Why all the population control hate?

282 posts / 0 new
Last post
LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 20 2011 07:43
thecroydonian wrote:
One negative, I would say that it is not strictly necessary sometimes to use communist methods to define and understand the problems of science. You can use scientific methods. This is because science constantly tries to prove itself wrong, and tries to be as objective as is possible through double blind testing etc...I hope I haven't just fucked up our nice and tidy complete agreement

My advice here, croy, is to give some thought to whether 'scientific methods' are objective and separate in some way from 'science' itself. You're clearly aware of some of the issues, as your post goes on to make clear, and some reading on the philosophy of science will broaden your knowledge.

piter wrote:
can't answer for Lbird but I think he's more saying that having the physical debate now is not the point as long as we don't change social relations which is the priority. and that when social relations are changed we'll have many more solution to deal with the problem if problem there is (or will be).

Yes, piter has put his finger on my position, with one amendment: 'the physical debate is not the point'.

tastybrain wrote:
Humans are the only animal with the capacity to alter (and it seems destroy) our environment to the extent we are doing. This is legitimate grounds for separating humans from nature for analytic purposes.

We've already covered this: if, logically, 'altering and destroying our environment' is the problem, then 'nature' itself is a much bigger problem than 'humanity'.

Now, we can ignore this point, in which case, strangely enough for those keen to focus on 'nature and its limits' at the expense of 'humans and their capacity to change nature', the problem becomes 'humanity' as a physical presence, rather than a problem with the present 'human social relationships' and how they hinder nature's ability to 'alter and destroy our environment' in our favour, in a conscious way.

Humans are natural consciousness. And if we have more humans, we have more productive powers. Nature's ability to think and change itself is developed.

tastybrain wrote:
But there's no reason it can't be a 'population crisis' CAUSED by a 'poverty crisis'.

Well, there is a reason. The fact that it's not true.

There is no 'population crisis'.

There is only a 'poverty crisis'.

The 'poverty crisis' is being CAUSED by 'socio-economic crisis'.

piter alludes to this position:

piter wrote:
anyway I don't think we are up to this point, and not sure that we will be (especially if we destroy capitalism).

This is a philosophical (and thus a political) issue: is the problem 'natural' or 'social'?

In our society, at this time, given our development, given our abilities, the issue is a 'social' issue, not a 'natural' one.

Here, I agree with tastybrain: "This is legitimate grounds for separating humans from nature for analytic purposes". But tastybrain seems to draw different philosophical conclusions from our agreement.

What really needs discussing, in my opinion, is why one group of us focus on 'physical' humanity, whilst the other focuses on 'social' humanity.

My position is that it is a 'social' problem now, and that furthermore if it ever became a 'physical' problem in the future, our 'physicality' can choose then to deal with it.

slothjabber
Offline
Joined: 1-08-06
Sep 20 2011 08:30

Well, I apologise for insulting you LBird.

Despite everything, I agree with you. I agree that:

1 - any conception of a 'population crisis' at present is a social (organisational) not a physical problem;

2 - greater human populations should be a source of greater creative power to positively transform the world;

3 - the potential for an expanded human population to reach the physical limits of world resources is not something that we need to be particularly concerned about at present.

LBird wrote:
...

What really needs discussing, in my opinion, is why one group of us focus on 'physical' humanity, whilst the other focuses on 'social' humanity.

My position is that it is a 'social' problem now, and that furthermore if it ever became a 'physical' problem in the future, our 'physicality' can choose then to deal with it.

I'm quite happy to discuss this. I started trying to get you and Tojiah speaking the same language because it seemed that you were denying the possibility of any "...'physical' problem in the future..." which I don't think is a valid position.

As it seems your position is not that there are no physical limits to population size, resource use etc, but merely that these potential physical limits are functionally irrelevant at present and will be for some considerable time to come, and that the problems facing humanity which seem to be 'physical limits' are rather social barriers, then I really don't have any argument with you at all.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 20 2011 09:27
slothjabber wrote:
Well, I apologise for insulting you LBird.

Thanks, mate. It takes a good Communist to take stock of a debate, change their mind and apologise. You're providing an excellent model for us all to follow, and I can only hope that I have your moral courage the next time I'm found out to be mistaken.

FWIW, the format of posts on the internet often lead to misunderstandings, caused by ill-thought out positions, mis-readings, 'strawmanning', misunderstandings and the immediate, interactive nature of debates. I often re-read my posts and realise that they contain plenty of scope for misunderstanding, due to my desire to write something with the profundity of forty years' work in Capital, but in forty seconds' slap-dash in a post. I think the best we can achieve is not profundity, but suggestiveness. We should all try to give each other the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarifications, etc. After all, were supposed to be Communists, aspiring to run the world, not childish bickerers.

Well, here's my chance to try to emulate you, mate!

I'm guilty of being a childish bickerer, and I apologise to everyone. My only defence is enthusiasm, I think. Oh yeah, and the natural human propensity for domination and a 'will to power'...

[Experience has taught me, and an afterthought compels me, to say that the last bit was a joke, before we get into 'LBird is a Nietzschean!' accusations, and I respond like a prick by calling someone a 'dickhead'.]

slothjabber wrote:
As it seems your position is not that there are no physical limits to population size, resource use etc, but merely that these potential physical limits are functionally irrelevant at present and will be for some considerable time to come, and that the problems facing humanity which seem to be 'physical limits' are rather social barriers, then I really don't have any argument with you at all.

Yeah, I don't think we have any argument between us, either.

Again, I think a statement that 'the problem is a social one, not a physical one; it's not human population, but capitalist social relations that is the issue' should be reiterated, and those who disagree can now make plain the basis of their disagreement with that statement.

Once again, comradely thanks, slothjabber.

PS. that Catholic brainwashing came in useful again for me, eh? Confess my sins, and I'm clean again! Moral high-ground, here I come!

yourmum
Offline
Joined: 9-03-10
Sep 20 2011 10:23

planet earth is too small for mankind thats why we will be EVERYWHERE in the time to come. theres also the matter of planet earth being quite insecure in the long run, the sun will explode eventually and other shit with devastating effect might happen (plenty of shit going on in the universe). there is no alternative to colonizing the universe if the species wants to survive. so gogo homo sapiens. as for the limits of planet earth itself theres a lot of cool science fiction moves where the whole world is built over to 1 big city 300 floors deep and people still get along..

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 20 2011 11:49

slothjabber (and anyone else who's vaguely interested), I feel compelled to give some account of my philosophical manoeuvres on this thread.

