[P2P-F] Fw: [Arthakranti] Brilliant essay - The future of mankind...(and some thoughts on Petroleum)

[James Gien Varney-Wong]

Thank you,

This is an excellent essay!
May I upload it to my website? Was it from the Post Carbon Institute?
Is Richard Heinberg the author?



On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:32 AM, robert searle <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>   ----- Forwarded Message -----
> *From:* Narendra Khot <nvkhot at gmail.com>
> *To:* Narendra Khot <nvkhot at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 16 August 2012, 12:34
> *Subject:* [Arthakranti] Brilliant essay - The future of mankind...(and
> some thoughts on Petroleum)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *MuseLetter #243 / August 2012 by Richard Heinberg*
>
> *August's newsletter brings together a new essay on facing the challenges
> of evolutionary success, and a preview of the script of a forthcoming short
> animation - to be released in the fall.*
>
> Our Cooperative Darwinian Moment
> Evolution can be ruthless at eliminating the unfit. “Red in tooth and
> claw,” as Tennyson memorably described it, Nature routinely sacrifices
> billions of individual organisms and sometimes entire species in the course
> of its adaptive progression.
>
> We humans have been able to blunt Nature’s fangs. We take care of
> individuals who would not be able to survive on their own—the elderly, the
> sick, the wounded—and we’ve been doing so for a long time<http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=09488ec4a3&e=5ad504cd38>,
> perhaps tens of thousands of years. In recent decades more and more of us
> have leapt aboard the raft of societally ensured survival—though in ways
> that often have little to do with compassion: today even most hale and
> hearty individuals would be hard pressed to stay alive for more than a few
> days or weeks if cut adrift from supermarkets, ATMs, and the rest of the
> infrastructure of modern industrialism.
>
> This strategy of expanding our collective fitness has (at least
> temporarily) paid off: the consequent reduction in our death rate has
> resulted in a 700 percent expansion of human population in just the past
> two centuries, and a current population growth rate of about 80 million per
> year (births in excess of deaths). Humans are everywhere taking carrying
> capacity away from most other organisms, except ones that directly serve us
> such as maize and cattle. We have become expert at cooperatively avoiding
> nature’s culling, and thus at partially (and, again, temporarily) defeating
> natural selection—at least, in the way it applies to other species.
>
> Some argue that “natural selection” is at work within human society
> whenever clever and hard-working folks get ahead while lazy dullards lag
> behind. The philosophy of Social Darwinism holds that this kind of
> competitive selection improves the species. But critics point out that
> individual success within society can be maladaptive for society as a whole
> because if wealth becomes too unequally distributed, social stability is
> threatened. Such concerns have led most nations to artificially limit
> competitive selection at the societal level: in the United States, these
> limits take the forms of the progressive income tax, Social Security, food
> stamps, disability payments, Medicaid, and Aid for Dependent Children,
> among others. Even most self-described “conservatives” who think that
> government shouldn’t prevent society’s winners from taking all still think
> it’s good for churches to give to the needy.
>
> While the last few decades of rapid economic growth and material
> abundance—enabled by cheap fossil energy—led to a dramatic expansion of
> social safety nets in industrialized countries, they also featured the
> emergence of an ostensibly benign global imperial system led by the United
> States, whose fearsome military machine kept a lid on international
> conflict and whose universally accepted currency helped maintain relative
> international economic stability (in ways that served U.S. interests, of
> course). Globally, deaths from war have declined, as has mortality linked
> to dire poverty.
>
> So far, so good (more or less).
>
> Unfortunately, however, many key components of our successful collective
> efforts to beat The Reaper are essentially unsustainable. We have reduced
> mortality not just with antibiotics (to which microbes eventually develop
> immunity), but also with an economic strategy of drawing down renewable
> resources at rates exceeding those of natural replenishment, and of
> liquidating non-renewable resources as quickly as possible. By borrowing
> simultaneously from the past (when fossil fuels were produced) and the
> future (when our grandchildren will have to clean up our mess, pay our
> debt, and do without the resources we squander), we are effectively
> engaging in population *overshoot*<http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=5f2ed2282d&e=5ad504cd38>.
> Every population ecologist knows that when a species temporarily overshoots
> its environment’s long-term carrying capacity, a die-off will follow.
