Re: us, china & environment

I also fail to understand why Ehrlich's 'formula' would be dismissed as
'reactionary'.
(dismissing without providing an explanation does not elevate the debate on
any listserv in my opinion). It seems to me it does not overemphasize
population, but just takes it into account.
Of course people in the core pollute much more than people in the periphery
-and then one can debate how much- but can one go so far to claim that one
billion people more or less in the periphery does not matter as far as
environmental destruction is concerned? That population growth is
irrelevant and has no correlation with environmental crises? Of course
population growth can not be separated from the operation of a capitalist
world economy, which sets the stage for major environmental crises, but is
it not naive to claim that 'people are not the problem' as if this planet
can sustain ANY amount of humans ? Will the 'world socialist
transformation' (whenever it occurs if it ever occurs) solve all ecological
crises, regardless of how many billions of people inhabit this planet? I
doubt it that an endagered animal would agree with such a position.

Non-anthropocentric regards,

Eric Mielants
SUNY-Binghamton

At 09:33 PM 5/29/00 -0400, you wrote:
>
>The problem with the formula is that if overemphasizes population. This is
>because people like Ehrlich believe people are a cancer. It is true that
>higher levels of technological development under capitalism, because of
>the emphasis on consumption, cause resource depletion and environmental
>degradation. Capitalism is incompatible with long-term human existence
>(not to mention the existence of other species). But people are not the
>problem. Proponents of population control often note that even though
>North Americans consume more than the numbers of, say, Indians, the latter
>have a roughly equivalent environmental impact because there are "so many
>more of them." This is supposed on the basis that (a) the number of North
>American consumers is relevant and (b) that the relative difference in
>consumption is in the range of 3-4 fold. But (a) is unimportant: it is not
>the number of consumers but what and how much they consume. And (b) is
>important only because correcting the perception yields a difference of
>around 100 fold. So, whereas India has roughly four times the population
>as the US, per capita consumption is 100 times greater in the US. You do
>the math.
>
>One of the more interesting controversies is the neoimperialist position
>(advanced by some self-proclaimed Marxists, but more typically advanced by
>TNCs operating through various spokespersons) that attempts to reign in
>industrialization in the periphery by environmentalists are racist. This
>approach is racist, they claim, because do-gooder Western "liberals"
>desire to keep the periphery at a low level of development to keep them
>subordinated to the core, or at least this is the effect of their
>environmental wacko-ism.
>
> - First, the claim assumes the modernization thesis that what is required
>for "third world" development is "advanced technology" of the "West" to
>make the periphery like the core, and therefore technology transfers and
>industrialization are necessary to raise consumption levels and create the
>stage through to core status (they do not use this language of
>"core-periphery" of course). Translation: the periphery needs more
>external capitalist firms operating in their countries. This rhetoric is
>accompanied by the rhetoric of democratization. The underlying premise is
>obviously a eurocentric one where what is right for the world is what
>was/is right for the "West."
>
> - Second, it ignores the central question of what has been right about
>the high consumption levels in the "West." I am no luddite, but unbridled
>industrial organization of the "West" under capitalism has been
>devastating for the world. The one-quarter of the world's population who
>lives in the "civilized" quarters of world consume between 60-90 percent
>of the world energy, food, and other resources. The states in the "West,"
>pushed by popular forces, have managed to regulate industry to a certain
>extent, but progressive forces are everywhere losing the battle of reform,
>and in any case the "West" is burning up the world.
>
> - Third, the desire to help the people of the "third world" by raising
>their level of technological development is really a desire by TNCs to
>reduce to a negligible level any restrictions on their ability to deplete
>resources and pollute the environment of the periphery for the sake of the
>consumption patterns developed by corporations in and for the "West."
>Industrialization in the periphery will lead to the further
>underdevelopment of the periphery. Global corporations are ruthless in
>their tactics to secure this. TNCs organize press conferences and other
>propaganda that feature the leaders of peripheral governments (puppets of
>the core) begging the world community for exemption from global
>environmental protection measures so that they can "develop like the
>West." Would want to deny them this?
>
> - Fourth, accompanying the TNC strategy is the theory that industrial
>development reduces population growth ("economic development is best birth
>control measure" a professor once told me). Then proponents of the view
>lump people like me in with the population control crowd and make us
>appear like hypocrites denying the people the only humane solution to
>population reduction, rather forcing them to resort to oppressive birth
>control regimes. But the problem is not people but the global distribution
>of resources. And to redistribute wealth based on a keynesian scheme that
>raises global consumption only makes the problem worse. Global
>redistribution of wealth must occur in the context of world socialist
>transformation.
>
>In the final analysis, the discourse being pursued is part of the
>globalization strategy.
>
>Suggestion for a bumper sticker:
>               
>                       Don't Eliminate "Problem People"
>                       Eliminate the People's Problems!
>
>Andrew Austin 
>Knoxville, TN
>
>On Mon, 29 May 2000, Roslyn Bologh wrote:
>
>>Does this formula I=PCT mean what I think it does: that the larger the
>>population, and the higher the consumption level, and the higher the level
>>of technology the worse it is for the environment?  If so, this is a
>>dangerous, reactionary position.
>
>
>