tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.comments2023-10-21T13:04:34.038-07:00Our Place in the World: A Journal of EcosocialismKamran Nayerihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comBlogger261125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-19329048724900573992023-10-21T12:08:57.634-07:002023-10-21T12:08:57.634-07:00Ecosocialism can only be built on the foundation o...<i>Ecosocialism can only be built on the foundation of a new theory of history in which society is analyzed as deeply embedded in nature. Nineteenth century theories of Marx are not adequate for understanding the problems of the twenty first century be cause they were and could not have been constructed as such.</i><br /><br />I think that is the better view instead of trying to adopt ecology to fit what has become the dogma of Marxists. Thanks. Wilikinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-69994903403183672032023-01-02T13:51:33.256-08:002023-01-02T13:51:33.256-08:00Just saw the movie EO and it’s heartbreaking. Just saw the movie EO and it’s heartbreaking. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-14404125722564863112023-01-01T08:36:31.052-08:002023-01-01T08:36:31.052-08:00Thanks for this summary of industrial capitalism a...Thanks for this summary of industrial capitalism and its effects on the natural world.<br /><br />We can never have a sustainable human society until we include non-humans in our fight against oppression and fascism.Michael A. Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04980105313542633114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-7745252012328865952022-04-10T09:26:36.754-07:002022-04-10T09:26:36.754-07:00Editor's Note: Sherry Chen, an American hydrol...Editor's Note: Sherry Chen, an American hydrologist who worked in the National Weather Service (NWS) office in Wilmington, Ohio, was accused of spying and arrested in October 2014.In March 2015, federal prosecutors dropped all charges against her without explanation before the trial began. Even with the case dropped, Chen was fired from her job in March 2016 for many of the same reasons that she was originally prosecuted for. In October 2016, Chen filed a case of wrongful employment termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). In April 2018, MSPB issued a decision stating that Chen was "a victim of gross injustice" and ordered the Department Of Commerce (NWS is an agency under DOC) to give her job back with back pay. In June 2018, DOC filed an appeal of the MSPB decision, but this has been delayed. In January 2019, with her case in an indefinite limbo, Chen's legal team filed a civil lawsuit against the U.S. government for the malicious prosecution and false arrest in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which is pending.<br /><br />Today, I received the following email on behalf of Sherry Chen's defense case:<br /><br />"Dear Kamran,<br /><br />Thank you for your support. We delivered the letter to the Commerce Dept, White House and members of Congress who oversee the Commerce. We had 29 national organizations, 88 state/local organizations and 896 individual signatories on the letter. Please amplify the message in your network as you see fit.<br /><br />Link to the letter:<br />https://www.apajustice.org/department-of-commerce.html<br /><br />NBC News just published a news article about Sherry Chen's case and this letter:<br />https://twitter.com/NBCAsianAmerica/status/1512501908510019595?t=A_FQnzU_kAHsDYvxY9skVA&s=19<br /><br />Have a nice weekend,<br />Vincent<br /><br />Vincent Wang<br />Co-organizer, APA Justice<br />Chair, Ohio Chinese American Association (OCAA)<br />765-409-2585"<br /><br /><br /><br />Kamran Nayerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-37279871653223627132020-11-07T09:02:45.496-08:002020-11-07T09:02:45.496-08:00I thoroughly enjoyed this piece, Kamran! I wonder ...I thoroughly enjoyed this piece, Kamran! I wonder whether "Y" will digest it though as it requires a strong rational-intellectual grounding. Good for you for writing it. There is one very minor detail (that takes nothing away from the overall piece) that you may want to reconsider which is the reference to the Big Bang "theory." Some materialists consider this to be a capitalist-creationist myth (i.e. matter exploding out of nothing at some magical time). Our friend Glenn Borchardt writes extensively on the subject: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36695600-infinite-universe-theory Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-79338330785923633852020-07-24T10:43:50.631-07:002020-07-24T10:43:50.631-07:00Excellent and crucial article. Thank you for post...Excellent and crucial article. Thank you for posting it.<br /><br />For me, the projection that a quarter of humanity will live in slums by 2030 indicates that there is a moral obligation to drastically reduce our consumption in the wealthy North. How can those in the USA continue to accumulate when so many of us are destined for extreme hardship?<br /> - RoyRSmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17206369378000042771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-76234135883675491862020-06-15T19:18:54.235-07:002020-06-15T19:18:54.235-07:00Fine analysis and ideas explained clearly and read...Fine analysis and ideas explained clearly and readably. Cynthia Burkenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-64858516023413064072020-06-13T18:23:47.400-07:002020-06-13T18:23:47.400-07:00