>
> And so, as the world economy stops growing and starts contracting during
> the next few years, the results will likely include a global increase in
> human mortality<http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=629a2a7e14&e=5ad504cd38>
> .
>
> Resilience theorists<http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=a0bec19f22&e=5ad504cd38>would say we’re entering the “release” phase of the adaptive cycle that
> characterizes all systemic development, a phase described as “a rapid,
> chaotic period during which capitals (natural, human, social, built, and
> financial) tend to be lost and novelty can succeed.” This is a notion to
> which we’ll return repeatedly throughout this essay, and it’s a useful way
> of conceptualizing an experience that, for those undergoing it, will
> probably feel a lot less like “release” than “pure hell.” Among the
> possible outcomes: Government-funded safety nets become unaffordable and
> are abandoned. Public infrastructure decays. Economic systems, transport
> systems, political systems, health care systems, and food systems become
> inoperable to varying degrees and in a variety of ways. Global military
> hegemony becomes more difficult to maintain for a range of reasons
> (including political dysfunction and economic decline at the imperial core,
> scarcity of transport fuel, and the proliferation of cheap but highly
> destabilizing new weapons) and international conflict becomes more likely.
> Any of those outcomes increases our individual vulnerability. Everyone on
> the raft is imperiled, especially those who are poor, old, sick, or
> disabled.
>
> We could redesign our economic, political, transport, health care, and
> food systems to be less brittle. But suggestions along those lines have
> been on the table for years and have been largely rejected because they
> don’t serve the interests of powerful groups that benefit from the status
> quo. Meanwhile the American populace seems incapable of raising an alarm or
> responding to it, consisting as it does of a large under-class that is
> over-fed but under-nourished, over-entertained but misinformed,
> over-indebted and under-skilled; and a much smaller over-class that lives
> primarily by financial predation and is happy to tune out any evidence of
> the dire impacts of its activities.
>
> A thoroughly unsentimental reader of the portents might regard an increase
> in the human death rate as an inevitable and potentially beneficial culling
> of the species. The unfit will be pruned away, the fit will survive, and
> humanity will be the better for it. Eventually. In theory.
>
> Or maybe the rich and ruthless will survive and everyone else will either
> perish or submit to slavery.
>
> The greatest danger is that, if social support systems utterly fail,
> “overshoot” could turn to “undershoot”: that is, population levels could
> overcorrect to the point that there are fewer survivors than *could have
> been* maintained if adaptation had been undertaken proactively—perhaps
> far fewer than the population just prior to the Industrial Revolution. And
> for those who did manage to struggle on, levels of culture and technology
> might plummet to a depth far below what could have been preserved had
> action been taken.
>
> We have a population bottleneck<http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=ffb47cf110&e=5ad504cd38>,
> as William Catton calls it, ahead of us no matter what we do at this point.
> Even if a spectacular new energy source were to appear tomorrow, it would
> do little more than buy us a bit of time. However, we still get to choose
> *how* to pass through that bottleneck. We can exert some influence on
> factors that will determine how many of us get through, and in what
> condition.
>
> *Cooperative or Competitive Adaptation*
> A worst-case scenario is likely to be averted only by an effective,
> cooperative effort to adapt to scarcity and to recover from crises.
>
> Fortunately there are perfectly good reasons for assuming that
> collaborative action along these lines will in fact emerge. We are a
> supremely cooperative species, and even our earliest ancestors were
> dedicated communitarians. Other species, though often squabbling over food
> and potential mates, likewise engage in sharing and cooperative behavior<http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=f9e3f98898&e=5ad504cd38>.
> Members of one species sometimes even cooperate with or offer help to
> members of different species<http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=47df44f3b9&e=5ad504cd38>.
> Indeed, as evolutionary theorist Peter Kropotkin pointed out in his
> landmark 1902 book *Mutual Aid<http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=2d3440a922&e=5ad504cd38>
> *, evolution is driven by cooperation as well as by competition.
>
> More directly to the point: hard times can bring out the worst in people,
> but also the best. Rebecca Solnit argues in *A Paradise Built in Hell *(see
> this review in the *New York Times<http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=9ea5b120bd&e=5ad504cd38>
> *) that people tend to cooperate, share, and help out at least as much
> during periods of crisis as during times of plenty. A critic might suggest
> that Solnit stretches this argument too far, and that collapsing societies
> often feature soaring rates of crime and violence (see, for example,
> Argentina circa 2000); nevertheless, she supports her thesis with
> compelling examples.
