>>Methinks your antinomy massively misunderestimates capital's ability
>>push back its own limits. There no reason to believe that it can't
>>make growth either environmentally neutral or even enhancing of the
>>environment. Thinking it couldn't, it seems to me, is based on a
>>pretty unhistorical view of capitalism.
>
>On this I totally agree with you. The only problems that capitalism
>can't solve by its very nature - leaving aside the contingencies of
>politics and such - are polarization and cyclicality. There's no
>fundamental reason why it can't "solve" the environmental problem.
>That's not to say that capitalist politicians will be able to manage
>the transition properly - but there's no necessitous reason they
>can't.
That's right, though we might not like the "solution".
Many people already have to buy water in bottles. No reason that can't be extended to breathable air.
A climate that is inimical to human life - easily (profitably) fixed! Either people can be sold life-support capsules into which they plug their bottles of pressurised air. Or, if its more profitable, people can buy genetic amendments for their offspring, to make it possible for them to survive in a post-human world. Little frankensteins, for a price, now there's a generation gap!
Of course such "solutions" will only be available for those who can afford them and no doubt there's be higher-priced "solutions" for those who can pay more. (Perhaps instead of gated communities, there's be massive domed enclaves with green parklands for the super-rich.)
Carrol is such a pessimist, capitalist science will come up with something, no need to bother our heads with that!
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas