Home | About | Donate

Transforming to an Ecological Civilization: The Alternative Is Unthinkable

right as if you sir wouldn’t be a leftist… the marxist, socialists, communists etc used to stand on top of the historic left but this was a long time ago… the european left peaked back then when they were able to battle the liberal elites at will, but these times probably won’t come back… i applauded your attitude or concepts because you still can see that the babyphobes are wrong or misguided — or too depressed to see why they 're wrong — but this didn’t mean your solutions, ideology and ideas are sufficent, they are not sufficent and have statistically speaking no chance whatsoever at being realized, btw there is no such thing as abstract science what i was aiming at is called: the natural sciences… i had enough of battling global capitalism with art — the journos, writers and intellectuals, in the end of the day, they all are creating art — it’s about time to fight fire with fire.

marxism, communism or socialism they all are books, yes books… my message to you sir was rather clear: the historic left can still put up a fight against the reactionaries — and as such has its value — but this doesn’t change or improve the ideas of the left… communism, socialism etc as systemic transformations (or revolutions if you will) won’t happen. period.

you 're holding up a light into the dark, a light that is not a light because your „light" is a trap.

Oh, my…citing an economist who remained loyal to the end to the discredited view that government intervention can make capitalism work in the interest of the majority.

If you seek a critique of economists then go no further than Marx who accused them of being “mere sophists and sycophants of the ruling-classes”

Yet he fully recognized and acknowledged his debt to those classic scholars of political economy such as Ricardo and others.

However, it takes a worker to explain economics of the real world - Robert Tressell’s ‘The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist.’


1 Like

No, you stated unequivocally “it is not the number of humans which is the problem but the capitalist economic system itself which is responsible for ecological problems.”

People tend to forget that there were precursors to Marx from who he learned from. The Chartists, for example. It was their journal that published the ‘Communist Manifesto’

Who have heard of the Fraternal Democrats but it was they who proclaimed before Marx did:

“That the earth with all its natural productions is the common property of all; we therefore denounce all infractions of this evidently just and natural law, as robbery and usurpation. We declare that the present state of society, which permits idlers and schemers to monopolise the fruits of the earth and the productions of industry, and compels the working classes to labour for inadequate rewards, and even condemns them to social slavery, destitution, and degradation, is essentially unjust.”

1 Like


Well done.
Thank you.

Indeed, capitalism is the problem, or more accurately, the private property system is which gave rise to class society.

In my reply to Natureboy, i endeavoured to explain that scarcity and surplus were relative to our production system for profit and that population was not relevant to that balance.

The term “overpopulation” in itself has no meaning or social significance unless it is related to specific conditions and has an applicable framework of reference. Countries are not over-­populated in relationship to land mass, but modem industrial cities have concentrations that are completely disproportionate to other areas.

As far as food supplies are concerned, there is no over­population problem relative to society’s capacity for producing an abundant harvests yet hunger exists

Why should a drought in the Horn of Africa cause a famine yet a persistent drought in California doesn’t. In fact, water-greedy crops are actually grown.

Deprivation is not caused by so-called “overpopulation”, but on the contrary but under certain conditions of poverty Marx aptly stated in Capital that “The size of the family is in reverse ratio to the height in wages.”

1 Like

Here. Go nuts:


As long as there is money,
Nothing will change.

Why are there not 8 billion bears? Or 8 billion eagles? Or 8 billion horses? Does ecological science give us any clues?

“Society’s capacity for producing an abundant harvest” is destroying the ecological systems on which all life depends, and undermining “society’s capacity for producing an abundant harvest.” And societies have collapsed from agricultural overreach long before capitalism was developed.

CERTAINLY capitalism is cruel, murderous, prioritizes class and individual greed over human and social need, ignores what it terms “externalities,” etc. etc. etc., no argument there. And is driving ecological catastrophe and mass extinction.

But you ignore ecological science. And among the problems created by capitalism, capitalism causes overpopulation.

You plainly have areas of ignorance that color your views. Or more accurately, your ideology blinds you to certain scientific truths.

Let us not repeat the mistakes of Garret Hardin in his ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ by ignoring that our relationships with nature have always been associated with a pattern of traditional customs of the community and that is what made cultures sustainable.

Capitalism is the culprit, a mode of production for profit and not a system of production for use for peoples needs. Capitalism is an exchange economy which turns everything into a commodity and places a price upon everything and green capitalists are striving to calculate the dollar and cents worth of the environment and offer up solutions to trade on the stock-exchange. Under capitalism, a forest has no value until it is cut down and transformed into lumber.

