Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Yoshie Furuhashi says: It's best if ecosocialists focus on this aspect of the problem: toxic chemicals endangering workers' health. Is this discussion taking account of the fundamentals? If just the present world population of 5.8 billion people were to live at current North American ecological standards (say 4.5 ha/person), a reasonable first approximation of the total productive land requirement would be 26 billion ha (assuming present technology). However, there are only just over 13 billion ha of land on Earth, of which only 8.8 billion are ecologically productive cropland, pasture, or forest (1.5 ha/person). In short, we would need an additional two planet Earths to accommodate the increased ecological load of people alive today. If the population were to stabilize at between 10 and 11 billion sometime in the next century, five additional Earths would be needed, all else being equal -- and this just to maintain the present rate of ecological decline (Rees Wackernagel, 1994). http://dieoff.com/page110.htm Mark Jones It's the nature of capitalism not to allow everyone in the world to live at current North American ecological standards (say 4.5 ha/person). Yoshie
Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
It's the nature of capitalism not to allow everyone in the world to live at current North American ecological standards (say 4.5 ha/person). Yoshie This is not exactly true. Even under socialism, it will not be possible to sustain the following practices: 1. Limitless livestock breeding. 2. Limitless automobile ownership. 3. Industrial-grade harvesting of seafood. 4. Massive production of energy through hydroelectric dams. 5. Green revolution type farming. 6. Uncontrolled carbon emissions. 7. Deforestation of old-growth forests. 8. etc. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
It's the nature of capitalism not to allow everyone in the world to live at current North American ecological standards (say 4.5 ha/person). Yoshie This is not exactly true. Even under socialism, it will not be possible to sustain the following practices: 1. Limitless livestock breeding. 2. Limitless automobile ownership. 3. Industrial-grade harvesting of seafood. 4. Massive production of energy through hydroelectric dams. 5. Green revolution type farming. 6. Uncontrolled carbon emissions. 7. Deforestation of old-growth forests. 8. etc. Louis Proyect I'm simply saying that worrying about what will happen if everyone in the world gets to to live at current North American ecological standards (say 4.5 ha/person) under capitalism is _absurd_, since it's _not_ going to happen. Yoshie
Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Yoshie writes: I'm simply saying that worrying about what will happen if everyone in the world gets to to live at current North American ecological standards (say 4.5 ha/person) under capitalism is _absurd_, since it's _not_ going to happen. = You forget the Veblenian point, however, regarding invidious distinction and status emulation. Regardless of the truth of your assertion, its the consequences of the efforts (however futile) to achieve those standards that are well worth worrying about, especially as these are facilitated and encouraged by the relentless streams of advertising conducted by commercial agencies on behalf of specific products/companies, and politicians on behalf of their corporate paymasters. Michael K.
Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Yoshie writes: I'm simply saying that worrying about what will happen if everyone in the world gets to to live at current North American ecological standards (say 4.5 ha/person) under capitalism is _absurd_, since it's _not_ going to happen. = You forget the Veblenian point, however, regarding invidious distinction and status emulation. Regardless of the truth of your assertion, its the consequences of the efforts (however futile) to achieve those standards that are well worth worrying about, especially as these are facilitated and encouraged by the relentless streams of advertising conducted by commercial agencies on behalf of specific products/companies, and politicians on behalf of their corporate paymasters. Michael K. Desires unaccompanied by money are not effective demands, however. It seems to me that while overproduction is the dominant tendency of capitalism, shortage may be the most prominent problem under socialism, though Mark insists on worrying about shortage under capitalism. Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Michael Perelman wrote: Farmers like workers to bend over. It makes it easy to spot who is relaxing. If strawberries were grown in raised beds, like you see in some greenhouses, little bending would be required. But mechanization would be difficult. It's been about 55 years since I picked strawberries, but my memory of it is crawling along on one's hands knees. I can't imagine bending to do it. Of course with the huge (and hence not very sweet) strawberries of today picking would go much faster I suppose. But all fruit picking is miserable work. Incidentally, on the romanticization of agriculture. Biologically modern humans go back 100,000 years; agriculture 12,000 or so -- it's a late perversion, like writing. Industry, on the other hand, goes back several million years. And it is around industry, play, and moving about, not being stuck like a slug on one plot of land, that human life ought to be organized. Agriculture by its nature is anti-human, and hence in a decent society would be radically sub-divided and spread out over the entire population, like KP in the military. Scrubbing toilets is far more human labor than tilling the soil. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Incidentally, on the romanticization of agriculture. Biologically modern humans go back 100,000 years; agriculture 12,000 or so -- it's a late perversion, like writing. Industry, on the other hand, goes back several million years. And it is around industry, play, and moving about, not being stuck like a slug on one plot of land, that human life ought to be organized. Agriculture by its nature is anti-human, and hence in a decent society would be radically sub-divided and spread out over the entire population, like KP in the military. Scrubbing toilets is far more human labor than tilling the soil. Carrol You seem to be missing the whole point of what Michael Perelman called self-provisioning in precapitalist agrarian societies. Yes, the work was backbreaking but it was not done 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, 51 weeks a year. Read Juliet Schor's The Overworked American for a description of how leisurely such societies were in many ways. It is the same thing with hunting and gathering societies. Going out and spearing fish is tough work, but once you have your catch, you can eat, drink, fuck and tell stories around the campfire. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: RE: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Who is calling for a dieoff? People are warning about the future, not applauding it. On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 11:44:13AM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Dieoff indeed. At least Jay Hanson, like Dave Foreman, is honest about what he sees for the future of the human population. Tell us, Mark - how many people will have to disappear, how, and by when? Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