Kamran, thanks for writing and sharing this piece...<br />Kamran, thanks for writing and sharing this piece which is contextually rich and exhaustive.<br /><br />In solidarity, tonyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04516568026970389232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-30484627319390591412020-05-15T22:08:46.284-07:002020-05-15T22:08:46.284-07:00This is a fabulous post. I appreciate everything y...This is a fabulous post. I appreciate everything you have added to my knowledge base.Admiring the time and effort, you put into your blog and detailed information you offer.Thanks.<br /><br />www.miguelribeiro.netmiguelribeirohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10025421927139438391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-22881350772684956092020-05-12T06:31:04.575-07:002020-05-12T06:31:04.575-07:00Kamran,
Thank you for sharing your incisive revie...Kamran,<br /><br />Thank you for sharing your incisive review of Planet of the Humans…I saw it and am in total agreement. Unfortunately, the leadership of the climate justice movement may have been well intention but fail to comprehend the full scale of the systemic cause of climate change---they appear to have reified social behavior consistent with capitalism---which made the movement seamlessly susceptible to being hijacked by those who are responsible for the problem. I also agree with your comments about population control but would mention that the process of the democratic “empowerment of women through family planning” assumes first the non-alienated future human person.<br /><br />Regards and Stay Safe, TonyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04516568026970389232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-23477986976672838762020-05-07T07:40:21.602-07:002020-05-07T07:40:21.602-07:00Regarding E.O. Wilson's support for putting a ...Regarding E.O. Wilson's support for putting a large fraction of the Earth's surface in protected status to preserve biodiversity, I suggest you check out the following article which has a different analysis:<br /><br />https://foodfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Backgrounder_WINTER-2019_Final-Final.pdf<br />Biodiversity and Agriculture: Nature’s Matrix and the Future of Conservation<br /><br />I know Ivette Perfecto and John Vandermeer, both have done extensive research in the field on this issue, and are leaders in the agroecology field.<br /><br />David Schwartzmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09980141923707866204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-35939875659111494982020-05-06T20:32:58.745-07:002020-05-06T20:32:58.745-07:00In this thread, David Schwartsman and I discussed ...In this thread, David Schwartsman and I discussed the question of population growth and whether and how it may have had contributed to the Six Extinction, an existential threat. David and I rfollwoed this dicussion in private emails and eached an understanding. I like to invite the reader to a section of the E.O.Wilson's Hallf-Earth: Our Planets' Fight for Life (2016) that I published as a post entitled "The Sixth Extinction: Life and Death in the Biosphere." Please read this post as it offers detailed information about how human population growth has been contributing to the Sixth Extinction. Here is the link to the post: http://forhumanliberation.blogspot.com/2016/12/2525-eowilson-sixth-extinction-life-and.html<br /><br />Thank you. Kamran Nayerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-84329282251713327462020-05-06T12:56:49.442-07:002020-05-06T12:56:49.442-07:00I think the problem goes beyond capitalism and bey...I think the problem goes beyond capitalism and beyond communism. We are a flawed species and have met our limits. This has nothing to do with good or evil. It's our nature, and as I watched Micheal's movie (admittedly stoned) I felt as much love and sorrow for us humans as I did for the orangutang. I know this is not helpful, but we are totally fucked. dbayer49https://www.blogger.com/profile/15994876747763711400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-17311708575020044102020-05-06T10:34:14.633-07:002020-05-06T10:34:14.633-07:00I tend to agree with Kamran on most counts here. ...I tend to agree with Kamran on most counts here. However, I think he leaves out an important weakness of the film. My review is a lot shorter. But I try to make a point that is left out of this review.<br /><br />See: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-05-01/the-bizarre-blindspot-in-planet-of-the-humans/<br /><br />NTROPEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00095279981135270696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-16688799119790549762020-05-06T07:33:37.770-07:002020-05-06T07:33:37.770-07:00Dear Brian:
