Re: population: real problem, or capitalist plot?

Richard,

I fear we are back to our old disagreement. First, population 
pressure 
and population growth are not the same. I have argued that, from a 
Darwinian view, population pressure, in the sense that the populatioons 
of organisms tends to expand to the limit that can be sustained by their 
environment, is a constant. When population expands, as it does with 
social inventions such as th domestication of plants and the use of land 
to plant domesticated crops, this occurs because the general limit on 
population is temporarily relaxed. The rise of the state cannot be 
explained by population pressure, for reasons we have already discussed. 
Rather the invention of the state leads to a huge expansion of population 
because now an instrument exists (the concentration of force under 
central command) tbat makes it possible to reliably coerce a hugely 
expanded surplus from food producers, a surplus that was often used to 
support a large urban population, craft specialists, and non-food 
producing slaves. So again I would say population pressure explains 
nothing.

These issues used to be labeled integrative versus conflict theories of 
state origins. I have benefitted from Jonathan Haas's The Evolution of 
the Prehistoric State (Columbia, 1984?). The argument is developed 
further in some published and unpublished writings of mine.

There is useful literature on complex chiefdoms, which are semi-states, 
particularly Tim Earle's recent How Chiefs Come to Power.  By the way, 
there is often more warfare in chiefdoms, but of a different character 
from warfare under the state. For an instance, you can look at pre-Inka 
versus Inka societies, discussed by Earle.

Paul

On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Richard N 
Hutchinson wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Paul Gomberg wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> Ah, but it it does have to do with population pressure -- if the
> population weren't growing in the circumscribed area there would be less
> stress on resources, and thus the rise of stratification and war could be
> averted.  Carneiro assumes population pressure, but specifies conditions
> under which it leads to the development of the state.
> 
> RH
> 
>