Jay,
You know we have talked often in the past and I have always been
tremedneously impressed by your passionate seriousness about the politics
politics of eco-catastrophe. Your work is so unswervingly singleminded in its
readiness to face unpleasant (indeed terminal) truths that people (who often
have spouses, families, careers) can get terribly depressed and can find it
much easier to reject the messenger than accept the message. I do think
sometimes you make it easy for them to do just that, and in this way you
don't do your own cause much good (which I just as pssionately support). You
simply trivialise political responses to eco-crisis, as either inadequate to
the scale of the problem, or as somehow part of the problem. You have created
a whole army of strawmen in this discussion: you are not arguing with
Marxism, for exmaple, but a miserable caricature of it. I don't see how this
posting is helpful. Andy Austin and I are old sparring partners. He knows
damn well I can tell a hawk from a handsaw; he just loves to rile me up. But
most of his substantive points are worth arguing, and you haven't doen that
at all; and in the process of trivialising him you have managed to devalue
the importance of your own message. Shame, really.
Jay Hanson wrote:
> From: Mark Jones <Jones_M@netcomuk.co.uk>
>
> >But being a boy IS in the genes: the X and Y chromosones, to be precise.
> >The problem with this way of arguing with Jay Hanson is that you throw
> >the baby out with the bathwater. There is a huge amount of research
>
> You guys can't hear my points because you can't get past the social
> minutiae.
> For example, would any of you argue that "breathing" is not genetic?
>
> Jay
-- Mark Jones http://www.geocities.com/~comparty