Re: Too many humans?/sex, reproduction, sexuality and everything/draft

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20031124/humans.html

Humans Are Unsustainable

Nov. 25, 2003 â A study that compared humans with other species
concluded there are 1,000 times too many humans to be sustainable.

The study, published in the current Proceedings B (Biological Sciences)
by the Royal Society, used a statistical device known as "confidence
limits" to measure what the sustainable norm should be for species
populations. Other factors, such as carbon dioxide production, energy
use, biomass consumption, and geographical range were taken into
consideration.
 
Comment: Notes on Thanksgiving 2003.

Sustainability â that is the question, one is told. The solution to this question in the Western hemisphere and our America is being celebrated today as Thanksgiving. Today is the official recognition of the ârightâ of the dominating people to exterminate the various Indian nations and peoples. Our illustrious bourgeoisie has revealed the answer to the question of population control: destroy productive forces, which also mean people, by infesting them with AIDS, Ebola and continuous wars of aggression. Never - are theses solutions proposed for the historically dominating peoples and classes, who tend to be victimized by these very solutions.
 
Sustainability means destruction of productive forces and population control in the real world. What drives this carnage is reproduction for reproduction sake, the quest for profits and privilege, although it appears as environmental destruction and uncontrolled science. Other factors, such as carbon dioxide production, energy use, biomass consumption, and geographical range are abstracted from the various historically evolved modes of production and the property relations within. One is cornered from the âleftâ and presented with theories of thermo-dynamics, the concept of the âcarrying capacity of the earth,â the law of population and the deadly entropic trap.
 
It has never occurred to the voice within the âleftâ that the concept of âcarrying capacity of the earthâ is reactionary in this era of time and inexplicably fused with the ideology of sustainability that is unsustainable. The poor starving people of the earth are starving because we will not feed them. In the real world $10 billion a year of the $401 billion military budget would wipe poverty from the face of the earth forever. Another $10 billion could clear the earth waters. One more $10 billion could house and clothe the people of earth and still leave $371 billion for the storm troopers.
 
In the realm of the theoretical, sustainability means the perpetuation of the bourgeois property relations and its specific cycle or reproduction as it takes place on the basis of expanded value. What is to be sustained is growth without the people who cannot sell their labor-power for enough wages to sustain the system that compels one to sell their labor power for growth. There is no solution to sustainability until one leaves the realm of the modern Neo-Malthus ideologists, who has successfully infested the militant materialists, of which a small sector subscribes to various tenets of Marx theory of value and his conception of the commodity form.
 
The cries of the Neo-Malthus ideologists originate within the bourgeoisie as attacks and the demand to liquidate the communist class outright. The population of the earth does not threaten the biological integrity of the earth and the question only arises as the result of property. There is no basis in modern science for the concept of the carrying capacity of the earth at this juncture of history, except within the bourgeoisie as a class and property configuration. 
 
Production for production sake became the framework in which the current destruction of women and environment has taken place with the ascendancy of the social power of capital. The historic destruction of environment at the hand was man was driven by the law of unknown results as humanity battled to overcome scarcity. Man is forever condemned to evolve on the basis of not knowing, which means knowledge moves from the absurd to the less absurd. The law of unknown results - knowledge moving from the absurd to the less absurd, is not the enemy, but rather, the condition of human existence serving as the framework of human development and evolution.
 
The enemy is the property relations that elevates the âforbidden mysteries â science,â to King and declares nuclear power to be a positive result of human knowledge. âKnowingâ and âdoingâ is abstracted from dialectic of property and war itself is declared to rise from the heart of man and not the prehistory of our existence and the battle to control scarcity.
 
âNoâ screams the Neo Malthus theorists. âLook at the old Soviet Union and how the Stalinists destroyed the environment, and built cities in the wrong places and tried to change river flows, while creating a deadly military machine.â
 
One sits and patiently listens to the Neo Malthus theorists.
 
âSocialism supposed to create new social relations of production and if the Stalinist did not copy English and American development, life on earth would be somewhat better. The connection âyouâ make between property and scarcity is dubious or just wrong because what is fundamental is the law of entropy and the finite nature of oil, the unity of man and biosphere and the indisputable fact of the inherent carrying capacity of the earth. Look at the energy infrastructure for Christ sake.
 
âWe have crossed the threshold â the event horizon, and you wonderful vision of communism is a pipe dream, originating in polluted day dreams.â
 
âFurther no one can defy the law of thermodynamics and one cannot create a perpetual motion machine and create more energy than that which is expended in energy creation. Mankind has hit the wall.â
 
Fine. Actually, what the bourgeois property relations and the property relations of transition are being described. This entropic trap is not abstract production but bourgeois production and property driven by the law of value.
 
