Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> writes: "It's interesting to me how this type of fastidious cost benefit analysis conveniently sweeps the public costs of auto culture under the rug. Where's the consideration of the negative health effects of pollution? Maintaining highways and roads? Costs of injury and death due to autos and trucks? Why aren't these part of your calculus?"
That's just silly. The public benefits of auto-culture massively outweigh any losses. Or will you hold to the nostalgic proposition that life was much better in your great grandfather's day. You only have to compare the life conditions of societies without a car culture. Pollution in the third world is far worse than in the first. Productivity in agriculture and distribution much lower, health care minimal (you don't even consider what it costs not to be able to get to a hospital or health care centre, a perennial problem for those without roads).
Michael Perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu> writes 'To the extent that organic farming requires more care, stoop labor becomes less appropriate.'
Haven't those in the caring professions learned that 'care' is a euphemism for 'stoop labour'? Unless you are suggesting that refraining from the use of pesticides will suspend capitalist social relations then organic farming means labour intensification.
Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> challenges my argument that
What Kyoto means for personal incomes is a two-thirds cut
'But this assumes no change in technology or social organization.'
On the contrary, my point was only that insofar as the problem is addressed in terms of consumption alone, then it can only mean a reduction in the consumption fund, i.e. wages. Kyoto starts from the assumption of reduction in output not improved technology.
'You miss the point that we can't go on like this.'
You're sounding a bit religious here. What do you mean? Will God wreak his vengeance on Gomorrah if me and my fellow car drivers rev up tomorrow?
'But a professed technological optimist like you should have no problem with the idea that there are technical fixes for the problem. I guess your technological optimism isn't for real, given the way you just want to assume away the problem.'
Well, that's hardly fair, as you know full well that I am active in the promotion of fuel cell technologies in the building industry (Building Design magazine called the book I edited with Ian Abley, 'essential reading'.) What have you done for the environment today?
More importantly, do we differ over the nature of 'the problem'? I see the restraints on productivity and consumption as the problem. Don't you see the excess of productivity and consumption as the problem?
-- James Heartfield The 'Death of the Subject' Explained is available at GBP11.00, plus GBP1.00 p&p from Publications, audacity.org, 8 College Close, Hackney, London, E9 6ER. Make cheques payable to 'Audacity Ltd'