>>>Mark:Where I am critical of Harvey is in what I think is a
>>>misappreciation of the relationship between ecological justice and social
>>>justice; I wish Tom Warren would stop lurking and put in his 2 cents
>>>about here.
Tom (waking slowly): Hungh? You rang? ..... Further comment unnecessary,
IMHO. Your "why we are fucked" primer gives all the clues necessary to sort
out this supposed conundrum. Bravo for putting it out here.
My personal opinion is that in this discussion you are all discounting the
force of "ecological justice" entirely too much, to your certain peril. I
asserted before X-mas that I was going to the woodshed to reconcile Marx
with my "green gloom and doom" by rereading large parts of the Marxian
canon. I abjured others to do a little reading in the green gloom and doom
liberry. That you have not is painfully obvious by Crashlist's struggle with
this problem.
Let's take an example from one of the principle crashlist members for whom I
have GREAT respect:
>>>Nestor: I still believe that your point, which is indeed an important
>>>one, must be grounded in the SOCIAL, not in the PHYSICAL, working of
>>>Nature. Hope I am not too cryptic here.
Tom: You must use the instruments appropriate to the task, Nestor, and
realize that all of a sudden ... in a very broad and very intense
consequence, the PHYSICAL is trumping and rendering moot all the cards the
SOCIAL thinks it can play. You were correct to deal with "social" workings
of nature as long as they were powerful and relevant. Now they are not so
much.
Another analogy: You see the tip of the iceberg slamming into our Titanic
and you look for a discussion of electing a new captain to steer a new
course, and perhaps shoot the old captain out on the stern. California is
but one tip of the iceberg, oil is but a larger chunk of the berg, as is
global warming, the deaths of the entire order of species amphibian,
population overshoot, and our continued somnambulance as we slide into the
abyss. None of those iceberg components is any longer influenced by
"social" workings of nature. Certainly not any longer by manipulation of
economic systems, except in negative ways. Indeed, there is as yet no
discussion of the iceberg, or of lifeboats.
In ONE sense you are certainly correct, dear friend: SOCIAL workings of
nature might mitigate some of the consequences, if we act quickly. But one
must understand what "workings of nature" are and for that one needs to read
-- not economic imperatives and philosophy -- but the green gloom and
doom stuff you all are avoiding.
Start with Mark's "why we are fucked" .. and pay particular attention to the
passage that begins: "There is a popular belief that somehow technology can
indefinitely rescue the human race from whatever predicament it may get
itself into--solve all problems. Pimentel and Giampietro (1994) have
warned:" etc etc
The tools of understanding that you require -- the microscopes on reality
you must trust are: why the "physical" trumps the "social" at this point in
time, and why it hasn't come up before in history so vehemently and why it
could be viewed as almost a new thing which shatters the bubble of
comfortable, neat economic theories, ... theories which after all live just
about completely in the "social".
Why? Take a look at the circular incomprehension that prevents clear vision
in the eyepieces of the microscopes:
P: "Agreed. What do you want, that we go back to the labour theory of
value? Ok, no hassle. What's the energy addition, though? Is it like Steven
Bunker's energy theory of value?"
Still curious,
P
You are witnessing the "physical" trumping a perceived social "law" which
was mistakenly supposed to be inviolate by economics, by ANYbody's "theory
of value." ... Deal with it.
If you need impetus to explore outside the well-manicured garden of
economics into the forest reality of "nature", start with this:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/7/galbraith-j.html
Study whether you, too, have fallen into the trap of looking at the physical
problems (crises) with economics-tinted spectacles, regardless of whose
economics you accept.
The go read Garett Hardin, E.O Wilson (I know, ... pardon me Mark, he *does*
illustrate the environmental problem accurately, whatever you think of his
solutions and loyalties.) and in the end go back to Lenin and understand the
nature of the physical environment in which ANY justice must be played out.
Old joke:
Three scientists arguing about their prowess come to the conclusion that
they no longer need God. What with DNA manipulation, cloning and a host of
other technologies they could create everything in the universe even BETTER
than God!
The Angel Gabriel appears in their laboratory and informs them that God
accepts the challenge and will appear on the football field of their
university in the morning to begin a contest to see who can build a better
homo sapiens.
Arriving in the morning at the appointed yardline, the scientists are
gratified to see God standing there on the cinder track.
"Okay," says God, "I heard your remarks, and I am ready to compete with you
to build a homo sapiens."
"Ready, Set, Go." says the Angel Gabriel.
God stoops to the track and grabs a handful of dirt, just as the receipe in
Genesis calls for ....
One scientist stoops to grasp a handful of dirt too.
"oh NO!" laughs God, as Gabriel tosses a yellow flag. "Get your OWN DIRT!"
do you begin to see?
.... just my two cents.
Tom Warren
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
_______________________________________________
Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
