Re: population: real problem, or capitalist plot?

To chime in briefly: from a Darwinian view population pressure explains 
nothing, for population *tends* to expand for virtually all species yet 
remains stable in most environments. When it actually expands, that is 
what needs explaining. To explain why something occurred by citing 
"population pressure" is like explaining a fire by citing the presence of 
oxygen--since it is ever-present, it explains nothing. The social 
scientists, including Carneiro, whose work I generally admire, who cite 
population in explaining the rise of civilization and other matters seem 
to miss this elementary point.

Paul

On Wed, 31 May 2000, Richard N Hutchinson 
wrote:

> [Andy, you at least are consistent, reframing everything in terms of  
> orthodox marxist-leninist ideology.  If you would stop and reflect,
> you might realize this is an internal maneuver which prevents you from
> having to deal with new information in new ways.]
> 
> To take your point seriously, although you seem to have expressed it
> only sneeringly:
> 
> 1)
> Using Amin's terminology, Europe was simply (or *is* simply according to
> AGF) a backwater area of the tributary form of society, and in that sense
> not different qualitatively from China, India and other more civilized
> parts of the world.
> 
> It is an interesting question why the latest revolution in technology
> occurred in the backwaters (this applies to Japan as well relative to
> China), but the underlying SYSTEMIC reality is that the industrial
> revolution arose from a tributary society that had experienced tremendous 
> population growth in a very short period of time (recorded history). If
> the evidence is looked at globally, therefore, I think Boserup's
> population pressure theory makes perfect sense.
> 
> 2)
> Certainly today global industrial society is placing unbearable demands on
> regional ecosystems and the global ecosystem.  One form this takes is that
> modern medicine has prolonged lives everywhere (reducing mortality), but
> fertility is still high.  So will the "demographic transition," (that
> Panglossian equilibrium deus ex machina), take effect globally in time?
> It is the obvious reasonable answer NO (it's too late already!) than leads
> to a concern with overpopulation.  Of course, the earlier boom in 
> population in Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere has left these regions
> unacceptably deforested and with rapidly declining topsoil as well, so it
> isn't as if overpopulation is only a problem in the periphery.
> 
> 3)
> The oil is running out.  The replacement(s) may make possible a new round
> of growth, but new technology cannot bring back topsoil, water, and 
> species, unless you want hydroponics, distilled water and genetically
> engineered pseudo-species.  Far better to limit population (as well as
> wiping out rapacious capitalism, of course) than to count on a new
> technofix.  And rather than wait until capitalism is wiped out, green
> action can be taken now.  Who wants socialism on a monospecies world?
> 
> Back to the original I=PCT, of course population is only one factor, but
> saying it is of no importance (how you could get any more ideological than
> that, I haven't a clue) is dangerously wrong.
> 
> [Oh, but I forgot, all evil is to be attributed to capitalism, to solve 
>all 
> problems we need only carry out more Leninist revolutions.  I'll have to
> get back on that right away.]
> 
> RH
> 
> 
>