<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> Mike B:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> The latter under capitalism.  As I assume that a society under the control of an association of producers will be rational enough to plan production so that we can live "in harmony with the Earth", I would speculate that such a society would come to endorse population goals which would enhance living in harmony with Nature.  The complete transition out of the mess which the wages system has left us will take some time to accomplish.  Birth control will be part of that democratically planned transition, IMO.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> [WS:] Frankly, I do not see how collective ownership per se is going to solve the problems of externalities (pollution, etc.) as well as population growth.  Most of “capitalist” (if this term is appropriate here) societies outside the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> have already achieved zero population growth and are heading towards a “harmony with nature” (albeit it will be a while before they start reversing some of the mess we are in.)  Environmentalism is a big thing in EU mainstream thinking – including corporations (see for example <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility</a>, <a href="http://www.csr.gov.uk/">http://www.csr.gov.uk/</a>, <a href="http://www.csreurope.org/">http://www.csreurope.org/</a>, <a href="http://www.bsr.org/CSRResources/index.cfm">http://www.bsr.org/CSRResources/index.cfm</a> ).  Only the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> is an obstructionist – so clearly the problem is not with capitalism in general, but with the “peculiar institutional nature” of the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> economy, politics, and society.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Outside Western Europe and North America, the only country that achieved a reasonable population growth rate control is <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> – and did so by means that are far from collective ownership.  They did so by a rather authoritarian top-down bureaucratic control.  In most other countries, there is no effective population control, except in the most crude and barbaric forms – by disease, poverty, overexploitation of natural resources, starvation, and warfare.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> An argument can be made that decentralized ownership of the means of production is likely to contribute to negative externalities and population growth, as the individual producer units will have an incentive to increase their own workforce and export pollution and waste outside their own boundaries to optimize their output and competitive advantage over other units.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> To summarize – In my view the EU style “mixed economy” (which I think is a more appropriate descriptor than “capitalism”) is probably our best hope for achieving a “harmony with nature” without sacrificing modern amenities and life style.  Only the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> model of economy and society is a problem here.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Wojtek<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </body> </html>