I think that the best way of explaining this is by analogy. If we replace ‘population’ with ‘double-decker London buses’, we get the following exchange.

***********
It's a problem that there are too many ddlb on this planet.

LBird: no, there aren’t.

What? Do you believe that any amount of ddlb can be built?

LBird: that’s not the problem.

So, you’re arguing that there’s not a finite capacity on this planet for ddlb?

LBird: it doesn’t matter.

What if there were wall-to-wall ddld spread right across the entire Earth, with no room to move between them? I suppose you’d say ‘Live on their roofs!’, eh, LBird?’

LBird: Why are you talking about ddlb?

Because they’re a problem.

LBird: Why are ddlb a problem? Who suggests ddlb are a problem? Who’d benefit from us arguing over ddlb?

Look, there is a nature-imposed capacity for ddlb on this Earth. It’s obvious to anyone who doesn’t use your blinkered, ideological approach. Why are you so blind, LBird?

*********

Of course, my opponents actually are correct. There is a limit for ddlb on this planet.

But..

What if we agree with them? Are they really now going to say:

“Yeah, we agree with you, LBird. It’s fuck-all to do with ddlb, it’s really about society, we were just arguing an abstract point, for pointless reasons, and all this bickering could have been avoided, if only you’d’ve admitted at the start that the Earth has a finite capacity for ddlb. Right, now, let’s move onto the real issue, ‘social relations’.”

No, I don’t think so.

I think that the people arguing that ‘population’ is the problem, really do believe that, as they maintain, ‘population’ is the problem, and not ‘social relations’. Otherwise, why the fuck keep bangin’ on about ‘population’?

I think that they are mistaken to think it’s about ‘population’, and furthermore that any concession to them along the lines that ‘OK, there is a theoretical limit’ will only encourage them.

It’s better, for the purposes of our position, to maintain that there’s unlimited space for double-decker London buses, and force the focus onto the real problem!

Cyclists!

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Sep 20 2011 11:50
Quote:
Tojiah wrote:
I'm sorry, I thought I may have been misrepresenting your view, but if you really believe that reality is so dependent upon human relationships, to the point where basic problems such as the finite amount of space on Earth, the amount of resources required by a human being to survive, etc, are completely plastic, then your theory of reality diverges from mine to the point that we do not have grounds to discuss any political philosophy, because politics happens in the real world, which you clearly do not accept as in any way a constraint - the mere word being a clear indicator to you of conservatism. To me it seems, on the contrary, that it is you who is buried in conservatism, namely the conservatism of capitalist perpetual growth and limits only being set by the hero’s` imagination. Indeed, if you do not believe that there is any natural constraint, then why should capitalism ever fail? Why should we ever resist it? It is within our power to sustain unlimited expansion!
Quote:
LBird wrote:
Again, I think a statement that 'the problem is a social one, not a physical one; it's not human population, but capitalist social relations that is the issue' should be reiterated, and those who disagree can now make plain the basis of their disagreement with that statement.

I find I cannot disagree with ether the above statements. I feel that they describe two ways of looking at the same problem. Both are in a sense correct, in as far as neither one ‘cancels out’ the other, therefore neither one is a panoptic.

Tojiah views may be pessimistic (I don’t see them as conservative) describing the restrains that material conditions at present impose on humans. However LBird’s position sounds a bit like, ‘Well don’t worry about present day perceptions; everything will be all right in the sweet bye and bye.’ Sorry I know I am not doing ether of you justice with these caricatures.

That the source of any population problem is poverty, and the key to this is the eradication of poverty and a woman’s right to control her own fertility; I do not think is a bone of contention between you.

CRUD’s post #76 and ocelot’s #79, I thought were both spot on.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 20 2011 13:03
Auld-bod wrote:
I find I cannot disagree with ether the above statements.

But, Auld-bod, Tojiah holds to the 'population' line, whereas I hold to the 'social relations' line. They are incompatible. One has to choose which ideological position to support.

But then you go on to praise ocelot for their statement, which explicitly makes this 'ideological' dimension to the debate quite clear:

ocelot, post #79, wrote:
In that context, framing the issue as the "population crisis" rather than the "poverty crisis" is ideologically laden.

But then you state:

Auld-bod wrote:
That the source of any population problem is poverty...

This is incorrect.

There is no 'population problem'. That's fundamentally what this discussion is revolving around, how we define our 'problem'.

One, as you frame it, is: 'the source of any population problem is poverty'.

The other is: 'the source of any poverty problem is social relations'.

For the second, it's fuck-all to do with a 'population' problem. Think 'double-decker London buses', mate.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Sep 20 2011 13:24

Again, LBird, you are misrepresenting my "line". My "line" is that we have limited both by social relations, which are under potential human control, and natural constraints, which are not under human control - they need to be dealt with.

My point with the whole physical limitation business, which you missed in your crusade to self-congratulate on your amazing philosophical acumen, was not that that in itself was the limit we need to worry about now, but that it exemplifies that there are limits that are not under our control. Hence "loose" upper limit. The actual constraints, taking into account human physiology, ecology, limits on production efficiencies, amounts of arable land, etc, are more immediate, but harder for me to explain.

It's called argumentum ad absurdum, and you indeed took it to the absurd without reservation. If that's a habit of yours, don't be surprised if sensible people give up on talking to you. Then again, maybe that's the way you declare victory.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Sep 20 2011 13:27

Oh dear, it's probably not the first time I've held two opposing views at the same time. I'll have to think about it and get back to you.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 20 2011 14:04
Tojiah wrote:
My point with the whole physical limitation business, which you missed in your crusade to self-congratulate on your amazing philosophical acumen...

Hmmm... so it's my fault for pointing out the shortcomings of your position?

I think I prefer slothjabber's more dignified stance.

Tojiah wrote:
My "line" is that we have limited both by social relations, which are under potential human control, and natural constraints, which are not under human control - they need to be dealt with.

Why bring up the equivalent of 'double-decker London buses' into your argument? Why not accept that 'poverty' (social 'limitations', not natural 'limitations') is caused by society, not nature?

Tojiah wrote:
...was not that that in itself was the limit we need to worry about now, but that it exemplifies that there are limits that are not under our control. Hence "loose" upper limit.

If there is this 'loose limit', that 'we need not worry about now' (a bit like being overwhelmed by the theoretical limit of 'double-decker London buses'), why mention it?

If I concede that you're right, and that there are all sorts of 'loose upper material limits', like planetary space for double-decker London buses, can we drop this consideration from our discussions, and focus on the problem:

'Poverty caused by social relations'?

Why keep on about 'loose upper limits', if even you spell out that we don't need to worry about them now?

