> What
> has made me so
> antagonistic toward the marxist position of late is not
> that the specific
> developments are not addressed by Marx, but that *because*
> the developments
> are not addressed marxists tend to remain either in denial
> or resort to
> pejorative attacks on those who are "screaming" the warning
> signs, as Carrol
> puts it. More better to approach it as Mark has been doing:
> which is to draw
> general directions from Marx and then formulate
> propositions to address the
> specific environmental developments. Too often this is seen
> as heresy by
> others ... others in denial, IMO.
Tom, you are comoderating the group, I'm inclined to think it might be
sensible for me to be less active and make mroe space for you, Hallyx,
Tahir and others to give it direction. Incidentally the website is
pretty much my own invention so it reflects my priorities. But it is
up to others to put stuff up that they way to see there. The purpose
is to create better analysis and debate. It is not happening.
> No. I am saying it is not THE key factor! The primary
> factor in today's
> environmental crisis is our delinkage from perception of
> the consequences.
> All else is important, but secondary, and necessarily
> follows from this
> factor. The concentration upon capitalism alone obscures
> this, and that's
> why those who "hide" inside marxist dogma (not you Charles)
> need to be
> awakened.
I still don't know other than in a general way, exactly what your
biggest environmental concerns are, and why. Is it greenhouse, mass
extinction, or what? I still have yet to see a clear statement on why
YOU think a Crash is inevitable. If this is because you made it but I
was to thick to notice, I apologise in advance.
> Do you remember where Marx exhibits a
> perception of the need for
> > population control?
> >
There is a lot in Marx about population issues by Marx isn't the bible
and all that matters is its contemporary relevance, or not.
> Tom:
> Well we have here a fundamental difference of opinion.
> Almost every person
> active in the environmental discussion rates the population
> bomb as the
> problem that must be dealt with before the others can be
> solved.
Again, it would be helpful to see some chapter and verse Tom. There
are at least 3 issues that do scream out for serious analysis.
(1) IS THERE a population bomb? I have just read a report suggesting
that world pop. growth is now down to about 1.1%. That may still
produce 7 or 8 billion people by 2030-2050. But not 9 or 10 bn. That's
a BIG difference. What's more, the offsets are now becoming very
powerful factors: I mean declining birthrates in Japan, Europe and
elesewhere which will lead to rapid populaion FALLS. That can also
happen in China, where a LOT of lonely single children with very
fewing living relatives will grow old this century. Then there are
mass dieoffs on-going in Russia and Africa, and all the signs are that
the dieoofs are accelerating as public health systems break down. What
is your take on these issues? We need to know.
(2) what IS the main worry about population? Is it just numbers, or is
it the problem of carrying capacity ie the fact that every European or
American puts about 20x the burden on the environment and resources
that someone in South Asia puts? Which IS the problem, numbers or
carrying capacity?
3) The worst population problem appears to me to be in the US where
higher birthrates + immigration may produce a pop. of 500m by 2050 and
even 750m later on. That will be comopletely unsustainable on the
basis of present US lifestyles, energy consumption, water consumption
etc. What iis your take on that? Do you stop tham at the broders? Or
do you *CHANGE THE US SOCIAL SYSTEM*?
If you and Hallyx and others can give us some guidance on these
questions, I'm sure there'll be less hair-splitting about value, as
you put it.
There are similar issues we've got. There is a big debate going on now
about how much C02 causes warming, and how much it's due to other
greenhouse gases: SOX, NOX, particulates, aerosols, albedo effects,
chlorofluorocarbons and the like. It's been suggested by James Hansen
that CO2 is not the problem, we thought, that global warming may not
be so serious as we thought, and it makes more sense perhaps to try to
reduce other greenhouse emissions and like the fossil-burners and SUV
drivers go on doing their thing.
(altho if you read the paper where Hansen seems to suggest it, it's
not clear he does say this). I would like to know what Tom, Hallyx and
others specifically think about this ongoing debate, which featured in
an NYT article the other day. I have been trying to raise these
issues, without much success.
>
> True. Unfortunately the Masai-type actions (and not just
> them, let's not
> pick on them or let them stand for all 3rd world
> enviro-destruction.) are
> more critical than you realize, since by and large these
> folks are located
> where the interface with the environment is more critical than, say,
> downtown New York.
