Not sure how to bump up something like this from Pop Indy but it should definitively be bumped:)

http://www.thebellforum.com/showthread.php?t=47604

Not sure how to bump up something like this from Pop Indy but it should definitively be bumped:)

http://www.thebellforum.com/showthread.php?t=47604

Tryng to figure out how to do this. When set up a bunch were moved en masse and see the mechanism for that but can't recall how to move single thread. Think I gotta change status of forum, move thread then re-set the forum. Mebbe Kid will jar my memory.

I was quite the 'greenhorn', in more ways than one, back then. Today I find most of my posts from back then pretty embarrassing, but what ya gonna do? Live an learn. Perhaps somebody might profit from my ignorance.

Tryng to figure out how to do this. When set up a bunch were moved en masse and see the mechanism for that but can't recall how to move single thread. Think I gotta change status of forum, move thread then re-set the forum. Mebbe Kid will jar my memory.

I was quite the 'greenhorn', in more ways than one, back then. Today I find most of my posts from back then pretty embarrassing, but what ya gonna do? Live an learn. Perhaps somebody might profit from my ignorance.

I gotta learn how to use those blocks for single quotes like you just did in your response ? Talk about embarrassing :D

Seems only the Pop and Soc Indy archives that can't be bumped up. Hell, those discussions are still there though and that's the main thing. Embarrassing BP ? No way man. Those discussions bring clarity and development. There are kernels in that stuff that have to be addressed no doubt. Can't ignore the environmental degradation and climate change going on by any stretch. Thing is... a lot of those Green movements and their disciples can devolve into a den of stinking reaction and "humans suck" (especially "our lessers" and the "uneducated sheep") very quickly. A bad strain of leftism is that at best. A hop, skip, and a jump to Eugenics at worst. I know that's not where your coming from in that thread having read your stuff for ages. Mairead...I'm not so sure about. My dangly bits get a sad twitch and I get a chill down my spine whenever she gets into one of these kinds of discussions :D

Stumbled on this blog in my travels working through this stuff to gain some clarity. Ever heard of this cat or blog ? Only read a few of his pieces and work and have no idea where he stands overall. Seems like a student of Marx of some kind. This was an interesting critique of this stuff. Not sure of your posting rules here on stuff like this so I'll just drop a link.

Man and Nature, Part IV: A Marxist Critique of the “Green” Environmental Movement

https://thecharnelhouse.org/2011/03/25/man-and-nature-part-iv-a-radical-critique-of-the-%E2%80%9Cgreen%E2%80%9D-environmental-movement/

I gotta learn how to use those blocks for single quotes like you just did in your response ? Talk about embarrassing :D

Seems only the Pop and Soc Indy archives that can't be bumped up. Hell, those discussions are still there though and that's the main thing. Embarrassing BP ? No way man. Those discussions bring clarity and development. There are kernels in that stuff that have to be addressed no doubt. Can't ignore the environmental degradation and climate change going on by any stretch. Thing is... a lot of those Green movements and their disciples can devolve into a den of stinking reaction and "humans suck" (especially "our lessers" and the "uneducated sheep") very quickly. A bad strain of leftism is that at best. A hop, skip, and a jump to Eugenics at worst. I know that's not where your coming from in that thread having read your stuff for ages. Mairead...I'm not so sure about. My dangly bits get a sad twitch and I get a chill down my spine whenever she gets into one of these kinds of discussions :D

Stumbled on this blog in my travels working through this stuff to gain some clarity. Ever heard of this cat or blog ? Only read a few of his pieces and work and have no idea where he stands overall. Seems like a student of Marx of some kind. This was an interesting critique of this stuff. Not sure of your posting rules here on stuff like this so I'll just drop a link.

Man and Nature, Part IV: A Marxist Critique of the “Green” Environmental Movement

https://thecharnelhouse.org/2011/03/25/man-and-nature-part-iv-a-radical-critique-of-the-%E2%80%9Cgreen%E2%80%9D-environmental-movement/

I think that blog mostly right though a bit outdated. The criticism of the various strands of 'greens' is good, but a bit 'promethean' in light of current scientific understanding, not taking into account the issues of 'metabolism' which Foster and others have brought to prominence. And while I disdain metaphysics in any form there is a materialist understanding of Deep Ecology. I think of life on Earth as the big dialectic, one damn thing leads to another, and contrariwise. As far as that business of "all species are equal" goes, it is true only in a very specific, evolutionary way. Absurdly romantic or worse, I don't think even the Jainists could live without other people around doing what they refuse. On the other hand respect and appreciation are in order, life is wonderful, it's multitude forms are our heirlooms,(or what's gender neutral for 'patrimony'?) besides in many cases being necessary to maintaining an environment congenial to humans. But we will make use of 'nature', like every other species, and we must do so in a manner best for meeting human need and this requires the best science. This is after all the Anthroprocene, the fortunes life on Earth is bound to the fortune of humanity. If we fail to advance humanity past capitalism to a higher form of production and thus society there will be a crash which takes down a serious portion of biodiversity and leaves life for humans much less congenial.

Therefore Red is the true Green.

Oh yeah, the guy's a Trot, had to take a shot at Stalin, pretentious too, 'Trotsky with two 'i's', sheesh.

If ya want to use a quote box enclose text with bracket quote bracket at front and bracket backslash quote bracket at end of quote.

Sure thing, SP.

Questions:

Who thinks the things enunciated in that thread (Malthusianism, overpopulation, peak oil)..and why?

Are these ideas based on 'objective science' that transcends political perspectives? How does one establish objectivity?

What prescriptions emerge from advancing these ideas (ie what is the agenda)?

Do we buy any of it and does it matter (is it a circle jerk)?

sub question: is there a defensible "core" to any of this, independent of what anyone "thinks" about it (thus superceding all talk of 'theory', 'perspective', 'agenda', 'reaction', etc)

Sure thing, SP.

Questions:

Who thinks the things enunciated in that thread (Malthusianism, overpopulation, peak oil)..and why?

Are these ideas based on 'objective science' that transcends political perspectives? How does one establish objectivity?

What prescriptions emerge from advancing these ideas (ie what is the agenda)?

Do we buy any of it and does it matter (is it a circle jerk)?

sub question: is there a defensible "core" to any of this, independent of what anyone "thinks" about it (thus superceding all talk of 'theory', 'perspective', 'agenda', 'reaction', etc)


I said I was a dim bulb Kid and I wasn't kidding :D Help me along a bit here with the questions you pose. Beyond what "I think" in terms of much of it being horseshit. I'm not an authority on materialism and the dialectic by any stretch. Much of any analysis I can muster is limited to the foundations of Reed's soldier: "I can't account for it at all... To me it seems perfectly simple but then, I'm not well educated. It seems like there are only two classes, the working class and the ruling class" and Haywood's rallying cry : "We are here to confederate the workers into a working-class political movement in possession of the economic powers, the means of life, in control of the machinery of production and distribution without regard to capitalist masters."

Perhaps I am swimming in superficial reductionist slogans of no modern relevance in regards the environment, climate science, and ecological degradation...but reduced to it's foundations... what else is there but class war and class struggle to "dismantle" the levers of the capitalist power structure. I just don't see how working class power is reduced to an afterthought in deference to much of this Green movement horseshit as vanguard that will supposedly lead the way. I know BP doesn't believe that but it's a prevalent outlook of all strains of Greens. Am I wrong here ?

If we fail to advance humanity past capitalism to a higher form of production and thus society there will be a crash which takes down a serious portion of biodiversity and leaves life for humans much less congenial.

No quibbling with that at all BP. Seems a lot of the problem with the Green movements is they completely want to bypass the working class taking power to eventually get to the end-game that Engels and you just aptly described.

"The society that will organize production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers will put the whole machinery of the state where it will then belong: into the museum of antiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze axe."

-- Friedrich Engels

Thanks for the tip on the block quote BP.

No quibbling with that at all BP.

Let me do a bit more than quibble, then. BP still has a bit of "the prepper" (doomer/whatever) left in him. As an aside, wanna hear a joke? What's the first thing the doomers run out of? .. Money.

On what time scale are we discussing the future before the (vaguely defined) crash? Years? Decades? Centuries?

Does this dire prophesy function as impetus or does it simply indulge our own impatience? The latter is petulance. The former seems like a kind of mental trick to jumpstart ourselves from our own lethargy. But if that is the case, the answer is probably professional psychoanalysis to overcome a mental block.

PS is the discussion limited strictly to Greens? It might be nice to have one umbrella term but its a wingnut jamboree out there. And some of them are peddling extraordinarily noxious ideology that has absolutely no place on the left.

It is good to revive these discussions even though your efforts will be somewhat blunted if you choose to efface yourself out of the meat of the dispute(s).