And it is around industry, play, and moving about, not being stuck like a slug on one plot of land, that human life ought to be organized. Agriculture by its nature is anti-human, and hence in a decent society would be radically sub-divided and spread out over the entire population, like KP in the military. Scrubbing toilets is far more human labor than tilling the soil. Think you're overdoing it a bit here, Carrol. What's so nobly transcendental about toilets, anyway? And a spot of soil-tilling need hardly nail one to the spot around the clock! People with large veggie gardens, for instance, tend to overwork their veggie gardens in my view (they'd get no fewer veggies out of 'em if they spent half their free time doing other stuff, but they prefer it to affirming their humanity over a smeared toilet bowl, I s'pose), and a lot of work farmers do is because of private property considerations (competition-imposed stuff, branding, fencing, doing the books, etc) - otherwise, they'd be busy at times and free at times. Dare I say it, as nature intended. And I happen to think agriculture is a damned good idea. We have billions to feed, after all. This maybe so precisely because we invented agriculture in the first place, but here we billions are. Cheers, Rob.
Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Regarding mechanization, the rise of the farm workers union caused the Univ. of Calif., Davis to invent the mechanical tomato picker and the hard tomato. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Regarding mechanization, the rise of the farm workers union caused the Univ. of Calif., Davis to invent the mechanical tomato picker and the hard tomato. -- Michael Perelman Exactly. Weak cheap labor is a recipe for technological stagnation even deindustrialization, whereas strong costly labor pushes capitalists to innovate, so they can beat back unions. Here's how it happened on the waterfront: * The New Union In 1933 the economic depression that started in 1929 hit the nation full-force. West Coast longshoremen, who had long suffered their own special kind of depression through chronic job insecurity, now experienced even deeper hardship. Genuine union organization became a matter of survival. The longshoremen once again applied for and obtained a charter from the ILA - but this time they established their organization as a single unit on a coastwise and industry-wide basis, thus avoiding the mistakes of the past. Their demands were simple: a union-controlled hiring hall that would end all forms of discrimination and favoritism in hiring and equalize work opportunities; a coastwise contract, with all workers on the Pacific Coast receiving the same basic wages and working under the same protected hours and conditions; and a six-hour work day with a fair hourly wage. The shipowners consistently refused each demand, determined to divide and destroy the unions in each port. The members of both longshore and seafaring unions voted to strike in May 1934. In response, the employers mobilized private industry, state and local governments, and police agencies to smash the unions and their picket lines. The ranks held firm throughout the historic strike. They held up against unprovoked police violence, and withstood attempts by the ILA national leaders to cave in to employer demands for a return to business as usual. They elected new regional leaders to push the strike forward in defiance of both the employers and the ILA officials. Prominent among the new faces was a San Francisco longshoreman named Harry Bridges, who was later elected president of the ILA's Pacific Coast District and then president of the ILWU. In July of 1934, when it was clear the longshoremen and their seafaring allies were not going to give up their struggle for justice on the waterfront, the employers decided to open the struck piers using guns, goon squads, tear gas, and the National Guard. They provoked pitched battles in San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and San Pedro. Hundreds of strikers - and bystanders - were arrested and injured. On July 5, know ever after as Bloody Thursday, two workers were shot and killed. A total of six workers were shot or beaten to death on the West Coast by police or company goons during the course of the strike. Rather than breaking the strike, these terrible events galvanized public support, and prompted the unions of San Francisco to declare a brief but historic General Strike to support the longshore and maritime unions and protest strikebreaking by employers and police. The most conservative leaders of the San Francisco labor movement headed the General Strike, and called it off July 16 after just four days. Still, business and government now knew the maritime strikers had the overwhelming support of the Bay Area's rank and file trade unionists. Overseas support for the strikers also helped impress the employers with the impossibility of beating the strike with scab longshoremen and scab crews. And for the first time, most minority workers refused to scab, thanks to the longshoremen's developing policy against racial discrimination. After the federal government intervened, the union agreed to arbitrate all issues - and won, in principle, each of its major demands. The union made great organizing gains as the result of the opportunity it gave to the average worker to unite and fight. It sparked the creation of new unions in every industry up and down the Pacific Coast, and the formation of the first multi-employer collective bargaining unit covering an entire industry. The unity between longshoremen and seafarers also led to the formation of the Maritime Federation of the Pacific, composed of a majority of the waterfront and seagoing unions. Alarmed by the workers' growing solidarity, the shipowners in 1936 sought a test of strength over the unions' gains of 1934. For the first time in the history of any American waterfront the struggle was carried out without a single incident of violence or attempt by the employers to use strikebreakers. The result was a large measure of gains for the seamen, gains which the longshoremen had already won in 1934, including a union-controlled hiring hall. Coast unionism was secure and ready to expand. The success of the new union came from its solidarity and from its complete democracy. Members stood together and sacrificed together, and they controlled every aspect of the union's
