Received: from rivendell.vsta.com (rivendell.vsta.com [204.57.96.15]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.8/8.8.8/ITS-4.2/csf) with ESMTP id NAA10521 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:21:55 -0700 (MST) Received: from eglaze.vsta.com (eglazeADSL.vsta.com [204.57.96.81]) by rivendell.vsta.com (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA29801 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:23:51 -0600 (CST) From: "Ed Glaze III" To: "PPN Listserv" Subject: Re: established facts Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:27:35 -0600 Message-ID: <01be18b2$09941ea0$516039cc@eglaze.vsta.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Some subscribers to the PPN listserv are evidently getting tired of listening to some of the recently subscribed pop activists who have caused such a ruckus by not viewing overpopulation in a "progressive" way. Now a subscriber seems to be laying down almost an ultimatum listing the premises on which he feels discussion of population issues on PPN should only be based and asking us to accept these "incontrovertible facts" or leave. John Foster is not a listowner, but is an intelligent fellow who has written books and articles, though they may have a Marxist slant. It seems the listowners should be the ones to issue such ultimatums. One listowner commented previously and if some of us subscribers do not follow her instructions, shown in the message below, it seems that we would be given a private warning to comply with specific indications of how list protocol was violated. If the subscriber(s) does not then adjust message content then accepted list protocol would be a punishment of being set to NOPOST for a period of time. A second offense would likely be a longer NOPOST followed by expulsion for a third offense. Of course subscribers are free to unsubscribe at any time. From: Martha Gimenez To: PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK Date: Sunday, November 15, 1998 12:53 PM Subject: Self-Moderation Messages to PPN must demonstrate an effort by the sender to do one or several of the following: 1. to engage the membership in the consideration, examination, critique, or elaboration of a sociological insight, proposition, theory, concept, research finding about population issues. 2. to engage the membership in the theoretical discussion of a newly published and controversial book or journal article. 3. to engage the membership in the discussion of a book or journal article the sender found so interesting that he or she felt compelled to share it with PPN. 4. to engage the membership in the discussion of a policy issue. There are other possibilities, of course, but the key word is engage. ---------------------- I will indent my comments after John's pronouncements but unlike John, I make no claim that mine are "incontrovertible." Sorry for not snipping much of John's message but since I am differing with his specific points it is easier to follow if the points are there. I have included links to support some of what I say. I doubt that many will look these over but it should indicate that what I say is more than just my personal opinion. I see that Christopher Christie has voiced his concern on some of John Foster's points also. I encourage further discussion of this issue offlist with the listowner and the concerned parties. ________ Ed Glaze 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." ________________________________ From: John Bellamy Foster To: PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK Date: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 4:28 PM Subject: established facts The Progressive Population Network appears to be inundated of late by views that are anything but progressive and the importance of the list as a forum for meaningful discussion of population issues seems therefore to be threatened. I want to try to get things back on track by listing ten well-established, incontrovertible facts that form the basis for any meaningful discussion of population issues. John's use of ANY implies that everything else not recognizing these ten facts is to some extent meaningless. Limiting the factors being considered will of course skew the discussion. First, for those like myself who approach population questions primarily from the standpoint of global ecological crisis it has to be admitted that overpopulation, though a factor in this crisis, is a relatively minor one compared to the two other sources of environmental impact (according to the PAT formula): affluence and technology. World economic output is increasing much faster than population and contrary to the latter there is no expectation that it will level off. Each multiplier must be considered and population is projected to more than double in most of our lifetimes and that doubling contributes to the increases of the other sources. The Developing World will have most of that population growth and in those areas population will be much more important that globalized numbers may reflect for affluence and technology (A & T). John's concern with the global ecological crisis should consider the very long time it will take for population to level off and eventually reach sustainable levels. Such a turnaround could likely take 200 years of more with a huge P component continuing its consumption and increasing the A & T. Unless of course there are major collapses of the economy or ecology causing massive die-offs, which seems likely especially in some regions. So is it really just a question of choosing to deal with overpopulation or overconsumption? On top of this there has been a technological shift in the last half century to the production of toxic and radioactive "byproducts" that threaten the biosphere and the health of all the species within it at levels that we are only just beginning to understand. Neither of these factors -- affluence or anti-ecological technology -- can be attributed directly to population growth. No, but our unsustainable dependence upon such harmful technologies is bolstered by supporting our high population levels and there are certainly other less than direct links. The interdependence of issues requires that these acts be put together, but the connections are not always so glaringly obvious. Second, there is no direct relationship between population growth and