One has to examine the basis on which production takes place, what is produced and why it is produced. There is no spontaneous biological basis for humanity to drink Coke Cola, to eat blue fish or any fish for that matter and agricultural production driven by a value producing system - exchange value, is inherently wasteful and destructive to the earth. The emergence of city structures is driven by property as it shifts shape and class forms, in the battle to control scarcity.
 
What appear to the eye, as water shortages are immigration patterns and population shifts based on a property relation. Humanity long ago acquired the technical know how to shift more in rhythm with the rhythm of the earth. The current configuration of our infrastructure is the direct manifestation of property. The configuration of âtownâ and âcountryâ is a property relation, as is housing patterns. Perhaps as much as eighty percent of what is currently produced on earth is produced for its exchange value without regard to its utility. There is no spontaneous biological impulse in human for sugar, massive milk production, meat consumption, cocaine, opium, and massive tobacco production or for that matter most drugs on the market today.
 
The disharmony that is man is driven not by the historic fight to control scarcity but by bourgeois property. The problem is not cars and SUVâs but the configuration of the transportation system n the basis of the property relations.
 
The problem is not too many people on the earth today or in the seeable future, but the human mass and its shifts and rhythm on the basis of property. One cannot ascertain the carrying capacity of the earth on the basis of property. That is to say the carrying capacity of the earth cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation  - say 300 billion humans, because consumption and reproduction freed from property creates a different human being. 
 
Sex has been basis for species reproduction during our prehistory and today this is changing with enormous advances in science. We are experiencing a revolution or transition to a genuine human sexuality. What has up until now governed human reproduction - population mass, is not an abstract sex but the battle to control scarcity as it took shape on the basis of modes of production demanding large families and in turn shaping our very conception of love and sex purpose.
 
The historic scarcity and low level of production was the context in which human evolved into a species that ate anything edible. Consumption of anything edible gives rise to a distinct kind of human being with reproduction rates that can soon be charted. What has been called the âlaw of populationâ is undergoing the same revolution in thought that produced the conception of the communist class.
 
Everything is involved and in this sense Mark Jones suggestion to proceed backwards from communism has not been understood as a profound militant materialism, although he inadvertently slips into Neo-Malthusianism. The fight to control scarcity and the law of value has obscured the âlaw of population,â which can only emerge amongst a generation of clean individuals who have distanced themselves from consumption of anything edible.  The âlaw of populationâ is actually the âlaw of biological reproductionâ of men and women, which cannot be known today  - because is abstracted for human beings freed from the impulses of sexual relations and reproduction driven by the battle to control scarcity and service a mode of production evolved to defeat scarcity â with the property relations within.
 
Everything is involved and there is a material reason why Marx calls the communist revolution â the absolute destruction of property, the most radical revolution in human history. 
 
The reason why comrades could not define the âlaw of populationâ is a historical limitation of the industrial era. The conception of the communist class, - the end game of value, free us of this limitation. What are we talking about?
 
Human reproduction, âthe law of population,â the concept of the âcarrying capacity of the earth,â the law of entropy â and negative discharge of that that cannot be metabolized by the earth because human beings cannot eat anything edible, but prehistory imposes this upon us as a historical imperative.  This is what we are actually talking about.
 
To speak of the âcarrying capacity of the earthâ is very reactionary.  Comrades cannot ascertain the quantitative dimensions of the concept of carrying capacity because we remain victimized by the ideology of the past. Three hundred billion human beings that consume . 0000000000001 of the organic properties of the earth can be sustained â comfortably, and comfortable is transformed as a concept.
 
How much âspaceâ does one want on earth and beyond and the very concept of âspaceâ is transformed, provided we proceed backwards from communism. We can only proceed backwards based on existing literature and my thesis is based on the materialism of that great Prussian materialist Professor Arnold Ehret, written over eighty years ago.
 
The triumph over property takes place as the result of defeating scarcity. Today this fight has been fundamentally won on a planet wide basis. What prevents the healing of the earth is the bourgeois property relation. The concept of the âcarrying capacity of the earthâ and the politics of the finite nature of oil is bourgeois reactionary ideology. Not because the earth is not limited â it is a sphere, more than less in space, we locate â incorrectly, with our placement towards the sun.
 
What faces us is not the law of thermodynamics or China's need for oil, but the transition from prehistory to history.
 
In other words the question of women - human beings,  is framed incorrectly and the Neo Malthusianism shall be defeated on the basis of a materialism a child can grasp.
 
My wavering on this question has caused me deep regret and my molecule abandonment of the political position comrade DMS took on this question â labeling the Neo Malthusian reactionary ideologists, is my eternal shame.
 
If there were a world party of the proletariat I would expel myself and hope that comrades refuse to accept my expulsion. My shame is unbearable and in actual combat with the bourgeoisie, would be a crime. I compromised to the minor champions of the bourgeois ideologists and cannot forgive myself.
 
I beg to cover vast territory and place this question on the firm ground of militant materialism.
 
