Okay, Mark
I am sending this is response to your offlist copy, trusting that others
will have seen the original and be aware of what we are discussiing.
Thanks for the opportunity.
I have tried to trim the post fairly, given that it has become so long!
>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.
No. When we give it "direction" the obvious biases of our diverging
viewpoints tend to get in the way. You are the bridge, Mark, at least until
both sides ... excuse me ... *all* sides can come to some mutual respect.
>.... The purpose
>is to create better analysis and debate. It is not happening.
Oh, it is happening. It's a messy business the way it is currently
happening. Hallyx's remarks, while reflecting a legitimate beef, poured
gasoline on the fire. However Tahir's "Shut up yourselves" post did not
exactly open the doors for further "analysis and debate," non?
And that's the point of both my and Hallyx's request for some responsible
discussion from the marxist side. .. the "put up or shut up." From Cox to Mac
to John and Tahir, the assertions have indeed NOT been backed up by scholarly
posting and reference, but instead namecalling, endless hairsplitting and no
REAL effort to present any relevant debate about environmental issues from a
marxist perspective, except SOLELY by you in post after patient post, and
recently by Tony. See why we need you?
What is happening is however, a slow-moving discussion of the issues. This
is healthy. We are getting to know each other and we may reash come importnt
consensus at the end of the day, Just stand by to mop up the blood, okay?
>>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.
Sorry, this has been stated in a lot of places and not just on Crashlist.
You see, the very word "Crash" implied that we were beyond the need to post
references about the fundamentals, I had assumed from the word "Crash" that
everyone was aware of the environmental crisis at hand.
Just as Tahir and others seem to take offense at being required to go over
and over again stating what seems to be obvious positions and citing
references for classic marxist works that should already be part of everyone's
lexicon, I feel the same way about "my biggest environmental concerns."
Everyone should already have a working knowledge of Naess, Ehrlich, Quinn and
the concerns of, say, Greenpeace. Everyone should at the very minimum have a
passing understanding of the archaic Club of Rome study if nothing else.
Everyone should already have gone to www.dieoff.com. Everyone should by now
have at least examined seriously the parameters of the environmental issue --
at the very least they should before spouting off assertions. (remember "go to
the tables"?)
From my viewpoint -- and I think Hallyx's -- the ball is in the marxist's
court, so to speak. Correctly or not, from my perspective there has been a
demand that WE read Das Capital, but no perception of the requirement of
reciprocity to read, say,'Tragedy of the Commons' or even an old text
including MALthus, fer chrissake.
Just as Tahir works hard, I have no intention of taking time from MY overly
busy schedule to spoon feed this information to folks who are likely to
discount and reject it without a fair hearing. (again, remember "go to the
tables"?) It takes too much time.
Until there are more salient responses from the marxist positions to "put
up", I will certainly not let them off the hook and move on to other debates.
The question goes a-begging. It seems a diversionary tactic to ask this of me
or Hallyx or even Tony at this point. It is however my full intention to "put
up" when it is legitimately my turn, thank you very much.
>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 population 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.
Since you give no citations nor references for those assertions, I will
release myself from any requirement to post sources either. ;-)
(It's a simple matter to look up the population bomb website, folks)
The overwhelming question is WHY pop growth is perceived to be down to
1.1%??? Simply stating this statistic is an old canard used to prove
"malthus was wrong". In 1950 there were 3 billion, in 2000 there are 6
billion, and then the curve drops so that it is less than exponential over the
time period, only 9 billion by 2030-50. Why? Not because of responsible
population control, but because the limits of sustainability are being
reached. Malthus' 4 horsemen drive this slowing, NOT action by man. Look at
your paragraph above, Mark. Mass dieoffs? Mass dieoffs accelerating? I urge
you to consider that carrying capacity has already been reached. Perhaps not
"theoretical" carrying capacity, but logically it is amply allowable to assume
that "practical" carrying capacity is less than 8 billion.
(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?
The problem is that you can use the word "or" in that sentence and not
understand the irony. It is all of those things. It is the malevolent synergy
of each of the factors you list working in combination.
>
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 completely 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*?
Yes Yes, the US is the nastiest worst boogyman in the course of human
history. I stipulate it, okay? Can we move on? Simple fact is that the present
lifestyles of nearly everyone in the Northern Hemisphere are unsustainable.
Doesn't matter whether they move to the US or remain in Mexico City, Teheran
or Hong Kong, just being present for roll call is enough to tilt the balance.
As for "my take" on a solution, the US SOCIAL SYSTEM will change, just as will
the ones in Oslo and Tel Aviv. Momma Nature has already begun the process. Our
task is rather to mitigate the destructive responses by those social systems
to Momma Nature's rightful reassertion of control.
