To: LindyBill who wrote (27061 ) 1/30/2004 11:25:12 AM From: Rascal Respond to of 793964 Thanks for the real scoop!..there doesn't appear to be even a dime's difference between the two sides when you stack up their neo-Malthusian credentials. From this perspective, whether SUSPS ends up running Sierra, or whether the current board stays in charge, will make little difference to the Club's overall policy direction. The Club will continue to spread a neo-Malthusian attitude towards the supposed limits of technology. The Sierra Club's position on Sustainability is concentrated on Sustainable COnsumption not Immigration...Sustainable consumption is the use of goods and services that satisfy basic needs and improve quality of life while minimizing the usage of irreplaceable natural resources and the byproducts of toxic materials, waste, and pollution. Sustainable Consumption Quotables: "Would it not be well for us to consider if our deed will warrant the expense of nature?" -- Henry David Thoreau We believe the Sierra Club can have the greatest effect on individual consumption by encouraging people to think about the environmental impacts of their consumption choices and by providing them with specific information that will enable them to make thoughtful choices as consumers.sierraclub.org ; The Sierra's CLub's focus is on consumption not immigration until the recent attempted coups. And then there is the whole thing about immigration/sustainability/labor/capital/Malthus and Marxd Malthus argued that the peasants should be "swept" from the soil and concentrated in urban centers where they could provide the low wage masses for large-scale industry. Marx, Engels and Morris argued for the dispersal of population in order to reunite industry and agriculture in line with the necessary metabolic interaction of nature and society. One approach, that of Malthus, was anti-ecological and was tied to the whole process of primitive accumulation reflected today in agribusiness. The other approach, that of Marx, Engels and Morris was ecological in its fundamental features. It is no accident that Malthus later became the classical ideological justification for the "Green Revolution" the triumph of agribusiness while Marx and Engels were classified as anti-ecological (and Morris was simply forgotten), because they opposed this kind of development. The recent immigration debate within the Sierra Club resurrects this issue in a way, reflecting the fact that the classical population debate was never simply about numbers but also about distribution of these numbers. Today of course the greatest population centers (and centers of ecological decline) are to be found in the urban centers of "newly industrializing countries" like Mexico, Brazil, India and South Korea. All of this, moreover, is related to a system of international hierarchy between nation states (i.e. imperialism). Dispersal of population, as a revolutionary strategy, now means not only breaking down the antagonism between town and country in the traditional sense, but also abolishing the division between center and periphery globally, which means that there has to be a much freer movement of population, i.e. of the world poor--in order to promote population stabilization, ecological sustainability and sustainable socio-economic development, and for the purpose of countering the power of capital (which is mobile when labor is not). csf.colorado.edu Economics and Sustainability..cyberus.ca Rascal @It'sNotMathus'sSierraClub.com