Tojiah wrote:
The actual constraints, taking into account human physiology, ecology, limits on production efficiencies, amounts of arable land, etc, are more immediate, but harder for me to explain.

For the purposes of our problem (poverty caused by social relationships), these are all 'double-decker London buses'.

If, on the contrary, you don't think this issue is essentially about 'capitalism', but 'nature' (physiology, ecology, production limits, land), why not spell it out to everyone, and then we can move on.

Tojiah wrote:
It's called argumentum ad absurdum, and you indeed took it to the absurd without reservation. If that's a habit of yours, don't be surprised if sensible people give up on talking to you.

This is the grown-up, academic, equivalent of 'If I can't win, I'm taking my ball away'.

And I'm 'absurd'?

Tojiah wrote:
Then again, maybe that's the way you declare victory.

Aha... This say more about your motivation, mate, than it does mine.

I'm a Communist, trying to talk to Communists like you, in order for us all to clarify our thinking on this issue.

I don't give a fuck about 'victory' - in fact, I'd like to congratulate you for forcing me to think ever more clearly about this issue.

We're all winners, mate, when we all are clearer.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Sep 20 2011 21:29
LBird wrote:
I think that they are mistaken to think it’s about ‘population’, and furthermore that any concession to them along the lines that ‘OK, there is a theoretical limit’ will only encourage them.

It’s better, for the purposes of our position, to maintain that there’s unlimited space for double-decker London buses, and force the focus onto the real problem!

no its not because that does nothing but make us appear disillusional and give our opponents something to attack us with. their is no difficulty in accepting that there is a maximum number of double-decker London buses but arguing that the number of london buses is is not responsible for our problems and identifying the really source of out probables.
it does us no good at all to argue things that are untrue simple because they contradict our opponents

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Sep 20 2011 21:40
radicalgraffiti wrote:
LBird wrote:
I think that they are mistaken to think it’s about ‘population’, and furthermore that any concession to them along the lines that ‘OK, there is a theoretical limit’ will only encourage them.

It’s better, for the purposes of our position, to maintain that there’s unlimited space for double-decker London buses, and force the focus onto the real problem!

no its not because that does nothing but make us appear disillusional and give our opponents something to attack us with. their is no difficulty in accepting that there is a maximum number of double-decker London buses but arguing that the number of london buses is is not responsible for our problems and identifying the really source of out probables.
it does us no good at all to argue things that are untrue simple because they contradict our opponents

Yeah LBird, this just makes you sound crazy, and your bizarre assertion that there are no material limits whatsoever to the earth's 'carrying capacity' was my main bone of contention with you. Now that you have implicitly conceded that this is not the case, perhaps we can find more common ground. I will address the rest of what you said in another post in a little while.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Sep 21 2011 02:49

LBird, My motivation is to have an interesting and elucidating discussion in good faith. If you yourself acknowledge that you are arguing for a position you don't believe in because backing out from it might be abused by potential adversaries, then there really is no clarity to be gained. Especially considering that, again, this position that the only limits we have are man-made is exactly the kind of ideology supply-side neo-cons in the US are promoting, so it's not like you're not playing into the hands of some bourgeois faction or another.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 21 2011 07:25

radicalgraffiti, tastybrain, Tojiah.

According to you three, I'm 'making us appear disillusional', 'making myself sound crazy' and 'arguing for a position I don't believe in'.

The real problem here is that you're attacking me, my motivation and my argument style.

Why not forget me and my 'bizarre' antics which 'help the bourgeoisie', and try engaging with the argument?

It's seems to me pretty simple, really.

One set of us argue that 'the problem is population', whereas the other set argue that 'the problem is poverty'. The source of the former problem is 'nature' (size of population, limited resources), whereas the source of the latter problem is 'society' (social relations, especially capitalism).

So, we have the two couplets, of problem and source:

1. Population and nature;

2. Poverty and society.

We are trying to answer yoda’s question ‘Why all the population control hate?’

The answer to this depends upon which couplet above is seen as correct one.

Followers of the first position will answer ‘because there are deluded people who want to try to avoid the real issue, which is the need for ‘population control’ as our problems are caused by humans and a lack of natural resources. Thus this 'Hate' is unjustifiable.

Followers of the second position will answer ‘because we hate the notion of ‘population control’, which is being used to falsely attribute what we consider a socio-economic problem to the world of nature (biological humans and resources). Thus this 'Hate' is justifiable.

The identity of the ‘problem’ and its ‘source’ are fundamental in our answering for yoda his question.

Now, I, along with a number of others, see the issue as one of ‘poverty and society’, and so will give the second answer.

It seems to me, so far, that you three (and others) see the issue of one of ‘population and nature’, and so will give the first answer.

I apologise if you don’t hold this position, but here’s the opportunity to put me straight, and make it plain that you consider the problem to be ‘poverty’, and not ‘population’.

There is a test which I think will clarify the issue for everyone:

Is an increase in population a problem?

I think not. I don’t think ‘population’ numbers are a problem. More humans means more power for conscious nature to change itself.

Now, do you three agree that ‘population’ numbers are not a problem? If you consider they are , why do you think so?

And let’s stay away from theoretical limits, which we all agree about, like squillions of people or wall-to-wall double-decker London buses.

Theoretical limits are a red herring. If you think they are a practical issue now, you have to show why my double-decker bus analogy falls down.

A tip for my fellow Communists: attack my arguments, not me.

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Sep 21 2011 13:55
LBird wrote:
One set of us argue that 'the problem is population', whereas the other set argue that 'the problem is poverty'. The source of the former problem is 'nature' (size of population, limited resources), whereas the source of the latter problem is 'society' (social relations, especially capitalism).

So, we have the two couplets, of problem and source:

1. Population and nature;

2. Poverty and society.

I apologise if you don’t hold this position, but here’s the opportunity to put me straight, and make it plain that you consider the problem to be ‘poverty’, and not ‘population’.

This is a classic example of a false dichotomy. In my opinion you haven't backed up your contention that these positions are mutually exclusive. As I've said before, I consider the problem to involve both factors.

The ultimate cause is our social system, capitalism, what have you (although I'm reluctant to attribute it simply to 'capitalism' because as I said human population expanded pretty damn fast before capitalism). The proximate cause is both excessive consumption by the few and the vast numbers of the many; both, as you point out ultimately rooted in the social system - but I was never denying this. Your argument is rather like the NRA's old chestnut "guns don't kill people, people do." Another analogy is gang violence. Gang violence is obviously rooted in the social system. But we (hopefully) would never say "the problem isn't gang violence its capitalism!"; gang violence is a problem caused by capitalism.

