'radicalism' or consistency ?

Dear Mine,

You say: "Enviroment is not an abstract entity that  remains outside us".
Of course not. I said we are embedded in it. 

You end saying that:
>Eric, I really don't understand the intention behind such a kind of
>eco-radicalism. Enviromental degregation, sexism, racism, are the evils of
capitalism, and
>they will remain so as long as the system is capitalist. We are
capitalist, we are sexist, we are racist. there is no excuse. 

I agree there is no excuse. But there is no excuse in being speciesist and
fundamentally antrhopocentric either. It is as bad as being sexist or
racist in my opinion. Why only lament (and protest) about the oppression of
human animals and not about that of non-human animals? People ponder about
human suffering while they eat foie gras and wear fur coats and it does not
bother them at all since we humans are superior over everything else on
this planet (and this is human stupidity and arrogance which probably
predates capitalism). It is not very consistent with being progressive.
That's all I wanted to say in presenting an "eco-radicalist" point of view.
I did not think it would be so radical for radical progressives, but I
guess I was wrong...

This is of course another debate, as Carina pointed out. Again, despite the
fact that some reactionary people may want to use Malthusian doomsday
predictions and then blame immigrants, I don't think this should deter us,
as social scientists, to pose the question: to what extent may there be a
link between overpopulation and environmental destruction / pollution
within a capitalist world economy? To refuse to even pose this question in
principle seems quite dogmatic to me. That is all I was saying. 

sincerely,

eric Mielants
soc. dept. 
Suny-binghamton