[Marxism] A modest proposal [was: RE: The Earth as a whole]

[S. Artesian]

Nothing wrong with supplying luxury and low consumption, but there is more 
than just some thing wrong with declaring "there are too many people."  Were 
there too many in 1970 when the population was half what it was today?  Were 
there too many people in the fSU leading to its collapse and the decline in 
life expectancies?  Were there too many people in the fSU before the 
collapse, leading to the devastation of areas surrounding the petroleum 
producing sites?

Did the decline in living standards anywhere in the world during the 1980s 
and 1990s have anything to do with excess population growth, or was it the 
result of "structural adjustments" to economies; adjustments dictated by the 
most powerful capitalist countries and their agents?  Did the resurgence in 
malaria rates in El Salvador in the 1970s have to do with increased 
population, or growing landlessness, forcing rural producers off their land 
and into poorer performaing areas, with less medical care, less vector 
targeted programs, poorer housing (no screens)? And was the destruction of 
the natural eco-systems in those less productive areas the result of 
overpopulation or the result of that same economy?  How about the explosion 
of malaria rates in Zambia in the 80s and 90s?

What caused the poverty, causes the poverty?  What caused the destruction of 
the areas of Amazon rain forest areas in Brazil in the 1970s and 80s, 
overpopulation or deliberate social policies that increased concentration of 
wealth and income and increased landlessness, driving greater numbers of 
people into the rainforest areas?

What is more destructive to the environment?  Subsistence or surplus?

There is no such thing as "too many people," and to say that is not to say 
that the earth can sustain infinite numbers of people at infintely expanding 
levels of consumption.  It is to say that we are not talking about infinite 
numbers and infinite increases in consumption.  It is to say nobody knows 
what the absolute number is that the earth can sustain.  It is to say that 
we are not confronting the limits of nature, of sustainability in the 
environment; we are confronting the limits of capital to provide anything 
other than destruction to environment and population.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barry Brooks" <durable at earthlink.net>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] A modest proposal [was: RE: The Earth as a whole]


> Aaron Aarons wrote:
>>> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:54:51 -0500
>>> From: "Ruthless Critic of All that Exists" 
>>> <ok.president+marxml at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Joaquin Bustelo <jbustelo at gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What it CANNOT survive is the ecological footprint of the much less 
>>>> than one
>>>> billion denizens of the white countries.
>>> Then, by this logic, immigration into these countries from the third
>>> world should be halted, as, within two or three generations,  the
>>> immigrants' consumption approaches that of the denizens of these
>>> countries...
>>
>> This, of course, was the logic of the anti-immigration activists who 
>> tried to take over the Sierra Club a few years ago. It's based on the 
>> idea that residents of the imperialist countries will continue to consume 
>> at the same high rate relative to residents of the imperialized 
>> countries. But our job, or at least one of our major jobs, is to change 
>> that. One part of changing that is to stop the "immigration" of goods and 
>> resources into the United States and other imperialist centers.
>>
>> I think it's also important, though, to recognize and deal with the 
>> inequality WITHIN countries. Given the fact that most people live in poor 
>> countries, the number of rich chupaplanetas ;-) in the latter may already 
>> be larger than the number in the U.S., if not in the imperialist 
>> countries as a whole. People in the richest 10% or so of the world's 
>> population are the problem wherever they live.
>>
>
>
> High consumption and excess population are both problems. The
> question of which is worse is worse than useless.
>
> Our extreme concentration of wealth, the distribution problem, is
> unfair, cruel, and worst of all it makes economic growth necessary
> since displaced workers are still wage dependent. Planet plunder is
> justified because we need to make jobs.
>
> I guess we can just ignore that it is possible to provide luxury with
> low consumption in a SSE. I don't know why THE main answer has few 
> friends.
>
> Barry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net