>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/18/00 07:52AM >>>
>Of course, I am going to say the root problem is a mentality of controlling
>other people, and you will say that the controlling of nature came first.
>But some control of a small part of nature, that part on which people
>depended, is hard to criticize.
We're very close. I don't have to insist on which came first nor which is
the more salient form of "control". As long as we recognize the root problem
is some kind of controlling mentality, we're together. I insist only that we
be cognizant of the damage that continues to be done by the mentality, and
recognize the danger both to nature and to people.
((((((((((
CB: The rub I see is we are not absolute against what you refer to as "control". I' m
not trying to be evasive or whatever, but when I think about it for a few moments, I
don't see agriculture as a problem. I see forced slave agricultural labor as a
problem.
I could see something analogous to "exploitation", in the sense that Marx and Liebig
looked at the failure to return things to the soil in line with ecological cycles, and
food chains. But our discussing and knowing that is the human way of getting
"control" in the sense that freedom is the mastery of necessity, both actively and
passively, in the sense of use of cunning.
Maybe the myth we need to refer to is "killing the goose that laid the golden egg".
The problem with today's mentality is not controlling but reckless indifference to the
life of the Goose that lays our golden eggs and all of our eggs. ( The Goose being the
ecosystem humans depend on for life).
+++++++++
>CB: There is a lot of objective evidence to base it on in archaeology. The
>state and private property probably start 6-7,000 years ago in Mesopotamia
>and Egypt.
Yes, Quinn is not specific alot but usually is alluding to the fertile
crescent. The DE guys usually vote for that too.
>CB: We go : agriculture and domesticated animals ----> surpluses are
>produced -----------> predominantly mental laborers live off of the
>surplus and become a division of labor , specialized class ---------> some
>pred. mental laborers start to take advantage of that and form an
>exploiting ruling class.
Yes, I see no reason to argue against that, as far as it goes. In fact the
idea of surpluses is critical to both scenarios.
What disturbs me is that this seems to be the usual point in the discussion
where the exclusion of the ecosphere takes place. Environmental concerns
seem to disappear from the table. It's as if the exploiting ruling class
were busy exploiting people only and not the environment as well.
(((((((((((
CB: Well, at first, I don't think the exploiting ruling classes were making much of a
significant dent in the ecosphere. It is only with late capitalism that there is an
issue of wiping out jumped up numbers of species , etc. The rain forests were doing
fine during old Egypt and Mesopotamia.
(((((((((((
Avoiding
the larger perception that BOTH people and nature were exploited seems to me
to eventually lead to being blindsided to the consequences of the ... uh ...
"natural" exploitation, while we are all pretty aware of the consequences of
the exploitation of people. (Yeah, I realize that a lot of the time I fail
to include "people" in MY statements, and should be more universal in my
comments.)
Thanks,
Tom
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 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
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
