I agree. Why do we never hear any calls for population control? Anyone who dares to suggest that people reduce the amount of children they are having is met with a huge outcry of "It's my RIGHT to have an entire litter of children!"

In Quinn's latest book, he and his student postulate that if God really were all-powerful, he would strike 9 out of 10 women barren, which would reduce the population in a relatively quick and painless way.

"Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living." - Mary Harris "Mother" Jones

Hi, I have the similar doubts about how the enviromental crisis can be solved by those very same instituitions that created the problems. (BTW,this pov is an anti-kennedy/ opinion.) Now, I would ask you to look a bit further into the political realm that you speak of and beyond the very correct dogmatic position you take. I agree at the very likely prospect of an infinite endgame scenario, which is a loosing game, but my questioning stems from trying to grasp the actual mechanisms that allow for this limited political option to be taken seriously, b/c in my opinion it is a bad joke.

So to continue from where you left off, I would add that the main obstacle "political solutions" face is the obstacle of "politics married to capitalism" and not "bureaucracy" as you say.  It is true that capitalists who work with govts like to use "bureaucracy" as an excuse for ineffectual solutions, but you will note that govt. bureaucracy is easily circumvented in cases when success fits the needs of capitalist institutions, re: iraq war. You can depend on this like a rule of thumb. What I suggest fits the case of eco-war as well as the other "wars" that are on your list. What should be pointed out is that the issues on your list all represent cases in which capitalist have something to gain by upping the bureaucracy factor, ex. surveillance. Honestly, is there any reason to even pretend to attribute moral intentions to actions of our present govt.?

You might be interested to hear it straight from the horse's mouth. Here are some links to a lecture series by Jeffery Sachs (globo economist) where he says the same thing, but opposite (from the Taker side):

Sachs@Reith 4/07 1x5 Bursting at the Seams

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZFSMM4HT

Sachs@Reith 4/07 2x5 Survival in the Anthropocene

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NE4TFX8X

++++

-JJ

ADDED: at the end of the second lecture sachs predicts that by 2010 there will be a post-kyoto agreement between usa/eu/china -  just like you said would happen, and all this comes with sach's recommendation on upping global technology industry markets... hmm.... how does hot-air solve global warming exactly?

So to continue from where you left off, I would add that the main obstacle "political solutions" face is the obstacle of "politics married to capitalism" and not "bureaucracy" as you say.

I was thinking of bureaucracy as more of a symptom than an obstacle in itself.

What are the alternatives to "politics married to capitalism"? Let's see, there's the old Soviet system, politics married to communism. There's the Chinese system, politics married to the bastard child of communism and capitalism. There's the Islamic system, politics married to religion. None of these systems has a good record on the environment.

As you might guess, I have anarchist sympathies, and don't have much faith in political systems, regardless of what they're married to. Not that the situation is hopeless; there may be some success stories. We've made some progress on CFCs and acid rain. The air in LA isn't as bad as it used to be. But I don't think the global warming problem will be solved once and for all; it will be managed, and managed indefinitely.

Maybe you can set me straight, so anarchists don't see using political bodies as a means for change? Would anarchists see any reason for people to change politics? This is quakerdane's hope as well as a lot of other folks who believe in things like democratic change and also marxists who believe in "social transformation."

Its very hard for me to understand anarchism as a "lets wait it out and see what happens" approach to problems. It allows the existing power structures to solve the problems for us, and that is where we are today. Like when you say things about "progress on CFCs..." this doesn't strike me as anarchy, but on the contray, sympathizing with republican democracy..  I'm not interested to challenge you personally, its just that I'm having difficulty resolving this disconnect that I see and I want to understand better.

To me, it is very specifically "capitalism" and its bag of ideologies that is responsible here. I can say with certainty that, unlike capitalism, there is nothing intrinsic to communism/islam/china that is anti-environmental. You can cite "industrialization" but this is not a communist principle, it is a leninist solution to "destroy capitalism" after which there is no need for industry in communist society. (looking at the records tells another story but we are talking about political ideals and how they've been distorted, ie democracy) My point is that I see plenty of political choices and I'd say understanding these choices is the difficult part.

