Received: from donald.uoregon.edu (donald.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.6]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.8/8.8.8/ITS-4.2/csf) with ESMTP id QAA23629 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:10:00 -0700 (MST) Received: from DWOVMCNF.uoregon.edu (d111-206.uoregon.edu) by OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (PMDF V5.1-12 #D3397) with SMTP id <01J4LFIF9CZM8WWKCZ@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU> for ppn@csf.colorado.edu; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:09:58 PST Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:09:58 -0800 (PST) From: John Bellamy Foster Subject: Re: established facts X-Sender: Jfoster@oregon.uoregon.edu To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19981125152122.114f5a88@oregon.uoregon.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Some Responses to Glaze. >From: John Bellamy Foster >To: PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK >Date: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 4:28 PM >Subject: established facts > >The Progressive Population Network appears to be inundated of late by >views that are anything but progressive and the importance of the list as >a forum for meaningful discussion of population issues seems therefore >to be threatened. > >I want to try to get things back on track by listing ten well-established, >incontrovertible facts that form the basis for any meaningful discussion >of population issues. > > John's use of ANY implies that everything else not recognizing > these ten facts is to some extent meaningless. Limiting the > factors being considered will of course skew the discussion> > Response: You are exactly right. That is what I said. Any analysis that doesn't take into account or evades these well-established facts is useless in terms of advancing a meaningful discussion (that is apart from mere propaganda). > >First, for those like myself who approach population questions primarily >from the standpoint of global ecological crisis it has to be admitted that >overpopulation, though a factor in this crisis, is a relatively minor one >compared to the two other sources of environmental impact (according >to the PAT formula): affluence and technology. World economic output >is increasing much faster than population and contrary to the latter there >is no expectation that it will level off. > > Each multiplier must be considered and population is > projected to more than double in most of our lifetimes > and that doubling contributes to the increases of the > other sources. The Developing World will have most > of that population growth and in those areas population > will be much more important that globalized numbers > may reflect for affluence and technology (A & T). > > John's concern with the global ecological crisis should > consider the very long time it will take for population to > level off and eventually reach sustainable levels. Such > a turnaround could likely take 200 years of more with > a huge P component continuing its consumption and > increasing the A & T. Unless of course there are major > collapses of the economy or ecology causing massive > die-offs, which seems likely especially in some regions. > So is it really just a question of choosing to deal with > overpopulation or overconsumption? > > Response: Population certainly is an important factor in global ecological crisis. All elements in the environmental impact (that is PAT) formula are important. But those who think that the whole problem can be reduced to population, or that population growth is the main source of ecological problems are barking up the wrong tree. You have done nothing to challenge this point. > >On top of this there has been a technological shift in the last half century >to the production of toxic and radioactive "byproducts" that threaten the >biosphere and the health of all the species within it at levels that we are >only just beginning to understand. Neither of these factors -- affluence or >anti-ecological technology -- can be attributed directly to population >growth. > > No, but our unsustainable dependence upon such harmful > technologies is bolstered by supporting our high population > levels and there are certainly other less than direct links. > The interdependence of issues requires that these acts be > put together, but the connections are not always so glaringly > obvious. > Response: This merely says population is a factor. Of course. That is what I said. > >>Second, there is no direct relationship between population growth and >world hunger, or between population growth and famine. This has been >established in the work of Amartya Sen and in the various critiques of >the agribusiness system. > > Why must all relationships be direct and global? Especially > on a regional levels there are very strong arguments showing > that a high population level (not just pop growth) contributes > very much to malnutrition, difficulties in distribution, and > other unmet infrastructure needs. Also supporting the much > higher population levels in the future will likely be even more > difficult and may well lead to both food and water shortages. > Granted that agribusiness and economic orientations are > a major contributing factor to problems with food distribution. > > > >Response: Again you are saying that population is a factor, nothing more. Who would disagree? The problem is that you want to say that population growth is the main factor and that the agribusiness system is a mere "contributory factor" (of secondary importance) and this is clearly wrong. >Third, population growth issues cannot be addressed in simple, >neo-Malthusian terms (which focus simply on narrowly conceived >demographic factors) but need to be viewed in terms of the theory >of demographic transition, which explains this in terms of social >and economic relationships. > > Population issues entail more than just growth and there > are many issues leading to a boggling complexity when > socially-acceptable solutions are being sought. However, > demographic factors do shown us that in ecological terms > we are heading downhill towards a crash and such social > issues as the demographic transition are not going to > slow us sufficiently to avoid major problems. Besides to > rely on the demographic transition