Date:  Fri, 17 May 1996   11:50:12  +0100
Subject: Progress or "Progress"



Hi Lisa,

You wrote:
>Well, Otto, competition between over-populated foragers could hardly
>be more nasty and cruel than what we've got going on now!
It seems *probable* that it wasn't, since over-populated foragers
obviously found alternatives to foraging, gradually or otherwise.
So, if you say it wasn't, I'm sure it wasn't.
What you do say, however, is "could hardly be". Hmm... The way
I remember the chaos/predictability/determination thread a while
back, we're on the same track there. I e: All other things equal, it
couldn't be, since it wasn't. Right?
The question is: If the foragers hadn't had whatever it is we
humans have that allows us to stop foraging when we've
accumulated a lot of reproductive success, what would things
be like?
To answer that we need to make up our minds about the
following:

>And I hope you don't assume that more people is a type of
>progress itself - each one's selfish desire to exist aside.
I'm glad you challenge this assumption, Lisa. I'm not entirely
comfortable with it myself, which is bad in a big way as it has
an impact on the whole way in which I look at society.
Please explain why you put each one's selfish desire to exist
aside. What's left if you put that aside? Why is it selfish? If it
is selfish, what relevance is left in the word "selfish"?

>At least if we weren't born, we wouldn't know it or miss it.
I live. I enjoy it at times. In fact, I want as many people as
possible to have a go at it before the sun cools off. You say
you disagree. I'm curious. I'll still be in a week, when I'm back
>from my holiday. (I won't unsub, BTW.)

>Do you think class society was necessary for technical "progress"
>to occur?  I don't.
Well, Division of Labour sure was. Can we have that without
Class Society? I hope so and I'm looking for a sufficient reason
to believe in it. That's why I'm semi-lurking here.

Cheers,

Otto  


     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---