>Where I think environmentalists go wrong is to assume that
>people and nature are eternally opposed, that nature has inherent value (as
>opposed to the value created by human labor), and that the "conquest" of
>nature inevitably means its degradation.
>
>Dan Lazare
Doesn't the "Critique of the Gotha Programme" contain a passage in which Marx rants at the Gotha Programme writers for saying that labor is the source of all value? Doesn't Marx by contrast contend that nature is the source of much use-value, and that labor is the source only of exchange-value? (Put to one side for the moment the fact that Marx was mistaken about the second, and that nature and capital scarcity are the sources of exchange value as well.)
Brad DeLong