Why do you insist in viewing population as a problem. You seem to believe each new baby is only an extra mouth to feed, not as another pair of hands and one more brain for the benefit of humanity.

It is yourself that is in denial, refusing to accept that if this world was run on a rational basis, there exists ample resources and the planet’s carrying capacity can be expanded ten-fold and still remain in balance with the needs of nature.

Your negative pessimism leads to no movement for any type of system change. It is a fatalism of the worse sort. I quoted it before. You find it easier to imagine the end of the world than think it is possible to put an end to capitalism.

We have a reducing fertility and falling birth rate. Numbers rise at the moment because of what is called population momentum but it will adjust and we will see a drop in numbers.

We have lowered the mortality of children and increased the longevity of the elderly, and we are not expected to view those achievements as a success. We have empowered women even in patriarchal cultures to plan lower family sizes by making education accessible.

The trend to a lower population even now exists but the capitalists are desperate to reverse that tendency so i agree with you - and it been recognized for a long time - to maintain profits by keeping wages low, capitalists need an army of unemployed, a surplus of workers, and they will drive people off the land or import them from afar.

1 Like

i assume you think you have a scientific basis for this, so perhaps you could cite a source that shows a 10-fold increase in planetary carrying capacity under “rational” management. You don’t want to believe in any limits on what humans can do. This just sounds like human supremacy to me. Why does the world need humans to run it? Why would you think it makes any sense at all to imagine 80 billion humans on Earth?

i think you are delusional, frankly, so you must resort to “argumentation” that is little more than rash assertions. Like asserting that i have “negative pessimism,” or thinking you know what i “believe each new baby” means. Or that i need schooling in basic economics, or that you need to explain what capitalism is. It is apparently unimaginable to you that you might not fully grasp the science of ecology.

You ignore my questions to you and my references to ecological science, replying instead to the webwalk of your imagination. OK.

It seems i have to provide an example for you.

The maximum cultivable area of the UK - meaning land good for annual crops like wheat or permanent crops like fruit trees - is just 23 percent of total land area, or around 56,600 sq.km. However, not included is pasture land, currently used for dairy and beef cattle, sheep and goats. The main thing wrong with this land, from an arable point of view, is that it’s not flat enough for tractors and combine harvesters. Given that pastured beef consumes around 20 times the energy it produces (grain-fed beef is around 40:1), it could make sense to convert this pasture to intensive allotments which would yield on average 20 times more food. If you include this land, the total farmable land area goes from 23 percent to 75 percent. Even this does not include woodland, which constitutes 11 percent of the remainder, and which could, in theory, be turned to good account using well-established ‘wild farming’ techniques like permaculture and forest gardens. Most of what’s left is lakes (fish-farming?), parks, golf courses and mountains. Urban development, cities, roads, buildings etc only account for about 4 percent. Britain could convert 86 percent of their land to agriculture. On a land area of 241,590sq. km this gives a theoretical Maximum Sustainable Population of 238,631,640, near enough the population of the USA than of Britain. If you want you can cut that figure by a half if you wish but even so it demonstrates what is possible.

Globally, the amount of so-called ‘arable land’ on the planet is about 14 million sq. km. If we only use this amount of arable land, we would have about 20 times the land we need to feed all of us on the planet. If we include permanent pastures, which amount to about 33 million km2 and is used for livestock, and grow vegetables there instead, we end up with more than 60-100 times of what we actually need. That is if we only eat vegetarian. But of course, we don’t need all that land so there would be plenty of room for some grass-fed beef or chicken with happy free-ranging animals that can be managed holistically. Goats are very versatile livestock.

Food, of course, is not the only requirement for people. We have other needs, i know. But i could go through each exaggerated claim that we have reached peak production for each product. There are always alternatives according to Liebig’s Law of the Minimum

As for your other challenge.

Various studies with differing criteria offer a wide range of different carrying capacities. I already said it has no fixed figure but is elastic and flexible.


That is all for the sake of argument, because as been shown, that higher figures will not be reached if current trends continue and there is no reason to suspect that they won’t.

I have long experience of those who insist that our society is unchangeable. Your arguments are a variation of the same old story. We cannot buy into environmentalist scare-stories about the need for anti-consumerism restraint, as opposed to more and better technology, to bring billions out of destitution.

