Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)
Growth of 0% is fine, but unfoprtunately it's not happening, especially in the US, where the population may rise to 500mn by 2050 and not stop there, either. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList - Original Message - From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 11:32 PM Subject: [PEN-L:20981] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd) > >sustainable than the U.S. But is a growth rate of 0 low enough? Could > >we feed and house 6 billion people if we all spent our time searching > >for "Jack-in-the-Pulpits or fishing for pickerel"? That kind of rural > >leisure is available to someone living in a rich country; in a poor > >country, you'd be more likely tilling the soil or grinding corn from > >dawn til dusk. These apocalpytic imaginings aren't serious politics, > >they're just lurid fantasies. > > > >Doug > > My dear chap, I was trying to respond to your question about the > existential authenticity of my living on the Upper East Side 3 blocks from > Woody Allen, while defending a simple life close to nature. Now you've > switched gears in the most underhanded fashion and talk about > overpopulation, a legitimate topic of social science rather than pop > psychology. I ought to put a hungry wolverine in your knickers. > > Louis Proyect > Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)
>sustainable than the U.S. But is a growth rate of 0 low enough? Could >we feed and house 6 billion people if we all spent our time searching >for "Jack-in-the-Pulpits or fishing for pickerel"? That kind of rural >leisure is available to someone living in a rich country; in a poor >country, you'd be more likely tilling the soil or grinding corn from >dawn til dusk. These apocalpytic imaginings aren't serious politics, >they're just lurid fantasies. > >Doug My dear chap, I was trying to respond to your question about the existential authenticity of my living on the Upper East Side 3 blocks from Woody Allen, while defending a simple life close to nature. Now you've switched gears in the most underhanded fashion and talk about overpopulation, a legitimate topic of social science rather than pop psychology. I ought to put a hungry wolverine in your knickers. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)
Doug: >Compared to many other countries, the U.S. has a version of this, >only we call it suburban sprawl. It's ugly, and extremely dependent >on fossil fuels. How would the post-revolutionary world be different >from suburbia? The US does not have "a version of this". When you were growing up in NJ, Doug, the meat that was purchased at your supermarket came from a thousand miles away. Meanwhile, the grain used to feed the livestock came from another thousand miles away. This is the problem: separation of farming from urban populations. Suburbia is simply separation of a portion of urban populations to sub-urban populations. >It's weird to hear this coming from someone who lives & works on >Manhattan Island, but I'll leave that aside for now, along with my >suspicion that a lot of this is the fantasy of an exhausted and >alienated urbanite. Actually, I find NYC utterly repulsive. My happiest days were spent in the countryside. I grew up in a town of 500 and spent lots of time in the woods searching for Jack-in-the-Pulpits or fishing for pickerel. I spent 5 days in Montana in June and after seeing Glacier National Park, I understand better why Indians resisted being assimilated. > >I don't see how you can achieve a William Morris-y arts & crafts >lifestyle with a global population of 6 billion people. Maybe I'm >wrong. If I'm not wrong, what is the ideal population, and what will >happen to all the surplus billions? Well, yes, you're wrong. The first thing that happens when people are no longer feel economically vulnerable is that they stop having so many babies. You can read about this in "The Myth of Population Control" by Mahmood Mamdani (MR Press.) Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)
I just read that NY City is the largest consumer of pesticides in the state. Now that you have that part of the agricultural system, may the rest won't be too hard. Doug Henwood wrote: > > It's weird to hear this coming from someone who lives & works on > Manhattan Island, but I'll leave that aside for now, along with my > suspicion that a lot of this is the fantasy of an exhausted and > alienated urbanite. > > I don't see how you can achieve a William Morris-y arts & crafts > lifestyle with a global population of 6 billion people. Maybe I'm > wrong. If I'm not wrong, what is the ideal population, and what will > happen to all the surplus billions? > > Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)
>Hmm, ok, maybe I can get an answer from you: what changes in >industrial and agricultural practices, energy sources, the build >environment, living arrangements, etc., will occur under socialism >that will avoid the eco-catastrophe capitalism supposedly has in >store for us. It's not just a matter of invoking the words "socialist >revolution" along the lines of "Presto Change-o," is it? > >Doug The key concept is "metabolic". Although Marx dwelled on the rift between farming and the natural fertilizers, which had caused a "metabolic rift" responsible for soil sterility, raw sewage in the cities, etc., the concept of metabolism extends to energy consumption and industrial production as well. I have discussed the question of energy and global warming with Foster frequently and he agrees that in order to complete a "unified field" Marxist-ecological analysis initiated by Marx, it would have to include energy consumption as well. The only methdology