Re: WHY WE NEED A NEW MANIFESTO

[Anonymous]

Title: Re: WHY WE NEED A NEW MANIFESTO







I was quite taken with this paragrapgh, but on on second reading, the 
phrase, "we could keep growth within ecologically tolerable limits" struck
me the wrong way.  This idea of growth, whether capitalistic,
entreprenueral, or just plain technolgocial change is so pervasive that it
has become an unchallenged "truth" of any solution to the inequity of the
current world situation.

It may very well be that there is no "growth" solution.  Just as lack of
demand invalidates much of capital's vigour, so lack of topsoil, energy,
space, minerals, and other resources may soon impact us all - not back to a
sustainable society, which the optimists consider our fallback position but
to an actual collapse situation.

As we prattle our solutions on this list and others, the drawdown of natural
systems, earths resources and population explosion continue their march
towards problems in which the solutions may neither be optimistic or
pessimistic but realistic.

Respctfully,

Thomas Lunde

PS:  Read the report I have posted at the end of this message, if you think I am being overly negative.


>Subject: WHY WE NEED A NEW MANIFESTO
>Date: Fri, Jun 25, 1999, 7:54 PM
>

>
> Excerpt from May 1998 Monthly Review article by Daniel Singer:
>
>                       WHY WE NEED A NEW MANIFESTO
>                       ---------------------------
>
> First we must deal with the problem of the allegedly vanishing work. We
> are living in a society in which our technological genius, translated
> into higher productivity means either bigger unemployment or greater
> polarization with the so-called working poor. Marx's suggestion that
> "the theft of somebody else's labor time" is a miserable foundation to
> calculate our wealth-which we should measure by disposable time not by
> labor time-is so much truer today than it was 150 years ago. We have the
> technological means to live differently. If output were determined not
> by exchange value, or the weight of your purse, but by social need
> democratically decided by the people, we could keep growth within
> ecologically tolerable limits, eliminate unemployment and reduce the
> working week. Indeed, in the advanced capitalist countries, we could
> start reducing heavy, dangerous and dreary work, thus gradually removing
> the frontier between labor and leisure.
> regards,
>
> Tom Walker
> http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm

Thursday, June 24, 1999   (from the Graffis List)
   
                                                                         
   The combination of human-driven climate change and rapidly changing
   socio-economic conditions will set off chain reactions of devastation
   leading to super-disasters, according to a report released today by
   international aid organizations.
   
   "Everyone is aware of the environmental problems of global warming and
   deforestation on the one hand, and the social problems of increasing
   poverty and growing shanty towns on the other. But when these two
   factors collide, you have a new scale of catastrophe," said Astrid
   Heiberg, president of the International Federation of Red Cross and
   Red Crescent Societies.
   
   Over the last six years, the aid organizations have watched the number
   of people needing their assistance rise from less than half a million
   to more than 5 million, said Hieberg.
   
   Last year's season of natural disasters caused more damage than ever
   before, according the World Disasters Report 1999, an annual survey of
   humanitarian trends put out by the federation.
   
   The report indicates that declining soil fertility, drought, flooding
   and deforestation drove 25 million people from their land and into the
   shanty towns of fast-growing cities.
   
   Through an analysis of Hurricane Mitch and the weather phenomena El
   NiŅo and La NiŅa, the report shows a trend toward weather-triggered
   super-disasters.
   
   For example, when the effects of El NiŅo struck Indonesia, causing the
   worst drought in 50 years it set off a chain reaction of crises. The
   rice crop failed, the price of imported rice quadrupled, the currency
   dropped by 80 percent, food riots erupted in the capital, Jakarta, and
   massive forest fires burning out of control in the countryside
   paralyzed parts of Indonesia with a toxic layer of smoke.
   
   Developing countries will be hardest hit by the effects of climate
   change, environmental degradation and population pressures, according
   to the report. Already, 96 percent of all deaths from natural
   disasters occur in developing countries.
   
   One billion people are living in the world's unplanned shanty towns
   and 40 of the 50 fastest-growing cities are located in earthquake
   zones. An additional 10 million people live under constant threat of
   floods, according to the report.
   
   On the positive side, the report indicates that disaster preparedness
   is paying off in countries like China. The country has invested $3.5
   billion in flood control over the last 40 years and saved the country
   $12 billion in potential losses.
   
   The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
   concludes that people need to change the way they look at disasters
   and change the system if they want to prevent loss of life and the
   wasting of donor funds.
   
   "We have to structure and fund our emergency services internationally,
   the same way we do domestically. We don't wait until a house catches
   fire, then raise money for the fire department," said Peter Walker,
   the federation's director of disaster policy.
   
   Copyright 1999, Environmental News Network, All Rights Reserved

>