>
> Only in the rich countries [people very reliant
> upon capitalism], which is a MINORITY of the
> planet's population. the MAJORITY of the
> world's population are actually the exploited
> victims of global capitalism. All the power is in
> the hands of a very small elite of people who
> have a vested interest in keeping the status
> quo.
>
this is a big debate, and i don't have time to address it in its entirety just now. But i'd like to pick you up on the above statement Lord Lucan. Because it's completely untrue.
Sadly.
The majority of the world's population are indeed the exploited victims of global capitalism (i mean, you're unlikely to hear me arguing against that, let's face it); but that is not inconsistent with them having become dependent upon it.
There is a point of view that the planet we live on can sustain a population of a certain size of humans, and no larger. This view has fallen in and out of favour (and has been co-opted by some dodgy folks to justify extreme views, tainting it somewhat); but is essentially just common sense. Whether you think we're near that number right now, or not, clearly the planet cannot support an infinite number of people - so somewhere between 1 and infinity is the maximum number.
It appears that this number can be increased through a reduction in biodiversity. Though probably not by very much (and who knows what the side-effects of such a reduction in biodiversity might be... though i suspect we shall find out at some point).
So, preamble over; the two studies i have read which attempt to quantify / estimate just what the maximum number is... what the earth's carrying capacity for our race might be... have both arrived at numbers significantly below our current global population.
The discrepancy; the ability of our planet to carry more than it's maximum carrying capacity; is provided by industrialism and global trade. There are 6 billion of us now. You cannot spread us out; give us all a plot of arable land, and tell us to grow our own food. There's too many of us for that. So centralised, mass food production is required.
And this is NOT just in the affluent west. Anyone who thinks that has never lived in Cairo or Sao Paulo, or spent time in Mexico City. Has never read into the *really* scary food problems staring China in the face as we speak. Has never grasped that the majority of the food consumed in the "third world" is produced in massive industrial farms (using petroleum based fertilisers - increasing yields massively) by multi-national conglomerates.
The project of globalisation is not in its infancy, y'know. It's been going on since the Marshall Plan (and possibly before).
The world is not set up the way it should be. i am very well aware of that fact. But it just doesn't follow that because much of the world is a victim of global capitalism, that it's removal would be a good idea for them (i can't think of a medical analogy, but i'm sure there is one) until something that fulfills the essential roles it has co-opted is put in place.
Look into the additional food production enabled by industrialised production / distribution techniques and fossil-fuel fertilisers. Then look at when these things were introduced. Then look at the change in global population since then. Then imagine how that increase would cope with the removal of the support system which allowed it in the first place. Then. Well, if you're like me, then you just weep.
|
