Re: Community wide Wifi
From: Mariana Almeida (missmgrrlyahoo.com)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:26:05 -0800 (PST)
Good post, Daniel!

We have other topics where we can't agree on because we're all using differing 
sources of news/knowledge. I've advocated completely backing away from trying 
to reach consensus on whether we have a position on some things.

Here's our list of "things I believe we shouldn't set a policy about", and 
instead should follow a policy of benign neglect: 

Canola oil - is it processed = bad?  
Tofu - does it raise risk of breast cancer?
Conventional meats -- will eating it occasionally as part of common meals give 
you health issues?
GMO foods -- undigestible? bad for you?  
Ocean fish -- has radiation from the Pacific Ocean?
White rice -- is it the same as eating sugar?  

I'm rather afraid that as a group we keep on wanting guidance on these, so we 
may be forced to come to position on these. 

Similar to what Daniel is saying, I fear that the discussions will be damaging 
to the community. I fear the discussions will cost more than they are worth. 

If there is a risk in eating some of these things, then you can control for 
that in the other many meals a week you eat, outside of common meals. But of 
course, this belief of mine is colored by my sources of information!

Mariana
Berkeley, CA


>________________________________
> From: Daniel Lindenberger <daniel [at] smallboxcms.com>
>To: Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> 
>Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 11:02 AM
>Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Community wide Wifi
> 
>
>
>The best advice I can give around wifi is to be careful about how you talk
>to one another about it - treat those with differing experiences or
>thoughts respectfully while having the discussion.
>
>Our community is in the process of healing rifts from a decision around
>"Smart Meters" that came not at all from the topic, but from the way in
>which folks were with one another.
>If your community is like ours you may have:
>
>- Folks who "know" that wifi is extremely dangerous, and exposure should be
>limited.
>- Folks who "know" that wifi is totally harmless
>
>- Folks who "know" that the evidence to look at is peer reviewed science
>- Folks who "know" that the evidence to use is the stories they hear from
>friends and their own experience
>
>It is easy (and pointlessly divisive) for folks with any combination of the
>first and second "knowledge" to treat those with differing opinions like
>they are ignorant, naive, irrational, etc.
>Our consensus process went off the rails the moment we stopped respectfully
>listening to each other, and started trying to convince each other why
>people weren't thinking clearly about the issue.
>
>Daniel Lindenberger
>Windsong Cohousing
>
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Jerry McIntire
><jerry.mcintire [at] gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> We don't use wifi in our house because we are following the precautionary
>> principle, and hardwire connections are faster.
>>
>> Jerry
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>>
>>
>>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: 
>http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>
>
>
>

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.