{"id":809,"date":"2019-03-06T16:12:50","date_gmt":"2019-03-06T16:12:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wsm.prolerat.org\/?page_id=809"},"modified":"2019-10-20T13:23:45","modified_gmt":"2019-10-20T12:23:45","slug":"eco-socialism-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/eco-socialism-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Eco-socialism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Ecological Perspective <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Current methods of production cause may undeniably be damaging \nthe world’s eco-systems in many ways, as shown elsewhere in this \nEnvironment section. Still, the question remains as to whether human \nproductive activity, transforming materials originating from nature into\n goods suitable for human use, is inevitably damaging in an ecological \nsense. The massive scale of human productive activity certainly has \nimmense implications for ecology and some radical greens argue that \nhuman activity on such a scale is incompatible with a harmonious \nrelationship with the rest of nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In considering what we mean by ‘ecological damage,’ it is important \nto remember that these ecosystems are evolving. The biosphere as a \nwhole, which consists of millions of mutually interdependent life forms,\n might be thought of as one single ecosystem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet it is still possible to distinguish various sub-systems, or \n‘biomes’ within it, on the basis of the different climatic and physical \nconditions that exist in different parts of the world. These range from \nthe tundra of the Arctic, through the coniferous and deciduous forests \nand steppes, to the savannah and tropical rain forests of the regions \nnear the equator. To each of these physical and climatic conditions \nthere corresponds a stable ecosystem which evolves to its ‘climax,’ \nthrough a series of successive stages. This stable climax will be the \nsituation where the amount of food produced by the plant life is \nsufficient, after taking account of the plants’ own respiration needs, \nto sustainably meet the food energy requirements of all the animal \nlife-forms within the system. It will be, in fact, the situation which \nmakes optimum use, in terms of sustaining all the life-forms within the \nsystem, of the sun’s light rays falling on the area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An ecological climax is defined in terms of the existing physical and\n climatic conditions. It is clear that if these latter change, as they \nhave done relatively frequently in the course of the thousands of \nmillions of years life has existed\u2014through such things as the sea level,\n and the coming and going of the ice ages\u2014then the previously existing \nbalance will be upset. A new one will then tend to develop in accordance\n with the new physical and climatic conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The break-up of an old ecosystem plunges the different species and \nvarieties of life-forms into a state of competition. In the case of \nplants, the competition would be to capture the sun’s light rays. In the\n case of animals, it would be to recover the food energy produced by \nplants. The species and the individuals proving to be best adapted to \nthe new conditions (“the fittest” as Darwin put it) would survive and \nflourish. Eventually a new stable ecosystem, with a different “climax”, \nappropriate to the new geophysical conditions, would evolve. At such \ntimes biological evolution would have tended to speed up as whole. \nSpecies could disappear leaving the ecological niche they occupied to be\n filled by newcomers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The world’s eco-systems are continually evolving and hence there is \nno one ‘original,’ ‘natural’ state of the planet. After all, humans are \nboth a product and part of nature and not something outside of it. There\n is no reason to regard an ecosystem in which humans, like other \nanimals, live in limited numbers as “hunter gatherers” in the forest as \nany more “natural” than one in which there is a greater number of trees \nand forest plants. There is no basis in ecology for saying that trees \nshould be the main life-form, nor even that the natural human condition \nis hunting and gathering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ecology and Socialism<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The materials humans take from nature can be divided into two \ncategories, according to whether they are renewable or non-renewable. \nNearly everything of organic nature is renewable (since more of it can \nbe grown in a relatively short period of time), as are certain natural \nforces which humans use as instruments of labour (rivers, waterfalls, \nwind, the sun’s rays etc). Non-renewable resources on the other \nhand\u2014such as mineral ores, coal, oil, clay, sand\u2014are so called because \nthey do not form part of some natural cycle that reproduces them, at \nleast not with a timescale relevant for humans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Agriculture<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most obvious way in which humans extract renewable materials \nfrom the biosphere is through agriculture. Agriculture involves, by \ndefinition, a fundamental change in the existing eco-system. The \nintroduction of agriculture to Europe involved cutting most of the \ndeciduous forest. This deciduous forest had represented a stable \necological climax for most of Europe. The land was used to grow plants \nwhich humans found useful, to the detriment of both the trees and other \nplants that had flourished in the forest. Agriculture involves \ndeliberately preventing an ecosystem from developing towards a climax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For an ecosystem involving agriculture to be a stable one requires \ndeliberate action on the part of humans. This involves not only planting\n fields and keeping them clear of other plants which might grow there \n(‘weeds’), but also to maintain the fertility of the soil which, without\n agriculture, would spontaneously renew itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Things go wrong when humans ignore the ecological consequences of \ntheir actions, for instance, by permitting overgrazing by their \ndomesticated animals or by taking out of the soil without restoring the \nminerals and organic materials that are essential to normal plant \ngrowth. However, if humans observe these rules, then, as a number of \nhistorical examples testify, an ecosystem in which humans practice \nagriculture can be as stable as one from which humans are absent, or one\n in which they practice hunting and gathering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was understood and practiced in the relatively self-sufficient \nagriculture communities which existed up until the coming of capitalism,\n where what was produced was largely consumed on the spot. The human \nwaste resulting from consumption, together with animal waste and those \nparts of plants and animals that were not used for food and other \npurposes, were restored to the soil where they were decomposed by \ninsects, fungi and bacteria into the elements that sustain the soil’s \nfertility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When, however, the