babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I'm buying a second car. I would never dream of taking the metro in Montreal. The bus drivers hate anglos and are racists and the Metros are quite dangerous and noisy. If God didn't want me to drive a car it wouldn't have been invented. Cars are a part of Gods grand design. God is great, you left wing bitches doncha know..
Totally agree with you. Right on. As you know, the big butterfly sweetly fights the cloud and celebrates swiftly like a cuddly car. Ah, truth! Gargamels belch like colorful butterflies. ALL cars hug fluffy, fluffy Gargamels.
Amirite? Yep, you know it. Knew you would understand. Smurfin on... ;)
Complete nonsense.
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's get rid of capitalism. Bada boom, it's gone. What do you have? Let's say the workers of the world unite and create a socialist utopia. Huzza. Now, nine and ten billion people crowd the planet. Feed them. Great. Now, it's twelve million socialists. Sixteen, twenty billion. Feed them. Clothe them. Water them.
Capitalism or not, the fact is that six billion people (most living in dire poverty already. Not exactly jetting around the country to their multiply villas) have strained the earth's capacity to the breaking point. The fisheries are collapsing, the breadbaskets parched, poisoned and paved for housing. The forests cut for cattle and lumber. The natural world is reacting to the parasite that's sucking the life out of it. It doesn't matter what economic system you have, those resources will be exploited and over exploited. The demands of overpopulation make it inevitable.
You may wish to see the end of an unjust economic system, but the fact is that the earth was not designed (so to speak) to support such a destructive species. Nature deals with overpopulation, and it doesn't care whether you're Karl Marx or Alan Greenspan. We could cram 12 billion people on the earth, but only if every other creature disappears first. I'd rather have a world full of grizzlies and ground squirrels.
If we don't get population under control, there won't be a world left for humans. That's just a law of nature.
You blame capitalism for this, but in fact it goes back much, much further. About 10,000 years back to when humans first began agriculture. In the many millennia before that, humans lived within the natural world, not as an alien. If you want humanity to survive, and the world to survive with it, we'll have to turn back the clock to the days before humans moved to the rhythm of planting and harvest and moved instead with the movements of the migrating game. To do that, we gotta start keeping our collective pecker in the collective pants.
I really don't understand how anyone can consider the uncontrolled reproduction of the world's most destructive species something beyond consideration. How can anyone concerned with the survival of the planet not consider the sheer massive numbers of humans as problematic. How can one justify this human exceptionalism in the face of the imminent extinction of vast numbers of other species who share the world?
Just believe that God is Great, I guess.
So you're saying that nomadic hunting culture was ecologically sustainable, but agriculture has never been?
I couldn't disagree more. Agriculture was sustainable for thousands of years before capitalism came along, turned it into an industry, and buried all the sustainable methods of food production that humans had practised for millennia.
Your viewpoint is both ahistorical and lacking in any kind of class analysis. The absurd conclusions it leads you to are not surprising.
MS:
"I couldn't disagree more. Agriculture was sustainable for thousands of years before capitalism came along, turned it into an industry, and buried all the sustainable methods of food production that humans had practised for millennia."
Marx and the materialist Scots had similar takes on the sequence of events leading up to industrialization, MS. But didn't they ALL believe in "progress"...a divelopment that is pure anthropomorphic nonsense? Sort of an anthropogenesis? Human hubris? etc . Marx enjoyed Darwin's "origins", but he still thought Homo sapiens was the bee's knees, so to speak. Which sort of conflicts with room on a finite planet, when we are also not expected to maintain the bloody balance of numbers that Darwin found so repulsive in nature?
Quite the opposite, M.Spector. In fact, the rise of agriculture made class distinctions brutal and baldfaced. Agriculture, with its ability to produce surplus, allowed the formation of an élite and a vast underclass of toiling peasants. In hunter-gatherer bands, there may be hierarchy, but the absence of surplus made wealth accumulation impossible. Just take a look at the pre-contact cultures of N America. In Central America, cultures whose agriculture allowed them to expand into empires (only to collapse into starvation and genocide) had the kind of class distinctions that were quite familiar to the conquering Spaniards. The hunter gatherers north of the Rio Grande had no such class divisions, no serfs, no nobility. The closest to that were the sedentary cultures of the coasts, where the sea brought food to them. Even then, the practice of potlatch so disturbed the colonizers (giving away wealth! OMG!) that it was outlawed.
