Anthony P D'Costa writes: >The capacity of the "have nots" around the world to absorb intolerable levels of living is almost infinite from the perspective of those who "have". While it is a relevant question, bad air or growth (and structural change), more people are caught up with growth and notwithstanding the environmental problems, people would prefer to be in the polluted cities and put up with it if the prospects for income is greater. For a large number of urban dwellers that is certainly the case.< I have no doubt that many if not most people are happy to get a bunch of consumer goods and an urban lifestyle and are willing to escape peasant life. Except for the bit about peasant life, I am one of them, living in Los Angeles as I do. But the results of environmental destruction are not simply _subjective_. Abuse of the land under commercial agriculture leads to erosion (especially when the rain forests are cleared). Then commercial agriculture brings in pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers. All of this has _objective_ effects, perhaps in the future but just as real: floods and large "dead zones" where no fish will swim are just two examples. There is a "dead zone" off the delta of the Mississippi River. I can only imagine what's happening off of Asia. All of these _objective effects_ suggest that the "miracles" are based on pushing the payment of costs into the future and onto other people's backs. (After all, it's the poor who will pay the costs, while the capitalists have already moved much of their winnings to Switzerland or Grand Cayman.) >... India's growth rate until recently has been quite low yet its environmental record is pretty awful. I suspect countries in Africa have a similar record.< You're probably right. But this in no way says that we should wink at the environmental record of those countries that successfully jump through the capitalist hoops (as measured by GDP). > Regarding growth or development (environment included) progressives do not have the luxury to choose one or the other nor in a PC way select environment. That is bad analysis. The issue was whether these "miracle" economies are transitory or not. We need to look at them in terms of the objective conditions not some wishy washy dismissal about them that they are going down the tubes. What is capitalist development is not accompanied by contradictions?< that was precisely my point. > And isn't it inconsistent to critique the mainstream perspective about their optimism (volunteerism) about third world development and at the same time introduce volunteerism that life could be better if we chose environment over growth?< I don't get this. It seems to me that the issue is not "environment vs. growth" but "environment vs. capitalist growth." >Just some early Monday morning musings:)< it always amuses me that the world is round, so that I can respond on Sunday evening to a comment made on Monday morning. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html "God is Elvis." -- religion for the 1990s.
