Louis Proyect writes: << Some
ecosystems are in "balance" while others are not. For instance, the gentle
Arawak who Columbus wiped out in the 15th century were, by his own
admission, living in balance with nature. Meanwhile, the European cities of
the 15th century with their paupers, congestion, open sewers and rat
infestation were also ecosystems, but somewhat out of balance.
"By his own admission"? This doesn't make it true...
LP adds:
In the case of Stephen Jay Gould, one might make
the observation that his "Marxism" is rather well-isolated from his
popular, scientific investigations into a wide variety of topics. Unlike
the outspokenly green but non-Marxist paleontologist Richard Leaky, Gould
has never made a big issue of how dinosaur extinction might relate to the
threat of our own extinction. A comet might have caused the climate changes
that cooled off the atmosphere to such an extent that dinosaurs perished.
By the same token, greenhouse gases might have the opposite effect and make
our own continuing existence impossible. In Gould's view, there will always
be the consolation of the surviving bacteria.
>> Again, I'm confused. Human society is not facing extinction. It's facing environmental degradation, which is a very different thing. People will survive, but not on the level we think they should. It seems to me that all Gould is saying is that rather than deferring to nature, people must recognize that their fate is in their own hands, that they must take responsibility for transforming the world as they would like it to be. What's wrong with that?
Dan Lazare