Than you very much for your comment a...Dear Brian:<br /><br />Than you very much for your comment and the link to your review of the film. I read it and we obviously take a different approach to the film. Like Fox, you focus on the technical shortcomings of the film and view it as a worthless contribution to the discussion in the climate justice movement, even worse, an attack on it. I admit to its technical flaws. But I also think the film is raising important criticism of the movement and its leading organizaiton and its leader for having come into a cozy relationship with Green Capitalism. <br /><br />As you probably know, I have long argued against a technological interpretation of the fossil fuel use as the cause for the climate crisis. The problem is rooted in our social system, capitalism. It is not secret that the movement and its leading organizaitons are NOT anti-capitalst. In fact, they work on the premise that it is entirely possible to use the capitalist market and the capitalist state to transition off fossile fuels. The film criticize this not by offering a good definition of capitalism, Moore and Gibbs probably have none. But to point out two facts regularly ignored in the movement. First our existential crisis is not limited to climate change but includes others like the Sixth Extinction. Second, they use the well-know Natural Limits to Growth to argue that we must chart a course away from capitalism's grow forever paradigm fueld by the profit motive. <br /><br />I submit that there have been groups here and there who argued this point of view (I did when I was in 350.org). But it has never ever become a mass discussion in the movement. It has become one NOW THANKS TO MOORE AND GIBBS film. <br /><br />I hope it is clear to you now why it is important to focus on this message of the film no matter how imperfectly it is delivered than its old technical details. Kamran Nayerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-91794404255926022872020-05-05T20:53:04.154-07:002020-05-05T20:53:04.154-07:00I really appreciate the perspective here, but I fe...I really appreciate the perspective here, but I feel you're reading things into the ‘Humans’ film that just aren’t there. If it had a serious critique of capitalism and didn’t just use the word as an epithet to tar various environmentalists, it might actually be useful. I find far more critical discussions of capitalism in various local and regional 350 affiliates (notwithstanding Bill McKibben's excessive caution around this question) than anything actually stated in the film. Its outlook is entirely Malthusian and reactionary, in my opinion. For more, see my commentary at <a href="http://greensocialthought.org/content/humans-are-not-problem-reflections-useless-documentary" rel="nofollow">http://greensocialthought.org/content/humans-are-not-problem-reflections-useless-documentary</a>.<br />Brian Tokarhttp://www.social-ecology.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-2548279979426658072020-05-05T20:19:19.281-07:002020-05-05T20:19:19.281-07:00In the future, please identify yourself when posti...In the future, please identify yourself when posting a comment. That is the policy for OPITW. Thank you.<br /><br />Of course, I agree with you that empowering women and democratic family planning by themselves are not enough. Not only the size of human population, but also its distribution and and per capita consumption and what is consumed and how they are produced matter. <br /><br />The rule of thumb is that to save the world we must love the world. That is why human civizations have been in a permanent state of crisis--alienation from nature and social alienation are at their base. Without them, class socities in which the working masses are explited to extract wealth from nature to generate wealth the ruling classes could not exist. <br /><br />This post just "a note." If youwish more details, please read some of my longer essays. For example, The Crisis of Civilization and How to Overcome It: An Introduction to Ecocentric Socialism (October 2018). https://knayeri.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-civilization-crisis-and-how-to.html <br /><br />Thank you. Kamran Nayerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-44490232882425543732020-05-05T17:37:56.704-07:002020-05-05T17:37:56.704-07:00The notion of "empowering women" as a ma...The notion of "empowering women" as a magic bullet for reducing population strikes me as fairly simplistic. It may reduce the number of children women choose to have, but education and social empowerment is usually accompanied with a rise of income and living standards as women enter the middle class. Then they have fewer children, but the ones they do have consume resources at an unsustainable middle class level. So you have traded more poor & oppressed women & children with small ecological footprints for more affluent families gobbling up unsustainable resources like middle classes all over the industrial world are wont to do. This will clearly improve the lives of these more affluent families, but it doesn't do much good for the planet.NTROPEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00095279981135270696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-66140723115150784972020-05-05T16:43:14.528-07:002020-05-05T16:43:14.528-07:00David Schwartsman contacted me by email that he ha...David Schwartsman contacted me by email that he has technical difficulty posting a further comment. I am posting his comment below. Kamran Nayeri<br /><br />"Kamran, <br /><br />I never said I oppose democratic family planning, au contraire that is precisely the way that population growth can slow down. And yes the present global population of 7.7 billion is indeed detrimental to ecosystems because of the prevailing physical