>>CB: Again to keep using this phrase becomes willful slander  and
misrepresention. "Too many " is always a relative term. "Too many"  relative
to what ? We may reach a point that there are too many people to  keep warm,
make food for relative to the amount of fuel by way of a fossil  fuel based
energy regime. The phrase "too many people" is too abstract. Too  many people 
relative to what specifically ?

Capitalism, with its  private property relations, would more like let
billions die than make a  drastic rationing to save people as presumably
socialism would with its  people before profits approach. <<
 
Reply
 
The above capture the essence of the dispute. I actually have been  
painstakingly specific. The issue is not "rationing to save people" but the  
"social 
relations" - in their entirety, of bourgeois society. "Social relations"  
embrace all relationships between man and man and man and nature, but there has 
 
been a tendency to view the issue from the standpoint of class formation and  
class fragments riveted to the technology regime. 
 
Other have expanded the definition of social relations to include the shape  
of industrial society and the details of its market relations. In the context 
of  asking about DMS emphasis on "social relations" versus "depletion theory" 
- I  sided with DMS and had did so in the past, because this approach opens 
the door  to examining what is actually produced and why. He cannot be wrong to 
take this  approach. There is no over population crisis or one looming on the 
horizon. The  crisis is the social relations. 
 
"Too many people is not abstract in the context of the material cited in  
part 1, 2 and 3 of "notes."  
 
The opening line in part 1 begins:
 
 "Eating Fossil Fuel" (_http://billtotten.blogspot.com/_ 
(http://billtotten.blogspot.com/) ) is a  wonderful title. Why do we eat what 
we eat?" 
 
Further in part 1 it is quoted: 
 
>>US Consumption 
 
In the United States, each person consumes an average of 2,175 pounds of  
food per person per year. This provides the US consumer with an average daily  
energy intake of 3,600 Calories. The world average is 2,700 Calories per day.  
<33> Fully nineteen percent of the US caloric intake comes from fast food.  
Fast food accounts for 34% of the total food consumption for the average US  
citizen. The average citizen dines out for one meal out of four.  <34>"
 
Let's examine the proposition: "We may reach a point that there are too  many 
people to keep warm, make food for relative to the amount of fuel by way of  
a fossil fuel based energy regime." 
 
The issue is not food relative to the amount of fossil fuel and people or  
the idea that we may reach some mysterious point in the future where we run out 
 
of fossil fuel in relationship to food production  . . . that is the  
dispute. The approach deployed was to challenge the definition of food  itself 
because bourgeois society creates a set of eatable substances necessary  for 
its 
reproduction. Everyone calls this mass of eatable substances food when  it is 
not 
food and does not need to be manufactured in the first place. 
 
Everything eatable is not food, but rather wrong food. This historically  
evolved and built up consumption pattern grows out of historical ignorance of  
the metabolic process. This consumption pattern that is historically built up  
gives the market pattern its specific shape and substance. 
 
Second, Marx was referenced in his outline of the evolution of "needs" in  
human society and how bourgeois property and bourgeois production inherits and  
creates a set of needs unique and fundamental to its self reproduction. 
 
Part 1, 2 and 3 of "Notes" have very little to do with Mark Jones writings.  
I beg to differ with his theoretical underpinnings on a broad number of 
issues,  including the law of value, which provoked his initial response to 
some 
material  I had written on Marx mail. 
 
Part one of "Notes" end on this the following theme and no where is Mark  
Jones mentioned: 
 
 
"Americans are also grand consumers of water. As of one decade ago,  
Americans were consuming 1,450 gallons per day per capita, with the largest  
amount 
expended on agriculture. Allowing for projected population increase,  
consumption by 2050 is projected at 700 gallons per day per capita, which  
hydrologists 
consider to be minimal for human needs. <36> This is without  taking into 
consideration declining fossil fuel production. (Eating Fossil Fuel:  
(_http://billtotten.blogspot.com/_ (http://billtotten.blogspot.com/) )."
 
I do not believe that I slandered Mark or anyone else and cited the  material 
and sources for which "Notes" was directed. 
 

 
Here is how part 2 of "Notes" begins:
 
 
>>"Scientists define "carrying capacity" as the population of a given  
species that can be supported indefinitely in a defined habitat without  
permanently 
damaging the ecosystem upon which it is dependent." 
 
The above definition lacks a framework of production, reproduction, the  
property relations, the shape of the aforementioned and the infrastructure that 
 
sustains all of this. Perhaps it is best to look at what is in front of us and  
what our society is experiencing and talking about in their daily  living."<<
 
How can one speak of a crisis of sustainability without examining the  
universe of commodities (the social relations) and the energy tag they carry? 
No  
one ask why we drink the amount of water we drink? What drives the amount of  
water the individual consume as a mass, is not population growth but the  
metabolic process of the living organism or what is consumed and its  
properties. 
Wrong consumption is a process that creates its own cycles of wrong  
consumption 
and gluttony. We are dealing with the metabolic process of man and  the 
sources I quoted was Arnold Ehret, along with the book "Acid and Alkaline"  and 
the 
work of Alfredo Bowman (Dr. Sebi). 
 
Wrong consumption is historically evolved and a social relations of  
production, although this is not how I articulate the issue as politics. As  
politics 
the issue is consuming wrong food that should not be produced in the  first 
place. There is a gigantic infrastructure with a definable energy  consequence 
geared to wrong production. This gigantic infrastructure of wrong  production 
does not need to be shared in a communistic manner but abolished  along with 
the abolition of property, whose last and final form is bourgeois  property. 
The 
mass consumption of Oreo cookies is a bourgeois property relations  that 
appears as a social relations of production and reveals the specific  character 
of 
the market pattern. 
 
How I arrived at my particular presentation of the market pattern was not  on 
the basis of theoretical Marxism but biology and the metabolic process that  
is man. Everyone in our society basically knows that we eat and consume  
wrong. Science has not been deployed to unravel our authentic metabolic  
process. 
At least 90% of everything we eat in our society is harmful to our  species and 
the earth and this is becoming obvious to everyone in America. 
 
The issue of over consumption that is called sustainability and the  carrying 
capacity of the earth is presented wrong because man does not exist on  the 
earth, but rather in the earth. 
 
Mark Jones was not slandered but engaged from the standpoint of the  
metabolic process that is man. 
 
More later
 
Waistline 
 

 
 
 


_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Reply via email to