Extinction Rebellion
- This topic has 446 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A slightly different point about human population size and growth can be made when we look at biomass. If we take the argument that in terms of food consumption, most animals very roughly require the same amount of food per cubic centimetre of biomass (although in real term larger animals are more efficient), comparison of human biomass with non human biomass is very interesting.
For Example human biomass is now estimated at about, 385 million tonnes, the estimated biomass of termites is 445 million tonnes and the biomass of earthworms is a staggering 6,800 million tonnes. Does this mean there is an overpopulation of termites and earthworms? How much green house gas does the average termite give off? well it is reckoned that up to 3% of global methane comes from termites, however they have a “technology” that could help us out when it comes to the amount of methane being produced by our activities –
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-termite-mound-filters-methaneand-greenhouse.html
An interesting comparison is that in pre- whaling days, it is estimated that the Blue Whale population had a bio mass of around 40 million tonnes, that equates to about a 1/10 of the current human population biomass, on a diet purely based on krill!!
The apologists for war, famine, racism, etc. have often used overpopulation as a reason for these human activities (and I am not for one moment suggesting this of you Schekn). But it is interesting that there is no record of great blue whale wars of conquest, or North Atlantic blue whales ganging up to stop those bloody Antarctic Blue Whales coming round here causing problems, etc.
Bijou, I entirely agree with you: we cannot estimate resource depletion in socialism based on capitalist data. Where did you see me claim that we can? I am really not sure what you are arguing against here, as my position was never to concentrate on overpopulation.
I would insist on exactness of language, however, because it reflects on exactness of thinking. You write, “I differ with regard to the view that this is caused, or can be solved in terms of human overpopulation.” First of all, I never said anything about causality, so you cannot disagree with me on this. Secondly, it is in fact possible to solve environmental problems in terms of human overpopulation: reduce it 100-fold, and voila, problem solved. Now, this would not be my choice, but technically you are wrong, because it can be solved like this.
Alan, yes you are hostile, in the way that you do not believe dialog is possible and hold preconceptions about people you never met. I have personally been to XR meetings and talked to real people who are not “greens” or “paleo-diet freaks”, just normal people. They are open to new ideas, they would like to hear a good explanation for what is happening to the planet. By just remembering your old battles, you are limiting yourself to the experiences of the past.
People in the XIX century may not have been able to agree on the way to build socialism because they did not possess modern technologies we now have. So the case we face now is not so similar at all. Importantly, end of the XIX century and beginning of XX was the time when oil was extracted with extremely high EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). The slowdown of economy nowadays is very likely the result of lower EROEI, and young people everywhere can feel it (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/apr/17/one-in-three-uk-millennials-will-never-own-a-home-report). The situation is different for young people, because if before progress was the word determining the way to describe the future, now it is environmental collapse and economic recession. There are many people now, and there will be even more in future, who are not satisfied with the answers capitalist propaganda feeds them. It is your choice whether to stay hostile and keep saying that “we have irreconcilable differences”, or to become more approachable and say, “yes, the environment is in danger, and profit-based economic system is to blame. Let’s work together to change it.”
You write, “In many cases with certain proponents of the eco-movement our differing approaches are incompatible.” Let’s ignore for a moment the weasel words Wikipedia moderators like to weed out so much, like the “many cases” (what cases?) and “certain proponents” (which proponents exactly?), but why do you have to insist on incompatibility of approaches? Don’t you see that this is exactly what Republicans and Democrats are doing in the US? Instead of focusing on real problems, they just keep stubbornly fighting with ghosts in their heads. And the result is that nothing gets done. Do you know why in science and technology things get done? Because people agreed to use common language and get persuaded by evidence. This is why scientists can work with, not against, each other.
We should become the first party to officially propose rational and evidence-based thinking as a basis for unification and toppling capitalist system.
Shekn “we cannot estimate resource depletion in socialism based on capitalist data. Where did you see me claim that we can? I am really not sure what you are arguing against here, as my position was never to concentrate on overpopulation.”
can I quote you?
Contribution <u>#189414</u>
“I do however insist that current understanding of ecological state of our planet in the scientific community clearly is that overpopulation is at the center of the climate crisis,”
Is that exact enough for you?
‘Do you know why in science and technology things get done? Because people agreed to use common language and get persuaded by evidence. This is why scientists can work with, not against, each other.’
What an incredibly naive view of science and scientists. You make them sound saint-like in serving a religion called science. You must be aware of the struggles between the ‘scientific establishment’ and those ‘maverick scientists’ who turn out to be correct? For every correct hypothesis there are thousands of erroneous ones. Science is very much about ‘hit and miss’ and just dumb luck. Scientists are people like the rest of us caught up in the ego struggles implicit within our sick society. What, for instance, do you make of the career of Heisenburg and his working for the Nazis? For every scientist with integrity there are others who serve only their egos and/or their company. Without whistle blowers the many corrupt scientists would still be convincing us that it’s OK to eat beef that has been fed a ‘cannibal’ diet or that smoking tobacco is good for us.
