From: GERALD LEVY (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Mon Feb 11 2008 - 19:46:15 EST
Hi Jurriaan: There are historical examples aplenty of both real and contrived catastrophes. Hiroshima was a catastrophe; the so- called "population bomb" (which, imo, was based on ideology rather than science) was not. I think it would be a very big mistake to lump, say, Malthusian theory with the *science* concerning global warming. In other words, one needs to separate out real from imagined catastrophes - not denounce belief in "catastrophism" per se. > As Marx recognized early on in his life, if you are capable > of framing a problem, a solution is usually available if you > are attentive to the way the problems are actually framed > (they could be framed in a distorted, convoluted, or upside- > down manner). There are certainly problems with the way the issue is often framed: e.g. Gore's framing of the issue as a human problem leads to his framing of a solution which stipulates that since everyone is to blame, everyone must pitch in to solve global warming. In other words, it is framed in a liberal manner which is devoid of class analysis. Still, I am not in the slightest bit comforted by Marx's belief that if humans can imagine the problem then they can/will find a solution. This strikes of 19th Century over-confidence in technology. In solidarity, Jerry _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 29 2008 - 00:00:03 EST