Patrick,
I have not done a detailed study of Lewis Mumford and his work - but I have read a lot about him in various forums, so I have some idea about his views.
An Industrial Society cannot be sustainable - It destroys ecosystems for making [unnecessary] consumer goods. Industrial Society is the cause of environmental destruction.
This is simply drawing a conclusion from nothing. You can't support it, because "industrial society" is
always changing. It
evolves over time. You're assuming that industrial society
never does anything good "the ecosystem", nor can it ever. Since you cannot read the future, and it looks as if, given current trends of technology - that "industrial society" is learning about its own impact on "the ecosystem" and attempting to change itself to meet governmental demands, etc.
Perhaps you simply mean "at the current pace" instead of "can never" or whatever. I don't think so however.
The situation is similar to "Science and Technology" trying to find a cure for Cancer.
The claim of "science and technology" of curing cancer is a joke
.
? That statement is a much bigger joke, and quite telling as to your understanding of science and technology. You apparently don't have the slightest clue.
"Science and Technology" can never cure cancer - it is impossible.
"Science and Technology" is the cause of cancer.
So according to you, there was no cancer prior to technology? Are you too stupid to see you're bashing the entire species. Seriously? Okay look, you could be correct on the technicality that there was no technology before man, because the "advent of man" is basically
defined by his capacity for creating it. This undoubtedly means that before humans, yes there may have been no cancer in humans. Otherwise I'd think you have to be quite wrong about that part. Even if you weren't, your conclusion is still utterly unfounded. That something is a cause, especially "science and technology", does not preclude it from solving a problem it caused. What the hell is wrong with you?
Most of cancer is caused by toxic chemicals - carcinogens. Industrial Society has flooded the ecosystems with toxic chemicals.
Uhm, radioactive elements can cause cancer and predate man. Hence again, your utterly innane premise is busted - yet you pour on your egotistical rhetoric. I find it reprehensible.
Land - Air - Water - the entire food chain is contaminated with thousands of man-made toxic chemicals which did not exist before industrialiation. Most of the Farm Land has been poisoned with pesticides due to Industrial Agriculture.
Yet somehow food keeps coming out of it, and animals still exist. Please, find a non rhetorical point? Use your brain for something besides being an egotistical emo? Seriously, I would love to stop insulting you - but you won't stop insulting reason, and I find that horrifically insulting.
There are hundreds of man-made, toxic chemicals in the blood, bones and tissue of humans. There are toxic, man-made chemicals in the placenta of new born babies.
Yet they live longer on average than at any time throughout their history. For chrissake, you're just making shit up. You're telling a tragedy and cashing in on falsely garnered sympathy to gratify your apparently rather bloated sence of "damn I'm smooth" without even fucking realizing it. It's just PATHETIC.
What is now happening is this.
Industrial Society is causing millions of cancer every year.
Yet the species is more in number than ever before. Weird. What's worse is that the ill-informed, ill-equipped yet self-righteous putzes like yourself spread retarded doom and gloom prophecy as if you are in some way warranted, annointed even. You're self-righteous and preachy, just like I'm being. I'm preaching to YOU however, about how dumb and egotistical you are - such that verily somedayeth (gaia willing), you will pull your head out of that smelly hole behind you and do something actually productive - or at least have some goddamned humility.
Out of these millions of cases, "science and technology" is able to treat a small percentage - a few thousand cases - through surgery, radiation and chemotherapy etc...
Seriously, you are fucking dumb. That this is true does not mean it will always be true. What's hard to understand about that? If you paid attention, you'd have noticed that there are LOTS of very promising research paths underway, some with demonstrated results in lab animals or petri dishes or whatever. Cancer will be gone in 30 years tops, given that some asshat like yourself doesn't find a means by which to extinct us.
And these treatments can hardly be called real treatments because the toxic chemicals which are the root cause of cancer still exist in the environment. This is also the reason why there is a high rate of relapse/ recurrence after cancer treatment.
And your words can hardly be taken seriously. Seriously. So certainly "man-made" anything isn't the exclusive cause of cancers, which doesn't really matter I guess because regardless of the cause, cure is completely plausible and forthcomingly possible. Mostly likely however, due to the assholes in business, a "sustaining substance" is prefereable to "a cure", as they can milk far more serious money out of sustaining people. And they'll try to make it look necessary. That will work for a time most likely, but like the RIAA, most likely the time for that type of business will come and go. Again assuming of course, that asshats like yourself do not figure out a way to end the world.
An Industrial Society can never prevent high incidence of cancer, because it is flooding the environment with chemicals all the time.
But, what if they cure cancer and determine how to make chemical stuff enhance the environment rather than make it worse? Worse by what standard? What if in fact, we can figure out the entire human genome and how to manipulate it directly for the desired human output? Then what genius? Your problem is that you just forgo any whatif that doesn't support your premise of the really awefully bloody heart, which makes you and emo pimp - which is disgusting even moreso than a real pimp maybe.
Same way, we can never have sustainability as long as we are making thousands of consumer goods.
Without discussing the details of how they are made, your attempts fail. IF there is a society, there will be consumer goods.
If we want sustainability we have to bring down consumer goods to the minimum level.
It is arguable that they are already at the minimum level, but of course you probably couldn't comprehend that argument, and what YOU value outweighs all else in your puny little mind.
Gah. It's just a sad thing to see you try to support what should be a noble point with no more than propaganda and cheap, thoughtless rhetoric.