that can integrate all these questions holistically is a materialism of the kind that Engels took a stab at in "Dialectics of Nature". Further efforts in this direction can be found in Bebel's "Woman Under Socialism" and Bukharin's "Philosophical Arabesques". It is covered in depth in Foster's "Marx's Ecology". Key to solving the ecological crisis is eliminating the town and countryside duality. When I raised this question in the past on PEN-L, it was heartily rejected as I expected it would be. The rejection is based on life-style considerations, but never engaged the science which underpinned Marx's demand in the CM: "Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country." This is a precondition for resolving the ecological crisis around the questions posed by Marx in V. 3 of Capital, which were also addressed by soil chemist Von Liebeg. This crisis never went away, even after the introduction of chemical fertilizers. They just postponed the day of reckoning. The disappearance of fossil-based fuels is a whole other story. My guess is that a radically different kind of life-style will be necessary in the future for the survival of humanity. I don't think that this will be palatable to many of the people who post regularly to PEN-L, who seem rather committed to the urban, consumerist life-style found in the imperialist centers. For those of us who have read and admired William Morris, these alternative prospects might seem more attractive. I think that people will democratically elect a new life-style based on the premise of greatly expanded leisure time, less regimentation, decreased risks to health and closeness to nature. Of course some socialists will continue to see socialism as an extension of capitalist civilization with the working class at the steering wheel instead of the bourgeoisie. But that's been a problem for Marxism since the 19th century. For an idea of what Cuban Marxists have been experimenting with in this vein, consider the following: The following article appears in the latest issue of Green Left Weekly (http://www.greenleft.org.au), Australia's radical newspaper. * Cubans discuss environmental sustainability What can environmentalists learn from Cuba, a country that still flirts with nuclear power, is besieged by many environmental problems typical of the Third World, and lags behind countries like Denmark and Holland on issues like recycling, green taxes, alternative energy and eco-labelling? During a recent visit to ``the fairest island ever revealed to human eyes'' (as Christopher Columbus described Cuba), I searched for the answer. I wanted to understand the impact of the ``Special Period in Time of Peace'' -- the emergency program to save the socialist revolution after the collapse of the Soviet bloc. After talking to environmental scientists, administrators and activists, and reading recent Cuban writings on ecology, it is clear that there is a lot of debate about how to reverse environmental degradation. It is also obvious that few Third World countries can match the legislative, planning and educational efforts that Cuba is applying in its battle for environmental sustainability. Moreover, few environmental movements can match Cuba's revolutionaries in government, scientific institutions, education system and emerging non-government organisations in their passion and dedication to the environmental cause. For centuries, Cuba's natural resources and beauty were sacrificed to Spanish colonial landowners and, later, US corporations. In the early 1800s, the great Prussian geographer Alexander von Humboldt was already lamenting the destruction of Cuba's native forests. In his book Dialectics of Nature, Frederick Engels -- Karl Marx's collaborator -- could find no better example of the impact of capitalist greed on the ecosphere than th
Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)
Karl & Fred wrote: >"Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual >abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable >distribution of the populace over the country." Compared to many other countries, the U.S. has a version of this, only we call it suburban sprawl. It's ugly, and extremely dependent on fossil fuels. How would the post-revolutionary world be different from suburbia? Louis Proyect wrote: >The disappearance of fossil-based fuels is a whole other story. My guess is >that a radically different kind of life-style will be necessary in the >future for the survival of humanity. I don't think that this will be >palatable to many of the people who post regularly to PEN-L, who seem >rather committed to the urban, consumerist life-style found in the >imperialist centers. For those of us who have read and admired William >Morris, these alternative prospects might seem more attractive. I think >that people will democratically elect a new life-style based on the premise >of greatly expanded leisure time, less regimentation, decreased risks to >health and closeness to nature. Of course some socialists will continue to >see socialism as an extension of capitalist civilization with the working >class at the steering wheel instead of the bourgeoisie. But that's been a >problem for Marxism since the 19th century. It's weird to hear this coming from someone who lives & works on Manhattan Island, but I'll leave that aside for now, along with my suspicion that a lot of this is the fantasy of an exhausted and alienated urbanite. I don't see how you can achieve a William Morris-y arts & crafts lifestyle with a global population of 6 billion people. Maybe I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, what is the ideal population, and what will happen to all the surplus billions? Doug
