Never mind Merv and Alistair - it could be worse for you!

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

the dust bowl famine in the american midwest was significantly caused by farming methods designed with the profit motive in mind. the 'ideology' of capitalism was also such that it pretty much left those affected to fend for themselves.

Without industrial agriculture, it would be impossible to support the world's population as it is.

Intensive farming has nothing to do with capitalism or communism - the environment record of the Soviet Union was as bad or worse than capitalism countries today, e.g. the draining of the Aral Sea for irrigation.

Both capitalism and communism depend on the incorrect assumption that natural resources are unlimited, because they both aspire towards unlimited prosperity and unlimited population growth.

Sir_Humphrey

Look, Generali I don't know what you've been up to this evening with your Aussie bank pals so I'm not going to pass judgement.

But if you are just going to carry with these pathetic straw-man arguments I'm not carrying on with this.

Get this straight; no-one is defending Stalin here.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Look, Generali I don't know what you've been up to this evening with your Aussie bank pals so I'm not going to pass judgement.

Actually I had a very nice evening drinking water and eating pizza and fig pudding at the local Italian with Mrs Generali and the kids.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Get this straight; no-one is defending Stalin here.

There seems to be plenty of sympathy for the ideology though. People keep putting up arguments that are in exactly the same spirit as mine but anti-Capitalist. I respond in kind (eg ninky's post re the dust bowl) nothing more.

What do you think of Communism, given our experiences of it in the C20th? You're a sympathiser I believe.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

What do you think of Communism, given our experiences of it in the C20th? You're a sympathiser I believe.

Not at all, I am a Social Democrat and I firmly believe in liberal democracy.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

With respect, I don't really understand the point you were trying to make in that case. Can you clarify?

Why bring in a disaster that happened in a broadly capitalist country as a counterpoint to a disaster that was deliberately allowed to continue for ideological reasons?

This isn't a debating point BTW, I genuinely don't understand how your comments fit together and am seeking clarity.

so is capitalism not a 'ideology'? i think you are playing with words to ignore the fact that capitalism and the ideology to preserve the profit motive above all else was a causal factor in this 'disaster'.

"According to the US census statistics, America lost 10 million of its population from 1931 to 1940. A Russian researcher, Boris Borisov worked on uncovering the death toll during the American Famine and his estimates are that 5 million children died of starvation and 2.5 million adults. This is equal to all the Jews that died during the WWII Holocaust, so an event equal in magnitude. Boris Borisov describes the movement of the American population out of the Dust Bowl affected region as a Hunger March. President Hoover ordered regular military soldiers to crush all social unrest. A large majority of the population fleeing the Dust Bowl region headed to California. These Americans were met at the border by police and state national guard who beat them back into the Mojave and Sonoran Desert. Thirst and starvation was the final outcome. "Bound for Glory", an autobiography of Woody Guthrie records a striking account of these events. Besides blocking the roads into California, freight trains were stopped by police in the most desolated desert regions and the unwanted refugee passengers were rounded up, beaten and removed of any food, water or personal identification. They were left to die in the desert as the train moved on. The Woody Guthrie song “This Train” turns out to be a eulogy to the victims of these events. “This Train” describes how the refugees did nothing to deserve the treatment experienced on the American Death Trains."

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

Without industrial agriculture, it would be impossible to support the world's population as it is.

Intensive farming has nothing to do with capitalism or communism - the environment record of the Soviet Union was as bad or worse than capitalism countries today, e.g. the draining of the Aral Sea for irrigation.

Both capitalism and communism depend on the incorrect assumption that natural resources are unlimited, because they both aspire towards unlimited prosperity and unlimited population growth.

and therefore for precisely this assumption and aspirationboth capitalism AND communism are responsible for intensive farming. to be anti-capitalist is not to be communist and to be anti-communist is not to be capitalist. some of us would like to find a sustainable alternative.

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

some of us would like to find a sustainable alternative.

I think you could probably guess from my post that I'm in the suitability camp too - obviously a model based on unlimited resources hits the brick wall of reality eventually, which according to Rev. Malthus will be very unpleasant.

The most effective policy towards creating sustainability is to stop net population growth - unfortunately too taboo to be brought up in mainstream democratic politics, so looks like we'll have to wait until a catastrophe strikes instead.

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

I think you could probably guess from my post that I'm in the suitability camp too - obviously a model based on unlimited resources hits the brick wall of reality eventually, which according to Rev. Malthus will be very unpleasant.

The most effective policy towards creating sustainability is to stop net population growth - unfortunately too taboo to be brought up in mainstream democratic politics, so looks like we'll have to wait until a catastrophe strikes instead.

but taboo for how long? there are already mumblings. a few years ago it would have seemed crazy for mainstream political parties to be talking about carbon footprints (tbh i still think that is bit misguided and a red herring and consider landscape change a more important factor in terms of our ability to avert and limit natural disaster, ie. forested land is more capable of absorbing heavy rainfall, prevents flooding, landslides etc).

i don't think we are likely to see authoritarian schemes such as compulsory restrictions on numbers of children but a sea change in attitude towards how unnecessary and undesirable it is to have lots of children could certainly see a reduction.

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

but taboo for how long? there are already mumblings. a few years ago it would have seemed crazy for mainstream political parties to be talking about carbon footprints (tbh i still think that is bit misguided and a red herring and consider landscape change a more important factor in terms of our ability to avert and limit natural disaster, ie. forested land is more capable of absorbing heavy rainfall, prevents flooding, landslides etc).

i don't think we are likely to see authoritarian schemes such as compulsory restrictions on numbers of children but a sea change in attitude towards how unnecessary and undesirable it is to have lots of children could certainly see a reduction.

That's very true, interesting points. Environmentalism is going to gradually becoming more and more central to policy making. The process needs to be sped up though, especially if you consider issues like peak oil.

Child benefit should be limited to two children - it's crazy to leave it unlimited at the moment. It's harsh to say it, but do we really want the most dependent members of society to have as many children as possible? Ironically it's often the richest and highest achieving that forego children, e.g. the rise of career women in professions like law, medicine, finance etc. In China, one of the exceptions to the one child policy is if both parents have masters degrees!

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's harsh to say it, but do we really want the most dependent members of society to have as many children as possible?

i don't really mind it. i don't think child benefit is enough to cover the genuine costs of raising a child anyway. i think it is an interesting position to refuse to provide fresh labour (children) for the capitalist machine. perhaps if more were aware of the poverty trap they create for themselves by procreating they might forgo or limit it (as the more educated tend to).