>
> Assuming we fail to *prevent* crisis but merely *respond *to it, we might
> nevertheless anticipate a range of possible futures, depending on whether
> we set ourselves up to compete or cooperate. At one end of the
> competitive-cooperative scenarios spectrum, the rich few become feudal
> lords while everybody else languishes in direst poverty. At the other end
> of that spectrum, communities of free individuals cohere to produce
> necessities and maximize their chances for collective prosperity. Back at
> the “competitive” end of the scale, there is hoarding of food and
> widespread famine, while at the “cooperative” extreme community
> permaculture gardens spring up everywhere. With more competition, people
> perish for lack of basic survival skills; with more collaboration, people
> share skills and care for those with disabilities of one kind or another.
> Competitive efforts by investors to maintain their advantages could lead to
> a general collapse of trust in financial institutions, culminating in the
> cessation of trade at almost every level; but with enough cooperation,
> people could create a non-growth-based monetary system that acts as a
> public utility, leading to a new communitarian economics.
>
> *It’s a Set-Up*
> In the real world, humans are both competitive and cooperative—always have
> been, always will be. But circumstances, conditioning, and brain chemistry
> can tend to make us more competitive or more collaborative. As we pass
> through the population-resource-economy bottleneck in the decades ahead,
> competitive and cooperative behaviors will in turn come to the fore in
> various times and places. My initial point in all of this is that, even in
> the absence of effective action to *avert *economic and environmental
> crises, we still have the capacity to set ourselves up to be either more
> competitive or more cooperative in times of scarcity and crisis. With the
> right social structures and the right conditioning, whole societies can
> become either more cutthroat or more amiable<http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=df98531944&e=5ad504cd38>.
> By building community organizations now, we are improving our survival
> prospects later.
>
> But I’d go further. Here’s a preliminary hypothesis for which I’m starting
> to collect both confirming and dis-confirming evidence: We’re likely to see
> the worst of ruthless competition in the early stage of the release phase,
> when power holders try to keep together what wants to fall apart and
> reorganize. The effort to hang on to what we have in the face of
> uncertainty and fear may bring out the competitive nature in many of us,
> but once we’re in the midst of actual crisis we may be more likely to band
> together.
>
> Among elites—who have enormous amounts of wealth, power, and privilege at
> stake—the former tendency has carried the day. And since elites largely
> shape the rules, regulations, and information flows within society as a
> whole, this means we’re all caught up in a hyper-competitive and fearful
> moment as we wait for the penny to drop. Elites can deliberately nurture
> an “us-versus-them” mentality<http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=7352656258&e=5ad504cd38>(via jingoistic patriotism, wedge issues, and racial resentments) to keep
> ordinary people from cooperating more to further their common interests.
> Revolution, after all, is in many respects a cooperative undertaking, and
> in order to forestall it rulers sometimes harness the cooperative spirit of
> the masses in going to war against a common foreign enemy.
>
> The over-competitiveness of this pre-release-phase is playing out most
> prominently and fatefully in debates over “austerity,” as nations bail out
> investment banks while leaving most citizens to languish under lay-offs,
> pension cuts, and wage cuts. It seems that no measure aimed to prevent
> defaults and losses to investors is too draconian. But in many historic
> instances (Russia, Iceland, Argentina) it was only *after* a massive
> financial default occurred—that is, once release ran its course—that
> nations could fundamentally revamp their monetary and banking systems,
> making recovery possible. That makes “release” sound a bit like a
> long-overdue vacation. It’s important to emphasize, however, that what we
> face now is not just a collapse and reorganization of a national financial
> sector, but a crucial turning from the overall expansionary trajectory of
> civilization itself.
>
> Our collective passage through and reorganization after the release phase
> of this pivotal adaptive cycle can be thought of as an evolutionary event.
> And, as noted above, evolution is driven by cooperation as much as by
> competition. Indeed, cooperation is the source of most of our species’
> extraordinary accomplishments so far. Language—which gives us the ability
> to coordinate our behavior across space and time—has made us by far the
> most successful large animal species on the planet. Our societal evolution
> from hunting-and-gathering bands to agrarian civilizations to industrial
> globalism required ever-higher levels of cooperative behavior: as one small
> example, think for a moment about the stunningly rich collaborative action
> required to build and inhabit a skyscraper. As we adapt and evolve further
> in the decades and centuries ahead, we will do so by finding even more
> effective ways to cooperate.
