"Overpopulation" is one of them. "Gay" is another. You can insist on calling yourself gay out of a stubborn refusal to let language evolve, but unless you are gay, you will be giving a lot of people the wrong impression.
The word "overpopulation" (which remains vague and poorly defined) has fallen out of favor and is rarely used in polite company. We can thank, at least in part, those who called for an increase in death rates and draconian restrictions on childbirth for that. They provided the fuel needed by hatemongers like Ann Coulter to make comments like, "We believe in populating the earth until there's standing room only, and then colonizing Mars."
It has also been interesting to watch, over the last 30 years, organizations like ZPG change their names (Population Connection) and evolve into, basically, women's reproductive-rights organizations, joining ranks with NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood. Having won the struggle for lower fertility rates, these organizations now fight a running battle to protect past gains. Read this article from the Associated Press to see how well that battle is going:
Abortion access in many states is being curtailed, activists are uncertain about the stance of the U.S. Supreme Court, and South Dakotans vote Nov. 7 on a measure that would ban virtually all abortions in their state, even in cases of rape and incest.Correction: The original post said that NPG [not ZPG] had changed their name.
I just received Population Connection's 2006 Congressional Report in the mail. What I found inside was shocking. Almost without exception, Republicans voted against reproductive-rights bills, Democrats for them. There were a few Democrats from the Bible Belt states with less than perfect records but even they put all other Republicans to shame. Now, to be honest, most politicians disgust me. They disgusted Mark Twain also. I'm no Mark Twain, but at least I share that with him. In the end, you often just have to pick the least of two evils and the least of those evils is pretty obvious to me.
You might be asking what women's reproductive rights have to do with environmentalism. Well, the answer to that is: pretty much everything. The root causes of our environmental ills are the wants, needs, and desires of unimaginably huge numbers of people. Family planning is also one of the keys in helping to relieve poverty, which in turn helps to further reduce fertility rates as people climb the economic ladder. Poverty reduction and family planning go hand in hand, one begetting the other in a closed loop.
It isn't just the magnitude that matters, but more importantly, the rate of growth matters. If population growth inside a given boundary is too great, technology, economic growth, and infrastructure can't keep up with it. The result being the poverty and ecological destruction seen in many parts of the developing world today (Indonesia, India, Africa).
Now, everyone deserves to be here, so our solutions must fit within this framework of billions of people. However, reducing the rate of births by helping women dodge unplanned pregnancies is critically important. If our low fertility rates of today had been in place half a century ago, there might be only 200 million people in India today instead of 1.3 billion, their rivers might not be open sewers, and the wild Bengal tiger might not be on its last legs.
Let me put this into perspective with some more numbers. Half of all pregnancies in the richest country in the world are unplanned. There are about 40 million pregnancy-termination procedures performed annually worldwide. There were about 70 million people added to the world population last year. I made a spreadsheet to estimate what our world population would be today if all of those procedures had been eliminated over the last 30 years as the Pope and Bush would like to see. Any guesses what that number is? And there is no way we could have gotten there today at that rate of growth.
I suspect that we can save much of what remains of our biodiversity and reduce world poverty even with 9 billion people. I would feel much more confident of that if we were already at our peak population. Also, according to the world's leading population experts, there is no guarantee that we will stop at 9 billion. Population trends are very sensitive to slight changes in fertility rates.
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Comments
View as Flat
bookerly Posted 2:03 pm
04 Oct 2006
Dear BioD,
I agree with some of your remarks. But consider the possibilty that rather than high birth rates driving poverty, it is poverty that drives high birth rates.
And where does that poverty come from? It comes from (in the case of Africa), the exploitation of that continent by Western powers which led to the creation of artificial nation/states with weak governing classes (the Western powers took and took, but built very little that did not benefit them.)
If you have never read Chinua Achebe, try him for some perspective (not the only African writer, but certainly one of the most famous).
http://www.amazon.com/Things-Fall-Apart-A-Novel/dp/038547...
In the case of India, we can talk about the leftover effects of British Imperialism and the caste system.
And so on.
For some reason, we (not just you, Americans in general) tend to close our eyes to history and ignore the role of politics in current events.
But certainly, empowering women is important! As is creating social welfare systems for old age support. As is lifting people out of poverty.
pace,
patrick
Permalink
KathyF Posted 6:20 pm
04 Oct 2006
Can you explain that sentence?
Permalink
katwin24 Posted 9:23 pm
04 Oct 2006
I live in Europe where large rowboats crammed beyond belief with desparate Africans fleeing misery are rescued (if they're lucky) with alarming frequency. How many have been lost at sea? No one knows. I don't think Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan (for muzzling Planned Parenthood) or their present day counterparts are responsible for ALL the suffering on the continent but they certainly must shoulder at lot of the blame, particularly for the spread of AIDS, and the orphaned street children left behind to fend for themselves, doing whatever they must to get by - often times prostituting themselves which results in even more unplanned pregnancies in the case of the girls.
In Europe there is also a very Jeckyll/Hyde attitude towards population: although most governments give lots of lip service to environmental protection, they also encourage large families. In France, there's a bonus system after the third child whether you need the money or not. Although Europeans over all are much less energy dependent than Americans (most people don't have clothes dryers or air-conditioning, for example, and drive sensible cars although that is starting to change), Europe is densely packed.
