|
contains this foolishness:
"As the historical examples discussed above amply
demonstrate, economic ascent and, more
broadly, the process of capital accumulation have entailed a continually expanding process of the depredation of nature. However, this seemingly obvious conclusion drastically underestimates the powerful incentives for innovation and adaptation in the capitalist world-economy and the fungibility of the relationship between society and nature." 1) We now have a powerful incentive to adapt
to CO2 breathing. All who believe we can, raise your hands.
2) Once again good ol' technological innovation
will save us! It always has, it always will. Yayyyyyyyy!
Chernobyls in the Arctic,
hydrodams in Africa. "relocating the
environmental costs and consequences of core capital accumulation to these
remote peripheries." Yet ....I missed the part where the costs and consequences
of global warming can be relocated to poor ol' Africa. I missed the part
where "consequences" were either recognized or brought under control of
capitalism.
3) "fungibility" of the relationship between society and nature? Did anyone but me miss the proof of this? Who is "drastically underestimating" what,
here?
The "relationship betweenf society and nature" is
reduced to more efficient raw materials extraction in every example. Why? ...
because .... These guys don't GET
it.
I'll stick with Youngquist, please,
Mark.
Tom
|
