Julien asks:
>Tom, if the situation is as bad as you and many other say, the only
>alternative to
>have class justice and/or the end of capitalism come first (or at least,
>simultaneously) is a nightmarish green and/or malthusian dictatorship. I
>hope this
>sentence is not too obscure. Anyway, what I mean is that radical green
>reform
>within the current economic framework means far too much suffering for the
>masses. They would have to be controlled far more strictly or be reduced in
>numbers violently.
Yes, I know I use a bit too much shorthand jargon, Julien. Sorry. I do tend
to use the language of bottleneck and preaching to the choir, Carrol is
correct.
Your use of the word "only" above is unsupportable. Either-or dichotomy
thinking is simply a word/concept trap. BECAUSE the situation is as bad as
I say, there is a broad range of alternatives, all effective to some degree
(even the pursuit of class justice while ignoring the biosphere). Once again
you ignore your sizable understanding of nature when making up these
questions. It is NOT just humans who are the players here, (and that
misperception is the problem with most of the posts about this issue.)
Nature itself is about to inflict far more "suffering for the masses" than
we can comprehend easily. I don't like it, I don't advocate it, I don't
cheer it on. I simply recognize it ... and you should too.
2)The "nightmarish green and/or malthusian dictatorship" is not going to be
instituted nor operated by humans, but by the biosphere. What we end up
discussing here are the marginal responses some humans will be able to
formulate as "alternatives".
>I'm not arguing that marxism is the only way forward, of course,
>but how do you except to be able to put biospherics first at the expense of
>most
>people?
Again, I suggest you study your use of the word "only". Do you or do you not
admit to a range of alternatives? Propose some!
I am not advocating "putting biospherics first at the expense of most
people" Our madness has **already done that** FOR us, we are now only
discussing our response to the consequences. I AM advocating a clearer
**understanding** of the way biospherics work so that our responses to the
consequences will allow some salvage of civilization. (Not an entirely
defensible position, I know.)
>BTW, nothing can force people to open an eye. They must be willing. If it
>was no so
>easy for us to lie to ourselves, we wouldn't be in such a mess.
The mess itself will force ALL to open an eye at some point (that's part of
what I was trying to say to Carrol. ;-) So your use of "nothing" is
inappropriate. Some perceive it earlier than others, is all. I inhabit
crashlist to scream "wake up!" to those who still have closed eyes.
>Well, if you live in some of the naturally rich (compared to the population
>density)
>regions of the world, that is. Now, tell me: Who owns the land and
>resources in your
>region? If the answer is the people of that region, you're lucky. If not,
>then economic
>justice is obviously a prerequisite to "bioregional understanding" (if I
>understand
>what you mean with that phrase). If you know a way to evade the important
>issue of
>land ownership, tell me.
It's a nice logical argument, Julien, but again it avoids understanding that
NATURE is the most powerful player. We are about to be reminded of who
actually "owns" the land. If you begin to understand your own watershed --
your bioregion -- you increase your chances of mitigating the consequences
of the crash as they affect you and your grandchildren. Others in different
bioregions will adopt different strategies, depending.
>So you say that they will stay in control no matter what but that we are
>nevertheless
>able to control them in some way so that they puch less holes? I don't get
>it.
NO! By now your observations of the consequences of the WTO protest at
Seattle should have demonstrated to you that there is no need to "control"
them or achieve total power over them. Have you been ignoring Ghandi, King
and even Lenin? Just as Butterfly did with Luna, we can slow them, stop them
and divert them enough (and save a few whales and trees in the process)until
nature herself explains to them the error of their ways. (opps that sounded
pretty religionist, sorry.) THEN when they see the error we must slow them,
stop them and divert them from inflicting too much damage to us AND the
biosphere until nature achives balance again.
> >"The soul is the same in all living creatures, although the body of each
>is
> >different." ~ Hippocrates
>
>If you've got time, I'm wondering how other philosophers of that period
>stand on the
>issue? Is he an original?
An acquaintance with a classical education will answer those misgivings. <g>
Start with Tom Reagan's "The Case for Animal Rights". He sums up the
diversity of classical thought on the issue in his first couple of chapters.
Thanks, Julien
tom
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
