3 ms·

Edit: @Ecology and the politics of scarcity revisited, just read the foreword of that book, almost each and every sentence of that foreword is a (known) misdire

Edit: @Ecology and the politics of scarcity revisited, just read the foreword of that book, almost each and every sentence of that foreword is a (known) misdirection; I don't think I'll have the nerves to read it, will scroll through it once I'm less tired

dredmorbius 10y ago
Which edition are you reading? Theere's a revised veersion from 1992. The forward isn't by Ophuls, though the text is largely his. Copy at the Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/pdfy-SXVS7n8VWRQUMvFD https://archive.org/details/pdfy-SXVS7n8VWRQUMvFD
- onetimepadder 10y ago
  That is exactly the one I found; yes I know, but its written "in the spirit of the book" which makes it very off-putting right from the beginning. Going through the first pages only confirmed my viewpoint (as in, not mentioning that the most significant factors contributing to population growth are childhood mortality(iow no access to healthcare), (lack of)education and social safety, all of which are a direct consequence of the proliferation of century-old hierarchies and their power-conserving,consolidating,concentrating actions("we" are the ones holding large portions of the african continent in the middle ages)). It was the same with environmental impacts, giving the western consumerism as a culprit even though we are being _forced_ to become consumers(which is actually pretty hard not to see through almost every item you buy/service you consume these days) etc etc. Presenting a world without mentioning these facts is great if you want to convince (a specific group of) readers of a certain world-view and make them susceptible to accept or even defend certain policies/actions that would normally be unacceptable [by the majority of the population]. What I meant to say is .. clear I think ;)
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    I suspect our views diverge on a number of issues. Though I'll be interested to see your thoughts.

dredmorbius 10y ago

Which edition are you reading? Theere's a revised veersion from 1992. The forward isn't by Ophuls, though the text is largely his. Copy at the Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/pdfy-SXVS7n8VWRQUMvFD https://archive.org/details/pdfy-SXVS7n8VWRQUMvFD

onetimepadder 10y ago
That is exactly the one I found; yes I know, but its written "in the spirit of the book" which makes it very off-putting right from the beginning. Going through the first pages only confirmed my viewpoint (as in, not mentioning that the most significant factors contributing to population growth are childhood mortality(iow no access to healthcare), (lack of)education and social safety, all of which are a direct consequence of the proliferation of century-old hierarchies and their power-conserving,consolidating,concentrating actions("we" are the ones holding large portions of the african continent in the middle ages)). It was the same with environmental impacts, giving the western consumerism as a culprit even though we are being _forced_ to become consumers(which is actually pretty hard not to see through almost every item you buy/service you consume these days) etc etc. Presenting a world without mentioning these facts is great if you want to convince (a specific group of) readers of a certain world-view and make them susceptible to accept or even defend certain policies/actions that would normally be unacceptable [by the majority of the population]. What I meant to say is .. clear I think ;)
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  I suspect our views diverge on a number of issues. Though I'll be interested to see your thoughts.