Yet politicians are terrified by their rapidly dwindling social security coffers. The baby boomers are retiring, living longer, and the political answer on how to pay for all this is to simply encourage more babies, or here's another one - 'immigration ciblee' whereby only the best and brightest, or most useful are allowed to emigrate and settle thus depriving (one could say plundering) the country of origin of its human resources. Which I daresay it needs more than the West does. In any case, it does not address the corresponding environmental problems likely to occur, but merely passes it on to the next generation (who can't vote yet)
In the battle between economics and the environment, economics always wins, to the detriment of us all. I suppose the politicians might like a carbon trading type of system for births, people paying each other and a tax to the state for the right to pass on their genes to more than a set number of individuals - 1.7, 2.3, 2? - but since female reproduction is tied to so many religious beliefs that'll never happen. I'm joking of course, but mainly because there is too much room for abuse in such a system. Just imagine if China had never instigated its draconian measures of population control (as reprehensible as they might be) especially in light of their recent economic growth and new acquisitive habits. The Chinese are now making their own SUVs - I saw them at the Paris Auto Show - that are extremely popular and inexpensive to boot!
Some people believe we can continue our population growth with little consequence, I don't happen to be one of them. They say - there's enough food, there's enough water, there's enough fish in the sea. Perhaps, but for whom? Industrial agriculture pollutes our water supplies, creates dependencies on pesticides, encourages the pests to evolve into more resistant little buggers and yet with all the surplus in the world, poor countries are still going hungry. In Darwin's Nightmare, we see a country with a starving population exporting Nile Perch to meet the demand for cheap fish in Europe and destroying the viability of their lake in the process. Potable water is being cornered and marketed by a few faceless multinationals. And even if GMOs become safe, pesticides innocuous, water bottled and distributed freely, mercury levels in wild fish diminished and farmed fish cheap, available and non-polluting (like when a self-declared atheist/vegan/gun control proponent wins the Republican nomination); even then in this land of plenty for plenty of humans, we will have lost much of what makes our world inspiring - our great tracts of wilderness and the astounding variety of life on this planet.
Didn't realize how long this got. Sorry.
Anyway, here's a start - let's send Anne Coulter to Mars right away. We use all our stockpiled plutonium to power her vessel.
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 10:07 pm
04 Oct 2006
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:37 am
05 Oct 2006
Europe has some huge sociological problems, and we in North America are generally not well acquainted with them. Please keep reporting!
On John Paul II, etc.: as is well known, the position of the "official" Catholic Church is to suppress any form of artificial birth control. True Catholics, however, either take that with a grain of salt, or reject it altogether. If the point is we ought to love one another, and if one of our great and venerable traditions is that we ought to use our heads to make moral decisions, then clearly the virtuous thing to do is to take population issues seriously, and to recommend measures to keep population growth under control.
And my friend Patrick is absolutely right on poverty. Many Catholics do indeed understand that global inequity is one of the greatest sins of our age. The "official" Church has not done too much to respond to that, unfortunately. And the "official" Church is apparently going to be one of the last organizations in the world committed to Patrick's excellent (not original, but it is good that he mentions it) social value, the empowerment of women.
Ann Coulter is weird. If she sincerely believes the sentence that Biodiv quoted, then I do not understand how she continues to receive serious attention, from anyone.
Do not worry about the length of your message, dear Katwin. I have often far exceeded it, as have others. With respect to e-messages, and their genres, think of the three E's: epigrammatic, epistolary, essays. They are all welcome in their place. Many snobbish purists think that only epigrams should be encouraged. Well, when well done, they are very attractive and worth while. By the same token, brief e-messages that are thoughtlessly dashed off are quickly seen as not being of much use, just a function of someone's ill-considered high emotion.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:11 am
05 Oct 2006
Let women decide and I have every confidence that the balance will be a symbiotic one between humankind and the rest of the living planet. And no bribery please!
To paraphrase Ralph Cramden, Canis, "Right to the moon (mars), Ann."
That would be a great show to reprise with Al Franken as Ralph and Ann Coulter as Alice.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:17 am
05 Oct 2006
Personally, I think that this attitude is reactionary xenophobia. (On the other hand, I'm living in Northern California, so I don't have to deal with it myself.) But the fact remains that this perception exists, and it's something that the supporters of ZPG need to be aware of, and prepared to counter.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:27 am
05 Oct 2006
The results from that spreadsheet show a huge population growth rate. We presently have about 3 billion people who live on less than $10 a day, and about 2 billion who live on less than $2 a day. Double those numbers and what would you have in terms of poverty and ecological destruction today?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:34 am
05 Oct 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
KathyF Posted 4:13 am
05 Oct 2006
About Europe and their (our) emissions: I got Monbiot's book today, and according to his figures, Europe isn't that much behind the US in emissions. He claims the U.K would have to cut emissions by 87%, Germany by 88%, France by 83%, and the US, Canada and Australia by 94% in order to reach a 90% reduction by 2030.
(France is probably only that low because they get a pretty large percentage of their electric from nukes, I'm guessing.)
Basically, all rich countries are much more alike than different when compared to third world countries. We need to all accept blame.
Oh, and yes, we need to throw Ann Coulter (and her ironically unborn babies) overboard as soon as possible.
Permalink
willa Posted 5:07 am
05 Oct 2006
In fact, of course, that isn't true, as biodiversivist was saying, but the list of people who at least used to think it is pretty large. It includes, for instance, Bill Gates, not to mention my mom. This isn't my area of expertise by a long shot, so I don't know, but I'd guess this is still an impediment to progress. Not as big an impediment as politicians who won't give aid to reproductive health care in the Third World unless it excludes birth control, but...
Permalink
redjenny Posted 6:37 am
05 Oct 2006
More equal rights for women (including reproductive control, delayed marriage, and the possibility of paid work outside the home)
Reduced death rate, especially infant mortality (although this takes one or two generations to kick in
Industrialization & Urbanization (unlike in agricultural households, lots of kids are no longer an asset)
Women's rights and poverty are crucial to stemming population growth.
