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 TAA21679 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:17:42 -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 SAA29712 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:17:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <364E395B.B6832EA6@jps.net> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:15:56 -0800 From: Ted Toal MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ppn Subject: Re: The Poor Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My reply to Angela: > even going by this, your next statement is wrong. > >> In both cases, the impact is highly significant. You say this, Angela, but then you don't say why you think it is wrong. Let me say why I think it is right. Deforestation in India would be a good example, I think. India's population density is so high that its forests have been largely destroyed in order to provide firewood. And in the U.S., environmental destruction of all sorts is obvious to us all. So, both of these two countries, one rich and one poor, have experienced highly detrimental environmental impacts that would not have happened had their populations been far lower, more in line with population levels that existed during the first four million years of man's history. > 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? You seem to have missed the point. Both rich and poor need to be targeted, because each is impacting the earth negatively with their populations. Rich with a lesser number of people all consuming a lot, and poor with a huge number of people all consuming very little. Your word "target" needs to be defined. I'd put it this way: let's target the rich countries to reduce their consumption, increase their spending for foreign aid that can be used for programs that aid in reducing family size and that improve education, health care, and economic opportunity, particularly for women. Let's target poor countries to implement programs that can reduce their population through these same kinds of programs. > 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? Do you mean "rich" as in millionaire+, or "rich" as in your average Joe Blow American? Imagine that we could wipe the developed countries off the map. Would that be good? I think it would be catastrophic for poor countries, who often depend on the rich countries for food. Imagine that we could instantly impoverish the rich countries. Would that be good? Well, it would have pretty much the same effect on the poor countries. If impoverished, the rich countries could no longer export food to the poor ones. But other than that, I think it probably would be good. It would have a highly beneficial effect on the environment, and I even think that the newly impoverished people would be happier. I know that I personally question my own lifestyle often, and often think I would be happier living a much more frugal, impoverished lifestyle. > 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. No, it shows that BOTH are important. The product of the two is what really matters. We could have a sustainable lifestyle here on earth with a certain population living at a low consumption level, or with a much smaller population living at a high consumption level, and of course all the ways in between. I don't know which of those is best, although I suspect that somewhere substantially above the current living standard of a "poor country" person, and somewhat below that of an upper middle class American, but perhaps somewhere around that of a typical middle-class to lower-middle-class American, might be ideal. In any case, I believe that even with an extremely low consumption level worldwide, the PRODUCT of that consumption with current population would equal an IMPACT that is totally unacceptable. If this could be proved, we wouldn't be arguing now. But looking at the big picture, all the myriad factors of our lives that are impacted by overpopulation, it is real clear to me that a change in consumption is not enough. Furthermore, if one only addresses consumption and not population, you would leading the world into a deadly trap. Imagine that we could reduce world consumption drastically by becoming more efficient, less wasteful, more frugal, less consuming, more recycling, etc. Suddenly the world becomes a much nicer place to live. The environment gets much nicer. Phew, we say, thank God we solved that overpopulation problem. We keep growing, and 100 years later the population is 40 billion. Population times consumption has now climbed back up to 1998 levels and we suddenly realize that maybe there is an overpopulation problem after all. But, uh oh, we already took all the efficiency improvements, we're already recycling to the max, there really isn't anything we can do now to lessen impact, we're all living very low consumption lifestyles. Trouble. Reducing consumption is only a solution when it is part of the broader solution of reducing population also. >> 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. I don't follow. >> 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 hope you understand the above better now that I went into more detail about my take on the consumption vs population issue. > 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. Angela, does saying things like this make you feel better? Do you enjoy putting other people down? Or do you simply have zero trust in anybody who sees the world somewhat differently than you? Let me tell you that I feel the pain of the world more easily than most people. Concern about the world, its people, and its other life has been a constant source of sorrow for me. I've devoted a good deal of my time over the years working to improve the environment, and working to help people understand the seriousness of overpopulation, because I believe that is the true root of the problem, and the best way to help people the world over. I'm sorry you seem to have to question my motives like you do. This is not conducive to any kind of useful discussion. It distances us, turns off the discussions, closes doors. > 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 I don't campaign for sterilization. Never have. I would never support coercive sterilization, except perhaps in some exceptional circumstances, never as a government policy to reduce population. I do support the idea that everybody should be able to get themselves sterilized if they want to. I got myself sterilized. > , 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. I'm not at all opposed to this idea. It sounds good. I've heard just a bit about this, but don't really know much. This is the kind of idea that I like was hoping to hear more about by joining PPN. There is simply no question but that we must search out the best ways to reduce population growth, and