Fundamentally what is at issue is how we determine and agree upon what is true (and not only about Malthusians).

This thread got me thinking seriously (need to do more of that, as opposed to the non-serious kind) about what the relationship between the Earth's environmental/ecological "future" (when's the last time you found yourself in the future?) and Socialism looks like (or ought to look like, at least). One thing that strikes me as being pretty damn obvious is that, for there to be any "hope" for Socialism on this planet, there's gotta be something left to socialize, right? I'm not really talking about the always-fearful, we're-all-gonna-die (no shit, really?) petit-bourgeois mentality of the Greens and the survivalist types (the latter having becoming increasingly common in recent decades...), but more the fact that the ruling class, while they do indeed have more to lose - much more - than the working class, are in a much better position to "weather the storm" of environmental and ecological catastrophe than the working class (Just look at how much mobile the 21st century bourgeoisie are compared to the working class: it's not even close).

And all this, while ostensibly about "the environment" or "the planet", is loaded with political implications. It's not just a question of who suffers; it's also a question of who benefits (and at whose expense).

Along these lines, I dare to say that not only is there a direct link between capitalism and environmental destruction (no shit Sherlock), but there is likewise a direct link between bourgeois ideology and politics in all of its manifestations (liberalism, individualism, consumerism...) and the belief (and that is what it is, a belief) that private profit is all that matters in "this world" (i.e. material reality), and that people (specifically, other people) are at best, mere irritants to be trampled over by the rugged entrepreneur or whatever - and if we accept that capitalism, anti-social politics, and environmental catastrophe go hand in hand, than what does that say about attempts to construct an "environmentalism" predicated on bourgeois ideology? Are capitalism and "saving the planet" (meaning, all living things - humans included) even compatible?

Since capitalism's "default" trajectory - in the absence of "concessions" to the public wrought by working class political struggle - is toward...well, the era in which we live now, then where does that leave us in relation to "the Earth's future?" Even assuming that a lot of "Green Capitalists" are sincere in their motivations, does a "sustainable planet", at some fundamental level, contradict their class interests - as the beneficiaries (economic, social, ideological, political) of capitalism? Because if it does...

These are some of my thoughts on this topic right now. Sorry if this seems muddled, would appreciate criticism or questions that would help me clarify my thinking. Interesting discussion...

Let me do a bit more than quibble, then. BP still has a bit of "the prepper" (doomer/whatever) left in him. As an aside, wanna hear a joke? What's the first thing the doomers run out of? .. Money.

On what time scale are we discussing the future before the (vaguely defined) crash? Years? Decades? Centuries?

Does this dire prophesy function as impetus or does it simply indulge our own impatience? The latter is petulance. The former seems like a kind of mental trick to jumpstart ourselves from our own lethargy. But if that is the case, the answer is probably professional psychoanalysis to overcome a mental block.

PS is the discussion limited strictly to Greens? It might be nice to have one umbrella term but its a wingnut jamboree out there. And some of them are peddling extraordinarily noxious ideology that has absolutely no place on the left.

It is good to revive these discussions even though your efforts will be somewhat blunted if you choose to efface yourself out of the meat of the dispute(s).

Fundamentally what is at issue is how we determine and agree upon what is true (and not only about Malthusians).

[/COLOR]

It's gotta be impetus Kid, what good is it otherwise? And I do think in decades we'll be seeing palpable effects, rising sea level at the very least is going to become an issue for a billion people. The more dire prognostications are further out, 50, 200, 500 years, whatever. This is science ya know, will psychoanalysis change that?

I think this matters to us because the longer this mismanagement of the Earth goes on the more work and difficulty in meeting human need becomes. Some 'goods' which humanity has taken for granted may disappear, become non-reproducible. Even the Old Man, mebbe drawing on older tradition, said we oughta leave the joint in at least as good a shape, if not better, than we found it.

The "problem" (just one of many) is that we as a species moved, at some point in time, from adapting ourselves to our surroundings as all other animals do (even the social "builder" animals like beavers, ants, bees, etc. - within those limits) to grossly altering our surroundings to suit ourselves. We did this, of course, without care or concern for any other species, or for the Earth, itself. It just never came up - or if it did, it was some god's or other plan. Now, socially, we have developed - worldwide - in this mode of altering our surroundings without thought or equivocation for millennia. You want to talk about a "revolution", think about turning that particular ship around. This is the wall everyone comes up against - "We get to do whatever the hell we want to, and fuck the rest!" No one (probably) actually thinks like this, but it is the "current" of our development as a species.