to increase the living > standards of all in the developing countries would lead to > even more disastrous ecological disruptions as the time > involved would likely be centuries. > > > Of course population growth is a problem and will contribute to ecological disruption. Who would argue otherwise? The question is how serious is it as a factor (in relation to other factors), how drastic are the remedies necessary, what kinds of socially-based, egalitarian solutions can be presented to solve the problem? >Fourth, the essential point here is that most of the third world is stuck >within what Barry Commoner called a demographic trap created by >colonialism/neocolonialism. > > There is no doubt that the third world has be exploited > by the first world. There are great inequities in trade, > economic distributions, resource usage, and many other > things, but every one of these inequities are worsened > by large and growing populations in both the third and > first worlds. > > Much of what Barry Commoner is concerned with is the > ending of poverty and it would seem that high population > levels would make that even more difficult. > > Response: Again, this says population is a factor in terms of ecology, poverty, etc., nothing more. >Fifth, while the demographic transition theory has traditionally been >conceived in terms of economic development, this is now commonly >broadened to take account of social factors more generally. For example, >we know that where women have greater rights and more control over their >own bodies the rate of population growth decreases. We also know that >some societies have been able to bring population growth under control >at relatively low levels of economic development by emphasizing social >redistribution, e.g. Cuba and the state of Kerala in India. > > And many more societies have not been able to bring population > growth under control under any circumstances. Carrying Capacity > should a much more important consideration than economic > development if for not other reason than it will affect both >rich > and poor countries alike. Carrying capacity is being decreased > by growing populations and decreasing resources, especially > drinkable water. A couple good examples does not counter- > balance a predomination of problems. > > > Response: This seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of ecological economics. The carrying capacity concept does not apply simply to people independent of world economic output. It makes no sense whatsoever to talk about people consituting a burden on the earth's carrying capacity independently of production and consumption. >Sixth, the areas of the world that have the largest "ecological footprints" >and are having the most devastating effect on the environment are the rich >countries that have relatively low rates of population growth (much closer >to replacement level). > > But some of the natural resources that are most threatened, > like rainforests, are predominately in poor countries where > there are high population levels and high population growth. > Loss of such resources could have a much greater ecological > impact and negatively affect our future, climate-wise, than > we can afford, > > > >Resonse: Yes, of course. Tropical rainforests exist in developing countries. The Amazon rainforest is in Brazil where the U.S. (and a handful of other advanced economic powers) own all the significant sectors of the economy, and which has one of the most unequal distributions of income and wealth in the world. >Seventh, classical Malthusianism (i.e. the ideas of Malthus himself) had >nothing to do with ecology. Modern neo-Malthusianism arose in the 1940s >in the work of thinkers who came out of the eugenics tradition. Malthus was >resurrected because his notion of population pressing on subsistence was >more a more effective ideology for justifying the control and displacement >of third world populations after the Holocaust than more traditional racist >ideologies. Malthusianism thus came to be a key element in the ideology >of the Cold War and the Green Revolution. It was also used to develop a >conservative approach to ecological crisis that downgraded social as >opposed to biological factors. > > > Whether Malthus intended to discuss ecology is not > relevant, science builds on itself and a single principle > can apply under many different circumstances. Also such > a principle can be used for many different motives, which > does not invalidate its proper use on any other motive(s). > "Malthus may have been wrong on specifics, but in general > principle he was right." > > Response: the argument here is that it doesn't matter to self-styled neo-Malthusian ecologists that Malthus had nothing to do with ecology, and that it also doesn't matter if he was wrong on all the specifics as long as he was right in general. What general aspect did he get right, and how can this stand in the face of being "wrong on specifics"? > >Eighth, neo-Malthusianism has always tended to favor "final solutions" to >population problems. For example William Vogt wrote in his classic >neo-Malthusian tract, THE ROAD TO SURVIVAL (1948) that Chile's >"greatest asset, is its high death rate." In an infamous passage >entitled "The Dangerous Doctor" he observed: > >"The modern medical profession, still framing its ethics on the dubious >statements of an ignorant man [Hippocrates] who lived more than 2,000 >years ago...continues to believe it has a duty to keep alive as many >people as possible. In many parts of the world doctors apply their >intelligence to one aspect of man's welfare -- survival -- and deny their >moral right to apply it to the problem as a whole. Through medical >care and improved sanitation they are responsible for more millions >living more years in increasing misery. Their refusal to consider their >responsibility in these matters does not seem to them to compromise >their intellectual integrity....They set the stage for disaster; then, >like Pilate, they wash their hands of the consequences." > > > "The main population issues -- urbanization, rapid growth and > uneven distribution -- when linked with issues of environmental > decline, pose multiple sets of problems for policymakers. The > very nature of these interrelated problems makes them virtually > impossible to deal with in balkanized bureaucracies