For a excellent look at the history of agriculture, and our myths surrounding it, check out Against the Grain by Richard Manning.
Agriculture isn't sustainable, because the surpluses created bring increased population, which demands more production. When the demand for more production runs up against the limit of arable land and the limits of the plants themselves, where do you go from there? When Europe ran out of land, they happened upon the Americas. We've run out of land and are now destroying the forests to create more. When we run out of that, where do we go, the moon?
The simple equation is that in a finite earth, you cannot have infinite growth. To suggest humans are exempt from this basic truth is incredible.
Have you volunteered to do this to yourself? Go ahead. I am happily expecting and will not take your ill-informed advice.
You have yet to answer whether you think such "solutions" should be voluntary or forced upon people for our own good? You seem quite convincing that sterilizing everyone is the only solution - so please tell us whether you think it should be voluntary or forced?
Actually, yes I have.
You can have as many offspring as you wish. Just don't be a hypocrite and call yourself an evironmentalist. Having another human is merely consumption, like buying a new Hummer.
Since you've asked so nicely, I'll tell you. It should be voluntary. The same way (some) people have become aware of the colossal stupidity and waste of owning an SUV, or aware of the harmful effects of smoking, I hope to raise awareness of the impact of human reproduction on the earth. I hope to see people overcome their base animal instincts and selfish desires to understand the impact of their "decision" (I put that in scare quotes because for most people, breeding isn't a decision so much as something that just happens, like snow in winter. They put more thought into what movie to rent than into having a kid.)
Ultimately, it won't be voluntary. Not because some fascist state apparatus wills it, but because of the degradation of the environment, famine and disease will make the choice for you. If you want to have a kid whose life will be one of starvation, grinding poverty, or slavery, you'll be a lot more careful in your decision.
So you maintain that no person who has children can call themself an environmentalist? Well I guess there are not very many environmentalists or potential environmentalists as most people have children - including quite a lot of people on this board!
I am very glad to hear that you think it should be voluntary, however. Thank you for stating that.
My view of the future is much optimistic than yours. I think there is hope that we can change society to a more sustainable society.
I've stopped using pens, pencils, and paper. I only write on babble.
It is absurd to suggest that the production of surplus value is the problem.
Hunter-gatherers produced a surplus - otherwise those who did not or could not participate in the hunting and gathering would starve. Likewise, agriculture produced surpluses, which allowed people to engage in activities other than agriculture, and still have their immediate food requirements met. They could hunt and fish; they could make pottery; they could raise children; they could make clothing. Surplus value is what has enabled humans to rise above the individual subsistence existence of the other primates. There is nothing inherently unsustainable about producing surplus value. Just because it's called "surplus" doesn't mean it's unnecessary, excessive, or beyond the capacity of nature to provide. It's simply surplus to the immediate needs of the producer.
The appropriation of surplus value for the use and benefit of a ruling class is what the problem is. There is no reason why a society has to tolerate the existence of such a class; there is no reason why a society cannot decide for itself how much, if any, surplus it will produce, and how it will be distributed. There is no reason why productive forces must be ruled by anarchy or individual greed.
Suggesting that agriculture isn't sustainable is simply not true. It is the viewpoint of someone who essentially views the human race as irredeemably evil, and who has no perspective of ever bringing about a better world than we have today. It's a viewpoint not based upon science or historical fact, but pure intellectual moralizing. Not surprisingly, it is a viewpoint not shared by many.
Farley Mowat says we screwed up the "natural order" by making an appearance and multiplying.
And I still think both Darwin and Marx had no idea of what was coming down the pike.