Of course, I think a lot of people who are afraid of "overpopulation" are typically really afraid of being overwhelmed by non-white people in developing countries.
Permalink
redjenny Posted 6:46 am
05 Oct 2006
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 3:22 pm
05 Oct 2006
I know because one of my primary areas of activism when I first got really fired up 12 1/2 years ago was overpopulation, and it all started with a mailing out of the blue from Zero Population Growth. I was a volunteer activist for them for years, then dropped out because of my frustration with their weakening position on the need to stabilize the U.S. population, in particular their unwillingness to address immigration's role in U.S. population growth. It came as no surprise to me when I later learned they'd changed their name to the utterly bland, and nondescript Population Connection, which is pretty much guaranteed to neither offend nor interest anyone.
Not that I was all that keen on the name Zero Population Growth. What I found when I did events as a ZPG activist was that often people understood it to mean we thought people shouldn't have any children--which was never ZPG's position--and maybe that we didn't even like children, which was certainly not true in my case. When ZPG's then-director, Peter Kostmayer, came to KC on a speaking tour about 9 years ago, I suggested they change the name to Re~Balance, which I meant as a sort of contraction of something like "Restoring the Balance between Population, Consumption, and the Planet" (I'm not sure of the exact wording I suggested any longer). Unfortunately, they didn't take me up on it.
Interestingly, while looking at the Population Connection site I found that they do still have the term "overpopulation" in
Permalink
katwin24 Posted 9:04 pm
05 Oct 2006
To GreenEngineer, although I'm sure there is an element of xenophobia in the government (and an unfortunately larger one within the population 'francais de souche' - the 'real' French as they call themselves), the social benefits of larger families are passed on to all, regardless of their origins, race, or religion. Portugal has a similar program. The problem (or fear) of the Islamization of Europe is another question entirely although I'm sure some French may feel it a moral imperative to keep pace (this kind of thinking gets us far, doesn't it?)
KathyF is probably right, I was basing my estimation of energy use on my own and observed uses, and on the total ecological footprint per individual in different countries. The US average is 24 acres per person, the French 13, the German 11.6. I do agree that developed nations as a whole are real culprits of preventable GHG emissions . My point was that Europe is already densely packed but encourages augmenting birth rates for political reasons while ignoring the environmental consequences. I find this particularly troubling because people here are becoming more like Americans in their consumption habits - the clothes-dryers (a luxury item not 10 years ago), the air-conditioners (a panic reaction after the heatwave of 2003) and my personal bete noire, the SUV.
BTW, does anyone know where to find a copy of High & Mighty in French?
Thanks, Caniscandida & GreenGranny, for the encouraging words
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:58 pm
05 Oct 2006
"Let women decide and I have every confidence that the balance will be a symbiotic one between humankind and the rest of the living planet."
Now that is a meme I would like to see propagated.
Redjenny,
Those charts were extremely interesting, seriously.
Increasing female literacy and employment lower the uncritical acceptance of childbearing and motherhood as measures of the status of women
In the City of York (England) in the 17th. Century, fully 60% had died [children] (graph shows about 40% survival), and only 30% made it to the threshold of reproduction (15 yrs.). Only 20% remained alive by the age of twenty. With so few females living to reproduction, only a high fertility rate could maintain the population.
John,
Thanks for pointing out the typo. I made the same mistake in a draft of my book that an editor caught. Don't know what my problem is. I made a correction to the original post. You are right that the demographic transition theory tying lower fertility rates to economic growth is far from airtight. The richest and third most populous country on the planet blew the theory out of the water half a century ago. The bottom line is that women will have as many children as they want, for whatever reasons, but once they decide to have a smaller family, access to modern contraception makes that decision much easier to accomplish, with fewer slip-ups along the way. Clearly, for impoverished women, the odds of escaping the poverty trap is much higher if you have two children instead of eight.
Patrick,
But consider the possibility that rather than high birth rates driving poverty, it is poverty that drives high birth rates.
You comment is true in certain circumstances, as noted by my remarks to Redjenny. Extreme poverty that results in high mortality rates creates a social norm for having lots of babies that has to be changed by education once mortality rates drop thanks to better hygiene, nutrition, and medicine. But, once a certain threshold for women's education and improved health are reached, fertility rates become disengaged from income. Examples of that are all over the place.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:17 am
06 Oct 2006
Put our hope into the hands of mothers and mothers to be to save mother earth! Freedom for women now!!!
Hillary has taken up the stand that women who can't in good conscience have an abortion, but don't have the resources to raise a child, ought to have freedom of choice too. Medical care and safe, rapid adoption ought to be available for them, just as access to birth control, sex education and family planning, and as a last resort abortion ought to be available also.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Pandu Posted 12:26 am
06 Oct 2006
Projecting these trends a generation into the future, and we would have a situation where less educated people and those who care less about environmental issues are having more children, especially compared to the more 'progressive' women. In other words, the children we didn't have are voices who won't be heard, votes that won't be cast.
It seems like peole who advocate for population reduction do not give sufficient consideration to the potential person's impact on society. If I live a simple lifestyle and over my life pursuade others to reduce their ecological impact, then I can have an overall helpful influence on the earth. If I did not strongly believe that, then I would have fasted to death a long time ago. Instead I got married and am having children - four already, with confidence that they will continue to help the world.
The decisions of the future will be made by the people of the future. If gentle people who care about the earth's ecology do not breed, then they will lose their future voice. You may speak to others' children about the importance of your beliefs, but then they will go home and hear their parents' views. In the end most will probably share their parents' values.