accustomed > to managing only one aspect of any problem. Population and > resource issues require integrated, strategic management, an > approach few countries are in a position to implement. But time > is at a premium. The decision period for responding to the > crises posed by rapidly growing populations, increased > consumption levels and shrinking resources will be confined, > for the most part, to the next two decades. If human society > does not succeed in checking population growth, the future > will bring widespread social and economic dislocations as > resource bases collapse. Unemployment and poverty will > increase, and migrations from poorer to richer nations will > bring Third World stresses to the developed world." Response: This is an evasion. It has nothing to do with the point that it is ostensibly replying to. >Ninth, neo-Malthusianism generally (there are exceptions) is associated >with the peculiar "morality" of scientific racism. It denies the principle >that justice is indivisible for all of humanity and is either explicitly or >implicitly based on the notion that some people are more dispensable >than others. In the words of Garrett Hardin, a popular neo-Malthusian >thinker any attempt to help the poor would result in a situation in which: >"the less provident and less able will multiply at the expense of the abler >and the more provident, bringing eventual ruin upon all who share in >the commons." The world of civilization and culture is thus reduced >to a Hobbesian struggle of all against all (or of race against race) in >which there is no room for morality properly conceived, and where >"lifeboat ethics" or the principles of Malthus' "mighty feast" apply. > > The need for controlling population need not be defined > in the terms and conditions of neo-Malthusianism or any > other philosophical category. What is more important is that > demographic trends on the local, regional, national, and > global levels are clearly indicative that there are very real, > and worsening, problems related to high population levels. > Human nature has always caused the powerful to take > advantage of the less powerful, even within the same race. > Race need not be an issue at all in identifying the need to > make major changes in how humans live on this planet. > It is all a question of numbers -- can the resources available > support the populations making demands upon them for > the indefinite future? How you get humans to deal with the > problem may well involve overcoming racism, along with > many other social factors, but it does not change the > pressing need to take action to reduce the disruptions we > are causing on the environment. Response: The only "argument" here is a reference to "human nature" which is not explained. What is human nature? I presume you are saying that your argument is not necessarily neo-Malthusian (surprising given your recent posts) but rather is based on a Hobbesian view of human nature. Big difference.> >Tenth, by definition a PROGRESSIVE approach to population -- >as opposed to a reactionary one -- recognizes all of the above >and rejects the so-called "morality" of the "final solution." This >means that population stabilization can only occur within the >context of democratic social planning which recognizes the >values of human freedom and equality. > > Here is a quote from E. O. Wilson > diversit/extra/suicide.htm#anchor995969> > "To move ahead as though scientific and entrepreneurial genius > will solve each crisis that arises implies that the declining > biosphere can be similarly manipulated. But the world is too > complicated to be turned into a garden. There is no biological > homeostat that can be worked by humanity; to believe otherwise > is to risk reducing a large part of Earth to a wasteland. The > environmentalist vision, prudential and less exuberant than > exemptionalism, is closer to reality. It sees humanity entering > a bottleneck unique in history, constricted by population and > economic pressures. In order to pass through to the other > side, within perhaps 50 to 100 years, more science and > entreprenueurship will have to be devoted to stabilizing the > global environment. That can be accomplished, according > to expert consensus, only by halting population growth and > devising a wiser use of resources than has been accomplished > to date. And wise use for the living world in particular means > preserving the surviving ecosystems, micromanaging them > only enough to save the biodiversity they contain, until such > time as they can be understood and employed in the fullest > sense for human benefit." This is not a response to the point made. There is also nothing to disagree with. > >I suggest that those who are unwilling or unable (for whatever reason) to >acknowledge these elementary truths should seek out lists of a more >neo-Malthusian character (I am sure there are plenty of those). > >Or if they cannot find anything quite to their liking, they should create >their own Regressive Population Network, where all the misanthropists >of the world can unite. > > It seems that all of us should work together on solving the > issues involved with overpopulation. If the PPN listserv > truly does believe as John Foster says and is not also > interested in considering some of the points I have made > then it is possible that some of us population realists will > take our leave of this listserv. We would do so reluctantly > because we would be leaving some people who are > evidently concerned about population issues but who are > sidetracked off the environment and into social concerns. > Solving social concerns will not matter if the ecology we > depend on is allowed to fail while we deal with other issues. > I will leave you with the text of the "Letter to World Leaders > from Scientists" Response: That was not the point of my intervention of course, which was to set the boundaries for a meaningful discussion within PPN--where certain basic facts are agreed upon. I too have frequently quoted the statement of the World Scientists in my writings. Ecological issues are serious, and population growth is a problem. But we should understand the social nature of this problem, which will allow us to intervene socially, in ways that enhance democracy, equality and freedom--not in ways that simply target the poor. >