With capitalism in the driver's seat, there can be no real change to this dynamic. The reason for this, of course, is the nature of capitalism and what drives it. The capitalist class does not act "as a class" in the way most folks think of classes acting. There is no mechanism for the current ruling class to alter humanity's relationship with nature. Can't happen.

Here are things that communist societies have done in the past (and first) that no one today thinks societies can do:
Legalize homosexuality.
Complete and real social equality for women.
Complete and real racial equality.
Complete and real socially funded education and healthcare and entertainment.
Vast advances in science, medicine, agriculture, manufacturing.

This list could go on and on. Socialism can and has altered the path of human progress, it can alter the present stream of humanity's relations to its surroundings. But no other solution seems even remotely feasible. You cannot "profit" your way to natural balance as a species.

And there is the other gigantic shoe that hasn't (thankfully) dropped yet: nuclear weapons. Of course the bourgeois governments now in control of nuclear weapons will use them for self preservation (as 'unreal' as that sounds). So, how's that for an environmental conundrum?

Let me do a bit more than quibble, then. BP still has a bit of "the prepper" (doomer/whatever) left in him. As an aside, wanna hear a joke? What's the first thing the doomers run out of? .. Money.

On what time scale are we discussing the future before the (vaguely defined) crash? Years? Decades? Centuries?

Does this dire prophesy function as impetus or does it simply indulge our own impatience? The latter is petulance. The former seems like a kind of mental trick to jumpstart ourselves from our own lethargy. But if that is the case, the answer is probably professional psychoanalysis to overcome a mental block.

PS is the discussion limited strictly to Greens? It might be nice to have one umbrella term but its a wingnut jamboree out there. And some of them are peddling extraordinarily noxious ideology that has absolutely no place on the left.

It is good to revive these discussions even though your efforts will be somewhat blunted if you choose to efface yourself out of the meat of the dispute(s).

Fundamentally what is at issue is how we determine and agree upon what is true (and not only about Malthusians).

[/COLOR]

Ok Kid...the thing is... I didn't want to come in here guns blazing being a complete belligerent asshole which is my normal posting style. Hence, the self-effacing. To be honest..I wasn't sure if anyone that remains here wanted discussions revived at all. It seems to be more of a home base and library on leftist material and agitation (and a damn good one at that) in it's present state rather than a discussion forum.

Have some shit I have to take care of and will reply to your response a little later. I think the people here are pretty thick-skinned so I will put away any facade of possessing good manners and a civil disposition :D

Ok Kid...the thing is... I didn't want to come in here guns blazing being a complete belligerent asshole which is my normal posting style. Hence, the self-effacing. To be honest..I wasn't sure if anyone that remains here wanted discussions revived at all. It seems to be more of a home base and library on leftist material and agitation (and a damn good one at that) in it's present state rather than a discussion forum.

Have some shit I have to take care of and will reply to your response a little later. I think the people here are pretty thick-skinned so I will put away any facade of possessing good manners and a civil disposition :D

The thing is, I could have revived this thread and several others some time ago. But..what has changed in the intervening decade (!)? How have WE changed? Read what BP and Dhal have posted and set it against the 9 page discussion from 2007 and you tell me. Not enough, that's for damn sure.

The thing is, I could have revived this thread and several others some time ago. But..what has changed in the intervening decade (!)? How have WE changed? Read what BP and Dhal have posted and set it against the 9 page discussion from 2007 and you tell me. Not enough, that's for damn sure.

So then spell it out.

Let me do a bit more than quibble, then. BP still has a bit of "the prepper" (doomer/whatever) left in him. As an aside, wanna hear a joke? What's the first thing the doomers run out of? .. Money.

On what time scale are we discussing the future before the (vaguely defined) crash? Years? Decades? Centuries?

Does this dire prophesy function as impetus or does it simply indulge our own impatience? The latter is petulance. The former seems like a kind of mental trick to jumpstart ourselves from our own lethargy. But if that is the case, the answer is probably professional psychoanalysis to overcome a mental block.

PS is the discussion limited strictly to Greens? It might be nice to have one umbrella term but its a wingnut jamboree out there. And some of them are peddling extraordinarily noxious ideology that has absolutely no place on the left.