LBird wrote:
There is a test which I think will clarify the issue for everyone:

Is an increase in population a problem?

Ok, I will take your bait. I believe an increase in population IS a problem. I would like to see the human population stay where it is, reverse trajectories, and fall to a reasonable number (2-3 billion?) before stabilizing. Why?

Well, I seem to view the destruction of the ecosystem as a much more pressing issue than you do. Perhaps you aversion to figures has made you avoid learning about this kind of thing. I don't know too much either, and I'm not a scientist. But I was under the impression that the natural limits that you seem to believe are eons away in some far-off future are actually right around the corner. There's global warming, the destruction of the world's oceans by pollution and overfishing, destruction of old growth forests, cancer-causing chemicals in the air, etc.

Maybe we can keep limping on like this for centuries, but regardless of whether we can survive, I don't want to live in this kind of world.

Now you are going to ask why this is "population" and "capitalism" (as I assert) and not simply "capitalism"? Well let's say the revolution happens tomorrow. (yay!) Sure, we are going to expropriate the bourgeoisie and there won't be assholes flying around on private jets, we can close Las Vegas and Dubai, etc etc. Along with this strain on resources which is removed, more strain will be created by the equalization of living standards. The majority of the world's population will see their standard of living rise, as it should be (God knows they deserve it). Therefore, in the short term, before we develop all sorts of Science Fiction-type alternative fuels, we will be using existing technologies. And existing technologies pollute. People are going to want cars. They're going to want air conditioning. As CRUD said in a previous post, if everyone on the planet lived like the average American we would need 4 planets. And everyone is going to want to live an average, "lower-middle class" American. So it seems to me, the best way to reconcile a rising average standard of living with ecological sanity is to (non-violently, non-coercively, direct-democratically) lower the human population over several generations. Barring science fiction technology, in which case I guess problem solved.

LBird wrote:
I think not. I don’t think ‘population’ numbers are a problem. More humans means more power for conscious nature to change itself.

Care to explain this to me in a concrete way? It seems throughout history humankind has subjugated and disrupted nature more and more as it's numbers grew.

LBird wrote:
A tip for my fellow Communists: attack my arguments, not me.

I don't think I've been doing that; but if I have I apologize.

This is a pretty rushed post as I'm out the door but I can elaborate more later on.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Sep 21 2011 19:13
LBird wrote:
radicalgraffiti, tastybrain, Tojiah.

According to you three, I'm 'making us appear disillusional', 'making myself sound crazy' and 'arguing for a position I don't believe in'.

The real problem here is that you're attacking me, my motivation and my argument style.

Why not forget me and my 'bizarre' antics which 'help the bourgeoisie', and try engaging with the argument?

It's seems to me pretty simple, really.

no, i did not attack, i objected to your augments that there is no natural constraints whatsoever on the maximum number of people that could live on the earth and your claiming that we should argue this despite knowing it to be untrue.

LBird wrote:
One set of us argue that 'the problem is population', whereas the other set argue that 'the problem is poverty'. The source of the former problem is 'nature' (size of population, limited resources), whereas the source of the latter problem is 'society' (social relations, especially capitalism).

So, we have the two couplets, of problem and source:

1. Population and nature;

2. Poverty and society.

We are trying to answer yoda’s question ‘Why all the population control hate?’

The answer to this depends upon which couplet above is seen as correct one.

Followers of the first position will answer ‘because there are deluded people who want to try to avoid the real issue, which is the need for ‘population control’ as our problems are caused by humans and a lack of natural resources. Thus this 'Hate' is unjustifiable.

Followers of the second position will answer ‘because we hate the notion of ‘population control’, which is being used to falsely attribute what we consider a socio-economic problem to the world of nature (biological humans and resources). Thus this 'Hate' is justifiable.

The identity of the ‘problem’ and its ‘source’ are fundamental in our answering for yoda his question.

Now, I, along with a number of others, see the issue as one of ‘poverty and society’, and so will give the second answer.

It seems to me, so far, that you three (and others) see the issue of one of ‘population and nature’, and so will give the first answer.

I apologise if you don’t hold this position, but here’s the opportunity to put me straight, and make it plain that you consider the problem to be ‘poverty’, and not ‘population’.

no i don't se how you could have got that from my posts, i was mostly respondig to your completely untrue claim that population cant be limited by natural resources. i was not responding to yoda, i was resonding to you.

LBird wrote:
There is a test which I think will clarify the issue for everyone:

Is an increase in population a problem?

I think not. I don’t think ‘population’ numbers are a problem. More humans means more power for conscious nature to change itself.

Now, do you three agree that ‘population’ numbers are not a problem? If you consider they are , why do you think so?

And let’s stay away from theoretical limits, which we all agree about, like squillions of people or wall-to-wall double-decker London buses.

Theoretical limits are a red herring. If you think they are a practical issue now, you have to show why my double-decker bus analogy falls down.

i think that population is not a problem at the moment nor is it likely to be a problem at any time in the foreseeable future. i also think that the earth could support significantly more people than currently live on it, while increasing the living standard for the overwhelming majority, if we implement anarchist communism.

LBird wrote:
A tip for my fellow Communists: attack my arguments, not me.

thats what i did. being a communist doesn't mean that you can say any unscientific crap you feel like and no one can criticise you for it.

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Sep 22 2011 01:07
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i also think that the earth could support significantly more people than currently live on it, while increasing the living standard for the overwhelming majority, if we implement anarchist communism.

Barring momentous changes in technology (which i don't think we can count on as a given) how do you think this can happen?

I agree that anarchist communism would be the first step, but that doesn't actually get at the nuts and bolts of solving the problem.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Sep 22 2011 08:31
tastybrain wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i also think that the earth could support significantly more people than currently live on it, while increasing the living standard for the overwhelming majority, if we implement anarchist communism.

Barring momentous changes in technology (which i don't think we can count on as a given) how do you think this can happen?

I agree that anarchist communism would be the first step, but that doesn't actually get at the nuts and bolts of solving the problem.

i should have said with currently existing technology.
i think that living standards don't correlate with consumption of resources.

we could with the technology we have now generate many times the amount of energy we use entirely from renewable sources. solar is probably the best overall, but wind and other sources of renewable energy can be better in some places.
we can also save a lot of a energy that is currently wasted, through things like using more efficient lighting, better insulation, more and better public transport, etc

we also produce more food than we need, and if we were to use more efficient farming methods we could produce much more.
Eating less meet would be an obvious step, as a lot of food is used to feed animals. Hydroponics is vary efficient for growing some food to.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 22 2011 09:58
tastybrain, #136, wrote:
Ok, I will take your bait. I believe an increase in population IS a problem. I would like to see the human population stay where it is, reverse trajectories, and fall to a reasonable number (2-3 billion?) before stabilizing.

