Re: population: real problem, or capitalist plot?

Richard,

An unusual and positive response, which shows we can learn through 
discussions. On Carneiro: the key truth in his theory of state origins is 
the recognition of  the role of social or environmental *circumscription* 
which limits the possibilities to move away from a particular 
geographical area. But the reason this is important has nothing to do 
with "population pressure;" rather the key point here is that state power 
(the organization of concentrated overwhelming force under central 
command) is ineffective if folks can move away from it.

I appreciate your response.

Paul

On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, 
Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

> Paul-
> 
> I've been reflecting on this debate and I have seen the light -- like the
> figure/ground reversal that happens after you stare at one of those dual
> image things for awhile.
> 
> You are right.  I was wrong.  (I have become sensitized to the problem of
> dogmatism, and I would hate to be a hypocrite.)
> 
> I reread the appropriate sections from Sanderson's "Macrosociology," and I
> have concluded that Boserup's theory is misnamed.  Population pressure is
> a constant, as you say, so the key feature of Boserup and Carneiro's
> theories has to do with the environment within which the human population
> is located.  This is already explicit in Carneiro, though,
> (circumscription in a fertile river valley surrounded by desert, for
> instance) so I don't see the problem in that case.  In the case of
> Boserup, perhaps the theory should be renamed the "population/technology
> spiral" to indicate the successive ratcheting that takes place every time
> new subsistence technology is introduced.
> 
> RH
> 
>