From: "Ed Glaze III" <eglaze@vsta.com>
To: "PPN Listserv" <PPN@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: A more rational reply from Mr. Glaze.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:16:56 -0600
Message-ID: <01be0c0d$22b5cac0$516039cc@eglaze.vsta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ed responds after the statements.

If you would like continue this debate, I suggest we do
it off-list as I have done with Angela <rcollins@netlink.com.au>.
By the way Jim Talboy <plicysci@frii.com> since you did not
sign your name, are you male?


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Talboy <plicysci@frii.com>
To: PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: A more rational reply from Mr. Glaze.

> I'm surprised, my understanding is that when you demand a tax
> on children, that only the rich can participate.Are you suggesting
> that this be the deciding factor in survival?

I did not demand a tax on children.
What is your basis for that statement?
Your statement is illogical unless the tax is extremely high, but
there are costs every parent must face when they have children
and they are not all economic. Possibly you are referring to
economic incentives/disincentives to influence population growth,
such as shown here: <http://dieoff.org/page35.htm>


> As far as the "rationality" stance, from at least 1900 until roughly 1989,
> we have seen all sorts of "intellectual" decisions that have destroyed
> many innocent people for the sake of a "better world."

Many of those deaths may be the result of technological improvements
which changed society and possibly allowed even more exploitation
of resources and people. There are both good and bad technological
improvements which affect population. Rational things like medical
advancements have had a great effect on average lifespan and quality
of life. Seldom does the economic system do long-term thinking about
what changes will be wrought by rational improvements. They all seem
like good ideas at the time.

> Slavery, in the USA and elsewhere, had rational economic proponents
> as well.

I never mentioned slavery. Almost every decision made by anyone,
anywhere, at anytime, about anything had some basis in rational thought.
You cannot legitimately discredit rationality in general because of a
specific
wrong you disagree with. Also the decisions of different times were made
under different circumstances which may dictate solutions different from
what would be expected here and now. Much like China faces a population
problem much more severe than the rest of the world and yet we decry
their solution because it is not a solution we would want. Maybe we will
understand their reasons better when our country suffers under 350 million
people or more.

> The destruction has no precedent, and frankly this list server
> is as well informed and studied as any you've participated in yet.

I trust you are talking about environmental destruction and I agree.
I lvery much ook forward to discussing and learning from informed
population activists on this listserv. Maybe some of us will have some
rational discussions.

> Will you suggest forced sterilization next?

Since you ask, yes, I think there are instances where forced sterilization
is appropriate. Not everyone needs to have children, especially in a
world with so many excess people already. Did you see the news article
about the woman in a coma who is pregnant? What about the severely
retarted that are unable to even care for themselves? It is a dichotomy
that dictates one stance is always the truth.

> What on earth are you asking us to implement?
> Yes, the world is overcrowded, but what are you suggesting be done?
> Are we really that capable?  It seems far too complicated, given the
> multi-cultural world that lays beyond our control.

What I am asking is that we recognize that we are overpopulated
and deal with it in a realistic manner. The principles of carrying
capacity and sustainability dictate something must be done. To me
that means reducing the excess, not waiting generations while
population doubles yet again or letting our environmental and economic
systems collapse because of our inaction. I do not think our political
and cultural systems are capable of dealing with a populaton reduction
of the size needed and we are in for much worse times ahead.

> I frankly don't believe it's "our" place to make righteous demands
> given the extent of variation in culture that "conflicts" with our own
> Western thinking.

How about we let each country deal with its own problems?
Whether it is population, natural resources, food, or whatever
let us all stay inside our borders and live or die on the merits of
the political decisions we make and the environment we have.
If we cut off all international trade, monetary assistance, military
support, and immigration (especially refugees) how many
countries, Western or not, would survive? All of us are doing
unsustainable things, whether it is population or consumption,
and we need to change. Facts are facts. Ideologies, beliefs and
cultures will not save anyone unless they deal with the worsening
environmental reality we face.

> Rationality, is a smugly deceptive perspective, because the
> Universe defies rational description.


Being unable to completely describe something does not mean
we do not understand it sufficiently to anticipate the probable future
based on certain assumptions. The physical Universe is supremely
rational and science has solved many of its mysteries that humans
did and understand and even feared in times past.

> Politics has nothing to do with rationality.

Decision making is basically a rational thing to do. As is compromise.
The problem is that politics is not only rational. Humans can be greedy
and their self-interest will often skew the decisions they make. Tragedy
of the Commons is a good example.
<http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/trajcom.htm>

> Does your righteousness stem from a concern about immigration?
> Or is it from a sense of helplessness?

My concern stems from overpopulation and our unwillingless to take
actions that lead to viable solutions within a timely manner before
the environment suffers too much of a loss. Immigration is just one
small factor in the population problems we face. Am I righteous?
Possibly, but I would prefer to call it a realistic outlook leading to a
pessimistic attitude. I still do what I can to increase awareness of
overpopulation, so I haven't given up. Maybe a few of us will make
the difference. No, I am not feeliing helplessness or hopelessness.

righteous  <http://www.infoplease.com/i>
      1. characterized by uprightness or morality:
                    a righteous observance of the law.
      2. morally right or justifiable: righteous indignation.
      3. acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous: a righteous person.
      4. Slang. absolutely genuine or wonderful

realistic
      1. interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or
practical:
                 a realistic estimate of costs; a realistic planner.
      2. pertaining to, characterized by, or given to the representation in
                 literature or art of things as they really are: a realistic
novel.
      3. resembling or simulating real life


> Science, and government, has not ever had all the answers Ed.
> Please don't ask for a URL to back up that statement, and don't
> assume the list isn't interested.  My concern, with rationality, is that
no
> amount of it will account for hidden factors or unanticipated results.

We do not need all the answers. We know enough to realize we have
serious problems that will get much worse unless they are dealt with
quickly. A scientific and rational understanding of the world is what
allows us to make predictions for the future, including demographic
trends. Those probabilities can take into account many factors but
can never be perfect, but they need not be perfect to yield a result
that we can use.

The same rational understanding also gives us some idea as to the
likelihood of proposed solutions to a problem actually coming about
or being successful. For example, it is very unlikely that we will find a
solution to overpopulation through space travel, unlimited energy,
or allowing the status quo of growth to continue. We are left with having
to think about what options there are, evaluating the options, and then
implementing our chosen option(s).

What you should be most concerned with is that too many people,
including politicians, businessmen, influential persons, and world leaders
do not think in a rational way. They deny the problem exists, they resist
efforts by others to convince them, then they disbelieve the facts and
rational arguments that prove the problem. Does any of this sound
familiar? All that is left is the panic they will feel when they realize it
is
too late to solve the problem and the regret they should feel for not
acting sooner.

________   Ed Glaze   <eglaze@vsta.com>

"If they don't understand the severity of the problem,
they won't understand the severity of the solution.
Overpopulation must be dealt with."