world hunger, or between population growth and famine. This has been established in the work of Amartya Sen and in the various critiques of the agribusiness system. Why must all relationships be direct and global? Especially on a regional levels there are very strong arguments showing that a high population level (not just pop growth) contributes very much to malnutrition, difficulties in distribution, and other unmet infrastructure needs. Also supporting the much higher population levels in the future will likely be even more difficult and may well lead to both food and water shortages. Granted that agribusiness and economic orientations are a major contributing factor to problems with food distribution. Third, population growth issues cannot be addressed in simple, neo-Malthusian terms (which focus simply on narrowly conceived demographic factors) but need to be viewed in terms of the theory of demographic transition, which explains this in terms of social and economic relationships. Population issues entail more than just growth and there are many issues leading to a boggling complexity when socially-acceptable solutions are being sought. However, demographic factors do shown us that in ecological terms we are heading downhill towards a crash and such social issues as the demographic transition are not going to slow us sufficiently to avoid major problems. Besides to rely on the demographic transition to increase the living standards of all in the developing countries would lead to even more disastrous ecological disruptions as the time involved would likely be centuries. Fourth, the essential point here is that most of the third world is stuck within what Barry Commoner called a demographic trap created by colonialism/neocolonialism. There is no doubt that the third world has be exploited by the first world. There are great inequities in trade, economic distributions, resource usage, and many other things, but every one of these inequities are worsened by large and growing populations in both the third and first worlds. Much of what Barry Commoner is concerned with is the ending of poverty and it would seem that high population levels would make that even more difficult. Fifth, while the demographic transition theory has traditionally been conceived in terms of economic development, this is now commonly broadened to take account of social factors more generally. For example, we know that where women have greater rights and more control over their own bodies the rate of population growth decreases. We also know that some societies have been able to bring population growth under control at relatively low levels of economic development by emphasizing social redistribution, e.g. Cuba and the state of Kerala in India. And many more societies have not been able to bring population growth under control under any circumstances. Carrying Capacity should a much more important consideration than economic development if for not other reason than it will affect both rich and poor countries alike. Carrying capacity is being decreased by growing populations and decreasing resources, especially drinkable water. A couple good examples does not counter- balance a predomination of problems. Sixth, the areas of the world that have the largest "ecological footprints" and are having the most devastating effect on the environment are the rich countries that have relatively low rates of population growth (much closer to replacement level). But some of the natural resources that are most threatened, like rainforests, are predominately in poor countries where there are high population levels and high population growth. Loss of such resources could have a much greater ecological impact and negatively affect our future, climate-wise, than we can afford, Seventh, classical Malthusianism (i.e. the ideas of Malthus himself) had nothing to do with ecology. Modern neo-Malthusianism arose in the 1940s in the work of thinkers who came out of the eugenics tradition. Malthus was resurrected because his notion of population pressing on subsistence was more a more effective ideology for justifying the control and displacement of third world populations after the Holocaust than more traditional racist ideologies. Malthusianism thus came to be a key element in the ideology of the Cold War and the Green Revolution. It was also used to develop a conservative approach to ecological crisis that downgraded social as opposed to biological factors. Whether Malthus intended to discuss ecology is not relevant, science builds on itself and a single principle can apply under many different circumstances. Also such a principle can be used for many different motives, which does not invalidate its proper use on any other motive(s). "Malthus may have been wrong on specifics, but in general principle he was right." Eighth, neo-Malthusianism has always tended to favor "final solutions" to population problems. For example William Vogt wrote in his classic neo-Malthusian tract, THE ROAD TO SURVIVAL (1948) that Chile's "greatest asset, is its high death rate." In an infamous passage entitled "The Dangerous Doctor" he observed: "The modern medical profession, still framing its ethics on the dubious statements of an ignorant man [Hippocrates] who lived more than 2,000 years ago...continues to believe it has a duty to keep alive as many people as possible. In many parts of the world doctors apply their intelligence to one aspect of man's welfare -- survival -- and deny their moral right to apply it to the problem as a whole. Through medical care and improved sanitation they are responsible for more millions living more years in increasing misery. Their refusal to consider their responsibility in these matters does not seem to them to compromise their intellectual integrity....They set the stage for disaster; then, like Pilate, they wash their hands of the consequences." "The main population issues -- urbanization, rapid growth and uneven distribution -- when linked with issues of environmental decline, pose multiple sets of problems for policymakers. The very nature of these interrelated problems makes them virtually impossible to deal with in balkanized bureaucracies accustomed to managing only one aspect of any problem. Population and resource issues require integrated, strategic management, an approach few countries are in a position