone use their own strategy and tactics towards something closer to planetary ecological and social justice. For some loosing is an essential component in homeostatic systems not everything or every interaction is win-win-win and even that necessitates sometimes loose-win.

I think "the times” is not about who does what, what is the right way, or struggle or tactic (especially given your argument on complex systems and unpredictable outcomes); it is the time to fly that endless journey together that looks towards the same horizon. In that journey our fellow travellers will have their own beliefs of what is possible, what change can be achieved, their own hopes, their own strategy, and their own tactics in their organisation, their movement, their movement of movements… Can we create coherence amongst ourselves to flock, become a forest, a lake, an ocean towards an ecologically and socially just existence (or something close enough)?

In solidarity,

Uygar 

Note: Lately I am fascinated by Donna Haraway's concept of "sympoiesis” and "The Chthulucene” - I see some parallels in your thinking.

--
Dr. Uygar Özesmi
Board Chair - Prosumer Economy Society 
Founder & Instigator - Good4Trust.org
Trustee - Armaş Foundation
Adj. Asst. Professor - CESD, Kadir Has University and Istanbul University
GSM: +90 533 655 3689

'Vasishth, Ashwani' via Radical Ecological Democracy <radical_ecolog...@googlegroups.com> şunları yazdı (21 Haz 2026 05:30):

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAOAXOUUoj0We9kyeBtJt6tAFpOWe--kY-JmteEwk2L-LxsjwWA%40mail.gmail.com.

[mp]

On 20/06/2026 00:32, Ashwani Vasishth wrote:
> MP, you say:
>
> Nothing will happen from the keyboard, the office chair or desk.
>
> I think what you mean to say is “just” from.
>
> Exactly as nothing will ever happen just from walking the streets in
> protest.
>

Are you equating "activism" with "walking the streets in protest"?

And why do you set "activism" up against "policy" as somehow necessarily
different modes? It's not a binary I recognise from neither the street
nor the desk.....

> Yin and yang, always.
>

I find yin and yang a nice binary and in general I love binaries, but
they only go so far.

Fractal complementarity tells me even more.

...
..
.