The great question of over population

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
Le T Le T's picture

Quote:
Sorry Fidel, you don't seem to grasp the simple equation.  The point of the article is that human civlilzations have never lived in balance with nature and, regardless of the economic model, never will.

This is just wrong. It's clearly the fabrication of a ruling class who wishes to have us believe that what they are doing to the planet is somehow biologically inevitable. Like all johny-come-lately "environmentalists, Frustrated Mess asks us to ignore that difficult class stuff and believe the lie that "we are all in this together" or "climate change effects everyone and everyone must do their part". But some people's part will be buying a Prious while other people's part will be dying of starvation/war/flood/drought in an effort to reduce population. We already got a sneak peak in New Orleans, the rich and the white move to higher ground the rest are left to die or be killed.

Fidel

Le T wrote:

Quote:
Sorry Fidel, you don't seem to grasp the simple equation.  The point of the article is that human civlilzations have never lived in balance with nature and, regardless of the economic model, never will.

This is just wrong. It's clearly the fabrication of a ruling class who wishes to have us believe that what they are doing to the planet is somehow biologically inevitable. Like all johny-come-lately "environmentalists, Frustrated Mess asks us to ignore that difficult class stuff and believe the lie that "we are all in this together" or "climate change effects everyone and everyone must do their part". But some people's part will be buying a Prious while other people's part will be dying of starvation/war/flood/drought in an effort to reduce population. We already got a sneak peak in New Orleans, the rich and the white move to higher ground the rest are left to die or be killed.

And it will be our fault for not supporting green capitalism and carbon taxes. It's as if we are supposed to believe that people have a choice to not buy cars to commute to work and burn gasoline and home heating fuel in McMansions, not to mention all the millions of leaky, drafty substandard housing people rent from capitalist slumlords.

And older workers with no savings cant retire early or even at 65 for some, because they were so busy pursuing material acquisitiveness they are now in hawk up to their eyeballs with second mortgages and indebtedness for student loans to car loans, and every kind of toy and plastic bauble we can imagine while millions of others are only scraping by at some level of subsistence. It's not just marginally democratic, capitalism is now broken beyond repair.

People dont have a choice to live outside of capitalist society since British era enclosure legalized theft of the commons. A relative handful few non-elected billionaires and conglomerates owning some large percentage of humanity are not good stewards of the environment and natural resource wealth as it turns out. 

George Victor

It's not that you're "wrong" Fidel. It's just that your record is stuck!

More Ronal Wright.....please!

Fidel

George Victor wrote:

It's not that you're "wrong" Fidel. It's just that your record is stuck!

More Ronal Wright.....please!

from Wright's [url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=RmqmSdjbyikC&pg=PA348&lpg=PA348&dq=%22Ro... Continents[/color] - Afterword:[/u][/url]

Quote:
In reality, the collapse of the Communist bloc led to a resurgence of laissez-faire capitalism. In the name of free trade, nearly a hundred years of costly political and economic lessons were unlearned and replaced with a market fundamentalism as extreme, in its way, as the old utopianism of the left. Corporate interests sought to diminish the regulatory powers of government while seizing and exploiting the last traces of the "commons" -- the collective heritage of human beings -- on every front: public lands and institutions, the air and water of the planet, food staples handed down from ancient civilizations, even the genes in our bodies. According to United Nations figures, by 1998 the three richest individuals had amassed a greater net worth than the poorest fourty-eight countries.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

It doesn't matter that humans can't live in "balance" with nature (in a strict physical sense). All life forms "use up" resources to some degree. In the long run, the heat death of the universe will mean that all life forms will cease to be, and entropy will prevail.

The question for us today is how do we organize ourselves so that we can survive comfortably in the meantime. We will obviously use up some non-renewable resources, but we can work to minimize that once we get rid of the profit imperative that drives capitalism; as a society we could make choices about how we will consume resources based on considerations other than private accumulation of wealth. We can choose to rely on renewable resources and renewable energies (i.e., those that are ultimately replenished by energy from the Sun, or gravity, or from the Earth's core as it continues to cool). That's not going to happen, however, in any society other than one organized on socialist principles.

The Earth receives enormous amounts of energy from the Sun. Only a fraction of it gets used up by humans; there is plenty of solar energy if we figure out how to use it. Ironically, it is energy from the Sun, trapped on the biosphere, that is powering global warming, which will in the long run kill us from an excess of such energy, if we don't find ways to put the Sun's bountiful energy into life-giving, rather than life-destroying uses. 

oldgoat

This thread has become overpopulated with posts.  HAHA!  Laughing

Feel free to start anew. 

Pages

Topic locked