The law of population is presented to the workers of the advanced imperial counties as homosexuality internally and the masses outside the imperial centers and is not understood from the standpoint of the communist that pioneered the conception of the communist class and disclosed the anarcho-syndicalist deviation in the working class movement for the past one hundred years.

Homosexuality
 
Human sexuality from the standpoint of the communism Mark suggested we begin with - and work backwards, begins with primitive communism, before concepts of homosexuality and heterosexual exists.  How are human beings driven before a division of labor arises in society and assumes the form of property?

Here is where sexuality begins and it is not restricted to the reproduction curve that would later evolve it's rituals and traditions to safeguard and perpetuate modes of production. These modes of production become the means to battle scarcity and are conditioned by environment - that which exists in the environment that is edible and allows reproduction.

Here is the basis on which arise the genesis of the Women Question.

Yet, there is a biological and genetic disposition that guarantees the propagation of the species. Human sexuality is riveted to species reproduction but not defined as simply reproduction. Let me be clear. Sodomy is not a question because this is simply a word to describe a behavior that does not result in reproduction.

Let me be very clear. Sodomy arises as an issue because it runs counter to the ritualization of reproduction and in this context is utterly reactionary. Sodomy with women is never an issue, which should inform one that wee are talking about the ideological form of the law of population. That is to say its advocacy results in isolation and death. This is not bigotry but human evolution at a certain stage in the evolution of mode of production and corresponding ideological forms.

Those who wage the fight to prove sodomy one way or another prove nothing, and in the last instance go over to the bourgeoisie, because this is not the question posed to human being in history. The question posed is survival of species, which is not really a question but a biological imperative. How this imperative evolves based on the fight to control scarcity and within the various modes of production - and the property relations within, defines prehistory.

How does the species as individuals determine its mates before the evolution of the division of labor in society? Domination is involved but genetic disposition has no meaning outside of sense perception. Sense perception operates on the basis of biological consumption or metabolism and one must conceive of that which early man and women ate - before the epoch in which human being ate everything edible, to understand mans/women senses as driving development before the advent of the mode of production.

Human biology is not understood. Man's nose is configured to extract nitrates from the air and the smell of hair tells one of their idea biological mate. Choice of maters within a biological population takes shape on this basis.

Can we understand the story of Samson and hair anew? One must understand hair or consumption and metabolism and that that causes hair to grow or what we call today the "causes of baldness." Translated into the pseudo-science of the theorist of the metaphysics of properties, what the Neo Malthusian's called metabolism and the entropic trap. 

Baldness is the degeneracy of eating that that is edible over generations. Men have written prose for thousands of years over hair? Why is that? Men that imitate women and their hair - American founding fathers, are expressing something profoundly historic and prehistoric.  Hair - the genetic tracer. This is obvious to a militant materialist.

Homosexuality is dangerous because it posed the question from the standpoint of the bourgeoisie. The real question is human sexuality freed from property but one must go back before mode of production took shape and make the theory leap to communism and then go backwards to discern their juncture.

The politics of the question - in the communism vision and materialism meaning, deals with triumph over scarcity, the emergence of the real law of population, the dissolution of property and the dissolution of the state as state and a generation of men and women where human sexuality is in fact a free choice. Under conditions where human sexuality is a free choice, sexuality is not a question.

The ideologists who are an _expression_ of the Neo Mathusian trend - hostile to real communism based on a vision of the reality of the communist class and its evolution, see the question as arguing over whether or not sodomy is a "nature" inclination.  

In as much as different individuals - for a multiplicity of reasons, will engage in anal sex, this cannot be a rational argument about human sexuality.  The issue of homosexuality is created by the bourgeoisie in the ideological sphere to defeat the workers. Amongst the ruling class ones sexual inclinations is never a political issue.

Gay Liberation is a bourgeois movement because one cannot be liberated from sex. The conflict arises when the ideologist from a more advance mode of production seek to impose their belief systems on a less developed mode of production that has not shed the historical imperative of tradition and ritual that safeguarded the human advance towards history.

The grand kids and daughters just arrive for Thanksgiving. The turkey and ducks - which I hate, are ready. Duck is so slippery and skank . . .(skank is not a real word in English, but a sound _expression_ conveying negativity).

More later perhaps.

The Neo Malthusian ideoluges are absurd. It is time to take them to the mat. What is the law of population that alows the Neo Malthusians ti have a conception caled the carrying capacity of the earth?

Here is the challenge and I am in a mold of thought - today, to take them on.

Disclose your law of population. I have already outlined the basis of my material approach based on consumption, the history of scarcity and the impulse governing eating that that is edible as the basis of population expansion. Why and who sexual conduct becomes ritualized has been outlined. How a mate is loved is outlined on the basis of the instinct of human before the division of labor.

Preaching to one about the attriubtes of sodomy is a fools quest and the idea of the ideologue that seeks to convice someone of their personal belifef.

We must deal with them in the future. They are anti-working class in their ideology.

Melvin P.