So, for you ‘population is a problem’; in fact, to be more accurate, according to your numerous posts on this thread, ‘population is THE problem’.

To me, ‘population IS NOT a problem’, either in the narrower context of this thread or in any wider sense.

As Tojiah seems to have left the discussion for the moment, let’s see what the position is of the third poster of the former triumvirate:

radicalgraffiti, #137, wrote:
i think that population is not a problem at the moment nor is it likely to be a problem at any time in the foreseeable future. i also think that the earth could support significantly more people than currently live on it, while increasing the living standard for the overwhelming majority, if we implement anarchist communism.

I agree with you, radical graffiti, that ‘population is not a problem’ and that ‘social relations’ are the problem, and that a change of ‘social relations’ will solve the ‘problem’, which you seem to, implicitly at least, agree is the ‘problem’ of ‘poverty’, and not ‘population’.

tastybrain, #138, wrote:
I agree that anarchist communism would be the first step, but that doesn't actually get at the nuts and bolts of solving the problem.

Now, we seem to have isolated tastybrain and their ‘problem’.

But once again, I ask ‘What is the problem being talked about: ‘population and natural limits’ or ‘poverty and social relations’?

tastybrain, #136, wrote:
This is a classic example of a false dichotomy. In my opinion you haven't backed up your contention that these positions are mutually exclusive. As I've said before, I consider the problem to involve both factors.

.

tastybrain, #133, wrote:
…perhaps we can find more common ground.

From tastybrain’s posts, I can only conclude that the problem for them is the former, not the latter, and so there can be neither agreement between us nor an acceptance that both are factors, because we are fundamentally disagreeing upon the nature of the ‘problem’ itself. That has to be discussed before we can move on to enumerating and assigning weight to causal factors.

Let’s try collectively to identify both tastybrain’s ‘problem’ and its ‘causes’. Remember, the two positions under discussion are:

1. population and nature (limits and humans)

2. poverty and social relations (especially capitalism)

I think tastybrain is identifying the first as the ‘problem’ and its ‘causes’, whereas I would argue that for Communists, the second is the ‘problem’ and its ‘causes’, and furthermore that the first is an ideological red herring to confuse Communists and hide the centrality of the second, rather than just another, different issue to be solved.

To be clear, I’m arguing that ‘population and natural limits’ is an ideological smokescreen to divert attention away from ‘poverty and capitalism’, and so the two must be addressed together because they are inextricably intertwined. As ocelot commented so long ago on post 79, this is an ‘ideological’ issue.

So let’s examine a selection of tastybrain’s posts.

tastybrain, #120, wrote:
When white people came to North America they were impressed by the incredible amount of cod in the ocean off the Atlantic coast. Guess what? There's barely any cod left.

But the cause of the problem (no fish) isn’t ‘natural limits’, but ‘social relations’. It’s got nothing to do with ‘white people’, or the individual humans pulling initially plentiful fish out of the sea with buckets. It’s not a natural problem of limited fish or innate human recklessness. It’s a problem of capitalist social relations and the profit motive. Those humans weren’t choosing as individuals to destroy fish stocks, but were acting under the compulsion of the socio-economic relations of the society in which they lived. The problem isn’t ‘too many mouths to feed’ which leads to overfishing, but an inherently destructive social system.

There are no cod in the North Atlantic because of capitalism, not humans.

tastybrain, #136, wrote:
Another analogy is gang violence. Gang violence is obviously rooted in the social system. But we (hopefully) would never say "the problem isn't gang violence its capitalism!"; gang violence is a problem caused by capitalism.

But this is a false analogy. ‘Gang violence’ would be a ‘problem’ within any society, whether now or under Communism. I’m sure we both hope that it will be proved in the future to have been almost exclusively caused by capitalism, but it is at least believable that it could happen in pockets under Communism in its first years, and we would have to address the issue.

But ‘population’, to me and to my new-found ally radicalgraffiti at least, isn’t a ‘problem’. And as it isn’t a problem now, it couldn’t be a problem in the future, either, unlike your false analogy.

tastybrain, #136, wrote:
Well, I seem to view the destruction of the ecosystem as a much more pressing issue than you do. Perhaps you aversion to figures has made you avoid learning about this kind of thing. I don't know too much either, and I'm not a scientist. But I was under the impression that the natural limits that you seem to believe are eons away in some far-off future are actually right around the corner. There's global warming, the destruction of the world's oceans by pollution and overfishing, destruction of old growth forests, cancer-causing chemicals in the air, etc.

I have no essential ‘aversion to figures’. I only have an ‘aversion to figures’ being used back up fundamentally flawed arguments.

As you say, “There's global warming, the destruction of the world's oceans by pollution and overfishing, destruction of old growth forests, cancer-causing chemicals in the air, etc.”

But these problems are cause by social relations, not nature, either in its human or limits guise.

And you, significantly, leave ‘population’ and ‘poverty’ out of your reasonable list of problems which need to be addressed. For the former, you’re correct, but omission of the latter is a serious error for a Communist.

tastybrain wrote:
Maybe we can keep limping on like this for centuries, but regardless of whether we can survive, I don't want to live in this kind of world.

No, none of us do, mate. We’re all Communists, who want to solve the world’s problems as comrades. And if it ‘limps on for centuries’, it will be centuries of wars and destruction, caused by ‘social relations’, not natural causes. We have a choice.

But why do you allow the bourgeoisie’s ideologists to add ‘population’ as a problem to your own list? It’s not on my list, or the list of many other Communists, as has been proved on this thread.

And yoda’s OP question? I ‘hate’ 'population control' because it’s a bourgeois red herring, which sows confusion and dissent between Communists.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Sep 22 2011 10:35

LBird, when agreeing with ocelot’s post 79, I did not realise the full implications of the final sentence. The penny has now dropped. The conclusion is correct. Your latest post #140 is very good, as it is a good strategy (imo) to ‘unpick’ the objections to your position rather than state your own in what appear sometimes rather provocative terms.

Is it possible (assuming it can be accepted that LBird’s and ocelot’s positions are compatible) to direct criticisms at the points made by ocelot?

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 22 2011 12:12
Auld-bod wrote:
LBird, when agreeing with ocelot’s post 79, I did not realise the full implications of the final sentence. The penny has now dropped. The conclusion is correct. Your latest post #140 is very good, as it is a good strategy (imo) to ‘unpick’ the objections to your position...

Thanks for the praise, Auld-bod. I, just like everybody else, needs to be reassured that they are actually helping others 'to come to consciousness', rather than just indulging their egos in an argument. Sometimes, I think I come perilously close to the latter.

Which brings me on to...

Auld-bod wrote:
...rather than state your own in what appear sometimes rather provocative terms.

Yes, this is a justified complaint, and I'm aware that my 'style' of debate is very argumentative, and I go too far, sometimes.

Having said that, it seems to be a very effective method for getting to the nub of an issue, by posing it in extremely counterpointed terms, and then sorting the meaningful 'wheat' from the rhetorical 'chaff'. I've been doing it for years, including against bosses, managers, officers in the army and police. I've usually been proved right.

Also, my views developed during the debate, and I clarified some of my own thinking.

But, I do apologise to Tojiah, radicalgraffiti and tastybrain for my confrontational methods. Really, my only defence for using such methods with my fellow Communists is that they are effective methods in getting us all to an answer.

That doesn't mean I'm right, and this is the final answer. Indeed, I can hear the mice gnawing already!

Auld-bod wrote:
Is it possible (assuming it can be accepted that LBird’s and ocelot’s positions are compatible) to direct criticisms at the points made by ocelot?

.

ocelot, #79, wrote:
Want to reduce fertility rates? Teach the poorest women how to read. The empowerment of women in the lowest classes (whether peasant, or proletarian/slum-dweller) is the route to women being able to stand up to their husbands and refuse to be reduced to perpetual baby-producing machines.

If this is accepted as the core of ocelot's post, I agree 100% with this, and the rest of their post.

But, Auld-bod, if you can point out something which you think is inconsistent between ocelot's post and my later diatribe (or indeed anything that ocelot and I agree on but others don't), I'm all ears and want to discuss and learn. But perhaps we require a new thread for those questions.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Sep 22 2011 13:33
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i should have said with currently existing technology.
i think that living standards don't correlate with consumption of resources.

we could with the technology we have now generate many times the amount of energy we use entirely from renewable sources. solar is probably the best overall, but wind and other sources of renewable energy can be better in some places.
we can also save a lot of a energy that is currently wasted, through things like using more efficient lighting, better insulation, more and better public transport, etc

we also produce more food than we need, and if we were to use more efficient farming methods we could produce much more.
Eating less meet would be an obvious step, as a lot of food is used to feed animals. Hydroponics is vary efficient for growing some food to.

Do you have some data to back all that up? My understanding is that hydroponics is currently at its infancy, and as for renewable energy, it's not quite ready to replace, much less overtake, fossil fuels unless, as you say, energy consumption is reduced.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Sep 22 2011 14:57

LBird, I thought you would not have a problem with ocelot’s post. I think it may clarify things a bit if those you were debating with could state where they stood regarding ocelot’s post and conclusion.

If they are in agreement (to co-opt your bus analogy) then everyone is arriving at the same ‘terminus’. Any disagreements are then purely on the ‘route’ (terminology, examples given, etc.). I liked ocelot’s post as it takes the shortest route, side-stepping the scarcity issues and focuses on the primary importance of poverty and empowering women. On the other hand if there are issues with ocelot’s post, I’d be interested to hear them.

batswill
Offline
Joined: 8-07-11
Sep 22 2011 15:38

I find any control abhorrent, if two wish to tango, let them have 20 children rather than one if they wish. If the libertarian-communist sentiment is about the freedom of desire and equal distrubution of produce, biologiocal processes become matter-of-factly sacred and exempt from control.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 22 2011 17:54

Just some food for thought:

The great chemist, Mendeleyev, wrote:
Not only 10 billion but a population many times that size will find nourishment in this world not only through the application of labor but also through the persistent inventiveness which governs knowledge. It is in my opinion sheer nonsense to fear lack of nourishment, provided the peaceful and active communion of the masses of the people is guaranteed.

Quoted in: Leon Trotsky, Dialectical Materialism and Science, 17 September 1925

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1925/09/science.htm

This doesn't mean he's right, but it does mean that not just Communists think that 'population control' is an ideological sham.

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Sep 22 2011 19:48

Some more anti human/technology fun!

Quote:
hands that kill mold illusions of peace
their fucked up psuedo security
destroy to give birth to technology
to quickn the killin of yo and me and him and her
blind. us humans think we are so smart
creating challenges
how. our sky bleeds in your hands
its nothing
build and build and build some more
industry fucks nature like some kind of whore
quest for invention intelligence gone too far
sythetic environment were doomed from the start
and i guess were all gonna die (my home)
and take everything under th sky (is nothing... to you)
skies they bleed infecting the land
oceans they vomit onto the sand
wind so foul, a putrid reek
animals they scream in disbelief
and i guess were all gonna die (our lives)
and take everything under the sky (are nothing... just
used)
humanicide // humanicide
black trees, dead seeds, dirt weeds
how much longer do we have?
humanicide
human beings should have never evolved at all
your heart... your heart as cold as the concrete that
you lay
your mind... clouded with the polution that you make
hide... lies... from all of us, the ones you have
chosen to die
smother our earth, blacken our skies
your quest for progess, convenient demise
man... kind... to whom are you kind
the peace that you mold is a lie, all lies
our lives float rejected down the stream
they are nothing, not you or me
tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Sep 22 2011 20:23
LBird wrote:
tastybrain, #138, wrote:
I agree that anarchist communism would be the first step, but that doesn't actually get at the nuts and bolts of solving the problem.

Now, we seem to have isolated tastybrain and their ‘problem’.

But once again, I ask ‘What is the problem being talked about: ‘population and natural limits’ or ‘poverty and social relations’?

As I have said repeatedly, the problem is all of the above (and none of these factors is autonomous from any off the others). More specifically, the problem is the accelerating pace of ecocide.

LBird wrote:

tastybrain, #136, wrote:
This is a classic example of a false dichotomy. In my opinion you haven't backed up your contention that these positions are mutually exclusive. As I've said before, I consider the problem to involve both factors.

tastybrain, #133, wrote:
…perhaps we can find more common ground.

From tastybrain’s posts, I can only conclude that the problem for them is the former, not the latter, and so there can be neither agreement between us nor an acceptance that both are factors, because we are fundamentally disagreeing upon the nature of the ‘problem’ itself. That has to be discussed before we can move on to enumerating and assigning weight to causal factors.

If the "problem" is human survival in the immediate future (the next 50 years, let's say), than no, the problem is not population.

