Message-ID: <365B9DE6.90701CE7@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:04:22 -0800
From: Ted Toal <ttoal@jps.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ppn <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: coecion, sterilization, culling
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
A few comments on Ed's further explanation of his views on OP:

<< I .... feel that on a listserv dedicated to talking about population issues,

even controversial ones, I should be allowed to expand the
boundaries of thought on the issue, especially if asked to do so.>>

Sure you can do it, but look what happened!  I think you only solidified some
already-solid views help by some PPN subscribers.  I've had my own reality
shaken up a number of times, most recently my change in understanding of the
UFO issue, as was so rudely brought to the attention of this list.  Shaking up
one's reality is good, especially when that reality has become too solidified.
On a discussion list, shouldn't we all be working in a gentle way to shake each
other a bit, make each other expand our consciousness in new directions?  Ed,
you thought you were doing exactly that, but your approach was too rough, and
it changed the interaction from discussion to hostility and agression.

<< The probabilities are not good and I refuse to be optimistic because
that will make me easier to get along with. Pessimism has its place
also and by not sugarcoating the problems maybe more people will
recognize that overpopulation is a very real threat to our future and
the ecosystem.>>

You are so similar to me in this that it is uncanny.  My pessimism comes
easily, I'm a natural pessimist in all areas of my life.  In fact, that's
something I've been working on in my personal growth - trying to change my
outlook to a more optimistic one that I can more easily live with, and that
works better with those around me.  There is a middle ground where you don't
sugar-coat, but at the same time you do give people some reason for optimism.
Without some optimism, no message gets thru.

<< When the perceived goal is maximizing all human life, including each
individual, you will of course have very different priorities than if the
perceived goal is a much more general maximization for all life,
including plant and animal, for the long term. Too often we are not
looking beyond ourselves. We cannot continue to disrupt the other
life on this planet and expect things to continue on as they have in
the past. >>

I agree.  A question to ask ourselves is, WHAT DO WE WANT?  WHAT IS OUR GOAL?
I see it as MAXIMIZING HUMAN POTENTIAL and HELPING ALL LIFE THRIVE.  With our
current overpopulation, tremendous human potential is wasted, human and other
life does not thrive.  And I believe that we cannot be happy on this planet if
we are thriving but the rest of life is not.  We are too intimately intertwined
with other life, having evolved together since the beginning.  Deep in our
hearts, we know that all life on this planet is sacred.  We cannot be fulfilled
as humans if we do not fulfill our responsibility of respecting other
lifeforms.

<< A similar logic is involved when I am asked why I do not have a more
optimistic view of the future -- I see not proof that such is likely. The
trends are negative, the chance for change is small, and the recognition of the

problem is questionable at best.>>

There is one trend that STANDS OUT as something that we can grab for some
optimism.  In 1950, the average fertility rate in developing countries was
about 6.2.  Today it is about 3.3.  A TREMENDOUS CHANGE.  And as I understand
it, most of it came in the last 15 years.  If it were to continue, in another 5
years the world would be below replacement level fertility.  Will it continue?
We need to MAKE IT continue.  We need to understand WHY it has happened, and
keep doing whatever was done to make it happen.

We also are seeing a lot of action to try to help the world through the coming
bottleneck, when momentum carries us to 11 billion or so.  It is clear that
there is a tremendous amount that can be done to stem the damage during the
bottleneck years.  It is possible, in other words, to see a way out, a way for
us to make it out of this seeming trap we are in.  There are a thousand
pessimistic ways to see the future, and maybe only one optimistic way to see
it, so yes, the probabilities aren't good.  If you are standing at an
intersection of paths, and all are gloomy but one, which leads thru a warfield
but wends its way out to a beautiful place, you can choose to feel optimistic,
and set out on that one path that offers hope.