place of production and the place of consumption \nare separated, this cycle tends to break down. The result is that the \nfertility of the soil diminishes. If an area specialises in the \nproduction of a crop for export, i.e. for consumption elsewhere, this \nmeans that some of the mineral and organic matter incorporated into the \ncrop will leave that area for ever and not be restored to the soil. The \nsame applies to animal rearing. Animals require large amounts of calcium\n for their bones, as well as other minerals such as phosphorus, iron and\n magnesium, which also come from the soil, via the plants on which they \nfeed. If these animals are exported, whether dead or alive, and consumed\n elsewhere, then the minerals they contain are lost to the soil of the \narea where they were raised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A complementary problem arises at the other end, at the point of \nconsumption: what to do with the human waste which, when the points of \nproduction and consumption were the same, was automatically restored to \nthe soil and recycled by nature? Releasing it into the sea or into \nrivers or sewers means that it is lost to agriculture, even if not, \nunfortunately, to the biosphere (this contributes to water pollution by \nencouraging the proliferation of some life-forms\u2014for example, algae and \nbacteria\u2014to the detriment of others which the water normally supports.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ‘solution’ that has been found under capitalism, because it is \nthe cheapest in terms of the labour content of the products, has been to\n use artificial fertilisers\u2014nitrates and phosphates that have been \nmanufactured in chemical plants. This works in the sense of allowing the\n land to go on producing the same amount, or more, of the same crop or \nanimal, but at a price in terms of polluting the water in the region \nconcerned. Artificial fertilisers, not being held by the soil in the \nsame way that organic waste is, tend to be leached off by rain into \nwaterways where they cause pollution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ecological solution to the problem is to find some way of \nrestoring to the soil the organic waste resulting from human consumption\n in urban areas. Barry Commoner suggested that this might be done by \nmeans of pipelines linking the town and the countryside. A longer term \nsolution would be that envisaged by those early socialists who looked \nforward to agriculture and manufacturing industry being combined,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a \nmore equable distribution of the population over the country.(1)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Non-Renewable Materials<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Concern has been expressed that non-renewable resources will \neventually run out. Still, despite some wild predictions that were made \nin the recent past, depletion of non-renewable resources is not an \nimmediate problem. One advantage non-renewable materials have over most \nrenewable ones is that they can normally be used more than once. With \nthe important exceptions of coal, oil and natural gas when burned, they \ncan be recycled. A proportion of some metals is lost through corrosion \nbut all metals can in principle be recovered and re-used. It has been \nsuggested, for instance, that most of the gold mined since Ancient times\n is still in use. Much of the iron, copper, tin and other metals mined \nsince the same time is still around somewhere even if not still used as \ngold is. Resources can be conserved by making instruments of production \neasier to repair and by manufacturing goods of all kinds to last rather \nthan to break down or become unusable after a carefully calculated \nperiod of time, as is common practice under capitalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Non-renewable resources can be replaced in many cases by renewable ones. Electricity generation is a case in point (Energy Production)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Non-Polluting Technology<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The techniques employed to transform materials must, if they are \nto avoid upsetting natural cycles which are fundamental to nature, avoid\n releasing into the biosphere or leaving as waste products, toxic \nsubstances or substances that cannot be assimilated by nature. In other \nwords, a non-polluting technology should be applied. This is quite \nfeasible from a technical point of view since non-polluting \ntransformation techniques are known in all fields of production. \nHowever, they are not employed on any wide scale today because they \nwould add to production costs and so are ruled out by the economic laws \nof capitalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The underlying principle behind the changes in the materials and \nproductive methods used, which is demanded by the need to take proper \naccount of the ecological dimension, is that the productive system as a \nwhole should be sustainable for the rest of nature. In other words, what\n humans take from nature, the amount and the rhythm at which they do so,\n as well as the way they use these materials and dispose of them after \nuse, should all be done in such a way as to leave nature in a position \nto go on supplying and reabsorbing the required materials for use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the long run this implies stable or only slowly rising consumption\n and production levels, though it does not rule out carefully planned \nrapid growth over a period to reach a level at which consumption and \nproduction could then platform off. A society in which production, \nconsumption and population levels are stable has been called a \n“steady-state economy” where production would be geared simply to \nmeeting needs and to replacing and repairing the stock of means of \nproduction (raw materials and instruments of production) required for \nthis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is obvious that today human needs are far from being met on a \nworld scale and that fairly rapid growth in the production of food, \nhousing and other basic amenities would still be needed for some years \neven if production ceased to be governed by the economic laws of \ncapitalism. However it should not be forgotten that a “steady-state \neconomy” would be a much more normal situation than an economy geared to\n blindly accumulating more and more means of production. After all, the \nonly rational reason for accumulating means of production is to \neventually be in a position to satisfy all reasonable consumption needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once the stock of means of production has reached this level, in a \nsociety with this goal, accumulation, or the further expansion of the \nstock of means of production, can stop and production levels be \nstabilised. Logically, this point would eventually be reached, since the\n consumption needs of a given population are finite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So if human society is to be able to organize its production in an ecologically acceptable way, then it must abolish the capitalist economic mechanism of capital accumulation and gear production instead to the direct satisfaction of needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adam Buick<\/p>\n\n\n\n