Uranium, capitalism & populations

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Lee Cronk: "The new Am. Anthropologist"
• Previous message: Jacobs Kenneth: "Attn: NEAA members!!"

Dwight writes:-
"Curiously, even though many decry (and rightly so) capitalist systems for
their destructive effects on material resources, less often notices is that
it is those same societies where growth rates have dropped to zero or even
below zero--the preconditions for a stabilized relationship between people
and resources".

At the wrap-up at the ALP Conference in Hobart, the issue of the "three
mines" policy was retained. So, for the immediate future Australia will
not be mining any more uranium. The 'fallout' of this decision by LAbor
party is that Aborigines will be restricted access to economic growth
through uranium mining.

Dwight' s assumption that capitalism has to do with falling birth rates
may have greater relevance inb the future with how many nuclear submarines
and reactors that have been dumped (dropped) into the sea all ticking
away awaiting some future time to corrode and relaese their load onto,
and into, the world. Perhaps the reason for any correlation between cap.
and a falling pop, growth is that in advanced capitalist society 'we' can
'afford' not to produce people. In other words, the fact that some 20 per
cent
of the world use over 80 per cent of its resourcses (The statisticians
may correst my rough estimates) may say something about po. growth. Perhaps
the
better correlation is between use of resorces and population decreasing.
- increase resourse use and you can expect a fall in the pop. growth.

Is there some anthropologist looking at the economic rationalist
discourse and how it 'drives' the perceived need for continual producing
and progress?

John Ford

• Next message: Lee Cronk: "The new Am. Anthropologist"
• Previous message: Jacobs Kenneth: "Attn: NEAA members!!"