>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.
Not.
Sadly, there will not be less until the hair splitters "put up" and invest
something of their own in the issue. Any further "guidance" at this point will
result in these actions: 1) a general attack upon our sources and the persons
we quote rather than dealing with the arguments fairly.2) a rejection of
sources and their arguments using the excuse that they are either
"bourgeoisie" or don't fit into marxist theory. 3) A general discounting of
the issues because of denial and some inexplicable laziness that keeps the
issues from being considered seriously. (hint, think about the delinkage of
perception problem.)
>
>There are similar issues we've got. There is a big debate going on
now
>about how much C02 causes warming ... 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.
yes , I wonder why the success is so low? Could it be some form of
avoidance? I recently posted about a dozen citations about the CO2 issue to
[bottleneck], so I will offer an experiment: If there is some cogent response
from the " others" (marxist side? too much to hope for?) to the issue of C02
(from someone other than you, Mark), rather than this avoidance, I will dig up
the references. Deal?
> 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?
Eventually, but not before the ball is sent back to my court. I assert that
it is startlingly true, however I will not go further until someone else goes
beyond simple assertion that it is not. Play fair. Do not let your "value"
hairsplitting buddies avoid the necessity of "putting up".
>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 extinction
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.
Nah, Hallyx is the environmentalist. And yes, he can help us here ... just
as soon as somebody "puts up". For my part I already posted several long
passages from E.O. Wilson to Crashlist, only to be informed that he is somehow
not to be believed on these issues. ( ! ) Mark, the big animals are not just
"photogenic" and again you have allowed yourself an ironic use of the word
"or". As for what the ISSUE actually is: the concept "extinction event" comes
to mind. It is very well known that ecosystems need all their parts to
function. How can you question this? Actually I just posted to Julien two
articles of relevance, he can send them on if he wishes.
I stand ready to refrain from further marx-bashing if I am afforded the
same courtesy. I will not be called stupid or asshole again -- with no
objection from any marxist. Lets remember who's been hitting whom, shall
we?
>>. (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.
I would be glad to. But not until ... do you get the point yet? This
request for me to move forward allows the "others" on CrashList not to have to
deal with their own issues of relevance to our own global difficulty today. I
will not be the only one to invest in this issue (other than your prolific
range of resource posts) at this time.
>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.
Within the confines of CrashList, it is important to read them simply
because I have requested that others do so. The requirement for me to read
Marx, Lenin, Engels, Trotsky, et al has been a familiar call wouldn't you say?
Is there to be no reciprocity? Additionally, it does no good to post these
things if no one is listening.
>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.
Well I am trying Mark! Dammit! Can you imagine Elisabeth posting to the
Crashlist only to be called a stupid asshole because she doesn't toe the line
on Marx? Get some perspective! Until these guys can deal fairly with me -- a
lightweight -- do you think any heavyweight is going to subject themselves to
this? You should understand that some heavyweights are watching the response
to me ... and to Hallyx. They judge. Where do you think they judge the bubble
to be on the level placed upon the playing field?
>
>Is it possible to put more on the list by/about Cohen?
Ask CB! I am waiting for the weekend to search out the book.
>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.
Agreed. 100%
>These figures may well be right, but right now they are being
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 just did, above. I'm certainly willing to do more, and I think I can
speak for Hallyx, who is a font of such wisdom and esoteric resource.
.>Unfortunately, very little has been put forward by *anybody* on
this
>list of *any* persuasion.
Except you, dear friend. But I am not worried. We can sort this out, and
arrive at some mutuality and consensus. It only requires a bit more respect
for everyone regarding the diversity of opinion here on the list, and a
willingness to do some research on one's own.
>
> > What I
> > have asked
> > for -- to little avail -- is that the partial solutions be
> > stated and
> > examined.
>
>Then let's begin. Who disagrees?
Yes, let's. Please remember, Mark, that the "partial solutions" were those
CB claimed marxism offered. Therefore .... who must speak next?
Let us indeed see who disagrees.
>Let us by all means discuss deep-eco ideas, beginning with Arne
Naess.
>
>
>Mark
No, let us begin with Marx. We're not ready for Naess yet. He is more
spiritual and something of a socialist. His words will fall on deaf marxist
ears until they invest in the issue, and they will prolly call him an
asshole.
By all means, echo the "put up or shut up" call. Only ... remember who has
the ball, who has been avoiding the issue, and who has to begin to support
assertions.
As for me, I will now shut up, since I am not that "better
company, believe me!"
Tom