and political economies, i.e., fossil fuel being the dominant energy source, industrial/GMO/biofuel agriculture and capitalism being the dominant politics economy. The UN projections do not capture in our view the bifurcation we face, either climate catastrophe or its prevention. The former would likely cause the global population to crash, the later would be the opportunity to stabilize as I noted in my last comment. I think that there is another choice besides those you pose at the end of your comment, which we discuss at length in our book, namely the other world that is still possible, a demilitarized world with a global energy infrastructure of wind/solar (photovoltaic and CSP), with agroecologies having replaced industrial/GMO/biofuels. We argue this alternative global physical and political economy, ecosocialism, is necessary for the optimal relations between a human population of 9 billion and biodiversity.<br /><br /><br />Be well, stay well,<br /><br />Hugs from more than 6 feet,<br /><br />David <br /><br />Kamran Nayerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-68107661962920144242020-05-05T15:18:50.648-07:002020-05-05T15:18:50.648-07:00Dear David:
Three issues about the population que...Dear David:<br /><br />Three issues about the population question. First, even the human population today at 7.7 billion is determinetal to the health of ecosystems. You seem to be happy to see it grow to 9 billion by 2050 and then "stablize." According to the 2019 UN projecttion world population will reach 9.7 billion in 2050 and could peak at nearly 11 billion around 2100. (https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html) You must have cited old projections. Second, as I pointed out earlier even the recent increases in human popuation have been deterimental to the health of ecosystem and we are in the midst of the Sixth Mass Extinction. Unless you can cite the literature that show increasing human population is not part of the complex of reasons for the mass exinction I would stay with the consensus of biodiverity and conservation biologists noted in my earlier comment. Third, as I note in the post you are commenting on more than 3 billion people — who live on less than $2.50 a day. Per capita daily conumption of an American (that is an average, with some below and some above) have $175 to spend per day! As an ecological socialist, you, of course, want to ensure that the rest of the world lives as well as American do. If 7.7 billion people consumer $175 worth of resources, inlduding food, energy, etc. what do you thin will happen to the rest of ecosphere? Now you seem quite comfortable with 9.9 billion of us spending as much per day or more by 2050? Finally, why a Marxist would oppose democratic family planning diven by empowerment of women? Have you not noticed that much of human population growth happens in countries were women are especilly oppressed. The demographic transition you are talking about is caused in large measure due to empowerment of women and family planning. What I and many others suggest is that by reducing the population replacement rate through democratic decisions by women within a number of generation it is possibe to reduce human population drastically. I rather live in a much smaller humanity well taken care of without undermining the rest of nature than in a heavily populated world with billions in dire need and the web of life in danger of collapse. I hope you would as well. Kamran Nayerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-4457407861438608062020-05-05T09:03:15.397-07:002020-05-05T09:03:15.397-07:00A very elegant and cogent essay. The conclusion d...A very elegant and cogent essay. The conclusion does a good job of summarizing the core conundrum. <br />I would add only that our predicament and the systems that have brought us here are largely due to a structural imbalance in modern humanity's ingenuity versus wisdom. We continually confuse the former for the latter.<br />Pre-agricultural societies got around this built-in imbalance by incorporating enduring wisdom into culture, which provided a check on our impact on the environment. Modern culture eschews wisdom for ingenuity - the global equivalent of leaving an open jar of cookies with a gaggle of toddlers.<br />And now that we elect toddlers to the highest office, it will be increasingly harder to wrest that cookie jar away.RSmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17206369378000042771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-79686832017556464502020-05-05T08:52:35.564-07:002020-05-05T08:52:35.564-07:00First, responding to Preston, what kind of growth ...First, responding to Preston, what kind of growth are we talking about? Knowledge, culture or what is truly unsustainable and unwelcome growth, what the GNP captures, endless consumption of needless commodities, military hardware, and of course fossil fuel consumption? I like the what the Dutch academics proposed: "a move away from development focused on aggregate GDP growth to differentiate among sectors that can grow and need investment (the so-called critical public sectors, and clean energy, education, health and more) and sectors that need to radically degrow due to their fundamental unsustainability or their role in driving continuous and excessive consumption (especially private sector oil, gas, mining, advertising, and