Capitalists make undeliverable promises assuming limitless resources. ‘Bright Green’ are only striving for social justice, but they make the same catastrophic mistake. So I reproach them in sorrow not anger.
I doubt the good faith of capitalists bearing in mind that a great deal of money is at stake. All Bright Green demand is fair play. But giving them the benefit of the doubt does not mitigate either the damage to our attempts to save the ecosphere, or the seriousness of barefaced repetition of ‘retracted’ smears.
The facts are as follows:
The Green Party held an online conference in March. Population Matters (PM) were allowed a stand, but over 200 Green Part members, many quite prominent, wrote giving their approval to an attack by Bright Green on PM. PM regarded this as so serious a libel as to demand an immediate retraction.
As you will see from the link, a point by point rebuttal was given by PM.
That was in March. However, on 28th April I received a Facebook Post from the Leeds XR co-ordinator identical to what Bright Green (BG) were supposed to have retracted. It was supported by several XR activists.. I assume that similar posts were sent to all XR regions. I believe that the co-ordinator acted in good faith, unaware that the libellous material had been retracted.
But if Bright Green were honest, why did they back down? Unless you are more internet savvy than me, you will not find the ’retraction’ by a simple look at the BG website. I am told it is on p3 or4.
I covered most of the relevant ground in my weblog on 6th May, before I was aware of this gross abuse by BG. I did not need a retraction to deplore the attack on Population Matters. ( I first discussed the topic on 4.10.2015). I share BGs view that capitalists are responsible for most ecological destruction. I too worry about the disproportionate impact on impoverished communities, but I must repeat,
beware the exponential principle.
More positive information on population is given here, and here. Without minimising capitalist depredations, it should be borne in mind that Jane Goodall has observed gradual erosion of habitat around the Gombe Reserve by nothing more than the slow, incremental increase in human numbers since time immemorial. Only recently has that mattered. Why? The unexpected effect of exponential growth.
Having outstripped what their immediate environment could provide, migration is seen as an escape route. But once in a 1st world city, a small ecological footprint becomes that of all other city-dwellers.
Instead of describing population concerns with invective such as ‘ecofascism’, the rich world should be helping poorer nations to adjust. Where women have control of their fertility, and can be confident that their first two children will reach adulthood, populations stabilize spontaneously.
But the rude awakening for me is that XR (and Green Party) activists so desperate as to break the law, and even risk injury, to save the ecosphere, do not see the need to keep sheer numbers within what that ecosphere can provide. PM are allies in the real struggle to protect the poor.
I remain an XR activist. I do not want this issue to detract from what XR is trying to achieve. Bright Green’s behaviour seems to indicate that they are unrepentant. But dare I hope that all XR – and all Green Party – activists, taken in by this underhand smear will wish to dissociate themselves from it?