>
> Ironically, however, during the past few millennia, and especially during
> the most recent century, social complexity has permitted greater
> concentrations of wealth, thus more economic inequality, and hence (at
> least potentially) more competition for control over heaps of agglomerated
> wealth. As Ivan Illich pointed out in his 1974 classic *Energy and Equity<http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=78dffcfdcd&e=5ad504cd38>
> *, there has been a general correlation between the amount of energy
> flowing through a society and the degree of inequality within that society.
> And so, as we have tapped fossil fuels to permit by far the highest energy
> flow rates ever sustained by any human civilization, a few individuals have
> accumulated the biggest pots of wealth the world has ever seen. Perhaps it
> should come as no surprise that it is precisely during this recent,
> aberrant, high-energy historic interval that Social Darwinism and
> neoliberal economics have arisen, with the latter coming to dominate
> economic and social policy worldwide.
>
> *The Leap*
> With release will come the opportunity for a collaborative evolutionary
> surge. Recall that in the release phase of the adaptive cycle there is
> expanded opportunity for novelty to succeed. Most people these days tend to
> think of novelty in purely technological terms, and it’s true that email
> and Twitter can speed social change—for example, by helping organize an
> instant political rally. But spending hours each day alone in front of a
> screen does not necessarily lead to collaborative behavior, and it’s just
> possible that we may not be able to count on our hand-held devices
> continuing to function in the context of global economic crisis, trade
> disruptions, and resource shortages. Therefore perhaps it will be in our
> interactions within flesh-and-blood communities that our most decisive
> further innovations will arise.
>
> The details are impossible to predict, but the general outline of our
> needed cooperative evolutionary leap is clear: we must develop a heightened
> collective ability to conserve natural resources while minimizing our human
> impacts on environmental systems. In some respects this might turn out to
> be little more than an updating of traditional societies’ methods of
> managing common grazing or hunting lands. But today the stakes are far
> higher: the commons must extend to include to all renewable and
> non-renewable resources, and “management” must bring extraction and harvest
> levels within the long-term ability of natural systems to recover and
> regenerate.
>
> At the same time, with energy flows declining due to the depletion of
> fossil fuels, current levels of economic inequality will become
> unsupportable. Adaptation will require us to find ways of leveling the
> playing field peaceably.
>
> Laying the groundwork for reorganization (following the release phase)
> will require building resilience into all our social structures and
> infrastructures. In the decades ahead, we must develop low-resource,
> low-energy ways of meeting human needs while nurturing an internalized
> imperative to keep population levels within ecosystems’ long-term carrying
> capacity.
>
> There are those who say that we humans are too selfish and individualistic
> to make this kind of evolutionary leap, and that even if it were possible
> there’s simply too little time. If they’re right, then this may be the end
> of the line: we might soon wind up in the “unfit” bin of evolutionary
> history. But given our spectacular history of cooperative achievement so
> far, and given our ability to transform our collective behavior rapidly via
> language (aided, for the time being, with instantaneous communications
> technology), it stands to reason that our species has at least a fair
> chance of making the cut.
>
> To be sure, evolution will be driven by crisis. We will adapt by
> necessity. In this release phase there will be vast potential for violence.
> Remember, release is the phase of the cycle in which capital is
> destroyed—and currently there are towering piles of human, built, and
> financial capital waiting to topple. We have been set up to compete for
> shards and scraps. It’s no wonder that so many who sense the precariousness
> of our current situation have opted to become preppers and survivalists.
> But things will go a lot better for us if, rather than stocking up on guns
> and canned goods, we spend our time getting to know our neighbors, learning
> how to facilitate effective meetings, or helping design resilient local
> food systems. Survival will depend on finding cooperative paths in which
> sacrifice is shared, the best of our collective achievements are preserved,
> and compassion is nurtured.
>
> Darwin tells us we must evolve or die, and current circumstances bring
> that choice into stark relief. A lot of people evidently think that fitness
> and selfishness are the same. But we’ve gotten ourselves into our current
> fix *not* because we’re too good at cooperating to achieve collective
> fitness, but rather because, in our success, we failed to take account of
> the finite and fragile nature of the natural systems that support us. It’s
> true that individual initiative is important and that group-think can be
> stultifying. Yet it is our abilities to innovate socially and to cooperate
> in order to increase our collective fitness that have gotten us this far,
> and that will determine whether we survive, and under what conditions, as
> we adapt to scarcity and re-integrate ourselves within ecosystems in the
> decades ahead.