It seems obvious, considering trends, that whatever gains are made in promoting population control now will be lost as other people's children grow up and vote to exploit the earth.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:20 am
06 Oct 2006
But these high priests of faithbased wing nuttery like Coulter, show the necessity of at least temporary coalition of the willing, hehey.
Help unite us panda. Keep talkin'!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Tod Posted 1:52 am
06 Oct 2006
What better term than "overpopulation?" It means this, in case anyone is confused"
OVER = above, beyond, in excess of
POPULATION = the body of inhabitants of a place
What's to misinterpret here? Any negative inferences are not the fault of the word. It's the clearest choice when discussing the problem of, well, overpopulation. I've yet to be in "polite company" that disagreed with the use of the term. I'm going to politely suggest that your peer group is uniquely sensitive to topical inferences attached to words via transient public opinion. . . a sensitivity that chips away at languages and creates awkward phrases where once there were neat and obvious words.
OVERPOPULATION is a massive problem. Am I being clear? Or is clarity now a bad tactic - one that confuses the public?
Pffft on this topic. Sorry. It's just flippin' absurd.
"Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar, Hopscotch
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:54 am
06 Oct 2006
And nobody is promoting "population control" anymore. Women are choosing to have fewer children because they think it is the best thing to do. Helping the poor women in the developing world to realize they can choose to do so also is a work in progress.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Tod Posted 2:05 am
06 Oct 2006
Absolutely untrue. Many, many cultures have been and are entirely static. Isolated tribes the world over have lived thousands of years without any new cultural encounter. Remember, you used the term "culture" not "gene pool." Huge difference. Any anthropologists in the house will give you dozens of examples. Further, the Northern Euros are doing their best to remain static. I'm not arguing this is good or bad, but it is relatively common for a group to remain static.
Trying to hold a culure static is an exercise in futility and is the weak link in conservative attitudes.
Agreed. When two cultures are coming into repeated contact, efforts to discourage this are futile and inane.
Bush has a black woman in his cabinet for Christ's sake, a direct result of the Liberal fight for racial equality.
I'm SO glad you said "Liberal" and not "Democratic" as the Dems had very little to do with his fight, they merely slowly reacted to immense public pressure and with EXTREME hesitance (as a Party, certainly there were individuals within who wanted rapid action, but they were a minority). Also, in certain groups, the term "black" is frowned upon. You may want to find an entirely neutral reference phrase when referring to people who have descended from either African or Aboriginal forefathers (the two being obviously linked but now distinct). Oh, wait, did I say "forefathers?" How callous of me to include only one gender!!!
"Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar, Hopscotch
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:24 am
06 Oct 2006
We should begin by noting that immigration and emmigration are related to where people are, not how many people there are. Which is why it is not a population issue.
If a million people move from New York City to say, Kansas City, there has been no population increase, nor any immigration nor emmigration. But the people of Kansas City may not like the increase in numbers of people.
Anti-immigration activists seek to limit such movements, but only across national borders. Their reasons vary, but there are strong elements of nativism, xenophobia and racism in the movement.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?ai...
There is a reason population groups such as Population Connection don't want anything to do with the anti-immigration movement, and why there is no connection between the so-called population groups such as NPG and mainstream population groups such as Population Connection.
A largely white American group is trying to convince poor people who are not white, from different cultures, to have less children. Any hint or suggestion that their motives are tinted by bias will destroy their effectiveness. Completely. There is an ancient histroy of connections to the eugenics movement via people like Malthus (and some early American population activists) that the movement has struggled mightily to overcome.
So, the anti-immigration movement (and though it repulses me, they have a right to their opinions) actually risks damaging attempts to reduce population globally by tying which should be a universal issue (population) to an issue which is tainted by prejudice (which is not to say that everyone who is anti-immigration is prejudiced).
Sad.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:29 am
06 Oct 2006
Willa, you claim that Bill Gates agrees with your rather curious statement that "lot of smart, generally compassionate people have looked at efforts to provide the necessities of life to the poorest of the poor and thought that, thought if we couldn't actually make life decent for them, then all we were really doing was prolonging their misery by making them able to breed." Frankly, I have never heard this of him, could you provide a link (smile).
Tod, who are these Northern Euros of whom you speak? It's not a term I generally hear used, and I am not sure what you mean by it, please educate us!
thanks,
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:32 am
06 Oct 2006
Enjoy your children. Even the infamous Dr. Garret Hardin had four, and I have none, so somewhere it may balance out!
But instead of worrying about parents passing along their bad ideas, you should consider that ideology is not genetic.
If we work to educate both those parents and their children, we will have a bright future!
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:34 am
06 Oct 2006
Sorry Biodiversivist,
I should have asked in the other post, saving some space (grin).
You say that there are examples of a disconnect between fertility rates and income "all over the place".
I was intending to include a social safety net in the "income" picture, but no matter, can you actually give me some examples?
thanks,
patrick
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:35 am
06 Oct 2006
Basically, there is no scale where the more money you make the fewer children you have. There is a threshold that gets crossed and that threshold can be very low in terms of wealth, and is more dependent on education, health, and the availability of family planning. Costa Rica being an example I am personally familiar with, but here are several more.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Tod Posted 5:46 am
06 Oct 2006
"Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar, Hopscotch
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:07 am
06 Oct 2006
Also, there is a fine line between static and just changing very slowly. Cultural change is in many ways analogous to evolutionary change. Isolate a population that is in equilibrium with an unchanging environment and you will see little differentiation, change the environment or remove a barrier and you get a change, it may be in fits and starts, or gradual.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 1:00 pm
06 Oct 2006
I also bet lots of parents would shake their heads ruefully in response to your confidence that "most [children] will probably share their parents' values." They wish! My parents certainly have seemed baffled for 20+ years at the way I turned out.
