I don't know what Monbiot thinks about capitalism, but I myself see this as a two-tiered problem. Capitalism *is* evil, and high tech *can* be evil. The one way to assure that high tech *will* be evil is to develop it under the auspices of capitalism. As I said in response to Jim Heartfield on this topic, the development of GM foods -- if they are needed at all -- should wait until after the revolution.
> Tell me, what are the "long-range effects" of coal burning?
Global warming, it would seem.
> Was the
> industrial revolution all a mistake?
We're edging toward the dilemma posed by Brave New World -- the horrors of humanity having too much knowledge for its own good versus the horrors of having too much ignorance for its own good. It's a conundrum I don't know the answer to.
> And what are the
> "long-range effects"
> of the internet?
Well, it sure has a punishing effect on my productivity at the office -- an indisputable social benefit ;-)
> > > Is there something in
> > > about genetic
> > > engineering technology which makes it qualitatively "more
> > > hostile" to nature
> > > than every other tool that humanity has ever developed?
> >
> >Potentially yes.
> >
>
> What? Isn't the essence of "labour", as Marx understood it,
> that it sets
> humanity against nature, subject against object?
Sounds too alienated for me -- humanity is *part* of nature. As I've said before, the ultimate risk posed by genetic modification falls under the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" heading -- the potential to create some undesirable heritable trait that contaminates other life forms and spreads at an exponential rate.
Carl