It is good to revive these discussions even though your efforts will be somewhat blunted if you choose to efface yourself out of the meat of the dispute(s).

Fundamentally what is at issue is how we determine and agree upon what is true (and not only about Malthusians).

[/COLOR]

A lot to consider Kid and it can go in a bunch of different directions discussion wise on this. I'll just take one point for now. BP posted :


If we fail to advance humanity past capitalism to a higher form of production and thus society there will be a crash which takes down a serious portion of biodiversity and leaves life for humans much less congenial.

I didn't quibble with it because it's rather doubtful that capitalism is "the end of history." This is not about what "I think" or "it seems to me" as you say...but let me tell you what I think and how it seems to me anyway :)

Is scarcity real or is it an artificial construct and result of capitalist social relations ? Artificial scarcity is a weapon employed by the capitalists both directly and indirectly. Barring the grand catastrophe we are not going back to the land to live in simplicity. I'm not of the leftist camp that thinks "we" should "all" learn to live with less when millions of people around the globe are already living with nothing and in abject poverty. Barring that grand catastrophe( nuclear war, asteroid strike,pick your poison)... there in not a sound reason why human civilization doesn't continue to advance forward rather than backwards. Technology and advanced innovations are not bad things.They are bad things in the hands of the capitalists. With the advancements of human civilization and a platform of economic communism... a level of super abundance and a quality existence for every human who passes through this rock is well within reach regardless of the population numbers. That can not happen under capitalist social relations and a capitalist ruling class of private ownership in any form. Fundamentally what is at issue is how production and resources are organized, managed, distributed, controlled, and by whom.

A lot to consider Kid and it can go in a bunch of different directions discussion wise on this. I'll just take one point for now. BP posted :



I didn't quibble with it because it's rather doubtful that capitalism is "the end of history." This is not about what "I think" or "it seems to me" as you say...but let me tell you what I think and how it seems to me anyway :)

Is scarcity real or is it an artificial construct and result of capitalist social relations ? Artificial scarcity is a weapon employed by the capitalists both directly and indirectly. Barring the grand catastrophe we are not going back to the land to live in simplicity. I'm not of the leftist camp that thinks "we" should "all" learn to live with less when millions of people around the globe are already living with nothing and in abject poverty. Barring that grand catastrophe( nuclear war, asteroid strike,pick your poison)... there in not a sound reason why human civilization doesn't continue to advance forward rather than backwards. Technology and advanced innovations are not bad things.They are bad things in the hands of the capitalists. With the advancements of human civilization and a platform of economic communism... a level of super abundance and a quality existence for every human who passes through this rock is well within reach regardless of the population numbers. That can not happen under capitalist social relations and a capitalist ruling class of private ownership in any form. Fundamentally what is at issue is how production and resources are organized, managed, distributed, controlled, and by whom.

I think (and this is just my 'take' on what BP meant) that the "crash" pig was speaking of was environmental. According to the old British dude (can't remember his mane) who first floated this global warming catastrophe thirty years ago or more, this is going to be bad, like apocalyptically bad. He says in an article I read a couple years ago that by between 2050 and 2100 90% of the world's population will be living within a hundred miles of the Arctic Circle. He says that the world's population, by 2100, will be around 3 billion people - less than half what it is now. All this the results of global warming. Let me see if I can find the article, because he also said that it was already too late to stop the catastrophe; now we can only ameliorate the suffering and the extent of the carnage.

Now, if any of this is even partly true (and it appears to be true), what is our level of urgency? And as much better men than I have asked, what is to be done?

Edit to add: Here's the article. It's longish so I won't paste it, but it is worth reading. https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

I think (and this is just my 'take' on what BP meant) that the "crash" pig was speaking of was environmental. According to the old British dude (can't remember his mane) who first floated this global warming catastrophe thirty years ago or more, this is going to be bad, like apocalyptically bad. He says in an article I read a couple years ago that by between 2050 and 2100 90% of the world's population will be living within a hundred miles of the Arctic Circle. He says that the world's population, by 2100, will be around 3 billion people - less than half what it is now. All this the results of global warming. Let me see if I can find the article, because he also said that it was already too late to stop the catastrophe; now we can only ameliorate the suffering and the extent of the carnage.

Now, if any of this is even partly true (and it appears to be true), what is our level of urgency? And as much better men than I have asked, what is to be done?