“Socialism”? “Economic democracy”? Call it what you like. But what other choice do we have? Either we save capitalism or we save ourselves. We can’t save both. ” - Richard Smith

Since i am accused of partisan promotion, i recommend this independent writer as well worth a read


1 Like

This again is simply your projection and insistence that i must fit your caricature. i’ve spent my life working to change society, and certainly believe it is possible. Your repeated, repeated need to offer a characterization of me that fits your image but does not fit me, leaves me out of this exchange. Sure we’ll bump into each other again.

My apologies for that ad hominem attack. It was amiss of me. We should always keep our exchanges civil. But it was borne out frustration.

I am not “delusional”, i do possess “a grasp of the science of ecology”, Nor am I not being “simplistic”, nor is my attitude “blithe complemented by an arrogance”

But yes, i do believe many require a schooling in MARXIST economics because that too often, eco-socialism is misunderstood as a statist solution such as the GND. Far from it. It means a fundamental change in society, not the reform of capitalism by tinkering with legislation and regulation but its utter and entire replacement.

I have seen first hand the slums of Mumbai as did Paul Ehrlich and draw quite different conclusions from his ‘Population Explosion’ and its solution to abandon those people.

We need a system where all rise together.

Yes, i fully understand the science of ecology and the human suffering.

I have written of the ignorance of those who would create wild-life reserves and eco-hotels yet let their fellow humans starve.


1 Like

Oh, and i forgot to add, i live in a country where vets have more diagnostic and treatment equipment than most village medical clinics and vet services are not for helping the welfare of livestock of the poor farmers but for the pampered pedigree pooches of the wealthy because that is where the money and profit is,
all the while hungry crippled diseased stray dogs wander the streets.

Yes we have our priorities very wrong because of misanthropy and anthropomorphism and i do angry.

1 Like

plz read this… my account is one millisecond away before it gets deleted permanently… before i get deleted out of the system i wanted to say to you sir: you and your writing rocks, plz keep up your spirits (i disagree with you on a few important points but these are quibbles in the greater picture of things).

yesterday one of my posts got deleted by the moderators, a rather depressing event… the comment — further below is a carbon copy of my deleted comment from an other thread — my comment was flagged and deleted by the moderators, however if i can’t write somethin’ like i wrote (in my deleted comment) then i can say nuthing at all, a new reality i will have to face tomorrow when i wake up… in my deleted comment i protested against Naomi Klein, she for multiple times has failed her cause, she has failed to lead and failed to produce any sensible solutions!!! i merely protested against her leadership failures and guess what my protest got deleted out of the system… i 'm from europe (from switzerland) and a child of the anti globalization movement, a movement Nami Klein used to lead a long time ago but times moved on and i turned a fight into a struggle against economics, something i won’t regret.

the transition to global capitalismthe greatest macro economic revolution in all of history — has formed my political views, eventually as i fought global capitalism i grew a global outlook what a paradox… looking at global problems changed everything for me but eventually i had to learn the progressives don’t give a fuck about global problems… on CD i 've tried to point out that america’s progressives have failed to produce solutions, ideas and relevant policy proposals (for today’s global problems) but instead of facing these realities the moderators deleted my comment that tried to point out the futility of Naomi-chan’s vapid, dellusional GND proposals, other than singing kumbee yaaaaah meeee lord kumbeee yaaaah Naomi Klein never produced any sensible policy proposals… either way the progressives on CD’s comment section have no solutions, no vision and no common denominator but guess what they don’t give a fuck — all they care about is their cynic nihilistic endtime fantasies, i quite frankly fail to see how to see this is supposed to go together with progress.

fare well mister webwalk.
bellow follows my censored post:

Naomi-chan first mislead the anti glibalization movement after that she droped climate activism into Bill Gates’ palm — in the sense that she played into his hands, multiple times — and i had enough of her never ending leadership failures.

i don’t even care what the Republicans fear… will Bill Gates and the liberal elites from Davos fear the GND? the answer is sadly no, i really wish i could say otherwise.

however the problem with the GND is something else entirly… Wellan already spotted it correctly: the GND is insufficient for america, to say the least (err Wellan didn’t say it like that but something vaguely similar) — however the GMD is irrelevant for the world at large and that is the grand problem here.

the GND could be turned into a social experiment to make what the GND wanted to be a rather cool idea… but instead of being irrelevant, the GND needs to be relevant for the people who don’t matter i.e relevant for those who have been left behind by the system or trampled into the ground by it… the GND needs a strong international outlook!!!


Message received, sorry about the deletions. i’m not as critical of Klein, and i support moving toward a GND but the devil is certainly in the details and the looters will be working all their angles to turn it into a boondoggle. Can we just abolish looting?

1 Like