Bijou, did you read any of my other posts? I wrote in the beginning that at the current rate of population growth and resource use we will enter a crisis very soon. To which I received an answer that whatever the population, we will be fine. I did not even want to talk about it to begin with, I wanted to focus on working with environmental groups. But OK, since we do talk about this, I can provide information that no, it is not fine, we really are nearing a crisis, and population, being a necessary part of capitalist system, is clearly involved. Finally, recently I have read an agreement on this, and now we can go on. Since 2 days ago, I have written quite a lot on the subject. Did you really not understand what I am focusing on here?
No one is arguing that the planet is not in crisis, what I am saying is that linking it population growth is erroneous, even if population was to fall be say 20% and we continued with the current industrial practices, driven by the profit system, that crisis would still be reached, perhaps at a slightly later date, but reached all the same.
To return to your point I fully understand what you are focusing on here, your view is that effectively with regards to groups like ER we should become more approachable and say, “yes, the environment is in danger, and profit-based economic system is to blame. Let’s work together to change it.” Actually this is precisely the approach I see Socialists take all of the time. Not just with environmental groups but with other single issue groups fighting issues like poverty, racism, war, etc. It’s also the approach we take to Trades Unions, etc. We engage in debate and discussion with these groups. However we must remain opposed (hostile if you like) to the dangerous conclusions that organisations like ER have come to, which is that the situation is solvable under capitalism, in the same way that we opposed CND’s view that war and nuclear weapons could be abolished under capitalism.
In my experience the hostility usually comes from those we debate with and not the other way around.
Going back to an earlier theme that “we are not ordinary people”. I would disagree and also agree. In many years of working with people in often distressing and difficult situations, I have never met anyone who is ordinary, similarly in my social and family life I cannot remember anyone who, when you scratch below the surface, is in any way ordinary. In that sense we are all ordinary, in as much that none of us is ordinary.
Similarly when putting the case forward for socialism most people I have discussed it with can understand the concepts and a large number agree with our conclusions. The problem is, and it is a big problem, that because of the very small numbers of socialists, socialism doesn’t seem likely to happen any time soon and so to lots of people it does not seem like something they would devote time, money and effort to. I would estimate that of people I know, who I have discussed the party case with, I could name about 40 people who would vote for a Socialist candidate if they thought there was a realistic chance of that candidate being elected. I’m sure other members could do similarly.
I suppose what makes us “not ordinary” is not that we are some imaginary “top 10%” but that we are all to some extent optimistic about change (even you Alan!)
Wez, I can only concur. I am a frequent visitor to “progressive” American websites and often come across statements that the problem of overconsumption is one of overpopulation.
When I correct that misconception, and I usually do so simply by giving a few facts and figures and asking how these are reconcilable with any claim that too many people and not the system of society is culpable, I am the one who receives the ad hominem attacks.
Disturbing the peace of mind and upsetting sacred cows is never a popular thing to do especially when there has been generations of “intellectual” justification for holding those false ideas.
No, schekn, I am not hostile or would you consider my differences with yourself to be hostility or is it someone with another perspective presenting it? I’m plead guilty to sometimes being a bit too forceful in giving my arguments because I am persistent and often get accused of being too lengthy in my explanations, over-egging the pudding in my replies.
When two people have conflicting opinions, sometimes they are resolved in a friendly way, through discussion and debate and the presentation of evidence. But sometimes personal offence is taken and the participants go into “defence” mode, denying the validity of counter arguments because they feel aggrieved that somehow they themselves are under attack, not their ideas.
I am well experienced at being the person who holds a minority contrarian position as any regular on this forum will tell you. I am been involved in numerous disputes here. While I express myself with conviction, I do not think any forum-visitor would charge me of disrespect and certainly not of being hostile to another’s position but actually quite tolerant. (But maybe I am blind to my own faults and comrades are being charitable to me)
My approach to XR has been posted here and elsewhere. The SPGB has considerable resources. We should invite XR to avail themselves of our facilities and I suggest that drawing XR into direct contact with ourselves (which they are presently are not) will through this helpful logistical offer, unconditional on whether they and ourselves fully agree, is just one non-confrontational reaching out that is practical rather than polemical.
I am well aware that we can lead the horse to water but cannot make it drink so some disappointment is to be expected, but nevertheless I consider when people have access to our case for socialism, some will come to understand and accept it.
