Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> Look, I don't have a magic policy answer; I am only saying that the
> technology wand isn't the solution.
Demands for a "solution" here are essentially dishonest. But let's summarize what we _do_ know.
1. Several billion people are going hungry. And no increase in food production will alleviate that hunger.
2. No matter _what_ 'we' (leftists in the u.s.) do, a billion or more people will continue to go hungry as long as capitalism exists on a world scale.
3. Mere technological improvements will _not_ have the least effect on world hunger. Arguments for techonology on the basis of the existence of hunger are dishonest arguments.
4. We also know something like this: for the forseeable future under capitalism, we are going to have to depend more on mere technology than is desirable for human survival in the long run or minimal human comfort even in the short run. Mere attacks on technology are beside the point. Primativists are probably (whether or not they know it) aiding and abetting anti-democratic and potentially murderous political movements.
4a. Though primativism is despicable, defenses of "technology in the abstract" through attacks on primitivism are even more despicable.
5. Technology under capitalism, even when in the short or medium run defensible and/or necessary, is beyond any doubt a serious threat to the future food supply. (Future 50 + years). In another century, under present use, the Great Plains won't be able to raise rabbits or centipedes, let alone grain. If we can stop grain production there in the next 50 years or so and return them to grass, they might provide a good bit of protein (though not very tender for it won't be cornfed) over the millenia to come.
Carrol
Carrol