Jardine wrote: "Considering your belief system is violence-based and killing large numbers of people"

To paraphrase my dead mother-in-law, you know as much about my belief system as an ox knows about art.

*The green movement, by shutting down production all over the world on the basis that the environment has value over and above (other people’s) human interests, is already causing the deaths of large numbers of people.*

Nothing like the Catholic Church, who through their anti condoms,
anti family planning policies, are causing the untold suffering
and starvation of millions, let alone death through hiv in Africa
and other places.

At the end of the day, without an environment, their won't be a humanity. We are not above nature.

>The green movement, by shutting down production all over the world on the basis that the environment has value over and above (other people’s) human interests, is already causing the deaths of large numbers of people.<

JKJ, it's not about 'shutting down production', it's about doing better with what is already developed, and in working better with the remaining 'environment'. Arguably it is environmental destruction for short-term gain to keep already unsustainable populations growing to even greater un-sustainability which is now responsible for so much famine and starvation. Deserts have been created by de-forestation, erosion and salinity caused by loss of ground cover, weed proliferation caused by loss of soil fertility - all by excessive and destructive exploitation. There are better ways to work with the environment and with remaining agricultural resources to achieve sustainable outcomes - including applying technology, resources and planning to restore degraded land to productive capacity.

Humans a 'pestilence' on the face of the planet? It appears to be getting that way, and a 'more of the same' approach to housing and feeding the masses is just not going to cut the mustard.

So squeers, the labour theory of value is right because capitalism is exploitative, and capitalism is exploitative because the labour theory of value is right?

FAIL.

But even if your theory were right, and it's obviously illogical, all it would mean is that you believe that private property should be abolished. So what did you have in mind to feed the masses, the collectivisation of agriculture? Perhaps if you socialists kill another 100 million people, it will work eventually?

david f
The honesty of an admission that you can't show reasons answering my argument, and can't defend, or even understand your own, would suffice.

yabby
I don't know where you got the idea is that the issue is about being "without an environment". Absurd hyperbole. It's about competing human values on the same thing, and whether the decisions are to be made on the basis of freedom and property and mutual advantage, or demagoguery and violence and zero-sum bullying.

If it's not about shutting down production, then all those green laws restricting production don't exist I suppose?

And it's no use asserting that central planning makes better use of resources. That's precisely what's in issue. I've shown why it doesn't and can't, so unless you can show reason why that's wrong, all it means is that you've lost the argument and are going round in circles.

Saltpetre
"and a 'more of the same' approach to housing and feeding the masses is just not going to cut the mustard"

You personally aren't volunteering to starve - you just think it would a wonderful idea for other people to do?

Anyway thanks for your demonstration of the fascism that underlies your deluded religion of statism. Perhaps if you keep worshiping at the anus of government some holy manna will come out eventually?

*on the basis that the environment has value over and above (other people’s) human interests*

This was my point, Jardine. The environment does in fact have value
over other peoples interests, at times. In fact it can't be valued,
because without it, there is no humanity.

I am hardly one who supports central planning. I am hardly one
who supports Govt interference, when it is not required. But I also
understand basic biology and without sustainable ecosystems, not
much will live.

Just look at the global fish population to see what happens when
nobody sets limits. Or go to Japan to the areas where nuclear power
went wrong, too see when human stupidity rules. The list is endless.

Too many people is a far bigger threat to the human race then too
few people.

WmTrevor,
The essay is a favourite of mine. In fact I've aired my own modest proposal on OLO re overpopulation. I've suggested we develop a nano-virus that arbitrarily kills one human in say every five. We could go for equality in terms of gender and age group etc., but otherwise programme the nanos to eradicate one fifth, painlessly and preferably hygienically, but with no regard for demographics. We could conduct such a human cull to coincide with census dates, in the name of efficiency.
This is the recourse we'll be driven to (though it won't be nearly so "civilised") if we don't learn to live within our means.
A downside of the Enlightenment is the logic that everything can or should be systematised, that we should turn ourselves over body and soul to one rubric or another. We don't conduct our individual lives along such lines, according to some preordained regimen; we leave room for spontaneity, not for spontaneity's sake, but because every step is uncertain. It's what makes life worth living--cutting the coat according to the cloth, but doting on the buttons and the frills and the arrangement. I abhor all the systematisers, left and right, who would devote life to some model; who would model human life and consciousness according to an abstract, numerical model, as if any political economy could, Hari Seldon-like, anticipate the utter contingency of life. If I want that, I might as well be reborn an ant.