G'day Ricardo,
>> Capitalism is supposed to have been integrally associated with the rise
of
>> modern technology, which is absolutely dependent on fossil fuels. So, if
>> modern technology depends on fossil fuels -- everyone but George Gilder
>> and the like will agree with that -- that maybe you can say that
>> capitalism depends on fossil fuels.
>
>It is not capitalism but anyone who uses a car who depends on
>fossil fuels.
Hence, capitalism currently does rely on fossil fuels, no?
Imagine the capital and time it'd take to come up with an alternative to
getting a bunch of farflung intensively conditioned individualists from dorm
to production locus? And Mark does have a point, I reckon. Exactly what
alternative is it we'll be pursuing when 'the market' thinks it time so to
do? Photovoltaic/hydrogen arrays? Alcohol? Transmat beams? I think this
bears some real thionking about.
None of which is to say there ain't a greenhouse crisis in train ... or the
odd breathability problem in various conurbations ...
Shit, I reckon everyone's probably right. Pollution begins the tragedy, and
depletion traumas delivers the coup de grace! I mean, look at the state of
the arguments spawned by Kyoto. How do you get from the neoliberal nirvana
of a couple of hundred competing national economies to the proper global
allocation and coordinated control of production such that the world's air,
water and soil can be protected?
I see no answer other than doing away with the whole bloody system - from
the accumulation drive to the nation state. Pity I don't see that, either
...
Sigh,
Rob.
