On population, modernization and enviromentalism:
>The problem with the formula is that if overemphasizes population. This
is because people like Ehrlich believe people are a cancer. It is true
that higher levels of technological development under capitalism, because
of the emphasis on consumption, cause resource depletion and environmental
degradation. Capitalism is incompatible with long-term human existence
(not to mention the existence of other species). But people are not the
problem. Proponents of population control often note that even though
North Americans consume more than the numbers of, say, Indians, the latter
have a roughly equivalent environmental impact because there are "so many
more of them." This is supposed on the basis that (a) the number of North
American consumers is relevant and (b) that the relative difference in
consumption is in the range of 3-4 fold. But (a) is unimportant: it is not
the number of consumers but what and how much they consume. And (b) is
important only because correcting the perception yields a difference of
around 100 fold. So, whereas India has roughly four times the population
as the US, per capita consumption is 100 times greater in the US. You do
the math.
>One of the more interesting controversies is the neoimperialist position
(advanced by some self-proclaimed Marxists, but more typically advanced by
TNCs operating through various spokespersons) that attempts to reign in
industrialization in the periphery by environmentalists are racist. This
approach is racist, they claim, because do-gooder Western "liberals"
desire to keep the periphery at a low level of development to keep them
subordinated to the core, or at least this is the effect of their
environmental wacko-ism.
> - First, the claim assumes the modernization thesis that what is
required
for "third world" development is "advanced technology" of the "West" to
make the periphery like the core, and therefore technology transfers and
industrialization are necessary to raise consumption levels and create the
stage through to core status (they do not use this language of
"core-periphery" of course). Translation: the periphery needs more
external capitalist firms operating in their countries. This rhetoric is
accompanied by the rhetoric of democratization. The underlying premise is
obviously a eurocentric one where what is right for the world is what
was/is right for the "West."
> - Second, it ignores the central question of what has been right about
the high consumption levels in the "West." I am no luddite, but unbridled
industrial organization of the "West" under capitalism has been
devastating for the world. The one-quarter of the world's population who
lives in the "civilized" quarters of world consume between 60-90 percent
of the world energy, food, and other resources. The states in the "West,"
pushed by popular forces, have managed to regulate industry to a certain
extent, but progressive forces are everywhere losing the battle of reform,
and in any case the "West" is burning up the world.
> - Third, the desire to help the people of the "third world" by raising
their level of technological development is really a desire by TNCs to
reduce to a negligible level any restrictions on their ability to deplete
resources and pollute the environment of the periphery for the sake of the
consumption patterns developed by corporations in and for the "West."
Industrialization in the periphery will lead to the further
underdevelopment of the periphery. Global corporations are ruthless in
their tactics to secure this. TNCs organize press conferences and other
propaganda that feature the leaders of peripheral governments (puppets of
the core) begging the world community for exemption from global
environmental protection measures so that they can "develop like the
West." Would want to deny them this?
>- Fourth, accompanying the TNC strategy is the theory that industrial
development reduces population growth ("economic development is best birth
control measure" a professor once told me). Then proponents of the view
lump people like me in with the population control crowd and make us
appear like hypocrites denying the people the only humane solution to
population reduction, rather forcing them to resort to oppressive birth
control regimes. But the problem is not people but the global distribution
of resources. And to redistribute wealth based on a keynesian scheme that
raises global consumption only makes the problem worse. Global
redistribution of wealth must occur in the context of world socialist
transformation.
>In the final analysis, the discourse being pursued is part of the
globalization strategy.
>Suggestion for a bumper sticker:
Don't Eliminate "Problem People"
Eliminate the People's Problems!
>Andrew Austin
Knoxville, TN
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Roslyn Bologh wrote:
>Does this formula I=PCT mean what I think it does: that the larger the
>population, and the higher the consumption level, and the higher the level
>of technology the worse it is for the environment? If so, this is a
>dangerous, reactionary position.