In fact, a very interesting line of thought and research has emerged in recent years which strongly suggests that peers shape how children turn out much more than parents do (beyond the initial genetic contribution). This argument was probably most famously made by Judith Rich Harris in her book The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do, which I haven't read yet. But one of my favorite writers, Malcolm Gladwell, wrote about Harris's work here.
The world is sacred and I am sacred as part of it.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:32 pm
06 Oct 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 9:29 pm
06 Oct 2006
We should begin by noting that immigration and emmigration are related to where people are, not how many people there are. Which is why it is not a population issue.
As long as different parts of the world are limited by varying ecological conditions as to the population size they can sustain--in other words, as long as there are deserts and tropical rainforests and plains and arctic tundra and woodlands and so on--immigration will most certainly remain a population issue. Population size is not only of concern at the aggregate, global level but also at the local and regional level.
I think, if we're to get sustainable here, it will have to be through relocalization and reindigenization--by each people getting sustainable in their own part of the world. Will we ever achieve those goals without addressing how many people can be supported, living what lifestyle, in each place? It seems clear to me that we won't.
Which isn't to suggest that all that counts is "how many?" people there are. In nation-states like the United States--which, in my view and that of Anne and Paul Ehrlich (others, too, I'm sure), is "The Most Overpopulated Nation" in the world--the average per person consumption level is even more important.
It's also the prerogative of every people to decide whether or not to let outsiders move into their place of the world. This worked very well to maintain true cultural diversity and ecological limits in the days before civilizations arose and began overpowering tribal cultures with sheer numbers and technological superiority.
And I, unlike Patrick, also think it's clear that NPG--Negative Population Growth--is genuinely concerned with the ecological and social consequences of population growth, both in the world as a whole and the U.S. as a nation. They are not an "anti-immigration" group pretending to be a "population" group. But don't just accept either my word or Patrick's on that: Decide for yourself by visiting their site.
Though Patrick doesn't seem to think so, it's entirely possible for reasonable people with good intentions to hold different views about immigration, and for those who favor limiting immigration to do so without being racist and/or xenophobic. It's even possible for folks with differing opinions to discuss the issue without resorting to name-calling and character assassination.
The world is sacred and I am sacred as part of it.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 3:28 am
07 Oct 2006
Actually, for animals, the concept of a biosphere makes sense. (Except birds, who migrate such long distances! How dare they!)
Animals generally have limited ranges and mostly live in one type of place.
Humans are another matter. What kind of biosphere stretches from Saudi Arabia (oil) to Chile (grapes) to Asia (car parts) to all over a continent?
So, to suggest that humans are sustained in any part of the world can only apply to primitive peoples. And no one is migrating to join them anyway.
No American that I am aware of, lives in a true biosphere. We get things from the whole planet, we ship things to the whole planet.
I will agree with John that NPG is concerned with the "social consequences of population growth" and that they may think that "It's also the prerogative of every people to decide whether or not to let outsiders move into their place of the world. "
Generally this is what nativism and xenophobia consist of, not wanting outsiders to move into their place of the world. This may be expressed as racism or not (for instance, when Americans of English and German descent objected to Irish and Italian immigrants, it was not racism per se, but nativism and xenophobia).
It is not clear to me if John is trying to defend such practices or not, I will let him take this as far as he wishes.
Again, the greater problem is the damage the anti-immigration groups do to the overall population control movement because of their ties to prejudice (http://www.splcenter.org). Which is why population control groups stay away from immigration as an issue.
And is why groups like the Sierra Club stay away from it. And most mainstream environmental groups (I don't say "all" because who knows) (grin).
And of course, EJ groups.
If you want to know what I think, ask me, if you want to know what John thinks ask him (grin). Neither of us is particularly shy.
The relocalization and reindigenization concepts are interesting, but if they believe people should tie themselves to one locality so much, why are they using computers made with minerals and metals from all over the earth?
(This might be an interesting discussion, or it might not!) (grin)
Finally, if immigration is a local and regional issue (not just a national issue) as the subject of biosphere seems to apply, what kind of controls will Americans put on regional and local movement INSIDE the country?
patrick
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 4:36 pm
07 Oct 2006
Actually, for animals, the concept of a biosphere makes sense.
Unfortunately, you then go on to demonstrate you don't understand we humans are animals, and the biosphere is just as real for us as the rest. Moreover, you seem to be unaware that the biosphere encompasses the whole community of life. You seem to be confusing the concept of "biosphere" with that of "ecosystem." Here's a definition of "biosphere":
The part of the earth and its atmosphere in which living organisms exist or that is capable of supporting life. The ecosystem composed of the earth and the living organisms inhabiting it.
And here's one of "ecosystem":
a functional unit consisting of all the living organisms (plants, animals, and microbes) in a given area, and all the non-living physical and chemical factors of their environment, linked together through nutrient cycling and energy flow. An ecosystem can be of any size-a log, pond, field, forest, or the earth's biosphere-but it always functions as a whole unit. Ecosystems are commonly described according to the major type of vegetation, for example, forest ecosystem, old-growth ecosystem, or range ecosystem.
Currently, yes, a certain subset of humanity does rely on large quantities of imported substances from all around the world. Given the energy crisis I'm convinced we're heading into, however, it seems clear to me that this phenomenon--a product of the fossil fuel boom--will soon pass away. Then we'll have little choice but to get sustainable at the local level--if we don't have the wisdom to do so proactively--because we will not have sufficient energy available to us to continuing importing much.
I find it interesting that you choose to use the term "population control," which is almost completely out of favor in the movement to stop human population growth. Hardly anyone still uses it because it smacks of coercion.