>
>
> *The Peak Oil War* *(A video script)*
>
> It’s a war of words. But what’s at stake is nothing less than the fate of
> contemporary industrial society.
>
> The controversy is about a finite resource that makes our civilization go.
> It’s energy-dense, cheap, and portable. We had nothing like it before the
> oil age, and in the past 150 years we haven’t found anything better, from a
> purely economic point of view. Nature took *tens of millions* of years to
> make petroleum, but we will have used the best of it in the space of *two*
> *hundred* years. The controversy is between those who say affordable oil
> is going to last a few decades longer; and others who say, not so much.
>
> Here’s the back-story. About 15 years ago some eminent retired petroleum
> geologists calculated that we’re depleting the world’s giant oil reservoirs
> so quickly that global oil production would fairly soon reach a maximum
> rate and begin to decline. We’d still have a lot of oil left after “peak
> oil,” but supplies would no longer be able to grow to meet the ever-rising
> demands of the global economy. This would mean higher fuel prices,
> geopolitical conflict, and economic turmoil. The only logical response to
> “peak oil” would be to strategically reduce our dependence on oil as
> quickly as possible.
>
> At the time, officials at the International Energy Agency and the US
> Department of Energy, and oil industry spokesmen like Daniel Yergin, were
> forecasting that world oil supplies would encounter no problems at all in
> the foreseeable future, and that oil prices would remain at about $20 a
> barrel until at least 2020. Their message: don’t worry, drive on!
>
> What actually happened? World crude oil production flat-lined in 2005 and
> hasn’t budged since, even with every oil-producing country pumping
> flat-out, with oil companies drilling in deep water, and injecting water
> and gas into older fields. Oil prices went crazy. Wars erupted in the
> oil-rich parts of the world, and the global economy went into a tailspin.
> Granted, there were other reasons for war and financial crisis—a terrorist
> attack and a real estate bubble—but oil prices were bubbling away in the
> background, making matters much worse than they would otherwise have been.
>
> Altogether, it looked as though the “peak oil” crowd had been right.
>
> Now the oil industry is staging a PR counter-offensive. New technologies
> like hydrofracturing, horizontal drilling, and tar sands mining are making
> increasing quantities of lower-quality, unconventional hydrocarbons
> available. Indeed, US oil production has gone up by nearly a million
> barrels a day as a result of fracking the low-porosity shales in North
> Dakota and Texas. That’s more than five percent of the oil we use in
> America. Imports are down. The industry argues we just need to drill more
> to produce more. Problem solved!
>
> But wait—what’s actually new here? Not the technology; it’s mostly been
> around since the 1980s, with a few recent refinements. Not the
> unconventional resources; those have been known to geologists for decades.
> What’s new is *high oil prices*. So is technology going to solve that
> problem?
>
> Not by a long shot. Remember, it’s high oil prices that make
> unconventional oil worth producing in the first place. It takes money and
> energy (and water!) to frack low-porosity rocks, much more than it takes to
> drill a conventional onshore oil well. So how does the economy handle high
> oil prices, and can we count on prices staying high enough to make the
> unconventionals workable for a long time? Well, as it turns out, the
> economy *hates* high oil prices and responds by going into recession.
> Which makes energy prices volatile. Which makes the unconventional oil
> industry subject to booms and busts.
>
> Of course, unconventional hydrocarbons also have higher environmental
> costs, leading to worse oil spills, water pollution, and higher greenhouse
> gas emissions giving us worse droughts and floods.
>
> So what’s the bottom line? In broad terms, the “peak oil” analysts were
> right. But the fossil fuel industry, with its deep pockets and friends in
> mainstream media, is winning the PR battle.