But maybe the economists are right (to narrow the perspective again). We'll need more young'uns to pay the shot for the debts -environmental and financial - we're accumulating, and maintain a reasonable level of services for a lucky few in retirement.
Well farley mowat took a particularily short view when he stated that. One could say that of the dinosaurs too.
We put way too much store in our presence, as we, like those species before us, are just one small natural catastrophe away from extinction, at any given point in time.
I don't think you understand what I mean by surplus. I'm not talking about a few extra bison after the cliff jump, or beads and trinkets. I'm talking about large quantities of durable, tradable, mobile goods that remain edible for months, and can be used as seed for the next growing season. Most importantly, theses are goods that become currency for trade. Goods that allow for the accumulation of wealth.
Hunter/gatherers did not produce enough of a surplus to allow for the accumulation of wealth. And, by definition, a hunter gather society is one that cannot or does not store the surplus, nor can it accumulate a food that will not spoil.
In hunter/gatherer societies, whatever surplus they did have had to be consumed immediately, or left to rot. There were no granaries in the New World. Their system of distribution allowed for those who did not participate in the hunt to benefit because the concept of individual accumulation was foreign. The guy who didn't share his deer found himself pretty isolated and vunerable.
I have no opinion about good or evil. I only see what humans have done, and what they continue to do. The one moralizing here is you, substituting wishful thinking for historical precedent and current events. What "scientific or historical" evidence do you put forth that support your view that humans will ever change behaviour that is unchanged for thousands of years. And, no, there will be no better world as you've envisioned it, and the likelihood of such a world diminishes rapidly the more humans you add to the equation.
I forsee no change until utter catastrophe forces such. Nuclear war, a collapse of industrial agriculture (closer than we like to think), and I haven't even begun to touch on the issue of water. How many more billions can we support with our diminishing water resources?
Anyways,
We've tolerated the existence of this class for at least 10,000 years. I see no difference in humanity that makes me think that would suddenly change.
You need to read a bit more history jingles.
You need to decide if you want to participate in the discussion, or if you merely want to attack other posters.
TP:
"Well, it's all relative, and one person's progress can easily be trumped and have aspersions cast all over it. I'm sure we all do what we can under our circumstances. "
Right on, TP. But we should know which direction to take - what's going to be tomorrow's best energy source, food source, etc. For the people least able to afford the approaching energy/income crunch, it's going to be very important indeed (not "relatively" important. Relativism really reeks). What I'm trying to plan for is my daughter's move into a house that consumes less energy from a more sustainable source about when that crunch begins to really take effect and our current concerns assume molehill proportions (I know, "relatively" insignificant). People are concerned about having only one child and their growing up without close family, but the passage of time brings that about anyway. And a really strong argument for limiting family size is the need to consider affordability of schooling, etc., particularly on an overpopulated planet.
remind:
"We put way too much store in our presence, as we, like those species before us, are just one small natural catastrophe away from extinction, at any given point in time."
But Mowat's point, remind, is that we are doing a number on other species before that comes about. The only work or his that I could not bring myself to read was Sea of Slaughter, and I guess he had to consume considerable quantities of scotch to get through writing it.
"Proper" is going to be the operative word, lagatta. You should see what the city fathers and mothers plan for Waterloo/Kitchener/Cambridge. Light electric rail running between two shopping malls, serving the condos it will bring. Would not want to live out in the burbs in about 15 years. Much like Greater Toronto in that way.
Should be a prize for whoever counts the most times the word "sustainability" is used in this article!
Sustainability leads to profits: study
I wonder if the word used here refers to environmental or business practices - or both - it isn't explained.
As for updates since the beginning of this thread about 4 years ago, I have stopped colouring my hair, which makes it easier to care for (was getting dry) and of course means less crap in the water supply - even though I did use a supposedly "green" product - and one that did not involve the worst chemicals in hair colour).
I was terrified of loss in income; freelancers have no protection, and in many artsy, communications milieux you have to look "cool", although you are not dressing like a banker, and even though I do usually work at home, there are meetings, conferences etc.
