[top posting left as-is... please read quoted text bottom to top to
follow thread]
On 8 Sep, 2007, at 22:48 PM, sartesian wrote:
Does relinquishing private automobiles, tract housing, post WW2
influence have anything to do with a peak in production; a peak in
availability--- well by proclaiming reserves are a known, finite
quantity, obviously private automobiles have nothing do with the peak.
You want to argue against private autos, you need to look elsewhere.
What makes oil unique-- in that we know the quantity, and we know it
will run out-- as opposed to copper, iron ore, bauxite, or even coal?
Or we can just exile this whole discussion to frozen zone.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Look, by all admissions oil supplies as we have known them will
disappear toward the end of the 21st century. That has enormous
social
and political consequences. Socialists are obviously overwhelmed by
the
tasks of the conjuncture but we are obligated to think about how
humanity will survive in an epoch of declining resources. I think
that
life can be a lot more pleasurable than it is today, even if that
means
relinquishing private automobiles, tract housing and all the other
accouterments of post-WWII affluence.
Why assume oil is unique? The laws of physics tell us a few things,
of which one is that unless there is a process that is regenerating
copper, oil or coal at the rate at which we consume them, they will
run out at some point. History tells us that techno-utopianism is at
best naive a few decades past Thalidomide and asbestos. The effects
of human consumption are already being felt *and* correct for
(including through non-technological means) -- e.g deforestation,
land use and top soil erosion, water pollution.
In short, there is enough reason to believe that the current path of
consumption of resources is unsustainable. It seems fairly reasonable
to suggest then that the consequences of this nearsightedness are
worth pondering and preparing for.
The only thing that merits argument, it seems, is when that point
("peak") of turn-around occurs (though one could argue it has already
occurred). But then again, what is the value in wilful ignorance
sustained merely by the [possible] absence of impending consequence?
--ravi
