economics

even 10 years after posing the initial question, it is nowhere nearer to being answered
what if we only produced and consumed what we needed?
what if profit was not aimed to improve year on year, if rather the aim was equilibrium?
utopia, a viable alternative to socialism, or total collapse (would anything follow)

a partial answer seemed to come from socio-biology
consumption is in part tied to status, and if we are anything like chimps, this is very fundamental to our hard wiring. then again, we are also tied to bonobos. why chose the more aggressive of two options to represent our "nature", when in fact we are a species of our own and (hopefully still) evolving?

but perhaps there is no middle ground and a barter economy in necessity means a much crueler way of being. perhaps our softness and kindness is only such because we have been afforded its luxury. my personal tolerance for aggressiveness and power games is still low, but it is a stark judgment on those who fought through to come out on the other end...
http://kingludic.blogspot.com/2009/02/russian-lays-it-down.html
... but then kinder people have been through worse.
have we been out of equilibrium for so long that we just can't get on the tetter-totter any more
or is it just in our nature to be greedy?
and yet there is the persistence that there has got to be another way of being.
not one that idolizes simplicity and austerity, but that somehow manages to give these elements respect if this is part of the formula.

still more questions than answers...

nutshell - i'd like to hear if you've got any more thoughts on work following our treck on the snowed dunes. i want to hear what thoughts are being generated and how people are dreaming. if only for some respite.