Biodiversity seems to have its limits. I have never really understood what the whole issue is all about anyway. Terms such as "species" are not at all clear to me. I have often wondered if the Inuit, and even we in Manitoba must not somehow be deprived lesser value beings, since we are not centres of great biodiversity as are warmer climes or parts of the Amazon. And the Saskatchewan government publication on creating biodiversity in my yard also suggests how I may get rid of mice and moles!
If biodiversity is so great why are many ecologists opposed to GM seeds etc. Not only do these increase biodiversity they increase the range of crops that can be grown in a given area through drought resistance, etc. and they often decrease the use of pesticides rather than increasing their use. There are problems with GM seeds but many of these problems have to do with the fact that they being developed by capitalist corporations. In a socialist system, plants would be developed that could compete effectively with weeds rather developing plants that are resistant to herbicide so that one company can profit both from a patented seed and a patented herbicide as with Roundup Ready Canola--produced by Monsanto. So how many ecologists are calling for the nationalisation or taking into public ownership Monsanto etc. THe silence is deafening.
Unless the means of production are socially owned and controlled I do not see how one could have a socialist system. With ownership in private hands and a market capitalist system, protecting the environment will be limited by the demand for profit and a large mass of humanity is likely to suffer. Eugenics and population control will become respectable. Of course it may be that the Church will persevere,even grow, bless the poor and starving and preach about the life hereafter. I think that the sort of scenario you suggest is a more likely outcome of the contradiction between the environment and capitalism than some form of socialism. As the real environmental costs of production are included in products even fewer people will be able to afford a high standard of living. But I do not know what O'Connor and others argue and am open to hear what they have to say.
Cheers, Ken Hanly Dace wrote:
> >I think actually calculating replacement costs for all
> >inputs from the Third World, even as a thought experiment, involves a
> >multiplying of myriad uncertainties and hence is likely an empirical
> >impossibility. That said, to include ecological considerations into
> >Marxist analyses is an urgently necessary task, in order to think about
> >what James O'Connor calls "second contradictions." Have you (or has
> >anyone) read _Is Capitalism Sustainable?: Political Economy and the
> >Politics of Ecology_, ed. Martin O'Connor (1994), for instance? Jim's
> >essay "Is Sustainable Capitalism Possible?" is in it, too. Since Jim is on
> >this list, it would be wonderful if we could discuss his works. A chance
> >to ask the author questions! First off, I think Jim's distinction between
> >"first contradiction" and "second contradictions" is very useful; I also
> >like his characterization of capitalism as "crisis-ridden *and*
> >crisis-dependent."
> >
> >Yoshie
> >
> >
> Sometimes, in order to maintain conditions conducive to accumulation,
> certain "privileges," like education and general welfare and labor rights,
> to mention a few, have to get tossed by the wayside. This happens in a mild
> form here at home and in a much more severe form abroad. But the biggest
> costs of all are imposed on the future. This is what produces James
> O'Connor's "second contradiction" of capitalism, the conflict between
> *capitalist* sustainability and *ecological* sustainability. When capital
> increases profits by externalizing costs onto nature, the long-term effect
> is to impair the conditions of production, which therefore becomes more
> expensive.
>
> *Is Capitalism Sustainable?* pp 165 - 174:
> "For example, the use of pesticides in agriculture at first lowers, then
> ultimately increases, costs as pests become more chemical resistant and also
> as the chemicals poison the soil. Permanent-yield monoforests in Sweden
> were expected to keep costs down, but it turned out that the loss of
> biodiversity over the years has reduced the productivity of forest
> ecosystems and the size of the trees... As for the 'communal' conditions of
> production, new highways, designed to lower the costs of transportation and
> the commute to work tend to raise costs when they attract more traffic and
> create more congestion."
>
> If we were to "green" the economy in various ways, such as subsidizing
> organic agriculture, banning cars in downtowns in favor of public
> transportation, and replacing destructive products with
> environmentally-friendly alternatives, etc., the result would be new
> opportunities for economic growth and long-term lowering of the costs of
> production. But since this would occur at the expense of short-term profit,
> the impetus has to come from the state. Unfortunately, "In liberal
> democratic states the normal political logic of pluralism and compromise
> prevents the development of overall environmental, urban, and social
> planning." Decisions are made according to the needs of fragmented "special
> interests," the most powerful of which are the very corporations that are
> resistant to anything that cuts into short-term profit. Though
> theoretically possible, the "chances of instituting a systematic 'capitalist
> solution' to the second contradiction are remote."
>
> O'Connor suggests political agitation in pursuit of "radically reforming the
> economy, polity, and society." Ultimately this would result in the
> establishment of "ecological socialism." He doesn't address the question of
> what happens if we fail. What if accumulation marches on, and the
> ecological crisis continues worsening and eventually becomes acute? It's
> commonly believed that once we get to the point at which the viability of
> civilization is threatened, both consumers and capitalists will suddenly
> realize that our destructive way of life must change. We will experience a
> great transformation of consciousness. We will see that we're all part of
> the same "special interest" known as humanity, and the necessary greening
> will finally come about.
>
> I think there's a more likely outcome of acute ecological crisis under
> capitalism. Back to O'Connor, on the first contradiction: "The main type of
> crisis inherent in capitalism, however, is a 'realization crisis.' Marxists
> regard capitalism as 'crisis-ridden.' But the system is also
> 'crisis-dependent' in the sense that economic crises force cost cutting,
> 'restructuring,' layoffs, and other changes that make the system more
> 'efficient,' that is, more profitable. Marx wrote that 'capital accumulates
> through crisis,' meaning that crises are occasions for the liquidation of
> some capitals, and also the appearance of new capitals and reorganization of
> old capitals, not to speak of the diffusion of new and more 'efficient'
> technology throughout the system, such as computerization."
>
> Why couldn't the second contradiction be resolved in roughly the same
> manner? Except that, in this case, "liquidation" takes on a somewhat
> sinister meaning. Though the crisis is caused by the conflict between the
> needs of accumulation and the limits of ecology, in capitalist mythology,
> the problem is simple: Population. There's too many darned people out
> there! It's not that we'll have to send them all to the gas ovens or even
> sterilize them-- It's simply a matter of "restructuring." Draw a circle
> around the chosen few, and leave the rest to fend for themselves in
> environments that have been rendered virtually unlivable. With all our
> great strides in computerization and automation, most of the working class
> will be superfluous, so it's not as if they (we) will be missed. After the
> mass "layoffs," capital and its elite servants can resume business as usual.
>
> Once more, "capital accumulates through crisis."
>
> Ted