>As to resource consumption, sustainability, etc. I think that you won't
get a good
>picture of the situation if you focus on oil alone. There are other
problems, notably
>depletion of topsoil and water reserves.
No one's dismissing these issues. The focus on oil is a focus on
understanding historical conjunctures--absolutely essential if we are to be
in any way realistic about making changes. Petroleum deplection is likely
to be the first problem that will de-stabilize existing power structures.
Here's where we keep talking past each other. ONe side wants to stay wiht
the issue of what the changes will look like, and the ohter wants to know
what we DO to make the changes. The subject of historical conjuncture
relates to the latter. Change does not spin out of people's heads. It
emerges out of real, concrete, existing, material conditions, wiht real,
concrete, existing, material structures--economic, social, political,
military, ideological. Simply positing alternatives does
NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to make the material changes in those existing
conditions to move them toward those alternatives.
>
>Even if it was possible to feed the current world population without
mechanized
>agric. (I don't know), the problem of the degradation of the
physical/biological
>system which supports non-mechanical agriculture remains, as well as the
problem
>of increasing world population.
No argument. What do we do? What do I do, right now, today, tomorrow?
What's the first step?
>
>
>About implemeting agricultural reform, Stan says:
>
>>Alternative
>>practices are essential, but simply imagining them and being "right" about
>>them doesn't put them into practice. It is NECESSARY to have political
>>power--legal monopolies on force to make coercive inroads against these
>>structures--to transform these alternatives into realities. If we accept
>>that, ...
>
>We shouldn't accept that. These structures are mainly based on profit. If
there is
>more profit to be made by using alternative practices, they will be used.
IF, IF, IF... If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass so much. In a
profit-driven system (can we agree that we are in a profit-driven system?),
if alternatives were more profitable, they would ALREADY BE USED.
The
>relative profitability of different practices depend on many things incl.
the price of
>inputs, the choices of consumers, tariffs, taxes, etc. Of course if there
isn't something
>like a legal monopoly of force, it's not possible to collect taxes.
Hello! Without coercive force, none of it happens. "Power concedes
nothing without a demand." -Frederick Douglass
But in that case, the
>whole system would collapse and there would be nothing to make "coercive
>inroads" into.
>It is probably true that without a struggle, alternative paractices will
only be used
>when we'll be in the Cuban situation.
The alternative practice that will be used--so long as the same class
structure prevails--will be what they've always used as an alternative. War.
But the struggle doesn't need to have such
>forms or goals.
>
>Julien
>At 12:21 PM 12/16/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Stan says:
>
>>The 2nd Law doesn't only apply to "closed systems," if there is such a
>>thing. It applies to energy.
>>...
>
>In my book, while the generic theoretical form is universal, the bit about
increasing
>entropy which generally passes for the 2nd law does only apply to (almost)
close
>systems. Specifically, if the system is not closed it can be a dissipitave
system
>where complexity increases, not decreases. This is how life can get away
with
>violating a simplistic understanding of the 2nd law all the time. All hail
the sun
>because it kicks entropy's ass. I'm not pointing my finger at anyone but
some
>people don't understand this and use their understanding of thermodynamics
to
>rationalize their morbid tendencies and rant about things fallling apart.
>As to oil, AFAIK there is no thermodynamic law why would prevent us of doing
>anything we see fit with solar energy.
Show us even one viable solar energy technology that is far enough along to
replace oil-based technology. Show us even one oil-heavy captialist
enterprise that will subordinate the profit motive to the greater good of
society. Show us even one political-military establishment in the
developed capitalist countries that is not at the beck and call of those
enterprises, and the pilot fish specualtive class on Wall Street.
Thermodynamic Law is not our problem. Our problem is capitalism, a system
of uncontrolled and uncontrollable plunder.
In fact fossil fuels are made out of solar
>energy. The problem is a technological one and not a theoretical one.
Okay, I repeat my challenge. It is now 2000, almost 2001. How do you
propose to implement the technical solution? In 2001, 2002, 2003... Quick,
the clock is ticking.
There's
>obviously also the issue of scale: Replacing the current rate of
consumption of
>fossil energy by solar energy would probably be impossible.
HOW? HOW? HOW?
But I can't understand
>what this has to do with the 2nd law.
This has to do with the laws of social development.
"I am not a Marxist."
-Karl Marx
"Mask no difficulties."
-Amilcar Cabral
"Am I to be cursed forever with becoming
somebody else on the way to myself?
-Audre Lorde
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
