From: "Ed Glaze III" <eglaze@vsta.com>
To: "PPN Listserv" <PPN@csf.colorado.edu>
Cc: "Christopher Christie" <refugee@thegrid.net>
Subject: Re: coercion, sterilization, culling
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 12:10:22 -0600
Message-ID: <01be1643$5efcd380$516039cc@eglaze.vsta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Toal <ttoal@jps.net>
> Hi Ed,
> I'm still hanging in at PPN.  I don't know if you are monitoring it still
> or not. Things seem to have calmed down and the hostility level
> has dropped dramatically.

I am still here, I was just out of town for a week.
I posted a couple messages yesterday to catch up after reviewing the
listserv messages sent while I was gone. You did an excellent job on
your posts and that may be why they (Angela, mostly and Jim, maybe)
have calmed down some. It is encouraging that more subscribers are
posting now. Too bad they didn't speak up when the A & J welcoming
committee bombarded us and so skewed my first impression of the list.

Angela has responded to my posts, so I guess the debate goes on....
Her frequent posting may cause her to bump into the 15 percent limit.
I will respond to some of her points in this post also. Personally, I feel
that soliciting my opinion on the list, as Angela has done -- though Ted
asked privately, may be the type of thing the listowners are concerned
with. I will discuss several pop-related topics so that there will be more
relevance to other subscribers on the list.

There was an omitted word in my message yesterday. It should read,
           "Repetition of long messages does NOT benefit the list
            and not all our discussions need to be on the list."
Spellcheck does not find missing words, nor indentify why a few of the
words in my message were in a different size type. It was not intentional
on my part though the words changed in size was interesting. My mail
program has a default type size of 10 and I make it 12 but editing can
change things. I better proofread better. At least I do use caps as needed.

> Ted:  I think I must have missed some of your posts there that caused
> such angry responses.  Can you tell me what your positions are on
> coercion regarding family size and sterilization?  And also tell me
> something about quinicrine, which I'm pretty ignorant about, and what
> your position is on that, and what your understanding of other's positions
> on it is?  I'm curious as to what my own reaction would be to your views.

MY VIEWS on overpopulation need to be understood because they are
central to all posts, to this and the other pop listservs.
         "I think we will be disagreeing on many population issues because
          I view the problem in much different terms -- namely that we have
          excess people now and a population reduction is needed." We
          must also consider the time factor because continued growth leads
          to further degradation and a lowering of carrying capacity. We are
          already so overpopulated that easy solutions are not likely.

Like Ted I share the belief that human population should be reduced to
well under a billion people. I favor a planned reduction and the sooner the
better. And yes, that would entail many, many unpopular methods and
morally challenging decisions about who survives and why. I do not have
all the answers about how to do this but I feel that if we continue as we
are then nature, our own greed and foolishness will reduce our numbers
in a much less pleasant manner. (see Chris' apocolyptic message below)

ANGELA brought up sterilization in a private e-mail to solicit my views
on it and then she forwarded my private response to the PPN list. I have
no problem with my views being known by all but it was kind of sneaky the
way she solicited response to a hot topic and reposted private e-mail.
Now that I look back she did specify Quinacrine sterilization, though my
response was more general. Angela seems to be really opposed to
QUINACRINE or wants the rest of the list more informed since her recent
posts are about Quinacrine. I will repeat what I said before:
         "Yes, I am in favor of sterilization in some cases and if
Quinacrine
          is cheaper and safer than surgery for females then that is an
option
          that should be available. Especially if sterilization is needed on
a
          large scale in a country that cannot afford, or does not have, the
          doctors necessary. The choice to use Quinacrine should be
          available and I am very much in favor of continued trial use with
          a rapid expansion. Forced sterilization procedures may have
          been abused, or the policies have been faulty, but there is a need
          for cheap, long-lasting, and effective birth control in many
countries.
          Plus it does not seem that there are widespread or serious
          problems with Quinacrine when used properly."
Some of Angela's post on Quinacrine are very informative but she and
the articles place too much emphasis on approval of use by FDA or
other major countries where the decision is actually quite political.