Could we have some serious scholarly chapter and verse to back this
up?
And yes the capitalist cause coming out
> of New York is at
> the root of the overwhelming majority of environmental
> destruction. But the
> capitalist cause is not what's killing the last 30 desert
> leopards in
> Russia, nor the last 300 chimpanzees in Zaire. We need to
> keep that in mind.
Actually the fate of the snow tigers and bears and other species has
an awful lot to do with clearfelling of Siberian forest, with hunting
parties for westerners, with the Asian trade in exotic medicines etc.
Again, I'd like to see chapter and verse support8ing these assertions.
And let us also debate what the ISSUE actually is: is it the fate of
big, photogenic animals that is the problem, or the mass exticntion of
flora and fauna in the rainforests, whose exactly role in supporting
whole ecosystems we simply don't know much about? Maybe an even
greater worry is at the level of soil microbial life, which is crucial
to ALL life higher up the food chain and which seems to be being badly
affected by anthropogenic atmospheric change. Let's spend less time
marx-bashing and more time doing detailed work on these issues? If Tom
is an environmentalist by trade, he can help us very much here.
> Tom:
> The following belongs to another discussion for later: the
> sad record of
> human history is a record where many more environmental
> crises have been
> covered up than have been reported to us. I suspect you
> discount this a bit
> too much. (example: do you know about pre-Inca irrigation
> practices and
> their effect upon that civilization?)
Tell us about it! And then show its relevance ( there IS some) to our
own global difficulty today.
> Not "all" ... but "most". And that evidence is very clear and well
> documented. (again, read Daniel Quinn or Arne Naess -- or
> even Tragedy of
> the Commons for the required demonstration.)
It would be good - again - to know more about why we should read these
people. I have posted Sahtouris (why, by the way, is not at all
opposed to corporate capitalism), and I have posted stuff by Arne
Naess and other deep-ecos. Please do more of the same, because I
agree, it's important.
Those that
> express ecological
> consciousness are in retreat or destroyed, by capitalists worldwide,
> marxists in China, and totalitarians in Africa, the Middle
> East, and South
> America etc etc ad infinitum.
I'd love to have much more deep-eco stuff here. I have tried hard to
encourage them to participate, and Elisabeth Sahtouris WAS prepared to
participate in our discussions. Someone has to make it all happen.
>
> > By the way, see _Man In Adaptation: The Cultural Past_ ,
> edited by Yehudi
> Cohen, which presents evidence of ecological consciousness
> and practice in
> many human societies throughout history.
Is it possible to put more on the list by/about Cohen?
> Tom:
> Again, a fundamental difference of opinion.1) Time is
> critical. If we
> concentrate all our efforts on capitalism we lose critical
> parts of the
> ecosystem we cannot afford to lose, heretofore overlooked
> in the backwaters
> of the world.
Again, this is surely true, but this list loses its point if all we do
is make rival assertions without trying to back them out with some
serious information, science, links, references etc. I get the feeling
that some people are sitting around feeling frustrated with the
direction we are taking, without however doing anything at all to put
us right, give us new and better directions, give us material to think
about and discuss and work on, etc.
> Tom:
> This gets back to the "specific, climatic and ecological
> processes of the
> year 2000" and I guess a difference in our perceptions,
> Charles. By 2025
> when there ae 8.5 billion souls, *no one* can provide for
> them adequately.
These figures may well be right, but right now they are beiong widely
questioned, so where (sorry to bang on) is the chapter and verse? We
need to do this. You can start with David Pimentel and then look at
his critics. Jay has some of this stuff on his website but there is
much more out there and we need both sides of the story; there are
serious arguments in favour of the idea that the world can still
comfortable feed 8 bn people, and that population this century will
reach its peak and be back to 6bn by2100; so it is being argued that
there will be no Crash, just a difficult but doable transition. We
have to ADDRESS THOSE ARGUMENTS.
.
> I have said that
> very little has been put forth by marxists to address
> environmental concerns
> from their perspective.
Unfortunately, very little has been put forward by *anybody* on this
list of *any* persuasion.
> What I
> have asked
> for -- to little avail -- is that the partial solutions be
> stated and
> examined.
Then let's begin. Who disagrees?
Let us by all means discuss deep-eco ideas, beginning with Arne Naess.
Mark
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