I really cannot add much to the debate about where the hostility comes from, as I am sure you know this a lot better than me, you have more experience. I can imagine that the less educated people are going to be more stubborn and so harder to convince. From this point of view many greens are not easy to work with. I have experienced it firsthand, when dealing with locals protesting against labs working with animals. Some would even come into labs and switch labels, or worse still – “free” the animals, leading to millions in losses and setting back research for years. GMO fighters, anti-vaxxers, there is a lot of hostility in these groups, I know this, you don’t have to tell me. All I’m saying is that it is worth remembering all the time to focus on the end goal, without getting entangled in details unless they are absolutely crucial. I think now is the time when public opinion is slowly shifting towards questioning capitalist monopoly. I think we could use this opportunity to educate people about alternatives, there is a chance they will listen now, even if they didn’t before.
“Take/Wez”, are you Polish? 🙂 Believe me, I have no illusions about science. I know how corrupted the whole institution is, and that it is ultimately made up of people, with all their imperfections and weaknesses. However, it is the accumulation of knowledge and science that made it possible for 7 billion people to feed themselves, for a man to get on the Moon, and to work out the details of the first seconds of the universe. Yes, scientific knowledge changes all the time, but at the same time it is growing and becoming more and more robust. People are so different with all our different languages and cultures and sets of beliefs. If anything will make it possible for us to collaborate, it will be the common understanding of rationality. Wouldn’t you say that socialist principles are fundamentally rational in their pursuit of prosperity for all?
Alan, this is great to hear, I agree that you can’t make the horse drink. I am not sure why XR has no public discussion platforms, it may have something to do with security, or their non-transparent structure, I don’t know, but to be honest it has been quite frustrating trying to figure out how to contact them, the same as the people from libcom.org. I will try to approach them in person, but if their “structurelessness” gets in the way, then there is really nothing more we can do.
I never read anything disrespectful coming from you, nor from any of the other comrades on this forum, it has actually been a very pleasant experience, and a refreshing one. When I wrote about “hostility”, I did not mean that in your post, but only the attitude towards other groups. I can understand it very well though, I have also experienced a lot of attacks coming from people who simply do not care about what is actually correct but just want to appear right and feel good about it. Do you think that insisting on rational approach in communications with other groups would be a possible solution in these situations? I have actually heard someone say at an XR meeting, “after all, we are trying to be evidence-based”, and this got my attention as a possibility to approach them.
Schekn I don’t want to discourage your Socialist activity and your work with our movement, but I do need to question you (in a comradely way) when you make statements like ” I can imagine that the less educated people are going to be more stubborn and so harder to convince.”
I learned my Socialism from socialists like Bobby Gleghorn, John Toomey, Kevin Lennon, Davey Adamson, the Maratty brothers, Harley Weirs, etc. You can look these names on line and you will find no academic citations, they were/are colliers, shipyard workers, etc. not part of any intellectual elite. Just ordinary workers who believed a better way of living was possible for people of their class.
Bijou, I must admit I am probably wrong. The opinion I expressed comes from my personal experience: I have unfortunately never in my life met with a socialist worker, but have met quite a few socialist professors. At the same time I have time and again failed to convince well educated people in the shortcomings of capitalism, as they often find craftier pretexts to defend it. Plus, as someone put it well, ““it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”.
Instead, I will ask again what comrades think of my suggestion of insisting on rational approach in communications with other groups. If socialist party takes it as one of its principles and thus differentiates itself from other parties as the most science-friendly, it has a much better chance of looking as a viable alternative when climate crisis becomes even more evident.
As been raised before that the environmentalist overpopulation alarmists have very strange and unwelcomed bed-fellows.
“…we’re all completely ignoring, the real problem the Earth faces, and that is the fact the population of the globe is exploding but no one dares talk about it, no one dares deal with it, and whether Prince Harry has two kids is irrelevant given there are now 2.6 billion Chinese and Indians on this Earth…”
Unlike the eco-warriors, it’s not about consumption levels because the carbon foot-prints of Americans and Europeans I imagine exceeds those of the Indians and Chinese. Farage makes it a race problem.
But he is no friend of the eco-movement
He told his Australian audience “greenies have taken over this country” and repeats the right wing mantra that conservatives are not true conservatives but “trendy, metro, liberal elite masquerading as a conservative.”
While we have been mainly focused on XR on this thread, I cannot dismiss the lurking thought in the back of my head that the rise of the xenophobic nationalists (and that includes Indians and the Chinese) will perhaps be our greatest and foremost threat as soon as we become impacted by the consequences of climate change grow beyond what they are now with mainly localized El Nino-related droughts and floods. What is going to happen when grain harvests and agriculture collapse on a much wider scale? We have touched on the latent threats such as herders V. farmers conflicts, Central American migration.
Once again the prospects for the future looks bleak and dark every time I see the news. The only good item to go back to the dispute Bijou and I had about Greggs the Bakers…I can’t wait to try the vegan sausage roll that seems an astounding success.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.