-JJ

Its very hard for me to understand anarchism as a "lets wait it out and see what happens" approach to problems.

We will see what happens, like it or not.  The question is what to do in the meantime.  If you think political activism is a productive use of your time, by all means go for it.

As for me, I'm not going to "wait it out", I'm going to live my life.  I tend to see political activism, whether working within the system or working against the system, as something that distracts me from dealing with things that I can really do something about.

Hi,

I agree with your basic premise, dealing with whats in front of you, and I think it would serve everyone well to act in this way more often, dealing with what's at "arm's length" as they say.

If you listened to Sach's talk (mp3s above) you'll notice that he is very explicit about what will happen next. I believe him, and I don't like it. Think about what's in front of you and what's in front of sach's, he is surrounded by a world that he can shape in whatever ways he imagines. I'm all for helping malaria victims but the vehicle he chooses is the bad news, he wants increased technology industry to "pave the road", yuck! Can you imagine that "what's in front of Sachs" will soon be "what's in front of you?" It will be. It will be in front of me also. Its springing up all over the place. I suppose it would do me well to ignore what looms in the future but for me it is hard to keep my eyes closed. I didn't intend to bring up Sach's bad news so that I could get depressed about it ans share my depression, I brought it up hoping that I share a world with other folks who might have previously dealt with the feelings I'm possessed by and know something about protecting that shared world.

-JJ

If you listened to Sach's talk (mp3s above) you'll notice that he is very explicit about what will happen next. I believe him, and I don't like it.

I did listen. Thanks for the links, by the way. What struck me about Sachs is that he is saying that we can have our cake and eat it too. There are no tradeoffs; we can all, all umpteen billion of us, have endlessly increasing standards of living while we save the world.

He's not necessarily right about that. There are certainly people with equally impressive credentials who would disagree. I don't know how the Reith Lectures work, whether there's a steering committee, or trustees for a foundation, or what, but somebody somewhere sat down in a conference room and came up with a list of potential lecturers and argued and compromised and narrowed the list down to Mr. Sachs. Not because he's right, but because they liked his glass-half-full message.

I don't see the choice being "political activism" OR "waiting and seeing."   What about talking and educating and modeling new ways of life?   DOING, in our own lives, and encouraging doing in others' lives.

Hi,yeah, what you're talking about is certainly political, in fact "social transformation" also happens to be the marxist approach for making change, specifically Gramsci's version of marxism which is not about violent revolution, but about change through hegemony.-JJ

Not sure I agree with the idea of "change through hegemony."

hegemony - The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

I don't see individuals influencing individuals as "hegemony" personally.

Hi,
Your point is totally correct!I know you like to be anti-intellectual but...Please dont discard the entire idea just because I stated it unclearly. To say it better...
Hegemony is the obsticle to social change, I didn't mean to say "change throug hegemony" but "change of hegemony".does that make more sense now?-JJ

I didn't say we should wait around. In fact I believe we should TAKE ACTION.

The government is never going to to solve the problems. Example:  They'll REDUCE emmisions, but they'll never outlaw the use of fossil fuels. The politicians are bought and sold. You never know who's pocket they're in (though it should be painfully obvious).

We are the ones who must make the change, not a change of programs but a change of vision.

 Not that I have of course =\

HI,quakerdane, pleasee don't change your vision, its right-on!
I did semi-quote you about the need for bottom-up change but the quote was in response to what Danneau was talking about as was the rest of the post.
I agree with you these institutional solutions are b.s., but if you listen to Sachs you'll get a peek at what's coming ahead - we should not be surprized or dissappointed by their strategy for dealing the future eco-war. Like Danneau said up front: the strategy is failure. But if you're one of those people who thnk the "fall" is coming you ought to know that "civ" already has plans to deal with it and their plans should be known and talked about openly instead of ignored b/c we are dealing with civ "now" & we will be dealing with civ "after." Its not going to go away, it re-builds itself everyday in every corner of the world.-JJ

No harm done =D