If the "problem" is humankind's destruction of nature, and the various ill effects this has, you must take population into account.

LBird wrote:

Let’s try collectively to identify both tastybrain’s ‘problem’ and its ‘causes’. Remember, the two positions under discussion are:

1. population and nature (limits and humans)

2. poverty and social relations (especially capitalism)

I think tastybrain is identifying the first as the ‘problem’ and its ‘causes’, whereas I would argue that for Communists, the second is the ‘problem’ and its ‘causes’, and furthermore that the first is an ideological red herring to confuse Communists and hide the centrality of the second, rather than just another, different issue to be solved.

For the billionth time, I don't deny the importance or even the "centrality" of poverty and social relations. In my last post I gave reasons that "population" would still be an issue after the revolution and you have not responded. "Population" and "capitalism" as "problems" are not mutually exclusive. I don’t think it’s a retreat from communist principles to acknowledge nuance in a given issue. The issue of how to halt and reverse the destruction of our ecosystems is not a simple problem with a simple answer.

LBird wrote:
To be clear, I’m arguing that ‘population and natural limits’ is an ideological smokescreen to divert attention away from ‘poverty and capitalism’, and so the two must be addressed together because they are inextricably intertwined. As ocelot commented so long ago on post 79, this is an ‘ideological’ issue.

So let’s examine a selection of tastybrain’s posts.

tastybrain, #120, wrote:
When white people came to North America they were impressed by the incredible amount of cod in the ocean off the Atlantic coast. Guess what? There's barely any cod left.

But the cause of the problem (no fish) isn’t ‘natural limits’, but ‘social relations’. It’s got nothing to do with ‘white people’, or the individual humans pulling initially plentiful fish out of the sea with buckets. It’s not a natural problem of limited fish or innate human recklessness. It’s a problem of capitalist social relations and the profit motive. Those humans weren’t choosing as individuals to destroy fish stocks, but were acting under the compulsion of the socio-economic relations of the society in which they lived. The problem isn’t ‘too many mouths to feed’ which leads to overfishing, but an inherently destructive social system.

There are no cod in the North Atlantic because of capitalism, not humans.

Yeah those fishing trawlers weren't operated by humans roll eyes Of course it was a "natural problem of limited fish". There ARE limited fish and the stocks were nearly destroyed (I think several species of fish were wiped out permanently). The problem is natural limits in conjunction with capitalism. I don't think communism would automatically solve this problem. Sure the profit motive would be removed. But there would be also no restriction on consumption because you would not need to pay for your cod. Especially with massive population growth, as some people seem to think is a good idea, and consumption unchecked by the poverty of the consumers, we could potentially run into the same exact problem. Which is why instead of leaving it at a simplistic level of "it's capitalism! let's abolish capitalism!" I am trying to propose concrete solutions for how a communist society would prevent ecocide. I am suggesting one of these ways would be to peacefully, non-coercively reduce the population over many generations.

LBird wrote:
tastybrain, #136, wrote:
Another analogy is gang violence. Gang violence is obviously rooted in the social system. But we (hopefully) would never say "the problem isn't gang violence its capitalism!"; gang violence is a problem caused by capitalism.

But this is a false analogy. ‘Gang violence’ would be a ‘problem’ within any society, whether now or under Communism. I’m sure we both hope that it will be proved in the future to have been almost exclusively caused by capitalism, but it is at least believable that it could happen in pockets under Communism in its first years, and we would have to address the issue.

But ‘population’, to me and to my new-found ally radicalgraffiti at least, isn’t a ‘problem’. And as it isn’t a problem now, it couldn’t be a problem in the future, either, unlike your false analogy.

I disagree. I think ecocide could still be a problem under communism, so I think the analogy stands. Especially with a rising standards of living and rising consumption.

LBird wrote:
tastybrain, #136, wrote:
Well, I seem to view the destruction of the ecosystem as a much more pressing issue than you do. Perhaps you aversion to figures has made you avoid learning about this kind of thing. I don't know too much either, and I'm not a scientist. But I was under the impression that the natural limits that you seem to believe are eons away in some far-off future are actually right around the corner. There's global warming, the destruction of the world's oceans by pollution and overfishing, destruction of old growth forests, cancer-causing chemicals in the air, etc.

I have no essential ‘aversion to figures’. I only have an ‘aversion to figures’ being used back up fundamentally flawed arguments.

As you say, “There's global warming, the destruction of the world's oceans by pollution and overfishing, destruction of old growth forests, cancer-causing chemicals in the air, etc.”

But these problems are cause by social relations, not nature, either in its human or limits guise.

And you, significantly, leave ‘population’ and ‘poverty’ out of your reasonable list of problems which need to be addressed. For the former, you’re correct, but omission of the latter is a serious error for a Communist.

It's not meant to be a comprehensive list of everything that I see as a problem. It's a list of examples of the ways in which we are destroying our natural environment. Some of these things (such as the destruction of the rain forest for slash-and-burn agriculture) are caused by poverty. In other cases, such as global warming, the the alleviation of poverty would in fact exacerbate the problem. This is not to say I wish for people to remain poor but that we must discover ways to accommodate both the alleviation of poverty as a part of communism and the halting and reversal of global warming.

Perhaps rephrasing what I think will be productive to the debate. The problem is the destruction of the earth’s ecosystems. While I do agree that humanity might be able to survive with a larger population, I don’t view the issue as solely about survival. I want humans not only to survive, but to live better lives and also to create more harmonious relations with the natural world.

With the population we have now, indeed, with much smaller populations, we are already experiencing terrible problems because of the strain we are placing on various ecosystems. The way to reduce the strain on ecosystems is to consume fewer resources. Assuming communism with equalized consumption patterns, total resource consumption=(P)x. X is the average amount of resources consumed. P is the total number of people on the planet.
Therefore ANY consideration of how to halt and reverse what I will term ‘ecocide’, the destruction of natural environments, will have to take population into account. Communism will indeed have to consider natural limits in resource use if it wishes to bring an end to ecocide. Your attitude, LBird, seems entirely consistent with that of the American colonists in the west who would kill Buffalo not simply for food, but for sport or out of boredom (as well as to reduce a natural resource that the Indian tribes relied on). They too scoffed at ideas of "natural limits".

LBird wrote:
But, I do apologise to Tojiah, radicalgraffiti and tastybrain for my confrontational methods. Really, my only defence for using such methods with my fellow Communists is that they are effective methods in getting us all to an answer.

