Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 02:04:06 -0800 (PST)
From: "Nicholas C. Arguimbau" <nicka@well.com>
To: "Van Zant, Peter J" <Peter.VanZant@PSS.Boeing.com>
cc: PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: RE: Overconsumption vs Overpopulation?
In-Reply-To: <51792E5D4B6ED011B7DB00805FBE3836040EC0C7@xch-evt-06.ca.boeing.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981121015016.28640A-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Van Zant, Peter J wrote:

> I have thought about having everybody start out with no wealth inherited
> from previous generations as one of the ways of implementing a constant
> population society. Personally, I'm not against it--in fact, I rather like
> it--but the chances of getting it accepted, at least now, are absolutely
> nil. Go ahead, write your congressperson and suggest it, write an op-ed
> piece for your local paper. At least, that gets it out on the table.
> However, I'm afraid the howls of outrage will dorwn out any discussion very
> fast.

NA-
I agree with you wholeheartedly.  The same, of course, has to be said of
any program for controlling global warming meaningfully with the
contribution of both the United States and China, the two necessary
participanants.  The same, of course, also has to be said of any attempt
to establish a global carrying capacity for human population and then
implement it on a rational as opposed to catastrophic basis within the
next 2-3 decades. But then these are things I'd rather try to get done
despite their lack of "political feasibility," because there is a category
of "politically infeasible" goals the failure to reach which is
unthinkable.  The 100% estate tax isn't one of them.