Tom,
>1) there has been a basic problem in how marxists use "relative scarcity"
>and "resources" as you do the above. It has implications of an
>anthropocentric negativity marxists seem not to understand. Resources for
>whom? Scarcity because .... what?
OK. Resources are not our passive things but living systems. But what's the
connection between scarcity and anthropocentrism?
>2)looking for the root causes of the environmental AND the economic disaster
>that DOES concern you must begin 10,000 years before the beginnings of
>capitalism. Starting *only* with the industrial revolution or even feudalism
>is misguided and counterproductive if you wish to survive on the planet
>beyond 2100.
Until industrialisation, never a crash has put the survival of the specie at risk,
right?
(I assume that this "you" in your last sentence means "your specie".)
>2)Adopting a totally anthropocentric position, with political energy
>expended at the expense of *immediate* action to preserve what can be
>preserved of the biosphere, is the road to disaster.
Agreed. But I don't understand how do you get from that to...
>A biocentric
>understanding must be included at the heart of any effort, even one to bring
>about "the revolution", otherwise we are doomed.
Why "any"?
Julien
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