Edit to add: Here's the article. It's longish so I won't paste it, but it is worth reading. https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

I read it. It's certainly entertaining in a doom porn kind of way. Jesus Dhal... this cat is Jimmy Kunstler on steroids :D And while he seems to have some credentials and intelligence... he's also completely full of shit by his own admission a few years later. A cursory search of information and critique on this guy doesn't paint him in the best of light in the scientific community of climate change... which can also be stunningly full of shit at times in their predictions of impending mass catastrophe right around the corner. The kind of geological and climate changes this guy tries to predict in the immediate future have happened in the distant past and will happen again in the future with or without the human species in the picture. Are these kinds of catastrophic doom predictions really something that should be a major part of a leftist political movement and program Dhal ?

Despite you and BP seemingly buying into some of this stuff as a major focal point and an impetus to get going... that impetus to get going can lead people into a hundred different directions of proposed "solutions"...mostly all nonsense and reaction. How does that help us Dhal ? Hell...for what that's worth people may as well go delve into quantum mechanics and take solace in the thought that after they're offed in the grand catastrophe they might well be waking up on the shores of a parallel universe where all is well. WTF does any of this have to do with leftist politics ?

BP also said this in 2008 and I think he's much closer to the bottom line in this comment below than some of this festival of futurist shit as an impetus for social change.

http://www.thebellforum.com/archive/index.php?t-48209.html

If it's that bad where the fuck you gonna grow food?

Most of the oceans will be essentially lifeless, no help there.

The vast majority of humans and other species will be dead, will people be able to live through that?

Might as well hang with Bucky Fuller in space. Fuck that shit.

Ain't nothin' but cheap science fiction.

Well, if this asshole has a plan then so do I. End capitalism and the insane consumerism upon which it relies. Redistribute wealth so that none are wanting. Then maybe we can worry about the rest of the shit, we'll have a leg up then, anyway.

-- blindpig

I read it. It's certainly entertaining in a doom porn kind of way. Jesus Dhal... this cat is Jimmy Kunstler on steroids :D And while he seems to have some credentials and intelligence... he's also completely full of shit by his own admission a few years later. A cursory search of information and critique on this guy doesn't paint him in the best of light in the scientific community of climate change... which can also be stunningly full of shit at times in their predictions of impending mass catastrophe right around the corner. The kind of geological and climate changes this guy tries to predict in the immediate future have happened in the distant past and will happen again in the future with or without the human species in the picture. Are these kinds of catastrophic doom predictions really something that should be a major part of a leftist political movement and program Dhal ?

Despite you and BP seemingly buying into some of this stuff as a major focal point and an impetus to get going... that impetus to get going can lead people into a hundred different directions of proposed "solutions"...mostly all nonsense and reaction. How does that help us Dhal ? Hell...for what that's worth people may as well go delve into quantum mechanics and take solace in the thought that after they're offed in the grand catastrophe they might well be waking up on the shores of a parallel universe where all is well. WTF does any of this have to do with leftist politics ?

BP also said this in 2008 and I think he's much closer to the bottom line in this comment below than some of this festival of futurist shit as an impetus for social change.

http://www.thebellforum.com/archive/index.php?t-48209.html

If it's that bad where the fuck you gonna grow food?

Most of the oceans will be essentially lifeless, no help there.

The vast majority of humans and other species will be dead, will people be able to live through that?

Might as well hang with Bucky Fuller in space. Fuck that shit.

Ain't nothin' but cheap science fiction.

Well, if this asshole has a plan then so do I. End capitalism and the insane consumerism upon which it relies. Redistribute wealth so that none are wanting. Then maybe we can worry about the rest of the shit, we'll have a leg up then, anyway.

-- blindpig

I have no expertise in climate change, I only rely on the scientists. I am not spinning any porn of any kind. What I am saying is that conditions have to be taken into account. Nuclear weapons have to be acknowledged; climate change has to be acknowledged; class communications have to be acknowledged. No wishing away of things as they are will work. What is real on the ground right now? What is to be done?

I have no expertise in climate change, I only rely on the scientists. I am not spinning any porn of any kind. What I am saying is that conditions have to be taken into account. Nuclear weapons have to be acknowledged; climate change has to be acknowledged; class communications have to be acknowledged. No wishing away of things as they are will work. What is real on the ground right now? What is to be done?

We have often discussed the lengths (or depths) to which bourgeois governments would go to maintain their power and their stranglehold on property and labor. They possess nuclear weapons. That is simple math.

