[Marxism] Re: Too many humans
dmschanoes at earthlink.net
Wed Nov 26 19:52:59 MST 2003
Resubbed just to make one last attack on the confusion of Marxist social
analysis with Malthusian ignorance and panic-mongering.
The moderator reproduces and article that claims that there are 1000 times
too many humans-- and he reproduces it without criticism on a list
self-advertised as Marxist. And while the article is nothing but an
invitation to extermination, the most the Marxists on the Marxist list can
muster is a polite dissent, which they withdraw as soon as the moderator
Well, let's call this article what it is: pseudo-scientific horseshit. And
let's call the reproduction of this article what it is: horseshit.
The biologists on this list are obviously not too astute at mathematics, and
vice-versa. 1000 times too many? What species can overgrow its limited
resources by 1000 times and not suffer a population crash? What species can
overgrow its environmental limitations by 100 times and not crash? The
"balance" between nature and animal populations does not permit this sort of
event. And if human beings can grow 1000 times past today's resources, then
they were 500 times over the limits of the resources of 30 years ago, and
only 500 times over the resources of 30 years from now. So what's different
about today? Why no crash earlier? Because we have compounded
geometrically our demands upon resources today? Sounds exactly like
Malthus, doesn't it?
The moderator seeks to lend support to this pseudo-science by quoting from
Lewis and Clark about the cornucopia of living things in the late 18th,
early 19th century. But were populations any more sustainable then? Was
there less malnutrition throughout the world when the population was less?
Or is the fluctuation in the rates of population growth, malnutrition,
infant mortality, etc. attributable to social developments? Where is the
evidence of sustainability? There can be no such evidence in nature,
because the sustainability of human beings is a social relation-- a
production process, mediated by the private property form at this juncture
The moderator, with his usual, typical, chronic, inherent confusion of
natural and social; resource and property; use and exchange; environment and
class provides a charming little story about the amount of water it takes to
make a pound of beef. This shell game has been played before about the
conversion of corn to meat, or soybeans to beef, blah blah blah-- but the
moderator's hand is not quicker than the eye? He refers to the wasteful
application of resources, but that is a social, a class function, driven by
exchange, converting resources into private property. Whatdoes that have to
do with "nature," and sustainability?
And then we have Jon Flanders stating the 2 billion is the limit. Really?
Great. So who dies Jon, besides me I mean, and who lives? There aren't
enough rich to get the population down to the sustainable number, so how
many billion are you going to throw out of the life boat? And have you
calculated how much energy that will take? How much production that will
take. How many gas chambers and ovens it will take to get rid of the
excess 4 billion souls threatening our forests, our birdies, our blue fin
tuna. And what happens when some or all of the 4 billion resist? How much
energy to create an army to track down the poor misguided fools who think
they have as much right to live, and reproduce, as anyone else? Or should
we take a page from Gandhi and just start the sterilization procedures?
Wait a minute, that requires hospitals, doctors, aseptic conditions-- too
expensive, unsustainable, better off just killing them, right?
And the response from the Marxists out there, those dues paid up, praxical,
disciplined, once upon a party-going cadres? Silence.
Well, silence is assent. And yours is deafening.
The position of the moderator and his supporters are fundamentally,
irretrievably reactionary, anti-Marxist.
Like I said change the name to Malthusmail
More information about the Marxism