An important note of clarification: George Carlin is a professional comedian (made famous by his "Hippy Dippy Weatherman" and "7 dirty words" routines) and what he said after my signature is what's known as a _joke_. It should be treated as such.
>All the Greens I've come across, argue that to defend the planet, people
>must be controlled in some way. Faced with the consumption of resources
>they argue that some measure of authoritarianism is needed to keep the
>pesky humans under control for the good of said planet. I reject this
>control, whereas all the Greens argue about, is the degree of control
>needed to keep humanity in order. Deeply suspect, and deeply anti-humanist
>in my book.
Well I've met Greens who were anarchists, but that seems a self-contradictory stance so let's ignore it. Russ here seems to be advocating an anti-Green anarchism (maybe an anti-Green libertarianism), since he's so opposed to "control."
Some sort of control is needed. How else are we to keep Union Carbide from pulling Bhopals regularly or to keep the lobster harvesters from overfishing (or overcrustaceaning)? If the anarchist commune across the river wants to build a plutonium-driven nuclear power plant, don't you think that some kind of controls are needed? (I don't think Malthusian "force them not to breed" controls are justified at all, though. This gets us to a different issue: what _kinds_ of controls are needed.)
I think it's possible to be a non-authoritarian but non-anarchic Green. The point is that we can "keep those pesky humans under control" with a democratic state rather than a state that's dominated by some minority. We pesky humans have to keep the pesky state under control. If we succeed, the _nature_ of the controls changes. Instead of being some sort of capitalist or bureaucratic imposition, controls become a matter of the human community putting its collective business in order. It involves freedom. I'd agree with Jean-Jacques Rousseau that freedom within society involves "obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself," as a part of a democratic assembly. That such a democratic state is impossible under capitalism (in the long run) is another issue.
I was the one who suggested that Paul Ehrlich was a "Green." I don't really know where to draw the line between environmentalists who are "Greens" and those who are not. But if Mr. Ehrlich wants to eschew that title, that's fine with me. Given his politics we should call him a "White."
talking lbotically,
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html "he who is unable to live in society or has no need, because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." -- Aristotle