At 09:55 PM 09/03/98 -0500, Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
>Well, I finally *made* the time to reread the article,
>and I find it every bit as "good" as when I first read it
>years ago.
The following is quoted from Garret Hardin, and sorry in advance for not
getting into the full context at the outset. (I agree that Hardin is more
than a little outside the ambit of this list, so I promise this to be my
last on the topic.)
"Population, as Malthus said, naturally tends to grow 'geometrically', or,
as we would now say, exponentially. In a finite world this means that the
per-capita share
of the world's goods must decrease. Is ours a finite world?
A fair defense can be put forward for the view that the world is infinite
or that we do not know that it is not. But, in terms of the practical
problems that we must
face in the next few generations with the foreseeable technology, it is
clear that we will greatly increase human misery if we do not, during the
immediate future,
assume that the world available to the terrestrial human population is
finite. 'Space' is no escape. [2]"
Neo-Malthusian theories of geometrical population growth are based upon the
'dire predictions' theory implied by a more Hobbesian 'war of all against
all'. I'm not so dismal, as I believe that a technological solution *is*
possible within a more universalist and solidaristic social framework. The
history of technological change is about 'more with less', and even though
physical resources (extensive accumulation) grow at a linear rate (all
other things being equal), there is more of a suggestion of long-waves of
rapid (i.e. nonlinear or logarithmic) 'intensive accumulation' at the level
of the industrial paradigm (Perez, Freeman, Soete, etc.). I think that a
'knowledge-based economy' means that "space" is materially transformed, and
that the constraints of space, industrialization, and extensive
accumulation within the the biosphere can be met, depending upon how human
actors decide to organize themselves.
So, perhaps optimistically, I would suggest that the future is open, but
remains to be realized and seen, and that we aren't facing immanent "die-off".
>I can find no clear evidence or even credible suggestions of
>any Reagan/Thatcherite ideology in this essay, and I see no
>way that it conflicts with existentialism, phenomenology,
>hermeneutics, sociology of knowledge, psychoanalysis or
>probably a large number of other endeavors to advance
>human self-knowledge, self-responsibility, self-accountability,
>etc.
(Whatever...)
>The references to such authors as Gregory Bateson and
>Paul Goodman should not give much comfort to Rush Limburger(sp?)
>Oleo(sp?) North, et al. The argument seems nuanced, and
>*open to the possibility that we may in future find better ways of
>handling matters than we currently can imagine* (John Wild
>and others': "man's openness to otherness"; the social constructoin
>of reality; originary imagination; etc.). Hardin criticizes
>both the working class and the capitalists. I don't find
>the example of bank robbery as a problem of commons
>felicitous, but nobody's perfect.
I think that my point about GARRET Hardin (I am sorry to have offended
Canadians of a certain ilk by accidentally invoking the name of Herschel
Hardin, the author of _The Privatization Putsch_ etc.) was taken in the
wrong direction here.
What scares me, though, is the apparent ease by which the neo-Malthusian
framework and the social Darwinist ideological boom and echo appear to so
smoothly translate to recommendations such as those of the "controversial"
Abernethy study. This study, as cited by Jay Hanson, apparently found that
"government subsidies to the poor in housing, food, and education, and
acting as employer of last resort", "foreign aid intended to alleviate
suffering", and "emigration of one's countrymen (by relieving population
pressure and by raising the hopes of those left behind)" are all key
factors that 'increase fertility' because their effect in "reducing
economic pressure or (promising) to do so".
I'm not quite sure what is meant by "economic pressure", because if it
means positive economic conditions for the population-as-a-whole, than the
population "crisis" would be playing itself out in the advanced capitalist
societies of the North. Anyway, it's not too surprising that the study
also found that:
"The only national factor certain to REDUCE the average fertility rate is
government-imposed disincentives such as the withdrawal of subsidies. The
same is true for international subsidies."
Thus, in not too many logical, sequential steps, we end up with right-wing
crap to the effect that 'welfare for single mothers creates single
mothers', and perhaps as a corollary, that 'unemployment insurance creates
unemployment', amongst other moral panics of the rich and affluent.
Brad McCormick:
>> The most important aspect of necessity that we must
>> now recognize, is the necessity of abandoning the commons in breeding.
>
>And Hardin has the courage to assert this position not merely
>in terms of "necessity" but also in terms of the perservation of the
>optional goods which make *human* [symbolizing] life worth living:
>
>> If our goal is to maximize population it is obvious what
>> we must do: We must make the work calories per person
>> approach as close to zero as possible. No gourmet meals,
>> no vacations, no sports, no music, no literature, no art…I think that
>> everyone will grant, without argument or proof,
>> that maximizing population does not maximize goods. Bentham's goal is
>> impossible.
>
>I always thought that Bentham's "greatest good for the greatest number"
>meant maxmizing good * number, rather than maximizing good *and*
>maximizing
>number, as decoupled variables (which clearly they are not). But
>I have no interest in wasting energy on the target of Michel Foucault's
>eloquent analysis in _Discipline and Punish_.
Good point. I also would suggest that the world's resources and forms of
social organization are potentially able to provide over the long-term a
happy, healthy and vibrant world population. If only we could get the
world's modes of economic and political organization properly realigned,
this would become possible. Admittedly, that is a pretty big "if only".
>Where's the problem with GARRET Hardin's "The Tragedy of The
>Commons"? (I have read nothing else by Hardin, so, for all
>I know, it may not be representative of his thinking or he may have
>written it for some "ulterior" purpose, but if the road to hell is
>paved with good intentions, it is also surely possible that
>even bad intentions can produce good results despite themselves.)
Brad, it's the presentation of the ideas of Hardin as a kind of
monological, determinist, fundamentalist and eternal law or logic that I am
criticizing here. I read Garret Hardin a number of years ago when I was an
undergrad; while I didn't agree with much of his argument, the way he
problematized 'lifeboat ethics' was definitely grist for the mill (at least
at one point in time...)
I cast no aspersions on Hardin's "intentions" -- I do however question
their unreflective application to questions of 'distributive justice in the
real world'. This is the reason why I made the 'intervention' I did, in
reference to some of the claims of Jay Hanson.
(This delayed posting could potentially demand a 'return to the planet of
the apes' for Jay -- apologies in advance to any if I inadvertantly have
carried on a tired thread for the group and perhaps for Jay as well.)
Cheers,
John