COERCION in family planning can take many forms. In fact, much of the
pro-natalism our cultures are so filled with should be considered coercion
to have kids. The fear of lawsuits is coercion causing drug companies
to discontinue research on contraceptive methods. Right-wing politicians
and religious types who oppose abortion and other family planning are
also practicing coercion by limiting available reproductive control choices.
Then there are the abortion clinic protests and murders of abortion doctors
which intimidate women with an undesired pregnancy and doctors in their
choice of medical specialty. I feel that abortion doctors perform the most
beneficial of medical services because abortion, though a last resort, so
greatly affects the lives and future wellbeing of so many people. Forced
pregnancy and forced motherhood are a much greater injustice, especially
in a world already overcrowded with people.

COERCION of some kind is a must if we are to stabilize and reduce our
populaton. Economic incentives and disincentives along with modifications
in education will be most socially acceptable. Next come added restictions
and laws which will also likely be necessary when it becomes obvious that
the easy ways will not work fast enough. (This touches on the Sen review.)
After that, maybe when we are over 9 billion people and living conditions
are much worse, will come the more draconian methods. Maybe smaller
overpopulated nations or China will be the first to implement such drastic
reductions but the need for them will be obvious to us all as our personal
liberties and resource consumption are affected by the increased demand
and competition.

We should not make decisions now, moral or otherwise, that will limit us
when we face much different circumstances in the future. Change and
adaptation has always been necessary and the morals of today may be
totally obsolete in 100 years, maybe even 50, due to environmental change.

I am against forced STERILIZATION in most cases, at least under present
conditions. The exceptions being cases where the individual is basically
unable to take care of him/herself, such as retarted, crippled, or otherwise
severely handicapped or diseased. I guess I would also favor sterilizing
HIV and AIDS people along with drug addicted. Sex offenders and repeat
felons are fair game also. At some point I would even call it a crime to
have
women who refuse to stop having kids, whether they are poor or rich.

If I haven't totally offended you enough to delete this message then read
on.
Though you might want to skip to Chris' message below.

CULLING has also been selected as a topic for me to explain my views.
Don Chisholm posted an intelligent reply and Ted tried to cover for me.
The important factors involved are carrying capacity and the unquestioned
sanctity of human life above all else. Remember that I approach this extreme
stance from the view that we already have excess people and perpetuating
overpopulation just makes the situation much worse. Am I in favor of culling
the human excess, YES.

The excess I would start with are the repeat felons and the terminally ill
and
incapacitated. Basically you would eliminate first those who are the most
costly to society while providing little if any benefit. In that respect I
would
also include infants, as I mentioned in an earlier post, since we do not
need many more of them. Another factor would be local carrying capacity
which would determine how many people could live in a region in a mostly
self-supporting lifestyle. Endangered areas and ecosystems would also
be protected by removing the human making unsustainable demands.
Nature must be allowed to heal and recover from the greivous wounds we
have inflicted so there would be a reduction below the actual carrying
capacity that is possible. How many people would be culled -- billions.

For this to work it would require mutual coercion, mutually agreed on.
Not all the people, or even the countries must agree, but just closing
borders and limiting trade would force many to realize, and deal with,
the overpopulation that exists.

In the long run I feel a planned reduction would result in the greatest good
for the greatest number. It is better to have 20 billion people living a
decent
lifestyle over a 1000-year period with an environment capable of supporting
the small human population indefinately. Or else we can look forward to
10 or more billion people living at once and fighting it out to survive
while
they further destroy the environment which will mean much fewer total
people will ever live with a decent lifestyle.

That my fellow PPN list subscribers is an alternate way of looking at
the population problem. It is sure to engage at least some of you, is
certainly theorhetical, controversial, involves policy and possibly offers
sociological insights that a few of you have not yet thought of.