Do you realize how pejorative the term "primitive peoples" is? The peoples you refer to with it are just as modern in their own ways as we are, and to think otherwise is to assume that all of humanity needs to be on the same trajectory--the one we're on--and those who aren't on it are lesser in some sense. Nonsense.
I defend the prerogative of every people to determine whether or not to welcome outsiders, just as I defend the prerogative of every homedweller to determine whether or not to welcome homemates. None of us is obligated to accept immigrants on either the personal or societal level, though it is also the prerogative of every people to choose to accept immigrants.
I'm using a computer now because I consider it to be a useful tool for being part of saving the world. I'm not attached to this infernal machine, however, and would gladly trade it for life in a reindigenized, relocalized, and sustainable world. Hopefully I'll get that chance before I die; in the meantime, I have no use for pointless purity.
I won't predict what kinds of restrictions Americans will someday put on population movements within what is now the U.S. of A. I will provisionally predict that they will put such restrictions in place within my lifetime, quite possibly in the not-so-distant future.
The world is sacred and I am sacred as part of it.
Permalink
jdeely Posted 2:43 am
08 Oct 2006
"In my view, it's an oversimplification to state that "Family planning is also one of the keys in helping to relieve poverty, which in turn helps to further reduce fertility rates as people climb the economic ladder." In some cases, improved economic prospects lead to larger families, as was the case during the post-WWII Baby Boom. The USA was riding high as a global superpower, manufacturing and the consumer/suburban economy boomed, and the total fertility rate rose, peaking at 3.5 births per woman in the late 50s before beginning to drop. "
Not exactly - the fertility rate for USA was WAY higher in the 1800's and early 1900's ... the 50's were just a post war/depression blip in an otherwise steadily declining fertility rate.
see - http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography
I actually feel that overpopulation is still an overused word. We hear plenty of this side of the story and much less of the good news concerning population, poverty and the environment.
My example above is one of 1000's that could be cited.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:09 am
08 Oct 2006
What Patrick has in mind when he writes "primitive peoples," he may tell us if he wishes. The categories of an older period in the development of the sciences are still with us, and we often find ourselves unable quite to let go of them. Whether "primitive" must always be "pejorative," that is, "something we must reckon to be worse (good thing we don't do THAT anymore!)," is probably mostly true, but we are not always aware of it.
And there is a right time and place for such an attitude. Most of us are no doubt grateful that we have left behind the times when surgery and dentistry were performed without anaesthesia. From our vantage point, it might be fair to refer to earlier, archaic medical practices as "primitive." But the people who had to live with those practices were not themselves "primitive."
Some time ago, a friend who is an art historian specializing in Greek art, associated with the Metropolitan Museum, shocked me by referring off-handedly to the category and specialization "Primitive Art," meaning in fact all the quite unrelated stuff that the Met exhibits in its rather remote southern wing: African, Oceanic, and pre-Contact American. But there is absolutely nothing "primitive" about those Dogon wooden figures, those Olmec jades, those Andean textiles, those Melanesian doorposts.
So I entirely agree with your take on "primitive": human beings are everywhere evolving, we are constantly being influenced and adapting. If we understand it to mean something only chronological, referring to the very beginning of a tradition, then it is false even to say that the earliest Ice-Age masterpieces are "primitive," the cave paintings in southern France and northern Spain, the exquisite carvings in ivory and bone, the amazing international Venus figurines. Obviously these are not the work of apes who just dropped from trees; obviously they could only have been produced by members of cultures having their own histories and traditions, which had reached a level of impressive maturity.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
bookerly Posted 8:47 pm
08 Oct 2006
Mea Culpa, I misused the term biosphere (should have said local ecosystem). I was responding to John's comment that "As long as different parts of the world are limited by varying ecological conditions as to the population size they can sustain" and "Population size is not only of concern at the aggregate, global level but also at the local and regional level."
Let me respond, though to the idea that "Currently, yes, a certain subset of humanity does rely on large quantities of imported substances from all around the world. Given the energy crisis I'm convinced we're heading into, however, it seems clear to me that this phenomenon--a product of the fossil fuel boom--will soon pass away. Then we'll have little choice but to get sustainable at the local level--if we don't have the wisdom to do so proactively--because we will not have sufficient energy available to us to continuing importing much."
This "subset" is the developed world. It is the "subset" responsible for most of the world's consumption as well as its economy.
Please feel free to describe how you can get sustainable at the local level, using what kind of materials, and so on.
Yes, humans are animals. However, we are a peculiar type of animal that has developed what we claim is a civilization. This civilization relies largely on machines. These machines rely on raw materials (and manufacturing in most cases) that is based on trade across distances.
What does local mean to such a civilization? That we can ignore the rest of the world, secure behind our brand new border wall? That we will import only raw materials and not other goods?
If anyone wishes to live a locally sustainable life, why not do it? Where will your clothing come from? Your knives? Your power?
The idea that one will just somehow transition to this type of society strikes as being a fantasy.
Maybe I am wrong, but I would love to see someone describe what such a society would use, and where everything would come from.
Isn't it pointless purity to advocate a lifestyle that one doesn't attempt to live oneself?
How can a world be all of "reindigenized, relocalized, and sustainable world" with nine billion coming to dinner?
I would love to see some clear explanations of what all this means at a practical level, if anyone is able or willing to do so.
Otherwise it strikes me as a series of fantasies (and we all have our own!) that offer no practical road towards what is the key, a sustainable world built on global relations based on equality and mutual respect.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 8:56 pm
08 Oct 2006
Dear John,
I am not sure of your age, or knowledge of recent American history, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
You said "I defend the prerogative of every people to determine whether or not to welcome outsiders, just as I defend the prerogative of every homedweller to determine whether or not to welcome homemates. None of us is obligated to accept immigrants on either the personal or societal level, though it is also the prerogative of every people to choose to accept immigrants."
