|
the garbage below illustrates why i delete unread
posts in html formatting Carrol -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [CrashList] Re: The New
Historical Materialism .... Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:13:01 -0800 From:
Embarkadero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a multi-part message in MIME
format. --Boundary_(ID_j6aBqZ7jb8u1aIxM5jz+Rg) Content-type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable 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.=20
3) "fungibility" of the relationship between society and nature? Did =
anyone but me miss the proof of this?=20 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 --Boundary_(ID_j6aBqZ7jb8u1aIxM5jz+Rg) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
contains
this foolishness: "As
the historical examples discussed = above amply=20 demonstrate, economic
ascent and, more
3) "fungibility" = of the=20 relationship between society and nature? Did anyone but me miss = the proof=20 of this? Who is "drastically underestimating" = what,=20 here? The "relationship betweenf society and = nature" is=20 reduced to more efficient raw materials extraction in every example. = Why? ...=20 because .... These guys don't GET=20 it. I'll stick with Youngquist, please,=20 Mark. Tom--Boundary_(ID_j6aBqZ7jb8u1aIxM5jz+Rg)-- |
