- Capitalism and Alternatives -

...and well-grounded

Posted by: Nikhil Jaikumar ( EFZ, MA, USA ) on July 07, 1999 at 15:10:10:

In Reply to: Old fear... posted by Red Deathy on July 07, 1999 at 13:18:10:

: : Darwin thus theorized that the most successful species would be species that would be successful, but not too successful at survival at their niches. Call it "survival of the above-average fit" if you will.

: This also has to be added in with Kroptkin and teh Russian evolutionists who emphasised co-operation and sty,mbiosis between species, undercertain conditions, also, we have to look to the exception of a species that can change its environment...

: : Already we read of rumblings about overpopulation.

: And they are, BOLLOCKS! We've been hearing them for two hundred years now 'Oh, theres too many poor, the poor have too many babies, thats why they're poor'- viz. Swifts 'A Modest Proposal' (Funiest thing I ever read, seek it out children...).

: :And it bears exploration to understand what "eating out our place in the food chain" means for humanity under late capitalism.

: 1:Late capitalism is an arse theory, Leninist twaddle most of the time.
: 2:We could feed the world current p[opulation 7 *times* over using third world agricultural methods.

: : So what remains of choice? When we vote Green, for instance, we choose more than a product, but in voting Green, we build upon the prior effort expended in creating a Green Party and supporting a Green candidate.

: A candidacy, which in Europe, means effectively an acceptance of the market, and seems throroughly devoid of class content/analysis in its politics, and seems to attract more than a few Tory NIMBY's (Not In My Back Yard). Its a vote to continue capitalism, and to continue the inefficacy of the reforms platform in the face of the rule of the market. (We have a hostility clause you know...).

Sorry, but overpopulation is a reality. there are limits to sustainable human consumption, and countris which exceed them have begun to suffer. Overpopulation is possibly THE most critical problem around. perhaps 7 times the current population could be fed, but this would involve a fairly poor diet for everyone, massive use of pesticides, and destruction of what liuttle remains of natural wilderness. Not a future I would like to see. Reducing our numbes is a positive necessity.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup