Re: Massive Starvation For World Feared Over Myanmar And Chile Catastrophes

On 2008-05-09 13:33 +0100, dusty allegedly wrote:
>
> My experience in Eastern Europe confirmed for me the very tangible
> benefits of central planning without consideration for profits, but
> for rational allocation of resources to achieve ends designed to serve
> the people and to elevate their tastes - in a whole number of areas. A
> large number of public officials involved in this planning were
> genuine servants of the people - actual public (civil) SERVANTS -
> unlike what has increasingly happened to this layer in the west - self
> serving neo-liberal ideologues. Urban planning is no exception to this
> - its "high" point being the locked gate/guarded condominium.
> 
> I think it is a mistake for Marxists to neglect discussion of these
> questions with the alibi that the future will answer them. Bull****.
> Marxists are the vectors of higher ideals and the modern world is
> seriously lacking in this and large sections of the people seek
> answers to an impasse. Look at urban planning - I dare say anywhere in
> the capitalist world - it is a nightmare based on the most philistine
> tastes and the most stinking motivations.
> 
> And democratically determined and sound population policies fall into
> the same logic.
> 
> To contradict Daniele, in a sense the world is NOT finite, if that
> word means what can be produced now is equal to what can be produced
> in the future. The use of superior production technology and the use
> of LESS and often cheaper, more abundant resources can actually result
> in the satisfaction of far more needs then was possible before. There
> is a lot more possibility for this than a static view would suggest.
> Take cereal crop production. Once weeds were controlled by cultivation
> requiring a massive use of fosssil fuels - now tiny amounts of
> chemicals replace this waste - and they pretty quickly disappear from
> the ecosystem. Just about all electronic goods we use today contain
> less and less raw materials and are much lighter and have far greater
> capacities and are much more reliable than they were 5 or 10 years ago
> - and their production requires a fraction of the energy and labour
> that it once did.

That's not what I meant by "finite". Of course the means of production
reach higher levels as technology, knowledge increases. And that's a
great thing, since it poses the eventuality of a communist society in
the first place.
The point is the world, atoms, matter, energy are finite. They're not
endless in numbers or amount. Though basic, I think that's an im****tant
point. There is only a limited amount of space on this planet. There is
only a limited amount of fossile and living resources. The energy itself
is limited on this planet, as the sun will eventually burn up. There is
no "perpetuum mobile"; there won't ever be a miraculous, unbounded
source of energy. There is a striking argument (going back, AFAIK, to
Epicure[1]) that the universe is endless. Indeed, physicists say the
universe is continually expanding. But as it expands, its contents are
diluted. Galaxies drift further and further apart. And at any rate,
time, OUR time, is finite. We only live a certain amount of years. Take
as many generations as you want, you'll still end up with a finite
number. Infinitesimal arithmetic is a bit of a scam.

As I said, it's a basic, but nevertheless crucial point. I'm not sure
the great majority of the people is truly, consciously aware of it.
After all, every now and then stories pop up in the media about another
inventor who's happened to stumble about a "revolutionary" way to create
energy out of thin air. I don't blame those people for trying, of course
-- it would be great if they could topple the whole fundament of
science. But chances are overwhelming they won't. And space is an even
more crucial point. Nobody has yet claimed they can create space at will.

So it's about this basic argumentation: things are limited. The more of
us there are, the less each one has. And this goes for ALL resources.
There's this popular argument, or implicit argument, among the
green/alternatives reactionaries in industrialised countries, that we
could solve the problem if we just were humble and all lived like
beggars, in caves, growing our own food etc. etc.. Not only is this
anti-humanist, but for part of it it is practically utter nonsense. Yet
it resonates quite strongly with a pretty large group of
(petit-bourgeois) people, among them environmentally-conscious people
who aren't the worst. And it has a certain seemingness to it.

Nevertheless it is utterly wrong, hence my insistence on space.
Individuals need space to live, space to grow their crops. Nevermind how
little, it is still more than nothing; and many more-than-nothing put
together can make up quite a lot. Too much a lot.
The main point about space, the question of comfort set aside, is about
nature. Where people live, beasts don't. Where people's crops grow,
rainforests don't.
And even if we all lived in huts and ate tofu exclusively, we still ****
a lot. **** needs some effort to be "digested" by the ecosystem, and too
much of it kills rivers.

Nevermind how high or low the standard of living is. Even at its bare
minimum, there still is a maximum to what the globe can sustain. Above
that maximum, people will die of famine. I think it's more human that
they rather be not born it the first place.

And that's only part of the whole argument, of course. The resources one
needs to lead a pleasant life are much more than the bare minimum.


[1] Epicure's argument that the cosmos is infinite ("Cosmos" is all that
can be perceived [directly or indirectly]):
If the cosmos is finite, then it must have a boundary. But a boundary is
merely what's between two things. To perceive a boundary, you must
perceive what's hither and what's yonder. If you can perceive what's
yonder, then it's part of the cosmos. Ergo it's not a boundary.
Consequently, the cosmos has no boundaries, it's infinite.



> His view about population is no doubt deeply felt but it often arises
> from ones own micro experiences in the very large cities which you
> rightly consider de-humanising.

No, that's not it. It rather stems from a more abstract political and
psychological reflection.
Given that the emergence of a revolutionary, in the humanist sense
revolutionary class in the proximate future isn't likely, it's rather
asking oneself: what has made people, from an individual point of view,
break with the system in history? How have revolutionary figures,
revolutionary scientists like Galileo, Darwin, Freud, or the great
humanists, or socialist or bourgeois thinkers and revolutionaries come
about? What does it take for such a character to emerge? What kind of
things sustained their effort? For instance, what philosophical thought
sustained Marx and Engels personally when they had yet to formulate or
perfect historical materialism?
Wealth, for one. Knowledge, education, science -- especially history.
Nature plays a big role, too: the ability to observe it, to study how it
works. For it is incorruptible. And time. Time for leisure, time to
think. For discussion, exchange, intercourse. The list goes on a bit.

Now all these are things which a healthily populist politician wouldn't
condemn. It might be part of a basic liberal program.
The trouble is, though, that all these things are impossible, in
practical terms, if there is an overpopulation. Should be quite obvious.
So nevermind what liberal or whatever people say, as long as they do not
touch upon the subject of population, everything else isn't worth squat.
And this goes for proletarian thinkers and politicians as well. There's
this issue between Marx/Engels and Malthus, for instance. I have yet to
read all bits about it, but judging from somewhat afar, it seems likely
to me they were wrong in some crucial aspects. Trouble is it has set a
precedent. I've heard a few Marxists address this, but not many yet.

-- 
DF.