Received: from smtp1.jps.net (smtp1.jps.net [209.63.224.236])
          by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP
	  id TAA21628 for <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:16:05 -0700 (MST)
Received: from jps.net (208-25-50-97.stk.jps.net [208.25.50.97])
	by smtp1.jps.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA29314
	for <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:15:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <364E38FC.B7564756@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:14:20 -0800
From: Ted Toal <ttoal@jps.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ppn <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: The Poor
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
rc&am's reply to another of my PPN posts:

Ted Toal wrote:

> The impact of people on the environment is equal to the PRODUCT
> of the average impact of one person and the total number of people.  In
> developing countries, the former is small and the latter large, while in the
> developed countries the reverse is true.

i'll grant you the mathematics of this, if only for the sake of discussion,
though
i think it is a dubious basis for analysis since it turns real and complex into

numerical abstractions. but as i say, let me grant you this.  even going by
this,
your next statement is wrong.

> In both cases, the impact is highly
> significant.

if there is a difference - and according to your figures this difference is
substantial - then would it not be more appropriate for those concerned about
overpopulation to target 'developed' countries?  in these terms, would it then
not
be a more appropriate strategy to campaign for a euthenasia program for the
rich of
developed countries, or at the very least, their impoverishment?  but i jest...

since i don't particularly accept the premises.

more importantly, does not this calculation show clearly that the decisive
variable
is not sheer numbers but rather - wow, what an outrageous idea! - mode of
production.

> Growth of the U.S. population by 1 person per hectare is
> more-or-less equivalent, from an impact point of view, to growth of the
> population of Bangladesh by about 300 per hectare.

once agian, a contradiction between the two parts of the paragraph and the
argument.

> Both rich and poor
> countries are contributing to the problem, and both need to reverse their
> population growth.
>
> Trying to trace the factors that result in the existing fertility rates of
both
> rich and poor countries is an impossibly complex task.  Certainly poverty
plays
> a role, and certainly the "solution" must therefore address poverty.

well, here you begin to veer right outside the calculations you have already
established.  now, you want to shift the focus entirely on sheer population
numbers
when you said before that this was not the decisive factor.  i suspect that for
you
the 'real' problem is that all these poor and starving people will want to
emigrate
to where you are, so you move swiftly into a pretense at concern for their
plight.
but i say pretence, because it doesn't even come close to addressing ways of
solving the problems of impoverishment around the world.  instead of
camapigning
for the sterilsation of poor folks, maybe - wow, another way out idea! - it
would
be more effective and appropriate to camapign for the wiping of international
debts
which keep certain countries impoverished and make it almost impossible to
develop
a welfare system which would make having less kids a rational act instead of an

irrational one, as it would be under present circumstances.

> No one is
> trying to blame overpopulation on poor countries and further, no one expects
> them to deal with it by themselves.

i don't see you calling for the wiping of debts and other such measures.  what
i
see is someone who wants to 'help poor people' through eugenics.

> You cannot decide that overpopulation is
> not a problem simply because you don't like what you think might be the
> implications of that.

i don't shy away from some terrible implications.  i distrust and despise your
entire argument.  you begin by noting the different impacts of different
nations
and you end by calling for the depopulation of those countries which - by your
own
admission - are not the biggest problem.  i also distrust your premises: you
cannot
note that there are different impacts and then continue to argue as if the
problem
is still one of sheer numbers.

> It IS a problem, and we must understand and accept the
> implications and find the solutions.

all of this is the seedy work of preparing us for the final solution.  the
final
solution dressed up as a caring and sharing environmentalism when it is plainly

nothing of the sort.

> There is absolutely no need to place
> blame, to put forth calls of racism, to blame the poor, blame the rich, etc.
> That is completely counterproductive.

ahh, a call for moderation and politeness?  it is presumably okay to demand
things
of poor people when you admit they are not the problem, presumably for the sake
of
'sharing around the blame'; but when the particularism of your argument is
exposed,
you demand that i do not 'blame the rich' because it is counterproductive????

once again, if you accept your intial calculations then logically you should be

arguing for euthenasia programs in rich countries.  why not start with the US?
why
not start with those who consume so much more than anyone else and start
bumping
off the rich in the US?

> The process that is happening now, the extreme demands being placed on the
> planet by a human population far beyond any reasonable bounds, is a process
> that began 10,000 years ago during the agricultural revolution.

so, exactly why are you using a computer if you pose the problem thus?  why are
you
not instead bringing together bands of people to return to a hunter-gatherer
economy?  let me answer this for you: becasue your agenda (which is to target
the
poor) requires that you have access to all the mod cons with which to advance
the
final solution.

> The
> implications of that revolution were completely lost on the people involved
in
> it, and have only recently become clear.

oh enlightement!   i see it all, the key to the explanation of all our misery
is to
be found in agriculture!  do you see yourself as committed to this thesis: i
actually don't think you are.  i think it is a highly cynical argument made
precisely in order to cover over the racist 'implications'.  i) if you actually

beleived it you would adopt a very different strategy, eg., calling for the
return
to a hunter-gatherer econnomy (there are many here who do beleive this and have

done this - they are disparigingly called ferals - but i have much more respect
for
them than i do your contradictions); and ii) the 'implications' which you argue

flow naturally from your premises are not implications.  they are themselves
premises which have looked around for the most respectable vehicle they can
find.

> The pace of the revolution, though
> rapid in comparison with human cultural changes that preceded it, has been
slow
> enough that the adaptable human has done just that, adapted to a radically
> changing world.  And if we keep on adapting, we just might adapt to living in
a
> nightmarish hell on a distintegrating planet.

i see frogs in boiling water metaphors lurking here....  a popular one for the
easily impressed.

> With a 10,000 year history behind it, it is absolutely ridiculous to even
> consider "blaming" some group for overpopulation. Let's try to be mature
about
> this, set blame aside, and start looking for solutions.

yes, let's be mature. let's stop with the contradictory arguments; stop
advancing
premises as if they are logical implications; and finally, either take your
theory
re: agriculture seriously enough to do something about it or drop it as the
trans-historical fluff for a racist campaign.

angela