On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > raghu wrote: >> >> You seriously want to suggest that >> the whole world can live like this sustainably? And all this is not >> counting the hidden consumption involved in the process of making >> food, gasoline etc artificially cheap and plentiful. > > Detached from a political program (and organized forces) by which this > reduction can be arranged and controlled (distributed), to call for it > is (a) mere chatter and (b)offensive moralism -- even though you are of > course correct on the technical point. 7 billion people and climbing > cannot live like that. But that point by itself is utterly empty.
I am not sure what you are getting at, but I never suggested detaching sustainability from a larger political program. Why is talking about sustainability "offensive moralism"? By the same token, deliberate silence on the subject should count as "criminal negligence", right? Just to be clear I never once suggested that sustainability and consumption reduction while keeping everything else the same is feasible or desirable. But it seems to me that no one on the left wants to talk about these 800 pound gorillas at all. I strongly believe that sustainability should be an important part of the discourse on the left. I also believe that there is a faction on the left that is strongly opposed to including these subjects and treats them like taboo. Why else would a Sarah van Gelder be compared to a rapacious predator like Andrew Mellon? Here's what van Gelder actually proposed (it is entirely puzzling to me why any progressive will find any of this offensive, morally or otherwise): > * Economic policies for the future must assure that everyone is > included, and that we lift up those at the bottom. When we allow inequality > to burgeon in our society, we create crime and violence and hate, which > damage everyone's ability to find happiness. We can no longer afford > nine-figure paychecks for CEOs and double-digit returns on speculative > investments. To paraphrase Gandhi, we have enough for everyone's needs, but > not for everyone's greed. > * The environmental overshoot game is up. The next economy must function > within the present production of our environment. We can no longer afford to > live off the bounty of the past, like the millions of years of fossil > deposits that make up today's diminishing oil reserves. Instead we must turn > to solar energy, wind, and other renewables, and grow food and fiber by > building the soil, not by dumping petroleum products on it. We can't > continue to use our atmosphere, oceans, aquifers, and soils as dumps. No > amount of "Runs for the Cure" will solve the cancer problem if we continue > to poison our food, water, and air. And the climate is reaching a dangerous > tipping point. > * We can no longer allow the money economy to grow like a cancer on our > society, until it takes over all facets of life. The economy needs to serve > people, communities, and the health of natural systems, not the other way > around. Instead of relying on footloose unaccountable global corporations, > we can turn to local and regional production to serve our needs and provide > sustainable employment, including small and medium-sized businesses, co-ops, > farmer's markets, and so on. > * As we do that, we'll get much clearer on real sources of happiness. > Research tells us that the sources of the good life are in loving > relationships, mutual respect, meaningful work, and gratitude, and as we > discover the power of these qualities, the lure of advertising and > materialism will no longer fool us. Overconsumption will take its place > alongside other passing fads. -raghu. -- "His credit rating is so bad that his junk mail comes postage due." - Anonymous
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
