Message-ID: <36612826.70ABC2C2@thegrid.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 11:55:39 +0100
From: Christopher Christie <refugee@thegrid.net>
Reply-To: refugee@thegrid.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>
CC: les@vhemt.org
Subject: Re: One Child, Two, None?
References: <l03010d0ab2874bef2786@[204.202.55.95]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Les U. Knight wrote:

> Ted Toal wrote:
> "I'm looking for something that is feasible, though, and I think a
> limit of 2 is more likely to become the morally accepted norm than 0 or 1.
> Once we are down to a close-to-optimum level, a limit of 3 might still keep
> us within replacement-level-fertility. In fact, the more people come to
> want very small families, the less need there is for any limit at all."
> 
> To which Peter VanZant replied:
> "Making "stop at two"
> the idea that population activists encourage will, I think, be most likely
> to result in stabilization. Sure, praise those who stop with none or one,
> but if we try to make that the norm, we'll create more resistance to our
> ideas than anything else."

To which Les U. Knight wrote:
> This is a dilemma. It's like a doctor who knows her patient will require
> six doses a day to get well, but only prescribes three because that's all
> they will accept. "Stop at two" was inadequate 30 years ago. Haven't we
> made any progress in awareness?
> 
> At what point do we stop pandering to popular values and begin to tell it
> like it is? True, replacement level fertility will allow our numbers to
> stabilize over time. However, as Ed Glaze has documented, we don't have
> that much time. With two billion of us under the age of 20, even a
> one-child average birth rate per couple would continue to generate a net
> increase in our density for a generation or two.
> 
> By saying that people should limit their reproduction to one or two, we are
> saying that Earth's situation is not really so dire, demonstrating a
> profound denial of reality, and sending a mixed message to those we want to
> become more aware.

Les makes the important and overriding point: What is socially popular or
currently acceptable is not often sufficient to effect a cure or solve the problem.

What would be helpful in this case are a few (or at least one) "simple"
population projections for the world based on the "stop at two" or "stop at
one" scenarios, showing what might happen if we were able to acquire the
lowered fertility immediately or say in ten years. That way we would have some
numbers to more objectively evaluate. 

Can anyone on the list provide properly prepared projections? I have sent this
to one demographer in hopes that she might have time to help.  Does anyone
know of someone who might help or a reference to existing projections such as these?

Christopher Christie