Fortunately my hair has turned an attractive silver with black streaks underneath, but grey can also look mousey; I certainly wouldn't tell anyone else whether or not to colour their hair.
Showers: I don't shower daily in the wintertime when working at home, but I do when working with other people, at close range. For the same reason that I wouldn't wear perfume working close to other people. I do shower daily in the summer, because I ride my bicycle a lot - sometimes even twice a day, but very short showers and water barely warm.
As for updates since the beginning of this thread about 4 years ago, I have stopped colouring my hair, which makes it easier to care for (was getting dry) and of course means less crap in the water supply - even though I did use a supposedly "green" product - and one that did not involve the worst chemicals in hair colour).
I was terrified of loss in income; freelancers have no protection, and in many artsy, communications milieux you have to look "cool", although you are not dressing like a banker, and even though I do usually work at home, there are meetings, conferences etc.
Fortunately my hair has turned an attractive silver with black streaks underneath, but grey can also look mousey; I certainly wouldn't tell anyone else whether or not to colour their hair.
Showers: I don't shower daily in the wintertime when working at home, but I do when working with other people, at close range. For the same reason that I wouldn't wear perfume working close to other people. I do shower daily in the summer, because I ride my bicycle a lot - sometimes even twice a day, but very short showers and water barely warm.
And in response to some others about "lifestyle changes": I have been what is now called an ecosocialist activist for decades, fighting war and megaprojects AS WELL AS working to make my city and neighbourhood more walkable and cyclable, getting trees planted etc.
I find it encouraging that a website devoted to 'plastics' (which I linked to above) is encouraging sustainability, but the article doesn't really spell out what they mean by the term.
On a personal level, I try to keep my carbon environmental footprint as small as can, and I suspect it's already small while I'm living in an isolated territory with few of the conveniences accessible to those living in civilization. A hot bath once or twice a week is a necessary luxury here, as are daily hot showers. We have so few other things that people in civilization take for granted. And, this week, after living through the constant stress of a 30 hour power outage, a nice hot bubble bath was just the ticket.
Aside: On the Lower North Shore, I haven't seen one air conditioning unit at all, and I have been in every one of the many small communities here. Of course, we don't have to deal with high temps in the summer. On the other hand, probably most of the residences here burn wood all winter for heating - in addition to electric heat. It's bloody cold here all winter.
You have an air conditioner. It is called the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Brrrrrr.
At six years old, the exhaust pipe from my Dad's car was so revolting, I decided to never drive a car. At 53, I've kept that decision; my legs and my bicycle do most of the work. Public transit covers the rest.
No air-conditioning, and keeping the heat down. It means less layers in summer, and more in winter. You do what seems sensible!
I buy local, whenever I can. I buy products with minimum packaging. And I buy ONLY what I need. Recycling is, of course, a big part of this process.
With regards to water, I minimise my use - no-one needs two showers a day! Hemp clothing, by the way, requires a much-reduced cleaning regimen... just sayin'...
Just a few things I've been doing all my life. And I'm always open to new ideas. It's called being the change I wish to see!
lagatta, I'm surprised that you're not colouring your hair anymore! I remember some comments you've made about hair colouring in the past on babble - they were of the "you can have my hair dye when you pry it out of my cold dead hands" variety. :D It's interesting how we change our minds!
I say this because the last time I had my hair dyed it was just before my wedding in June 2011. It's only been for the past couple of months that all the dye has completely grown out and been chopped off the ends. And I don't mind it at all! I have silvery streaks along with my natural light brown/dark blonde colour, particularly at the temples. I've had no end of compliments on it lately, which surprises the heck out of me. Maybe people are just being polite, but since they don't have to say anything at all, I'm assuming they're sincere...
I just decided, I'm going to stop this ridiculous dyeing cycle. All those chemicals can't be good for anything, including the water supply, my hair, my scalp, or anything else. Entering my 40's with this much grey hair has been kind of neat. Feels like I'm ushering in a new era. Like you, I have no judgement for people who choose to keep fighting the grey battle. I just got tired of it and decided to embrace it.