Yayyy Mark! What a tour de force!!!! Wow!! I will be mining the gold in this essay for weeks! You da man! I certainly agree with most everything you say here. But if all of us on Crashlist could come to basic consensus about this marvelously coherant answer of yours, we could indeed begin to integrate "analyses coming from many different endeavours and different sciences". and construct "a managed, peaceful and harmonious transition from a high-impact, high-population 'full world' of 8 billion or more people, to a genuinely sustainable, low-impact world with a human population of 2 billion or less." Bravo, bravo, and bravo. Tom ============================= Now for my hairsplitting quibbles: > First, there is a great deal of evidence that it is the specific > features of the capitalist mode of production which produces the > threat of ecological crash. Capitalism is governed by a Grow-or-Die > dynamic, resulting in the outcome of Grow *and* Die, if the system > continues its natural course unchecked. It is capitalism which is the > problem, not "human nature". Both capitalism and the threat of ecocide > and extinction are historically unprecedented events. This in itself > should tell us there is a link between them. This is true and not true. Specific features of capitalist production are *indeed* the bulk of the problem in the year 2000; but like many other features of our culture, they are acquired by capitalism from earlier, more fundamental flaws. The flaws remain with us and until this is understood the basic problems in capitalism -- if it is eradicated -- will immediately transfer to the next system that replaces it. It has to do with something closer to what Boyes outlines, but like you I disagree with his conclusions. The delinkage of man from perception of consequences that I have been mantra-izing is another way of identifying the causes of "anthropocentric opportunism". It comes from man stepping away from biocentric diversity and assuming a kind of false sense of control over nature. Capitalism didn't invent this, but rather inherited it from a long succession of other systems, most notably feudalism which perfected it via religion. Since this sense of control is imbedded in our culture more deeply than even capitalism, the removal of capitalism does not solve the problem. The chief model of this is to restate something you said. Man never lived in *static* "biocentric harmony" with nature, ... but for 3 million years of evolution he and his ancestors did live in harmony, and the harmony included colonization -- almost the same as ants, and as most other primates today practice --, innovation, and yet the impacts were not large-scale but within the "slack" nature allows for homo sapien's niche. This distinction is quite critical, since it leads to discounting Boyes and his theory of predestined extinction, and leads us to the only way out of the trap. I am not gonna outline this further, but for an articulate analysis in accessible language see Daniel Quinn's "Story of B". (Anybody who needs more direction email me offlist.) > Secondly, we have to recognise that the only way the Crash can be > prevented or mitigated is by an open and articulate anti-capitalist > politics. > > > Mark The science you mention above always requires the removal of "only" from such statements and we must be more cautious. Remove capitalism, yes, but recognize a) it requires more than politics. It requires a comprehensive cultural shift over many social sciences and beyond. You actually acknowledged this when you said "integrating analyses coming from many different endeavours and different sciences" ... or is that what you mean by "politics"? b) until those of us who are left "get it" about biodiversity and what you wonderfully allude to as "managed, peaceful and harmonious", then the system we construct after witnessing the death of global capitalism will carry with it the same old seed of another climb up the ladder toward extinction. (This is why I have been cynically badering marxists, since once they focus on the issue they have a unique capacity to bring "integrating analyses" to the problem, analyses not much displayed on Crashlist).) Boyes is correct in observing that we carry this seed and it can kill us. YOU are correct in saying it doesn't have to. _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