to implement. But time is at a premium. The decision period for responding to the crises posed by rapidly growing populations, increased consumption levels and shrinking resources will be confined, for the most part, to the next two decades. If human society does not succeed in checking population growth, the future will bring widespread social and economic dislocations as resource bases collapse. Unemployment and poverty will increase, and migrations from poorer to richer nations will bring Third World stresses to the developed world." Ninth, neo-Malthusianism generally (there are exceptions) is associated with the peculiar "morality" of scientific racism. It denies the principle that justice is indivisible for all of humanity and is either explicitly or implicitly based on the notion that some people are more dispensable than others. In the words of Garrett Hardin, a popular neo-Malthusian thinker any attempt to help the poor would result in a situation in which: "the less provident and less able will multiply at the expense of the abler and the more provident, bringing eventual ruin upon all who share in the commons." The world of civilization and culture is thus reduced to a Hobbesian struggle of all against all (or of race against race) in which there is no room for morality properly conceived, and where "lifeboat ethics" or the principles of Malthus' "mighty feast" apply. The need for controlling population need not be defined in the terms and conditions of neo-Malthusianism or any other philosophical category. What is more important is that demographic trends on the local, regional, national, and global levels are clearly indicative that there are very real, and worsening, problems related to high population levels. Human nature has always caused the powerful to take advantage of the less powerful, even within the same race. Race need not be an issue at all in identifying the need to make major changes in how humans live on this planet. It is all a question of numbers -- can the resources available support the populations making demands upon them for the indefinite future? How you get humans to deal with the problem may well involve overcoming racism, along with many other social factors, but it does not change the pressing need to take action to reduce the disruptions we are causing on the environment. Tenth, by definition a PROGRESSIVE approach to population -- as opposed to a reactionary one -- recognizes all of the above and rejects the so-called "morality" of the "final solution." This means that population stabilization can only occur within the context of democratic social planning which recognizes the values of human freedom and equality. Here is a quote from E. O. Wilson "To move ahead as though scientific and entrepreneurial genius will solve each crisis that arises implies that the declining biosphere can be similarly manipulated. But the world is too complicated to be turned into a garden. There is no biological homeostat that can be worked by humanity; to believe otherwise is to risk reducing a large part of Earth to a wasteland. The environmentalist vision, prudential and less exuberant than exemptionalism, is closer to reality. It sees humanity entering a bottleneck unique in history, constricted by population and economic pressures. In order to pass through to the other side, within perhaps 50 to 100 years, more science and entreprenueurship will have to be devoted to stabilizing the global environment. That can be accomplished, according to expert consensus, only by halting population growth and devising a wiser use of resources than has been accomplished to date. And wise use for the living world in particular means preserving the surviving ecosystems, micromanaging them only enough to save the biodiversity they contain, until such time as they can be understood and employed in the fullest sense for human benefit." I suggest that those who are unwilling or unable (for whatever reason) to acknowledge these elementary truths should seek out lists of a more neo-Malthusian character (I am sure there are plenty of those). Or if they cannot find anything quite to their liking, they should create their own Regressive Population Network, where all the misanthropists of the world can unite. It seems that all of us should work together on solving the issues involved with overpopulation. If the PPN listserv truly does believe as John Foster says and is not also interested in considering some of the points I have made then it is possible that some of us population realists will take our leave of this listserv. We would do so reluctantly because we would be leaving some people who are evidently concerned about population issues but who are sidetracked off the environment and into social concerns. Solving social concerns will not matter if the ecology we depend on is allowed to fail while we deal with other issues. I will leave you with the text of the "Letter to World Leaders from Scientists" We, scientists of the world, are deeply concerned about trends in global population growth and related environmental degradation. Increasing consumption of goods in developed countries, plus rapid growth in the number of humans in the world, threatens to outstrip the resources of our planet and the ability of our technology to support people with a decent standard of living. It is becoming more difficult to feed, clothe, house, and provide health care for all people because the amount of natural resources that are potentially available for each individual is decreasing. Population increase is the root cause of much disease, malnutrition, social inequity, loss of biodiversity, and environmental destruction. These problems are inescapable despite our efforts as scientists to help solve the world's problems with new technologies. Land, water, and energy resources must be sustainably managed, consumption reduced, and a significant reduction in the quarter million people added to the population daily must occur. Clearly, we all are a part of one world and the people of each nation, along with their leaders, should develop a population policy for their nation. We hope that you [world leaders] will provide the leadership to initiate incentives to reduce family size and conserve natural resources in order to achieve a high standard of living for everyone. ________________________________