Re: Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
As one result, the work force and the wage system changed. In this case, local women paid hourly wages to sort machine-picked tomatoes replaced bracero men who earned piece rate wages to hand-pick tomatoes. According to one account, Before the tomato harvester, tomatoes were harvested largely by braceros... re- cruited from rural villages in Mexico... [attracted by] unusually good wages. Employers asked their year-round tractor drivers and irrigators to bring their wives to ride on the tomato harvesting machines, and many did-the tomato harvest la- bor force changed from over 95 percent male in the early 1960s, to over 80 percent female by the late 1960s (Friedland and Barton, 1975, 59-61). Seckler, David and Andrew Schmitz. 1969. Mechanized Agriculture and Social Welfare; The Case of the Tomato Harvester. mimeo. December. Piore, Michael J. 1979. Birds of Passage; Migrant Labor and Industrial Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. ... male in the early 1960s, to over 80 percent female by the late 1960s (Friedland and Barton, 1975, 59-61). The tomato case illustrates what happens when wages ... www.google.com/search?q=cache:q9kib1-Uk1E:www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/binpapers /v1-3latapi.pdf+William+Friedland+UFWhl=en ...grateful to William Friedland, William Heffernan, Lyle Schertz, Katherine ... for field workers. Friedland et al. go ... United Farm Workers (UFW), to organize workers ... http://www.google.com/search?q=William+Friedland+UFW - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:07 AM Subject: [PEN-L:14222] Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch) Regarding mechanization, the rise of the farm workers union caused the Univ. of Calif., Davis to invent the mechanical tomato picker and the hard tomato. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
I have tried to make this a constant theme in almost everything that I have written. Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Weak cheap labor is a recipe for technological stagnation even deindustrialization, whereas strong costly labor pushes capitalists to innovate -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Weak cheap labor is a recipe for technological stagnation even deindustrialization, whereas strong costly labor pushes capitalists to innovate I have tried to make this a constant theme in almost everything that I have written. Michael Perelman Yes. I recall you came up with the resonant term: the Haitian road to development. Yoshie
Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
- Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:35 AM Subject: [PEN-L:14188] Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch) It's the nature of capitalism not to allow everyone in the world to live at current North American ecological standards (say 4.5 ha/person). Yoshie This is not exactly true. Even under socialism, it will not be possible to sustain the following practices: 1. Limitless livestock breeding. 2. Limitless automobile ownership. 3. Industrial-grade harvesting of seafood. 4. Massive production of energy through hydroelectric dams. 5. Green revolution type farming. 6. Uncontrolled carbon emissions. 7. Deforestation of old-growth forests. 8. etc. Louis Proyect I'm simply saying that worrying about what will happen if everyone in the world gets to to live at current North American ecological standards (say 4.5 ha/person) under capitalism is _absurd_, since it's _not_ going to happen. Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
But you couldn't read all those marvelous fantasies Louis posts on Pen-L. CHeers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - You seem to be missing the whole point of what Michael Perelman called self-provisioning in precapitalist agrarian societies. Yes, the work was backbreaking but it was not done 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, 51 weeks a year. Read Juliet Schor's The Overworked American for a description of how leisurely such societies were in many ways. It is the same thing with hunting and gathering societies. Going out and spearing fish is tough work, but once you have your catch, you can eat, drink, fuck and tell stories around the campfire. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
I agree with Rob. I don't know why agriculture is anti-human unless you think we were all hunters and gatherers by nature. If you mean that toilets are human artifacts and so scrubbing them is human then we deserve some explanation as to why that would make the labor superior. And what about cleaning out latrines or manning honey wagons to clean out earlier toilets. If I apply Mill's doctrine about superiority of pleasures I count myself equally capable of experiencing the relative pleasure of scrubbing toilets and growing a garden and would testify to the greater pleasure or at least lesser pain associated with the latter. Cheers, Ken Hardy aka Tom... - Original Message - From: Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:01 PM Subject: [PEN-L:14220] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch) And it is around industry, play, and moving about, not being stuck like a slug on one plot of land, that human life ought to be organized. Agriculture by its nature is anti-human, and hence in a decent society would be radically sub-divided and spread out over the entire population, like KP in the military. Scrubbing toilets is far more human labor than tilling the soil. Think you're overdoing it a bit here, Carrol. What's so nobly transcendental about toilets, anyway?
