From: "Ed Glaze III" <eglaze@vsta.com>
To: <plicysci@frii.com>,
        "PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK" <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: A more rational reply from Mr. Glaze.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 23:27:15 -0600
Message-ID: <01be0ba1$9c936c60$516039cc@eglaze.vsta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am not sure why you think your reply was ugly.
It certainly didn't offend me except in its lack of substance.
Maybe you were upset with my previous messages.

I very clearly mentioned the overconsumption by the rich and that
they were likely to suffer even more than the poor, as shown in the
portion of my message below which you snipped from your reply:

           "Most of us should realize that there is not going to be
           an easy or painless way to solve overpopulation. And
           the social, economic, and environmental effects of our
           growing numbers -- and eventual reversal of that trend --
           will take a toll on all of us, not just women in poorer
           countries. It seems more likely to me that the biggest
           sacrifices will eventually be made by the rich overconsuming
           populace in countries like the US because they live so
           much further from sustainability than poor people"

That is the only reference I made about the poor and consumption.
I doubt many others on this list find it offensive, though if they live in
the US they might hope I am wrong. I certainly did not promote the
uneven economic and consumption patterns that exist in the world.
I did point them out and even said they were a problem. I wonder
why that upset you so? Rhetorical, we need not debate it on the list.

You do seem upset about "rationality" and seem to indicate that such
logical thinking would not be the best way to solve overpopulation.
I, however, do feel that it is the best way to understand the problem
of environmental degradation, overpopulation, overshoot & collapse,
and a variety of other ecological disasters we are leading ourselves into.

You make a statement about the pursuit of rationality has "killed at least
170,000,000 people to gain heaven on earth." Yet you offer no further
information or substantiation. I do not doubt that many people have died
but I would like to know how you attribute this number to the "ideological
proponents of rationality." If you want us to understand and give your
statement the credibility you think it deserves you might want to at least
give us a URL or book title so we can follow up if we wish.

Is rationality the best way to convince people they need to change and to
guide them through that change?  Maybe not. But first they need to know
the reason why change is necessary and logical reasoning backed up
by scientific facts and demographic trends are very convincing to most.
Maybe you feel some people are offended by such "rationality" and will
refuse to believe or change their ways. But does that change the facts?

You seem to imply that "kindness, warmth and compassion" might be
better ways to live than by measuring our worth in financial terms.
Yes, our society, especially in the big cities, tends to place a dollar
value on everything and for those of us who do not wish to live that
way of life we do not fit in. And yes, I do live that type of life to a
great
extent -- though I am not broke and do drive a car to shop in a grocery
store for all my food. Then again, I doubt I have worn long pants more
than six times a year since 1983. To me that speaks of a lifestyle that
has sufficient "kindness, warmth and compassion" even if I do not
presently have a life partner, or whatever, and kids to share it with.

In no way was I trying to force my way of life on anyone. What you are
disagreeing with was put into my introduction which I told list subscribers
to read "if you are interested." I would hope that any of us would be free
to put whatever we choose into a little bio of an introduction as a way to
better inform others of just who we are and how we feel about the issues
that overpopulation has forced upon us.

The "head in the sand approach" that I mentioned dealt with the book
that someone else mentioned on the list. You also snipped that from
your reply. The description of that book does imply that women in poorer
nations suffer because of overpopulation. Do you really doubt that?
To me, overpopulation will cause everyone in poorer nations to suffer
and much of that is due to the culture of that nation and cannot be blamed
completely on the rich countries who might, or might not be exploiting the
country economically. Personally, I feel that the booklet title itself is an
example of "expedient sloganeering."

           From: rc&am <rcollins@netlink.com.au>
           Sunday, Nov 8, 1998 7:02 AM
           MYTHS OF OVERPOPULATION (36 pages)
           exposing the myth of overpopulation and the use of it as
           a weapon against women in poorer nations

Maybe you think there is not an overpopulation problem, hence this
idea of the MYTHS booklet appeals to you. I would hope you are in the
minority on this population listserv because there is a vast amount of
evidence to prove that most every country in the world is overpopulated
and increasingly suffering because of it.

You also seem to indicate that a failure of secularism is causing us
to fail in finding viable solutions to the problem of overpopulation.
Hey, if you have a better solution, even if it is religious, please
share it with me and the many other population activists and
world leaders who would like to know.

Some of us who are well informed about environmental issues
might think that what should not be tolerated are unsubstantiated
statements about there being no overpopulation problem. If you
have a problem with what is widely recognized as a serious threat
to our global future, tell us why. If logic and secularism is unacceptable
to you and you have a better way of understanding the world and
solving its problems let us know.

Till then I stand by every word I have said and ask you not to read
into my statements things that I do not say. You would also improve
your credibility if you backed up some of your statements. If you
don't want to clog the listserv with a long message, by all means
send it to me privately.

________   Ed Glaze   <eglaze@vsta.com>
                     Port Mansfield, TX
"If they don't understand the severity of the problem,
they won't understand the severity of the solution.
Overpopulation must be dealt with."


rationality (Dictionary) <http://www.infoplease.com/>
1. the state or quality of being rational.   2. the possession of reason.
3. agreeableness to reason; reasonableness.   4. the exercise of reason.
5. a reasonable view, practice, etc.

reason
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or
action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or
inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
6. Logic. a premise of an argument.
7. Philosophical:
               a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge,
                        either by direct understanding of first principles
or by argument.
               b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought,
                        or of conduct influenced by such thought

--------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Talboy <plicysci@frii.com>
To: PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: Sunday, November 08, 1998 8:13 PM
Subject: An ugly reply to Mr. Glaze.

>Ed Glaze III wrote:
>
>> Being new to this list I am unfamiliar with <rcollins@netlink.com.au>,
>> however, it seems he (?) is promoting a booklet that, judging from the
>> title "MYTHS OF OVERPOPULATION," takes the head-in-the sand
>> approach to environmentalism.
>
>Dear PPN,
>
>My complaint, against the tide perhaps, is the insistence that "the poor,"
are
>the problem.  Given that the USA economy demands consumption beyond the
needs of
>its inhabitants, and especially the amount of waste  those citizens
tolerate,
>these arguments are particularly galling.   It might be better to use
kindness,
>warmth and compassion as criteria, rather than full employment within such
a
>system.   Our insistence on purely rational solutions smacks too heavily of
the
>immense failures of secularism.   For those of you who might not have
noticed,
>in the period since the "Enlightenment," these ideological proponents of
>rationality,  have successfully killed at least 170,000,000 people to gain
>"heaven on earth."     If you choose not to have children, bully for you
>perhaps, but don't try force "rationality" on those who have noticed the
uneven
>standards you've attempted to promote.   Expedient sloganeering, "head in
the
>sand approach," is not appreciated and should  not be tolerated.