Received: from rivendell.vsta.com (rivendell.vsta.com [204.57.96.15]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.8/8.8.8/ITS-4.2/csf) with ESMTP id NAA20592 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 13:15:24 -0700 (MST) Received: from eglaze.vsta.com (eglazeADSL.vsta.com [204.57.96.81]) by rivendell.vsta.com (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA05211; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 14:17:16 -0600 (CST) From: "Ed Glaze III" To: , "PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK" Subject: Re: established facts Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 14:21:04 -0600 Message-ID: <01be1b0c$9feb2d60$516039cc@eglaze.vsta.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Rather than repost all the back and forth I will snip most of it and you can look up the specifics if you want. > Some Responses to Glaze. > From: John Bellamy Foster > > Any analysis that doesn't take into account or evades these > well-established facts is useless in terms of advancing a > meaningful discussion What John fails to acknowledge that there are other factors worthy of discussion in population issues besides his ten established facts. > 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. The reduction of population, noit just the slowing of growth, will be the most difficult of our environmental problems, hence it is very important that we deal with population reduction along with the other social and environmental issues. 1. >> 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. > Response: This merely says population is a factor. Of course. > That is what I said. Yes, but that is not all that I said. You chose not to reply to my statement that it is our high population level which cause us to rely on such harmful technologies. With a lower population we would have much less reliance. 2. >> 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. Yes, I disagree, because I am saying more. I specifically said a high population level contributes very much, not just population growth as you imply. Our present agri-business system evolved to support our large population and is becoming stronger because we have such an excess of population in areas which cannot grow their own food. 3. >> 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? Back you go to pop growth. The problem is supporting the population we already have without destroying the environment we depend on. Maybe you feel that we are not already overpopulated? When might we be -- 8 billion, 12 billion, 20...? -- and for how long do you anticipate supporting such large populations? What if drastic solutions are the only options we have left because we delayed so long in taking viable actions? You also did not address my point about the demographic transition (improving the economies and social conditions of developing countries to reduce birth rates) being too slow. 4. > Response: Again, this says population is a factor in terms of ecology, > poverty, etc., nothing more. What more it says is that high population levels make the great inequities in trade, economic distributions, resource usage, and many other things worse and that until population is reduced it is unlikely that these problems and the demographic trap will be solved. 5. >> 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 predominace 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. Your response seems to indicate a misunderstanding of carrying capacity, which is an ecological principle not economic. I did not discuss ecological economics, or any other economics, as you implied. All the effects of people constitute their impact, not just the economics of production and consumption. CC is being reduced by supporting our high population levels and yet you seem to think it better to take a slow approach to solving overpopulation that takes many decades. 6. >> 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, >> >> >> > Response: 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. I must not have made myself plain enough because you did not disagree. My point was that the vital natural resources, like rainforests, must be protected from the threats from both the exploitation of the rich countries and the high population levels in the developing countries. I am not so sure that the rich countries "own all the significant sectors of the economy" in Brazil but I am sure that through trade and trans-national corporations the moneid elite and politicians in Brazil are strongly influenced. If you had looked at the links I provided you would have found this quote, among lots of other good and explanatory information: "In short, there is no lifeboat escape possibility for the rich. All nations will have to come to grips with the limits to carrying capacity. Unless measures are taken by the rich to facilitate sustainable development, the continued destruction of humanity's life support systems (and a reduction in biophysical carrying capacity) is virtually guaranteed." 7. >> >> 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"? I did not say that Malthus was wrong on all the specifics, you did. Your point about donwgrading social factors as opposed to biological could be explained by the increasing influence of science in helping us to understand just how our ecology functions. Whether social scientists like it or not, it will be the biological (environmental) factors that force us to act or suffer the consequences. Being right in general and wrong on specifics is easy and is the major problem with prejudgement and stereotyping. Again the links you failed to look at hold the answer. Here is another quote from the second link: "Kaplan has the last word in trying to answer the critics of Malthus. 'A man can only write at the time in which he is living, and Malthus was very daring for his time,' he said. 'In an indirect, subtle sense, Malthus was right.'" Robert D. Kaplan, a wrtier called by the article the guru on disintegration in the world. An August 1996 article by Kaplan, "Proportionalism -- What should the United States do in the Third World, where there's too much to do and too much that can't be done?" Or maybe you might read from February 1994, "The Coming Anarchy -- How scarcity, crime, overpopulation, tribalism, and disease are rapidly destroying the social fabric of our planet." 8. >> >> "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. You sort of caught me there because I agree that my reply did not tie in with the Vogt quote you included. I actually agree with it in that extending human lifespans through medial improvement, however noble on an individual basis, has caused lots of problems and has contributed to overpopualtion. Instead I was trying to resond to your first sentence about "neo-Malthusianism has always tended to favor 'final solutions' to population problems." Again I ignored your use of neo-Malthusian context, which evidently has negative connotations on the PPN listserv. What other kind of solutions would you prefer to population problems? Temporary, inadequate, politically correct, or maybe totally ineffective because so far I have not heard much on solutions from you. 9. > Response: The only "argument" here is a reference to "human nature" > which is not explained. What is human nature? (snip) Maybe the only argument you have is on "human nature." You seem to imply that all human live is to be valued equally, which is one of the big hang-ups of the anti-choice folks, and we end up arguing from mutally exclusive assumptions. My point was that it is more important to deal with environmental realities that philosophical definitions. I have no problem with you labeling me as neo-Malthusian, but do not limit me to such a label. There are good and bad things about all these approaches and none of them are completely right. Just like I do not imply motives to you or call you a Marxist because you have been published in such a magazine. We must consider all relevant factors, not just 10, and realize that it will be a complex solution that we find to overpopulation, if any. Of course, the implementation and success of the solution will be largely determined by how well we deal with "human nature," whatever it is. 10. >>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. You must have a typo in your first sentence because everything that I have read on the PPN list relects a great concern with the "morality" of any solution. Me, I am not so limited and will gladly consider immoral and socially unacceptable solutions which has caused many of you to object to my posts. >> 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). > 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. 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. John did not bother to comment on my statement: "John Foster is not a listowner ...It seems the listowners should be the ones to issue such ultimatums." Then again, other than a request to keep message lengths down I got no response from listowners. They may be waiting to see what becomes of the discussion, which is after all the purpose of a listserv. It also seems that John is trying to keep certain ideas, possibly relevant, from being discussed on the PPN listserv. Social issues are important and need to be a part of any solution, but you cannot fail to discuss or solve the problem just because there may not be socially-acceptable solutions. It may not be possible to enhance democracy, equality and freedom if we continue to put off taking viable actions to reduce our overpopulation. Environmental problems are bad with 6 billion people, what will it be like with 9 or 12 and just think how much harder it will be to solve when our options are fewer and carrying capacity even further reduced. The nature of the problem is more than social and demographics can go a long way in helping people to understand the overpopulation issue. ________ Ed Glaze Port Mansfield, TX "If they don't understand the severity of the problem, they won't understand the severity of the solution. Overpopulation must be dealt with."