I do ask that you keep the FLAMES off the list, but I am certainly willing
to discuss these issues further, if the list subscribers are willing.
Otherwise, I will go back to posting informative articles and news items
that relate to population and keep most of my personal views to myself.

________   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."


________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Christie <refugee@thegrid.net>
To: POPULATION@LIST.AUDUBON.ORG
Date: Saturday, November 21, 1998 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: Boomers' Time Bomb


Ed Glaze III wrote:
> Below is an article (snip)
> Boomers' Time Bomb -- The stocks-for-retirement cycle has a fatal flaw
> (snip)
> Pyramid Scheme (snip)
>           The stocks-for-retirement cycle appears to have turned the U.S.
> stock market into an intergenerational pyramid scheme. It works for many
> retirees now, but it can be sustained only while workers' savings flow
into
> the base faster than retirees' liquidations flow out from the top.
> Population projections indicate that this can't go on forever. (snip)

In recent years I have thought that retirement, as it has been known by the
post-war (II) generation of middle and upper-class Americans, will be an
elusive dream for those at or below of the ages presently approaching
retirement. Contrast the uncertainty presented by the Barron's article with
overshoot as described by Jay Hanson in "Requiem" at <http://dieoff.com/>

      "Constrained by the laws of thermodynamics, the availability of
      life-supporting resources will go into a permanent, steep decline.
      In many ways, the next hundred years will be the inverse of the last
      hundred. As fossil fuels dwindle, supply lines collapse, and societies
      disintegrate, muscle will gradually replace machinery. "Home grown"
      will replace "imported". Obviously, large cities will be mostly
abandoned.

      Well-intended activists from both the Left and Right -- armed with
facts
      and ideologies -- will form political movements, select the best liars
for
      leaders, and take to the streets demanding that government take us
      back to "the good old days". The worse our problems become, the
      more they will act instead of think. The less they think, the worse
our
      problems will become. Social order will disintegrate, and Roadside
      Warriors will go mad, killing, raping, torturing, and burning...

      It really will be back to the good old days! Shouts of "BRING ME
      HIS HEAD" will ring through the land, slaves, scalps, souvenirs
      and trophies of all sorts, ... exciting possibilities limited only by
      our ingenuity.

      The good news is that recycling will finally become fashionable!
      We will see feral children mining the dumps for plastic to burn
      (Pampers) so they can heat the hovels they are forced to live in.
      The strongest kids will set traps for fresh meat -- rats -- while the
      weaker kids will eat anything they can cram into their mouths
      (old shoes, styrofoam peanuts, newspaper soup). Pandemics will
      sweep the world, punctuated every so often by explosions as
      abandoned and rotting nuclear facilities blow up. Leaking dumps
      and tanks will spew PCBs and radioactive hazwaste into the feral
      food chain spawning surprising new shapes for young mothers to
      enjoy nursing.[55] Toxic chemical fires, blowing garbage and trash,
      genetic mutations, filthy water, cannibalism ...

      As the Easter Islanders say: "The flesh of your mother sticks
      between my teeth".[56] The situation will be especially serious for
      a short time because the population will keep rising due to the lags
      inherent in the age structure and social adjustment. Then mercifully,
      the population will drop sharply as the death rate is driven upward
      by lack of food and health services.[57] Trapped in obsolete belief
      systems, Americans won't even know why their society disintegrated."

Cheers,
Christopher Christie
Mailing from Desolation Row

"If growthmen can spin telling analogies, so can the growth sceptics. A man
who falls from a hundred-storey building will survive the first 99 storeys
unscathed. Were he as sanguine as some of our technocrats, his confidence
would grow with the number of storeys he passed on his downward flight and
would be at a maximum just before his free-fall abruptly halted." - E.J.
Mishan, 1976 [spelling as found].