People don't like living under authoritarian, oppressive regimes. Of the kind you're suggesting, in fact.
And you don't think that a system like this might have some, how shall I put it....inhumane elements to it?
I was going to make a similar point to this. As an example: with the advent of digital storage, as much music can be made in recording studios and sold to as many people as you like (allowing of course for electricity costs) with minimal use of resources. My guess is that rapacious consumption-led capitalism may well adapt to follow a model of this kind of growth. It's adapted to new realities before.I have doubts about Bookchin's stance on this, not because I think companies will be less destructive with less population (they will always do what they can get away with, whatever the population) but because a lot of what is 'produced' these days are not real products and do not consume physical resources. Phone companies for instance, though they do need real products (phones, masts) are only peripherally in the business of selling phones and masts. They sell a service that requires a lot of administration but, compared to the size of their turnover, does not consume a lot in the way of physical resources (energy yes, but that's sustainable as soon as we care enough to make it sustainable). So it seems to me that a service provider like a phone company can grow and grow with very little impact on the planet*. So I wonder if Bookchin wasn't being a bit too apocalyptic with his confident pronouncements that growth would have to destroy the planet.
Butchersapron will be along in a moment to tear apart my oversimplifications
*ignoring current mobile phone disposability admittedly
I have doubts about Bookchin's stance on this, not because I think companies will be less destructive with less population (they will always do what they can get away with, whatever the population) but because a lot of what is 'produced' these days are not real products and do not consume physical resources. Phone companies for instance, though they do need real products (phones, masts) are only peripherally in the business of selling phones and masts. They sell a service that requires a lot of administration but, compared to the size of their turnover, does not consume a lot in the way of physical resources (energy yes, but that's sustainable as soon as we care enough to make it sustainable). So it seems to me that a service provider like a phone company can grow and grow with very little impact on the planet*. So I wonder if Bookchin wasn't being a bit too apocalyptic with his confident pronouncements that growth would have to destroy the planet.
Butchersapron will be along in a moment to tear apart my oversimplifications
*ignoring current mobile phone disposability admittedly
Forgive me, but this is naive. There is as yet no sign whatsoever that we are approaching some kind of 'maximum consumption'.
I have doubts about Bookchin's stance on this, not because I think companies will be less destructive with less population (they will always do what they can get away with, whatever the population) but because a lot of what is 'produced' these days are not real products and do not consume physical resources. Phone companies for instance, though they do need real products (phones, masts) are only peripherally in the business of selling phones and masts. They sell a service that requires a lot of administration but, compared to the size of their turnover, does not consume a lot in the way of physical resources (energy yes, but that's sustainable as soon as we care enough to make it sustainable). So it seems to me that a service provider like a phone company can grow and grow with very little impact on the planet*. So I wonder if Bookchin wasn't being a bit too apocalyptic with his confident pronouncements that growth would have to destroy the planet.
Butchersapron will be along in a moment to tear apart my oversimplifications
*ignoring current mobile phone disposability admittedly
Right, let's look at a map and see where we should start. Europe seems a prime candidate. Some of the highest population densities in the world, and all rich fuckers consuming themselves into oblivion to boot. Remembering that childlessness is a major cause of misery in Europe, how do you propose we start. I don't know what sex you are btw, but if you're a man, I do hope you've had a vasectomy.
You are of course entitled to be passionately wrong, but I wish you'd actually read the arguments people are putting forward and try to think about the other factors in the causal chain that leads to environmental destruction.
Consumption does not depend only on the number of consumers. This is one of many variables. As butchers says, all the evidence is pointing the other way, that consumption is expanding more rapidly than ever before.