so forth: (https://climateandcapitalism.com/2020/04/20/five-proposals-for-a-better-world-after-the-pandemic/). <br />Now regarding the issue of population, it is a complete mirage to expect a reduction of global population rather than stabilization unless a global catastrophe kicks in, with the prime examples being climate catastrophe, nuclear war or a much worse pandemic than we now witness. Only the first is inevitable unless avoided by activity of the global climate/energy justice movement. if an effective prevention program will be implemented in time to avoid climate catastrophe with much worse horrors than we now witness, then global population can be stabilized at a level of about 9 billion by 2050, since the well-known measures that stabilize population would be in place, namely empowerment of women in society and elimination of poverty. We have argued in our book, The Earth is Not for Sale, that such a prevention program would be very likely a path to ecosocialist transformation of global civilization since the main obstacle would have to be overcome and terminated once and for all, i.e., the Military Industrial (Fossil Fuel Nuclear State Terror and Surveillance) Complex. Kamran says that human population growth especially when linked to rising per capita income/consumption has a deterimental effect on ecosystems and their species. Indeed, that is precisely why such growth needs to come down coupled with radical changes in both the physical and political economies.David Schwartzmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09980141923707866204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-36740549131196743032020-05-03T17:12:13.175-07:002020-05-03T17:12:13.175-07:00Dear David, thanks for your comment and for sharin...Dear David, thanks for your comment and for sharing your own review. <br /><br />We disagree on the population question. Let me outline the issues invloved. First, you and many other socialists seem to confuse Marx's critique of Malthus dealing with specific condition in England in the nineteenth century with the present-day concern with the rapidly rising human population and its ecological impact. For the nineteenth century debate please see John Bellamy Foster “Malthus’ Essay on Population at Age 200: A Marxist View” (MR, 1998) and my for my own discussion please see, "On the Population Question: Malthus, Marx and Beyond." (in this blog, 2014). <br /><br />Second, Angus and Butler "Too Many People? (2011) answer their own rhetorical question in a chapter entitled "Is the World Full?” They write: “One day, when we have broad agreement on the answers to all of Joel Cohen’s questions, and when we have eliminated the gross waste, destruction, and inequities of capitalism, we may be able to measure the earth’s carrying capacity scientifically. If so, humanity may then decide to consciously limit its numbers.” (Angus and Butler, 2011, p. 61 on Kindle edition) <br /><br />If that "answer" satisfies you, I does not satisfy meThis "answer" does not satisfy you. But who is Cohen? A demographer who published a book and an article in 1995 which used a model to estimate the human carrying capacity of the planet. Please note that between 1995 when Cohen's work was publihed and 2011 when Angus and Butler published their book, sixteen years had passed. Could there have been other studies? No doubt there have been. Why are they not consulted? No doubt Angus and Butler have cherry picked a source to back up the answer they give and I quoted. If you as a scientist are happy with this methodology , I am not. I served a peer-reviewer for medical and political economy jounrnals for two decades. No paper with such shoddy methodolgy would ever be published in a scholarly kournal. <br /><br />Finally, in my reading of the literature I find a general agreement among biodiveristy and conservation biologists that human population growth especially when linked to rising per capita income/consumption has a deterimental effect on ecosystems and their species. I have written about this and cited sources. Please see, "How to Stop the Sixth Extinction: A Critical Assessment of E. O. Wilson’s Half-Earth" (OPITW, 2017), "The Coronavirus Pandemic as the Crisis of Civilization," (OPITW, 2020)<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />Kamran<br /><br />Kamran Nayerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-49342636722661071192020-05-03T17:07:44.317-07:002020-05-03T17:07:44.317-07:00Remember when we used to actually talk about "...Remember when we used to actually talk about "zero population growth" as a goal? Without population reduction, there is not a sustainable system. Unlimited growth is not sustainable with finite resources. I fail to understand how this is difficult to comprehend. Thanks for the review. I have not sen it.Prestonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-83405905945352549392020-05-03T15:41:16.386-07:002020-05-03T15:41:16.386-07:00Thanks for your review, here is mine: https://popu...Thanks for your review, here is mine: https://popularresistance.org/film-review-planet-of-humans-misplaces-the-blame-on-population-growth/<br /><br />It stirred up a very welcome hornet's nest of debate, see comments. <br /><br />Best wishes,<br />DavidDavid Schwartzmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09980141923707866204noreply@blogger.com