Re: population: real problem, or capitalist plot?

Paul-

I think you're missing a simple element of the explanation, which I
mentioned.  That is, human population can expand where local conditions
are more favorable, as in the river valleys of Mesopotamia and elsewhere.
(This is even true for gatherer-hunter societies -- the NW coast of N. 
America supported a large population because of the abundance of food, 
mainly fish.)  What makes humans different from other species is that,
faced with population pressure at a higher level in such areas,
technological innovation took place (agriculture), which allowed a huge
increase in population.

RH

On Wed, 31 May 2000, Paul Gomberg wrote:

> 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
>