That's OK LBird. We are both arguing for positions we believe are correct and I'm enjoying the debate. I am open to being proved wrong and I agree that "population control" as it rears its ugly head in public discourse is a bourgeois Trojan horse, just as "gang violence" is used as a means to justify racist policing. This doesn't necessarily mean that either issues are not problems, just that the ruling class is offering us psuedo-solutions meant to integrate us more effectively into their social project. I have tried, and perhaps failed at certain points, to conduct this discussion in a comradely manner and I will try to continue to do so.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Sep 22 2011 21:53
Tojiah wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i should have said with currently existing technology.
i think that living standards don't correlate with consumption of resources.

we could with the technology we have now generate many times the amount of energy we use entirely from renewable sources. solar is probably the best overall, but wind and other sources of renewable energy can be better in some places.
we can also save a lot of a energy that is currently wasted, through things like using more efficient lighting, better insulation, more and better public transport, etc

we also produce more food than we need, and if we were to use more efficient farming methods we could produce much more.
Eating less meet would be an obvious step, as a lot of food is used to feed animals. Hydroponics is vary efficient for growing some food to.

Do you have some data to back all that up? My understanding is that hydroponics is currently at its infancy, and as for renewable energy, it's not quite ready to replace, much less overtake, fossil fuels unless, as you say, energy consumption is reduced.

I've looked at this before, but i don't know if i can find all my sources, I know that the wind turbines, solar panels, etc currently deployed are no where near meeting our current energy needs, but from what i've read the energy we could collect from the sun wind etc, is much greater than what we currently use.
more food than is needed to feed everyone is already produced, so it is not so impotent if hydroponics are not as good as i think, but it seems that hav advantages at lest for some crops, like saving water, allowing food to be grown out of season etc, and i think its used to grow some food at the moment, but i'm not sure of the details of that so i could be wrong.

here some articals, about energy and hydroponices, i'll try and find some better ones tomorrow

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16419-top-7-alternative-energies-listed.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/19/0904101106.full.pdf+html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070719130627.htm

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 22 2011 22:48

I have to say, tastybrain, that the more we debate the more I’m convinced that there are some insuperable philosophical differences between us, differences that lead me to think that our respective views of ‘Communism’ are very different.

I’ll try to get to the nub of the issue and not woffle too much, but this post is really tentative, and I’m thinking on the hoof.

I think that the essential difference between us is that your central, fundamental problem is one of ‘nature’, whereas mine is ‘society’. I think that this prevents you from being a Communist, because ‘Communism’ is about ‘social relations’, and not ‘nature’.

Having outlined it, I’ll now try to substantiate my position.

I think that the best way to do this here is to post a list of your statements, and then try to summarise why we disagree.

tastybrain wrote:
More specifically, the problem is the accelerating pace of ecocide.

If the "problem" is humankind's destruction of nature, and the various ill effects this has, you must take population into account.

The issue of how to halt and reverse the destruction of our ecosystems is not a simple problem with a simple answer.

The problem is natural limits in conjunction with capitalism. I don't think communism would automatically solve this problem.

Especially with massive population growth, as some people seem to think is a good idea, and consumption unchecked by the poverty of the consumers, we could potentially run into the same exact problem.

I disagree. I think ecocide could still be a problem under communism, so I think the analogy stands.

It's a list of examples of the ways in which we are destroying our natural environment.

Therefore ANY consideration of how to halt and reverse what I will term ‘ecocide’, the destruction of natural environments, will have to take population into account. Communism will indeed have to consider natural limits in resource use if it wishes to bring an end to ecocide.

My summary:

‘Ecocide’ is not a Communist concept, because it has no historical and social aspect. As I’ve said before, ‘nature’ is far more destructive of nature than humans are. For Communists, humans are nature, and they are a natural consciousness which has the potential to attempt to thwart the destructive aspects of nature itself. You posit humans destroying nature (‘ecocide’), we posit humans as nature consciously changing and improving nature (Communism).

Fixity of nature – you seem to see nature as a fixed phenomenon, which must be saved from destruction. But nature constantly changes, through both destruction and creation, and the notion of ‘ecocide’ suggests a stability can be achieved if only humans were stopped from destruction. If ‘ecocide’ means anything, it means ‘natural suicide’, which it can happily achieve just as well without humans.

Your analysis shows no separation of bourgeoisie and proletariat, and you indiscriminately lump together all humans as a problem to be solved. But Communists don’t have a concept of an undifferentiated humanity (which causes problems for ‘nature’), but a social analysis of two fundamentally opposed classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, of which the former is the social root of the problems we have (for nature, in both its forms, the Earth and humans). You see humans destroying nature, we see the bourgeoisie destroying nature and humanity. The problem for us is our current society, not humans in the abstract.

Finally, for you the ‘problems of nature’ trump communism; that is, because you see the cause as humanity, it is thus inevitable that, as humans will still exist under Communism, nature will still be under threat. For us, on the contrary, Communism will be the flowering of natural consciousness, the attempt by nature to regulate itself. There will be no separation of ‘natural’ and ‘social’ interests, as there are under capitalism. Bourgeois profit destroys nature; end the bourgeoisie, and end the wanton destruction of nature by humans.

I’ll finish with a quote of yours which, to me really sums up the issue.

tastybrain wrote:
Yeah those fishing trawlers weren't operated by humans Of course it was a "natural problem of limited fish". There ARE limited fish and the stocks were nearly destroyed (I think several species of fish were wiped out permanently). The problem is natural limits in conjunction with capitalism. I don't think communism would automatically solve this problem.

No, they weren’t operated by humans (in the abstract); they were operated by social humans, within a particular social system, by proletarians in the pursuit of bourgeois profits. And far more species have been wiped from this Earth by nature itself, than even exist now for ‘humans’ to destroy.

I think you reduce humans to biology; we maintain humans are social animals.

I think you are a ‘Green’, whereas we are ‘Reds’.

I think philosophy is at the root of our debate. I think I'm a Communist and you're an Environmentalist.

Apologies if I sound harsh - I'm just trying to clearly point out the philosophical differences between us.

yourmum
Offline
Joined: 9-03-10
Sep 23 2011 00:06

hey if they can build empty golf courses using up the water of 20k people towns to be green all year in the middle of the spanish desert (thats just something ive seen with my own eyes) just to add some value to the empty houses they build around them to store their value - you really shouldnt be concerned about overpopulation and ecology in communism. the stuff you are claiming to be a problem is simply not a problem for this mode of production, it only becomes one where it becomes a nuisance to accumulation itself. so thumbs up for LBird here but you should stop talking in terms of we and them and focus on criticizing the ideas, its attacking peoples identities unnecessarily and without gain.