>
> This is not a sporting event. What really matters is not who wins the
> debate. What matters is how we prepare for the inevitable. One way or
> another, oil is a dead end. It’s driving us over the cliff, killing both
> our economy and the global climate. The same is true for the other fossil
> fuels—coal and natural gas. But ditching oil won’t be easy. We spent the
> last century building a massive global economy to run on cheap liquid *oil
> *, not on solar or wind. We need to wean ourselves off our high-energy
> lifestyle. We’ve got to transition to a way of life that’s slower, more
> local, less plastic, more renewable, more . . . organic. Fortunately, our
> satisfaction and well-being do not depend upon maintaining unsustainable
> levels of consumption. If, as a society, we focus more on the quality of
> our communities and the integrity of our relationships, we’ll be far
> happier, even as we burn less petroleum.
>
> We’d be foolish to wait for events to settle the debate once and for all.
> Let’s say goodbye to oil; it’s saying goodbye to us.
>
>   You are receiving this email because you subscribed to the Post Carbon
> Institute newsletter. If you'd like to cut down on your inbox clutter, we
> understand. Simply hit the unsubscribe button and have a great day.
>
> Unsubscribe<http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage1.com/unsubscribe?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=f78cfc4539&e=5ad504cd38&c=b39a6d3af8>
> anil3sp at gmail.com from this list.
> Forward<http://us1.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=b39a6d3af8&e=5ad504cd38>this email to a friend
> Update your profile<http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage.com/profile?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=f78cfc4539&e=5ad504cd38>
>
> *Our mailing address is:*
> Post Carbon Institute
> 613 4th Street, Ste 208
> Santa Rosa, California 95404
>
>
> *Copyright (C) 2012 Post Carbon Institute All rights reserved.*
>
> Post Carbon Institute is a 501(c)3 non-profit incorporated in the state of
> Oregon (USA).
> [image: Web Bug from
> http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage.com/track/open.php?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=b39a6d3af8&e=5ad504cd38]
>
>
>
>
> --
> With regards,
> Anil Paranjpe
> Pune India
> Cell: 98600 63223
>
>  __._,_.___
>   Reply to sender<nvkhot at gmail.com?subject=Re%3A%20Brilliant%20essay%20-%20The%20future%20of%20mankind%2E%2E%2E%28and%20some%20thoughts%20on%20Petroleum%29>| Reply
> to group<Arthakranti at yahoogroups.co.in?subject=Re%3A%20Brilliant%20essay%20-%20The%20future%20of%20mankind%2E%2E%2E%28and%20some%20thoughts%20on%20Petroleum%29>| Reply
> via web post<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/Arthakranti/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxcmlva2kwBF9TAzk3NDkwNDgxBGdycElkAzEzMTYwOTIyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDA2MDY4MgRtc2dJZAMxMzQxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM0NTExNzA3OA--?act=reply&messageNum=1341>| Start
> a new topic<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/Arthakranti/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaTlhMDJyBF9TAzk3NDkwNDgxBGdycElkAzEzMTYwOTIyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDA2MDY4MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzNDUxMTcwNzg->
> Messages in this topic<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/Arthakranti/message/1341;_ylc=X3oDMTM1aWVoamVlBF9TAzk3NDkwNDgxBGdycElkAzEzMTYwOTIyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDA2MDY4MgRtc2dJZAMxMzQxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM0NTExNzA3OAR0cGNJZAMxMzQx>(
> 1)
>  Recent Activity:
> Visit Your Group<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/Arthakranti;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdWxjcjFnBF9TAzk3NDkwNDgxBGdycElkAzEzMTYwOTIyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDA2MDY4MgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzNDUxMTcwNzg->
>  [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZ2c3bjNrBF9TAzk3NDkwNDc5BGdycElkAzEzMTYwOTIyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDA2MDY4MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM0NTExNzA3OA-->
> Switch to: Text-Only<Arthakranti-traditional at yahoogroups.co.in?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional>,
> Daily Digest<Arthakranti-digest at yahoogroups.co.in?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest>•
> Unsubscribe<Arthakranti-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.co.in?subject=Unsubscribe>• Terms
> of Use <http://in.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>    .
>  [image: Web Bug from
> http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97490481/grpId=13160922/grpspId=1720060682/msgId=1341/stime=1345117078/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=4558344]
> __,_._,___
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
>


-- 
We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails
*Birtha Calloway*

Web: www.ingienous.com
Email: gien at ingienous.com
Phone: +27 71 642 5521 (SA)
Phone: (206) 973-3924 (USA)
Fax: +27 86 675 9019
LinkedIn: alturl.com/mr4hc
Skype: ingienous
Twitter: ingienous
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20120817/4adaa0de/attachment.htm