Capitalism will not "fix" climate change - it is barely addressed, at all. The propaganda directed at global warming is immense and unrelenting. Most people are completely confused over the what, how, and why of climate change. And confusion is just fine with the bosses. Here's a question: Does the ruling class understand climate change? Are they as confused as the general population? Are they willfully ignoring the problem? I believe that they are. I think that the bosses of the ruling class know perfectly well what is happening. They cannot do anything about it. They have no mechanism for dealing with anything that runs counter to profits. Solutions for ALL problems MUST include a profit motive.

This is not "disaster porn", this is a look at conditions. We need better "looks", we need deeper analysis, a stronger critique. We don't need spin. We don't need whistling past the graveyard.

How bad will global warming get? Maybe no one knows.
How soon will the negative effects become paramount? If they aren't already, then who knows?

These are the conditions that are staring us in the face. The only real green is Red.

We have often discussed the lengths (or depths) to which bourgeois governments would go to maintain their power and their stranglehold on property and labor. They possess nuclear weapons. That is simple math.

Capitalism will not "fix" climate change - it is barely addressed, at all. The propaganda directed at global warming is immense and unrelenting. Most people are completely confused over the what, how, and why of climate change. And confusion is just fine with the bosses. Here's a question: Does the ruling class understand climate change? Are they as confused as the general population? Are they willfully ignoring the problem? I believe that they are. I think that the bosses of the ruling class know perfectly well what is happening. They cannot do anything about it. They have no mechanism for dealing with anything that runs counter to profits. Solutions for ALL problems MUST include a profit motive.

This is not "disaster porn", this is a look at conditions. We need better "looks", we need deeper analysis, a stronger critique. We don't need spin. We don't need whistling past the graveyard.

How bad will global warming get? Maybe no one knows.
How soon will the negative effects become paramount? If they aren't already, then who knows?

These are the conditions that are staring us in the face. The only real green is Red.


Dhal, I don't see how what Lovelock was peddling in that piece is a deep analysis on anything but the Dystopian caricatures of immediate doom that only existed in his futurist mind. I suppose it's possible he might hit the doomer lottery eventually if these things are not addressed but his fearmongering nonsense only presents confusion and not clarity. He has a better shot at hitting Powerball than he does of the predictions that he made coming to pass, in the manner he claimed, in the time frame he claimed in that piece. Like Malthus, like Ehrlich, like the "population bomb", he is stunningly full of shit and that is the only spin going on. It isn't in any way helpful to anyone or anything but the Dystopian fantasy of reactionary weaklings and cowards waiting for the grand catastrophe to exonerate themselves of their political cowardice in facing the destruction of capitalist social relations head on... and even worse than that...appealing to the insidious agendas of a bunch of Nazi fucks looking to cull various parts of the human herd. And no, I'm not including you or BP as part of that agenda in any way Dhal.

Dhal, I don't see how what Lovelock was peddling in that piece is a deep analysis on anything but the Dystopian caricatures of immediate doom that only existed in his futurist mind. I suppose it's possible he might hit the doomer lottery eventually if these things are not addressed but his fearmongering nonsense only presents confusion and not clarity. He has a better shot at hitting Powerball than he does of the predictions that he made coming to pass, in the manner he claimed, in the time frame he claimed in that piece. Like Malthus, like Ehrlich, like the "population bomb", he is stunningly full of shit and that is the only spin going on. It isn't in any way helpful to anyone or anything but the Dystopian fantasy of reactionary weaklings and cowards waiting for the grand catastrophe to exonerate themselves of their political cowardice in facing the destruction of capitalist social relations head on... and even worse than that...appealing to the insidious agendas of a bunch of Nazi fucks looking to cull various parts of the human herd. And no, I'm not including you or BP as part of that agenda in any way Dhal.

Okay, obviously you know way more about climate change than I do. Good to know. Next, this old guy wasn't "peddling" anything. He didn't appear to give two shits about what anyone did or didn't do - the reporter sought him out, the old guy had retreated to the woods. I was not "touting" this guy as "WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!" (need echoes, here). I sited him as the extreme - we all know what the deniers say.

Now, I am going to assume that we all accept climate change and global warming as a fact; if not, we need a different discussion.

Then the actual conditions are:
At some point, in the near future, the planet will grow warm enough so as to negatively effect human life on earth (if it hasn't already).
The only way to address this fact is to have a worldwide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and develop and implement some sort of relocation plan to remove people from areas that become uninhabitable.

The first thing - the greenhouse gas thing - needs to be done twenty years ago. So, that needs to be done now, right now. The second - the relocation thing - also should already have been done. People starving to death in the desert is not my idea of human well being.

None of these things can be done currently, under present conditions. There is, and has been, a world war level conflict going on in central Africa for the last thirty years and not only will it not be stopped, it is being actively stoked by the capitalist powers. The idea that any current power gives a fuck about human well being is ridiculous on its face. So when blindpig says "Red is the only green", he really means it.

If I point to the scientist that has the most extreme view of what the planet is facing, it is not to make thin-wristed liberals sleep fitfully, it is to look leftists in the eye and say - "What Is To Be Done?"

Despite you and BP seemingly buying into some of this stuff as a major focal point and an impetus to get going... that impetus to get going can lead people into a hundred different directions of proposed "solutions"...mostly all nonsense and reaction. How does that help us Dhal ? Hell...for what that's worth people may as well go delve into quantum mechanics and take solace in the thought that after they're offed in the grand catastrophe they might well be waking up on the shores of a parallel universe where all is well. WTF does any of this have to do with leftist politics ?

Yeah, it could go any which way, and some sort of eco-fascism comes to mind, which is why socialists must get out in front on this. Said eco-fascism is already in play as various indigenous peoples are usurped and ethnically cleansed in the name of 'saving the environment'(though a lot of this merely ploys for resource grabs).

What Lovelock did was take sound observation, make a metaphor for it that was sloppily metaphysical and very appealing to people given to sloppy, metaphysical thinking. I got no use for Gary Snyder, I think like a swamp, not a mountain., and Lovelock himself has walked back the worst of the anthropomorphizing. Still, that damage is done and we must use the good science, denounce the who-ha, and apply this towards meeting human need. Just because a bunch of assholes gonna take some science and twist it to their agenda does not make the science bad in itself, it means we must apply that science to the socialist agenda.

Do remember that Malthus was not any sort of scientist but rather a writer on the topic of economics and a booj tool, the sole purpose of his writing was to justify the worst of booj practice. As I recall Engels had his lunch and more recently Foster did a fine gravedance. That reactionaries in the 20th century picked up and ran with his 'thesis' is a testimony to the strength of 'ruling ideas', number one being that it's always the poor's fault.

In any case as the data mounts, more and more flooding as sea levels rise and weird, harsh weather becomes the norm in contradiction to all accumulated data and these being things apparent to any functional human it would be foolish to ignore or deny them..

Remember 'peak oil'? We had quite a debate some years back between Chlamor and the Kid on the topic. Chlams took the 'peak' position while Kid supported abiotic oil. They were both wrong, though Chlams less so. As fraking has shown us, peak oil was a issue of capitalism and markets, not overall supply. Make no mistake, oil is a finite resource, the result of specific historical processes and if we keep at it heedlessly it will run out, in the long run. But the 'Peak' they feared was a matter of capitalist economics and it has been avoided by technologies which further deteriorate the commons. Only a planned, socialist economy can put a end to this greed driven stupidity.

Sorry I've been away but lemme get caught up on the physical plane so I can get caught up here.

Is scarcity real or is it an artificial construct and result of capitalist social relations ? Artificial scarcity is a weapon employed by the capitalists both directly and indirectly. Barring the grand catastrophe we are not going back to the land to live in simplicity. I'm not of the leftist camp that thinks "we" should "all" learn to live with less when millions of people around the globe are already living with nothing and in abject poverty. Barring that grand catastrophe( nuclear war, asteroid strike,pick your poison)... there in not a sound reason why human civilization doesn't continue to advance forward rather than backwards. Technology and advanced innovations are not bad things.They are bad things in the hands of the capitalists. With the advancements of human civilization and a platform of economic communism... a level of super abundance and a quality existence for every human who passes through this rock is well within reach regardless of the population numbers. That can not happen under capitalist social relations and a capitalist ruling class of private ownership in any form. Fundamentally what is at issue is how production and resources are organized, managed, distributed, controlled, and by whom.

Thing is, ain't nobody here talking about scarcity.

I think this bit from The Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy relevant:


But the development of the natural sciences shows that they are not neutral towards philosophy, that they are the scene of a struggle between outlooks, that the achievements of natural science quite often serve the point of departure for diametrically opposed epistemological conclusions by the ideologists of hostile classes.

Structure and forms of social consciousness, p475