ideas like this need to be heard. Please don't make the assumption that I, or anybody in the overpopulation field, objects to this sort of thing, without asking them about it. > 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. Hmm, I never mentioned eugenics or anything about it, never mentioned sterilization. I have an irresistable urge to tease you right now, get your goat up some more, by talking about eugenics a bit. As I understand it, eugenics is basically the idea that one could "improve" the human species through selective breeding. Being an engineer, I'm captivated by the possibilities of genetic engineering. At the same time, I'm acutely aware that this is extremely dangerous stuff. For one thing, who decides what is "better" and what is "worse" or not okay? For another, we are so far from understanding ourselves and what aspects need and don't need improving that it isn't even funny. And then, any kind of coercion that would force certain people deemed unworthy not to reproduce is repulsive in the extreme. But on the other hand, we've gotten ourselves onto an ugly path away from the natural processes that shaped who we are. Today, you can be born with a bunch of genetic defects, and pass them on to your children, and the quality of the overall human gene pool is going downhill. Eventually it will be a big problem. I think there is a way around this without coercive eugenic programs. I'd call it "self-chosen eugenics." Some day it might be possible for anyone to have their own genes fully analyzed, receive a report of what they've got, and if they so choose, they could have the DNA of one of their germ cells modified to eliminate certain things they didn't want in a child, say a likelihood of early heart failure, for example, and then have that germ cell be used to conceive a child. Although not everybody would take advantage of such a technology, enough people would that it would solve the problem of declining gene pool. Of course, such a technology would be fraught with its own dangers. It's nice to know, though, that there are ways of taking things that at first seem ugly and inhumane, and turning them into something that gives people more choice, more possibilities, and lets them choose. > 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. Let me make it clear what I'm calling for. I'd like to see the U.S. population reduced to about 10-25 million. I'd like to see the world population reduced to about 200 million. I'd like to see the dramatic differences in consumption rates, energy use, etc. evened out, so that there are no extremely poor or rich countries in the world. I'd like EVERYBODY to have the opportunity to thrive as a human being. > 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. Let's try again. The impact of one person is greater in a rich country. To reduce impact in a rich country, you can reduce consumption or reduce population, or both. I've stated above why I believe it is essential to not ONLY reduce consumption. To reduce impact in a poor country, the same thing applies, but reducing consumption in that case is out of the question. It needs to be increased. Therefore, to reduce impact in a poor country, the only viable option is to reduce population. Immigration is another ugly factor that needs to be looked at. When poor people immigrate to rich countries and adopt richer lifestyles, their impact on the environment goes up. Therefore, impact can be reduced by reducing population in poor countries so as to lessen immigration. I.e., the true impact of a person in a poor country is actually somewhat higher than would appear when looking at the average consumption of those people, because some of those people will be migrants to rich countries. Now I'm sure you're thinking, there he goes again, calling for reducing poor population instead of calling for reducing rich consumption. I'll say it again, BOTH need to be done. Reducing consumption is a whole other topic. How do you do it fairly? So many people in the U.S. live marginally as it is. > 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. Angela, if I haven't convinced you yet that my heart is in a good place, then there is no use in further conversation, and I only hope that you grow out of your anger some day so that you can be more effective in what you want to do. But, maybe I HAVE convinced you? > why not start with those who consume so much more than anyone else and start bumping > off the rich in the US? I'll bet you could wipe out the richest 10% of Americans, and have virtually no impact on the wealth of the remaining people. But I could be wrong. I have a friend who is always talking about the rich and powerful, conspiracies of control of the earth, etc., and he makes a lot of sense at times. I don't know. I'm focusing my efforts on the area where all my education and instincts tell me the most likely area for positive change is: dealing with overpopulation. > 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? I described the process that happened, I didn't say I thought we should reverse it. But don't think this hasn't crossed my mind. In fact I've often thought I would be happier living an aboriginal lifestyle. Of course, it isn't possible to have 6 billion people living on earth in an aboriginal lifestyle. But beyond that, I'm an engineer and computer programmer, I'm a technologist, I LIKE technology. As much as I suspect it is bad for my basic happiness as a human, I LIKE it. I don't think humans can reverse course on this new path we are taking. It just seems extremely unlikely. So, what we have to do is find a way to adjust our course to make it sustainable. I believe we've come to the end of the course started at the Agricultural revolution, the course of following the growth paradigm. I believe the new course might best be found by looking for ways to integrate the more ancient paradigm of sustainability into our new lifestyle. We live at a turning point in human evolution. It is an incredible challenge we face. And opportunity. We need to work together to find the right change of consciousness that will allow us to continue to exist. > 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. No, Angela. > 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. I hope I've filled you in enuf on where I'm coming from that you can see that the above is way off base. > i see frogs in boiling water metaphors lurking here.... a popular one for the > easily impressed. It is an appropriate metaphor, a good one. > 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. Your words are really wounding to me. I can't take much more of it. I'll tell you again that if you continue to try to argue points this way, you'll do nothing but cut yourself off from everybody except those few who happen to agree with you on everything. Ted Toal.