There are a number of problems with this, so please let me explain (again, I am assuming this is new information to you, and no blame or name calling should be attached).
This basic concept, that every people can decide whether to welcome outsiders, lay behind much of the residential housing segregation in America (and to a large extent still does).
Many neighborhoods had restrictions that prohibited homeowners from selling to Blacks, and other non-whites. There were also restrictions on selling to Catholics and Jews in many places.
(In older times, there were signs up in America that said "No Irish Need Apply".)
The basic concept is this, no one can choose to reject outsiders, in as much as outsiders (by almost any definition in American society) have equal rights as "insiders".
A home is by definition described as different from a neighborhood or locality.
Currently, the United States is a member of International Treaties obligating it to accept refugees (many of these were put in place after the experiences of Jews in WWII, when even those who escaped Nazi persecution were not allowed in to many countries.)
The idea that a community can reject "outsiders" is a dangerous idea, and I hope you will think about it some more.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:06 pm
08 Oct 2006
Is the term perjorative? About whom was I supposed to be speaking?
In any case, thanks for pointing up my usage of this term in a way that was not clear.
I never applied it to any particular group of people, merely to the concept that humans were only locally sustainable at a time when they could be considered "primitive people" (whatever exactly that is).
As far as I know, none have existed for thousands of years, but I could be wrong.
If one objects to the use of the term "primitive" as ever applying to people, then okay, I will try to do better.
(Alas, though I try, I do make logical and typographical errors!! I will apologize for the former and correct the latter (I am amazed at the typos that slip through my fingers!)).
Trying again, humans have not in much of our recorded history lived truly locally sustainable lives, certainly not in large numbers. I see no great movement of people really trying to do so (even John rejects the idea as "pointless purity").
I hope this is a little clearer (but we can try again!).
patrick
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 2:39 am
09 Oct 2006
Is overpopulation an overused word? I don't think so; just the opposite, it seems to me, given that the world's population is still estimated to be growing by 76+ million people a year and we have no assurance that we can sustain even the current population of (estimated) 6.5 billion over the long-term, particularly as the fossil fuel bubble deflates. As far as I'm concerned, we need to be talking much more about overpopulation, not less.
The world is sacred and I am sacred as part of it.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 2:53 am
09 Oct 2006
Do I know exactly how to get to this reindigenized, relocalized life I talk about? Of course not. I don't pretend to be a prophet with all the answers from on high. I'm just an ordinary guy, which is why I spend my time recruiting other folks with other areas of experience and expertise to begin working on these challenges. We're simply going to have to figure it out as we go along, and I'm not predicting it'll be easy.
And, it seems to me, that's a better use of my time than focusing on personal relocalization. I think it has to happen at the community level to be effective, anyway, so that's what I work on. But I do buy mostly locally-grown food and spend my dollars at locally-owned businesses. These are inadequate measures by themselves, to be sure, but they are what I'm able to do until the larger cultural changes I'm working on occur.
And I hope we never get to a population of 9 billion. I also strongly suspect we won't because that estimated future depends on a continuing growth in energy supplies that I don't think is going to happen.
The world is sacred and I am sacred as part of it.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 2:56 am
09 Oct 2006
The world is sacred and I am sacred as part of it.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 3:07 am
09 Oct 2006
You have to look outside, and in the margins of, the recorded history of civilization to find the peoples living indigenous, place-based lives that, for my purposes, can be considered sustainable. It has been these peoples that civilization encountered as it spread around the world, and these peoples who have either been wiped out of existence or forced to abandon in whole or in part their traditional ways of life by the superior numbers and technologies of civilization.
The world is sacred and I am sacred as part of it.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:09 am
09 Oct 2006
The eugenic taint of "over population control" is being used here by the right. It's the old switcheroo, hehey.
They accuse those of us in favor of reproductive (and all other!) rights for all women, everywhere on spaceship earth, of being in favor of some sort of socially engineered birth control plan.
It is directly opposite. Let women decide and trust them, and completely support their decisions with the full economic force of our civilization.
Getting cheap with healthcare for mothers and children and failing to support safe, effective adoption while wasting trillions on aimless corporate, criminal slaughter of the latest oil wars?
There's an ISSUE.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 3:13 am
09 Oct 2006
The world is sacred and I am sacred as part of it.
Permalink
willa Posted 6:37 am
09 Oct 2006
I think the Bill Gates thing was something I heard on NPR, but I'm not sure. If I come across a citation I'll post it. I haven't turned it up in TSOR (thirty seconds of research), but I distinctly remember him talking about how his wife wanted to give more to health and other direct aid groups and not focus as exclusively on education, and at first he didn't agree, but then he came to understand that caring for people's basic needs so they could take advantage of things like the education projects would actually be best in the long run.
Bill Gates has said a lot of stuff, though, and been talked about by a lot of people (many of them, it turns out, Bible-thumping nutjobs who think he's the antichrist for wanting to do something about overpopulation--oh, the things I've learned in the last few minutes!), so it's not particularly easy (for me at least) to find this one particular thing.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:18 pm
09 Oct 2006
John, shopping locally is a nice idea (when I was in the states, I did it myself, went over ten years without even entering a supermarket at one point).
But unless all of the goods are produced locally with materials sourced locally, then one is only playing "pick and choose" with ones purchases.
My problem with the local concept (okay one) is that I cannot find a non-fictional description of how it would work. And the fictional ones I do find all assume that lots of "others" have died to relieve the stress on the environment and that all raw materials can be sourced locally or with minimal trade.