RE: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Yoshie Furuhashi says: It's best if ecosocialists focus on this aspect of the problem: toxic chemicals endangering workers' health. Is this discussion taking account of the fundamentals? If just the present world population of 5.8 billion people were to live at current North American ecological standards (say 4.5 ha/person), a reasonable first approximation of the total productive land requirement would be 26 billion ha (assuming present technology). However, there are only just over 13 billion ha of land on Earth, of which only 8.8 billion are ecologically productive cropland, pasture, or forest (1.5 ha/person). In short, we would need an additional two planet Earths to accommodate the increased ecological load of people alive today. If the population were to stabilize at between 10 and 11 billion sometime in the next century, five additional Earths would be needed, all else being equal -- and this just to maintain the present rate of ecological decline (Rees Wackernagel, 1994). http://dieoff.com/page110.htm Mark Jones
Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Carrol says: Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Farming without industrial inputs equipment tends to be very labor-intensive, often involving back-breaking labor for tilling, sowing, weeding, watering, harvesting. Speaking of what will be the nature of post-revolutionary agriculture seems on the whole to me to be an extreme case of trying to write recipes for the cookshops of the future. We simply can't know. As a sort of casual footnote to this point of Yoshie's I will mention that after 54+ years I still remember as one of the most horrible days of my life (worse than the day I broke my hip or the day I broke my wrist or any of the days in basic training or in a factory working a nine hour day or my experience of whooping cough or my first day in the polio ward) was a day I spent planting strawberries on a very primitive strawberry planter. There is a lot to be said for any and all efforts to get rid of pesticides. Applying them can be a rather miserable experience. I suspect most romanticizations of farming and getting close to the soil come from those who never had the misfortune of actually living close to the soil. * Strawberry plants are four or five inches tall and grow from beds eight to twelve inches high. One must bend at the waist to pick the fruit, which explains why the job is so difficult. Bending over that way for an hour can cause a stiff back; doing so for ten to twelve hours a day, weeks at a time, can cause excruciating pain and lifelong disabilities. Most strawberry pickers suffer back pain. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95nov/strawber.htm * * Chronic back conditions are both common and debilitating. Back pain occurs in 15 to 45 percent of people each year,[22], [23], [24], [25], [26] and 70 to 85 percent of people have back pain some time in their lives. In the United States, back pain is the most frequent cause of activity limitation in people under age 45 years,[27], [28] the second most frequent reason for physician visits, the fifth-ranking reason for hospitalization, and the third most common reason for surgical procedures.[29] Work-related risk factors, such as heavy physical work, lifting and forceful movements, awkward postures, and whole body vibration, are associated with low back disorders. Work-related risk factors account for 28 to 50 percent of the low back problems in an adult population.[30]... http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/Document/HTML/Volume1/02Arthritis.htm * Also see Back Pain Among Persons Working on Small or Family Farms: Eight Colorado Counties, 1993-1996, at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v281n20/ffull/jwr0526-4.html. Even from a long range perspective, eliminating the difference between city and country means industrializing (citifying) the country as well as 'ruralizing' the city. One of the stated objectives of the Morrill Act, aka the Land Grant Act, was to 'promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes,' primarily in the areas of agriculture and mechanics (at http://www.osu.edu/units/ouc/osu_founding.html). If freed from M-C-M', such education can transform both agriculture agricultural workers, by integrating workers in knowledge production (ergonomics, biotechnology, agricultural science, environmental science, food science, climatology, etc.). Yoshie
Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
* Strawberry plants are four or five inches tall and grow from beds eight to twelve inches high. One must bend at the waist to pick the fruit, which explains why the job is so difficult. Bending over that way for an hour can cause a stiff back; doing so for ten to twelve hours a day, weeks at a time, can cause excruciating pain and lifelong disabilities. Most strawberry pickers suffer back pain. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95nov/strawber.htm * I think we can probably live without strawberries or pick them in the wild like I used to when I was growing up. Wild strawberries, wild flowers, and things you grow in personal gardens will become more routine once we abolish the modern capitalist city and build structures more engaged with nature. One of the stated objectives of the Morrill Act, aka the Land Grant Act, was to 'promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes,' primarily in the areas of agriculture and mechanics (at http://www.osu.edu/units/ouc/osu_founding.html). If freed from M-C-M', such education can transform both agriculture agricultural workers, by integrating workers in knowledge production (ergonomics, biotechnology, agricultural science, environmental science, food science, climatology, etc.). Heck. This goes against everything I've been arguing here. My guiding principle is mystical engagement with the sacred gaia principle, including crystals and incense-burning. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Farmers like workers to bend over. It makes it easy to spot who is relaxing. If strawberries were grown in raised beds, like you see in some greenhouses, little bending would be required. But mechanization would be difficult. Strawberries are very highly treated with pesticides and the fields are pre-treated with gobs of methyl bromide. On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 09:27:26PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: * Strawberry plants are four or five inches tall and grow from beds eight to twelve inches high. One must bend at the waist to pick the fruit, which explains why the job is so difficult. Bending over that way for an hour can cause a stiff back; doing so for ten to twelve hours a day, weeks at a time, can cause excruciating pain and lifelong disabilities. Most strawberry pickers suffer back pain. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95nov/strawber.htm * I think we can probably live without strawberries or pick them in the wild like I used to when I was growing up. Wild strawberries, wild flowers, and things you grow in personal gardens will become more routine once we abolish the modern capitalist city and build structures more engaged with nature. One of the stated objectives of the Morrill Act, aka the Land Grant Act, was to 'promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes,' primarily in the areas of agriculture and mechanics (at http://www.osu.edu/units/ouc/osu_founding.html). If freed from M-C-M', such education can transform both agriculture agricultural workers, by integrating workers in knowledge production (ergonomics, biotechnology, agricultural science, environmental science, food science, climatology, etc.). Heck. This goes against everything I've been arguing here. My guiding principle is mystical engagement with the sacred gaia principle, including crystals and incense-burning. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Lou says: * Strawberry plants are four or five inches tall and grow from beds eight to twelve inches high. One must bend at the waist to pick the fruit, which explains why the job is so difficult. Bending over that way for an hour can cause a stiff back; doing so for ten to twelve hours a day, weeks at a time, can cause excruciating pain and lifelong disabilities. Most strawberry pickers suffer back pain. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95nov/strawber.htm * I think we can probably live without strawberries or pick them in the wild like I used to when I was growing up. Wild strawberries, wild flowers, and things you grow in personal gardens will become more routine once we abolish the modern capitalist city and build structures more engaged with nature. You can grow some fruits vegetables in personal gardens, but probably not enough to feed you year-around. Besides, it doesn't make sense to try to grow staple like rice, wheat, corn, etc. in urban settings. Socialist agriculture needs to work on ecologically sustainable labor-saving technology. One of the stated objectives of the Morrill Act, aka the Land Grant Act, was to 'promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes,' primarily in the areas of agriculture and mechanics (at http://www.osu.edu/units/ouc/osu_founding.html). If freed from M-C-M', such education can transform both agriculture agricultural workers, by integrating workers in knowledge production (ergonomics, biotechnology, agricultural science, environmental science, food science, climatology, etc.). Heck. This goes against everything I've been arguing here. My guiding principle is mystical engagement with the sacred gaia principle, including crystals and incense-burning. Don't kvetch just because you agree with me. :- Yoshie
Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Michael says: Farmers like workers to bend over. It makes it easy to spot who is relaxing. If strawberries were grown in raised beds, like you see in some greenhouses, little bending would be required. That makes sense. An example of how capitalist class power throws efficiency rationality out of the window. This particular solution, however, doesn't eliminate or diminish all physically taxing aspects of farm labor in battle against pests weeds (which would exist, with or without capitalists), so biotechnology will have a role to play under socialism. But mechanization would be difficult. Right, given the fragility of strawberries -- the same fragility that can be turned to workers' advantage if the union is strong enough to exploit it. The absence of mechanization is also a sign that the labor movement has been too weak to organize farm laborers that global capitalism has depressed Third World economy like Mexico's enough to produce a continuing stream of desperate illegal migrants: * Machines have been invented to harvest almost every kind of fruit and vegetable grown in the United States. Such machines are introduced, however, only when the cost of mechanization is lower than the anticipated costs of paying migrants to do the same work. During the 1970s the United Farm Workers achieved great success organizing migrants in the California grape and lettuce industries. The influence of the UFW extended far beyond these crops; simply the threat of unionization persuaded many growers to raise wages, offer benefits, and improve working conditions. At about the same time, California adopted some of the most pro-union legislation in the country, guaranteeing farm workers the right to collective bargaining, a minimum wage, and unemployment compensation. As labor costs increased, mechanization became a top priority for California growers. But successive Republican governors, George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson, gutted the Agricultural Labor Relations Board and relaxed enforcement of the state's tough labor laws. Union workers were fired; illegal immigrants replaced them; and growers avoided prosecution for workplace violations by hiding behind the legal fiction that labor contractors and sharecroppers were the actual employers of migrants. Hard-won benefits such as sick leave, vacation pay, family housing, and health insurance were eliminated. The living and working conditions of migrants steadily declined. At the beginning of the 1980s the UFW had perhaps 60,000 members. Today it has between 5,000 and 10,000. Migrant workers have become so cheap in California, largely owing to illegal immigration, that they are increasingly being used not just to pick fruits and vegetables but to pack them as well, right in the fields. Automated packinghouses employing union workers are rapidly going out of business. Instead of the mechanization of California agriculture, a prominent labor expert recently observed, we are witnessing its Mexicanization. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95nov/strawber.htm * Cheap labor makes for deindustrialization. Mexicanization instead of mechanization. Strawberries are very highly treated with pesticides and the fields are pre-treated with gobs of methyl bromide. It's best if ecosocialists focus on this aspect of the problem: toxic chemicals endangering workers' health. Yoshie
Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
At 10:27 PM 06/27/2001 -0400, you wrote: But mechanization would be difficult. Right, given the fragility of strawberries you underestimate the power of bioscience: I can easily imagine genetically-altered strawberries the size of basket balls with a thick skin, so that they can be harvested with machines. Consider how different commercial strawberries are already -- compared to wild strawberries. The latter are smaller than small marbles and have much more intense taste. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. -- Richard Feynman.
Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
The farmers fought like hell to retain the short handled hoe in California. They loved it because the workers had to stoop over to work. As soon as they relaxed, they stood upright. I have never seen anyone use such a tool except the Homng farmers who work in my neighborhood. They must have particularly limber bodies since they work stooped over while keeping their backs straight. So they probably suffer no ill effects. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
At 10:27 PM 06/27/2001 -0400, you wrote: But mechanization would be difficult. Right, given the fragility of strawberries you underestimate the power of bioscience: I can easily imagine genetically-altered strawberries the size of basket balls with a thick skin, so that they can be harvested with machines. Consider how different commercial strawberries are already -- compared to wild strawberries. The latter are smaller than small marbles and have much more intense taste. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. -- Richard Feynman. Check out _The Strawberry: History, Breeding and Physiology_ at http://www.nalusda.gov/pgdic/Strawberry/darpubs.htm. Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
At 10:27 PM 06/27/2001 -0400, you wrote: But mechanization would be difficult. Right, given the fragility of strawberries you underestimate the power of bioscience: I can easily imagine genetically-altered strawberries the size of basket balls with a thick skin, so that they can be harvested with machines. Consider how different commercial strawberries are already -- compared to wild strawberries. The latter are smaller than small marbles and have much more intense taste. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. -- Richard Feynman. === [who said it?] One of the benefits of the genetic engineering revolution will be to allow us to make great areas of the globe economically productive without destroying their natural ecology. Instead of destroying tropical forests to make room for agriculture, we could leave forests in place while teaching the trees to synthesize a variety of useful chemicals. Huge areas of arid land could be made fruitful either for agriculture or for biochemical industry. There are no laws of physics and chemistry which say that potatoes cannot grow on trees or that diamonds cannot grow in a desert...Ultimately even water may be unnecessary, since the driest desert air contains enough water vapor to sustain a biological community if the community is careful not to waste it.
Re: Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Wow. Genetic engineering of insulin using e coli goes against the basic principles of soil chemistry. No kidding. I didnt know that! Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] Genetic engineering, along with pesticides, irrigation, chemical fertilizers and all the rest can not be simply appropriated by socialists. The reason they are counter-productive is that they go against the basic principles of soil chemistry, which is a branch of science. This is not about gaia. It is about overcoming the metabolic rift, one of Marx's main preoccupations.
Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Lou says: Yoshie: I'm not presenting Cuba as a model, however attractive promising its combination of organic agriculture genetic engineering may be. I'm simply saying that one-dimensional opposition to genetic engineering ( science in general) is counter-productive. Genetic engineering can be a very useful tool in socialist hands, whereas in corporate hands it will be mainly used to further corporate monopoly of intellectual properties. We have different assessment about the value of industrial farming techniques. Genetic engineering, along with pesticides, irrigation, chemical fertilizers and all the rest can not be simply appropriated by socialists. The reason they are counter-productive is that they go against the basic principles of soil chemistry, which is a branch of science. This is not about gaia. It is about overcoming the metabolic rift, one of Marx's main preoccupations. Genetic engineering is not limited to agriculture -- it can be has been used for production of medicines (in Cuba as well). As for genetic engineering in agriculture, it may be very well used to decrease the need for pesticides, irrigation, chemical fertilizers. What's wrong with pursuing such an objective once we abolish capitalism build socialism? Farming without industrial inputs equipment tends to be very labor-intensive, often involving back-breaking labor for tilling, sowing, weeding, watering, harvesting. Peasants agricultural workers themselves would benefit from probably desire labor-saving technology in the absence of fear of unemployment. Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Wow. Genetic engineering of insulin using e coli goes against the basic principles of soil chemistry. No kidding. I didnt know that! Cheers, Ken Hanly No, it goes against the basic principles of ecology. Soil chemistry is necessary to understand ecological problems. Many soil chemists, on the other hand, have no trouble defending unscientific farming practices such as the green revolution. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Genetic engineering is not limited to agriculture -- it can be has been used for production of medicines (in Cuba as well). As for genetic engineering in agriculture, it may be very well used to decrease the need for pesticides, irrigation, chemical fertilizers. What's wrong with pursuing such an objective once we abolish capitalism build socialism? The problem with genetic engineering in agriculture (I leave medical uses aside) is that it opens the door to cataclysmic events in nature, despite the best intentions of humanity, even socialist humanity. This is the reason that atomic energy would be a terrible idea as well. Farming without industrial inputs equipment tends to be very labor-intensive, often involving back-breaking labor for tilling, sowing, weeding, watering, harvesting. Peasants agricultural workers themselves would benefit from probably desire labor-saving technology in the absence of fear of unemployment. It is not about tractors, etc. It is about chemicals, etc. Right now the big problem is monoculture, which is necessary for large scale agri-business, particularly exports in wheat, corn and other lucrative commodities. By reintegrating animals with food production, you move in the direction of resolving the metabolic rift. Furthermore, when cities are located next to sustainable food sources which makes the long-distance nature of industrial farming less essential. This is what some greens call bioregionalism. It makes sense as far as it goes. What it is lacking is an understanding of the enemy that confronts us and how to defeat it. For that socialism is required. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Farming without industrial inputs equipment tends to be very labor-intensive, often involving back-breaking labor for tilling, sowing, weeding, watering, harvesting. Speaking of what will be the nature of post-revolutionary agriculture seems on the whole to me to be an extreme case of trying to write recipes for the cookshops of the future. We simply can't know. As a sort of casual footnote to this point of Yoshie's I will mention that after 54+ years I still remember as one of the most horrible days of my life (worse than the day I broke my hip or the day I broke my wrist or any of the days in basic training or in a factory working a nine hour day or my experience of whooping cough or my first day in the polio ward) was a day I spent planting strawberries on a very primitive strawberry planter. There is a lot to be said for any and all efforts to get rid of pesticides. Applying them can be a rather miserable experience. I suspect most romanticizations of farming and getting close to the soil come from those who never had the misfortune of actually living close to the soil. Even from a long range perspective, eliminating the difference between city and country means industrializing (citifying) the country as well as 'ruralizing' the city. Carrol Peasants agricultural workers themselves would benefit from probably desire labor-saving technology in the absence of fear of unemployment. Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Even from a long range perspective, eliminating the difference between city and country means industrializing (citifying) the country as well as 'ruralizing' the city. Carrol Wrong. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
At 06:53 PM 06/26/2001 -0400, you wrote: Even from a long range perspective, eliminating the difference between city and country means industrializing (citifying) the country as well as 'ruralizing' the city. Carrol Wrong. this type of one-word dogmatic-seeming comment is a waste of band-width, exactly the kind of thing that pen-l should avoid. It doesn't in any way, shape, or form show why Carrol's view is wrong (if indeed it is). We have to have some kind of standards. BTW, I find it interesting that Louis is emulating Brad's style of meaningless response. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Jim Devine wrote: BTW, I find it interesting that Louis is emulating Brad's style of meaningless response. Though patronizing offers of reading lists are an innovation, don't you think? Doug
Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
So it's not clear whether the real limits of what the earth can produce cause the ascetic complex, or whether the ideology comes first, a priori, focusing attention on the limits rather than the possibilities. What ever became of the notion of planning -- figuring out how to accomplish social goals, especially with newer technologies?... Right new technologies. Let's clone blue-fin tuna. Louis Proyect Cuban socialists aren't opposed to genetic engineering per se, though I don't know if they like eatin' tuna doubt that they are sanguine about trends in corporate genetic engineering. :- * EJB Electronic Journal of Biotechnology Papers accepted from next issue of August 15th, 2001 Tilapia chromosomal growth hormone gene expression accelerates growth in transgenic zebrafish (Danio rerio) Reynold Morales, Mammalian Cell Genetics Division. Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. PO Box 6162, Havana, Cuba. María Teresa Herrera, Department of Animal and Human Biology. Faculty of Biology. University of Havana. 25th street No. 455, Havana 10400, Cuba. Amílcar Arenal, Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. PO Box 387, Camagüey 1, Cuba. Asterio Cruz, Division of Quality Control and Assurance. Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. PO Box 6162, Havana, Cuba. Oscar Hernández, Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. PO Box 387, Camagüey 1, Cuba. Rafael Pimentel, Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. PO Box 387, Camagüey 1, Cuba. Isabel Guillén, Mammalian Cell Genetics Division. Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. PO Box 6162, Havana, Cuba. Rebeca Martínez, Mammalian Cell Genetics Division. Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. PO Box 6162, Havana, Cuba. Mario P Estrada, Mammalian Cell Genetics Division. Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. PO Box 6162, Havana, Cuba. http://www.ejb.org/content/next/# * * EJB Electronic Journal of Biotechnology ISSN: 0717-3458 Vol.1 No.3, Issue of December 15, 1998. © 1998 by Universidad Católica de Valparaíso -- Chile INVITED REVIEW ARTICLE Agrobacterium tumefaciens: a natural tool for plant transformation Gustavo A. de la Riva* Laboratory of Environmental Biotechnology. Plant Division. Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB). P.O.Box 6162, 10600 Havana, Cuba Fax: (53-7) 218070, (53-7) 336008 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joel González-Cabrera Laboratory of Environmental Biotechnology. Plant Division. Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB). P.O.Box 6162, 10600 Havana, Cuba Fax: (53-7) 218070, (53-7) 336008 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Roberto Vázquez-Padrón Laboratory of Environmental Biotechnology. Plant Division. Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB). P.O.Box 6162, 10600 Havana, Cuba Fax: (53-7) 218070, (53-7) 336008 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Camilo Ayra-Pardo Laboratory of Environmental Biotechnology. Plant Division. Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB). P.O.Box 6162, 10600 Havana, Cuba Fax: (53-7) 218070, (53-7) 336008 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Corresponding author Keywords: Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Plant transformation, T-DNA Abstract Updated information of mechanisms for T-DNA transfer to plant cells by Agrobacterium tumefaciens is provided, focused on the role played by the different components of the virulence system. The general assessments for the establishment of efficient transformation protocols are discussed with an emphasis in the application of this methodology to monocotyledonous plants. Based on our own experience, we present the establishment of sugarcane transformation by A. tumefaciens as a model of application of this methodology to an important culture plant species, previously considered recalcitrant and inaccessible for this type of genetic manipulation. http://www.ejb.org/content/vol1/issue3/abstract/1/index.html * See also Tim Wheeler, Cuba Takes Lead in Genetic Engineering, Biotechnology, _People's Weekly World_ 14 December 1996 at http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/176.html. Yoshie
Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Yoshie: Cuban socialists aren't opposed to genetic engineering per se, though I don't know if they like eatin' tuna doubt that they are sanguine about trends in corporate genetic engineering. :- Cubans also use nuclear power. In any case, it does not make sense to extrapolate from the economic development model of a besieged island bereft of its main trading partner, except to say that you are always better off eliminating the profit motive--this despite the seething hostility of social democrats like Sam Farber who has written screeds against Cuba for New Politics. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch) Yoshie: Cuban socialists aren't opposed to genetic engineering per se, though I don't know if they like eatin' tuna doubt that they are sanguine about trends in corporate genetic engineering. :- Cubans also use nuclear power. In any case, it does not make sense to extrapolate from the economic development model of a besieged island bereft of its main trading partner, except to say that you are always better off eliminating the profit motive--this despite the seething hostility of social democrats like Sam Farber who has written screeds against Cuba for New Politics. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Yoshie: Cuban socialists aren't opposed to genetic engineering per se, though I don't know if they like eatin' tuna doubt that they are sanguine about trends in corporate genetic engineering. :- Cubans also use nuclear power. In any case, it does not make sense to extrapolate from the economic development model of a besieged island bereft of its main trading partner, except to say that you are always better off eliminating the profit motive--this despite the seething hostility of social democrats like Sam Farber who has written screeds against Cuba for New Politics. Louis Proyect I'm not presenting Cuba as a model, however attractive promising its combination of organic agriculture genetic engineering may be. I'm simply saying that one-dimensional opposition to genetic engineering ( science in general) is counter-productive. Genetic engineering can be a very useful tool in socialist hands, whereas in corporate hands it will be mainly used to further corporate monopoly of intellectual properties. More generally, the transition from capitalism to socialism (when such transition is possible) will not take place according to a blueprint of how to reconcile town countryside: What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges (at http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1875-Gotha/). For instance, from the points of view that focus on impacts on health environment, it would have been correct for socialists not to develop any nuclear power at all, much less nuclear weapons; however, nuclear weapons did probably help to defend socialist states while they lasted, though the burden of military production conscription -- more importantly social control that went with them -- contributed to their eventual downfall, in addition to economic difficulties. The same goes for the breakneck pace of industrialization in the USSR, without which it wouldn't have likely lasted either. With more freedom democracy than existed in the Socialist Bloc, they could have made production ecologically friendlier safer for workers than it was, but not to the extent that would make most environmentalists happy, I suspect. Yoshie
Re: Re: Cuban Genetic Engineering (was Jesse Lemisch)
Yoshie: I'm not presenting Cuba as a model, however attractive promising its combination of organic agriculture genetic engineering may be. I'm simply saying that one-dimensional opposition to genetic engineering ( science in general) is counter-productive. Genetic engineering can be a very useful tool in socialist hands, whereas in corporate hands it will be mainly used to further corporate monopoly of intellectual properties. We have different assessment about the value of industrial farming techniques. Genetic engineering, along with pesticides, irrigation, chemical fertilizers and all the rest can not be simply appropriated by socialists. The reason they are counter-productive is that they go against the basic principles of soil chemistry, which is a branch of science. This is not about gaia. It is about overcoming the metabolic rift, one of Marx's main preoccupations. More generally, the transition from capitalism to socialism (when such transition is possible) will not take place according to a blueprint of how to reconcile town countryside: What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges (at http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1875-Gotha/). I have no idea what this has to do with my original point. Marx's concerns with soil fertility did not lead to activism. Your quote above has to do with the transition from socialism to communism, not how to make a punchy leaflet. For instance, from the points of view that focus on impacts on health environment, it would have been correct for socialists not to develop any nuclear power at all, much less nuclear weapons; however, nuclear weapons did probably help to defend socialist states while they lasted, though the burden of military production conscription -- more importantly social control that went with them -- contributed to their eventual downfall, in addition to economic difficulties. I am mortified to hear this. As anybody knows, a principled Marxist position would have been for the USSR to use bow and arrows. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