(Most of them seem to assume lovely local anarchistic type communities (or small town democracies) full of peacable people as well).
Of course, in non of them does "Mad Max" ride into town.
And most of them don't have any really "bad guys" around.
Even if a lot of North Americans decide to re-localize and re-tribalize (???), it seems instructive to me for us to remember that North America was once populated by just such folks, but that those greedy ancestors of ours dealt with them!
As we would presumably be dealth with if we tried the same (hmmm, poetic justice, maybe??).
I do have another problem with the local movement. In terms of agriculture, it pays no attention to the workers on the farms. It also does not in itself guarantee conservation or reduced consumption. (McMansion are local, too).
While I understand the desire to have more control over one's life (which seems to me to be part of the appeal), I see no evidence that it automatically includes a sense of global social responsibility or justice.
Or deals with global issues like trash (as far as I know, no developing countries ship garbage to the developed world) or the fact that many of the global environmental problems originate in American (and other developed) localities.
It feels to me more like preserve locally, ignore globally.
Again, if John, or anyone else can explain how this is going to work (and adress the global problems America has caused), please do so!
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:04 pm
09 Oct 2006
John wrote "that you're confusing the issues, Patrick. The examples you cite of racial and ethnic segregation are of one segment of a society discriminating against another segment of society. What I'm talking about is the society choosing whether or not to allow immigrants from other societies. These are very different situations with very different social and ecological consequences."
Actually, they are not different. First of all, no border is one hundred percent secure (no matter h ow much of the environment you tear up building walls, or how many species die in the attempt).
So, there will be "other" or "outsiders" coming in to every society. There always has been. There always will be. So, an important question in every society is the status of the "outsider". Historically, in Europe, Jews were ghettoized, Gypsies persecuted, and so on (I hate and so on, but there are too many possible examples to cite!).
One of the key concepts for a society is the guest rite, or how it treats the outsider. What rights does an outsider have in any society?
The only way to absolutely ban outsiders is to impose a very draconian police state, and even that might not work.
So, there will always be immigrants. The questions are 1) how will they be treated and 2) who will they be.
A lot of American history is based on attempts to deal with these issues, and most of them have not been very polite.
From the Chinese exclusion acts to the rounding up of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the US has struggled to deal with the issue of outsiders.
At the same time, the US has struggled (and still does) to deal with issues of the internal "outsiders", who are mostly members of different races, but may often include the poor (look at zoning laws for an example).
It was the victories of the Civil Rights movement that lead to the opening of American borders to a more diverse type of immigrants, and it was the enemies of the Civil Rights movement who argued longest and loudest that this would destroy American society (I am not accusing John of being either).
Given that around 10% of the legal American population (and another 3 or 4% on top of that) were born in other countries, this is an issue that is not likely to go away.
If we stopped immigration, then we stop the relatives of a lot of current Americans from living here.
If we stopped immigration, then we stop America from acquiring the skills it currently lacks, and also stop intellectual exchanges and internation research.
When society chooses not to allow immigrants, it does indeed end up discriminating against the segments of society that make up recent immigrants.
And it just so happens, that many of those who would be blocked from coming to America are other than white Western Europeans.
These groups were underepresented in immigration quotas in the past, and have just in recent years begun to make up for it (though they still face incredibly long waits to legally enter the country!).
They won't buy the idea that this is just bad luck and a co-incidence (and one of the reasons, is those allies of the anti-immigration movement, everyone knows the ones...).
Just as those involved in population work don't want to be included in that company, nor do many mainstream environmental groups. They have a hard enough time as it is reaching out to non-whites without carrying that extra baggage.
Generally societies have similar attitudes towards both internal and external outsiders. Which is why groups that hate internal outsiders in America also hate external outsiders.
While some people may not see the connection between prejudice and immigration, groups like the SPLC have clearly documented it, and one does not have to read far in the mainstream media to find examples.
It all goes back to the concept of the outsider and how a society treats that person.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:08 pm
09 Oct 2006
Sorry, I said "I never applied it to any particular group of people, merely to the concept that humans were only locally sustainable at a time when they could be considered "primitive people" (whatever exactly that is)."
Maybe this is still not clear. (smile)
It was never my intent to apply the term to indigenous peoples or any other specific group(see CanisCandida for a lovely explanation/exploration of why the term would not be valid), but merely as sort of a generalization of an unspecified (and in recent history non-existant) group of people who were "locally sustainable".
patrick
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 7:09 pm
09 Oct 2006
When life is tough, fights become fights to the death. You do not fight for show.
It is hard to understand how fearful, boring, and pent-up living in an isolated community can be. Be such a community in a city or a remote part of the country, it is still the same. When you are confined it is like confining an animal.
However, when nice people moved into town they were greeted with much kindness. They quickly were made part of the community. Interestingly enough most all of them found the little community to be the best place they had ever lived.
I have lived it, I don't understand it. But you take those nice little seemingly innocent small towns where everything seems low profile and go against the grain, you will find resistance. If you threaten it you will find a fight.
There is high sucide rate in these small times. Sucides where the person shoots itself in the head and then cleans the barrel of the gun. Sucides are cheaper to process than murder and we all pay the county tax.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 1:46 pm
10 Oct 2006
I'm not sure why you find it so hard to envision the relocalization process. It's simply a gradual rebirth of local food production and manufacturing, a downscaling of our appetites and our travels.
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 1:48 pm
10 Oct 2006
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 1:50 pm
10 Oct 2006
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 8:55 pm
11 Oct 2006
Dear John,
How have you gone local if your raw materials and key ingredients come from "afar"? What kind of metallic ores exist "locally" to you?
Going local strikes me as another way of putting ones head in the sand and not "seeing" the consequences of one's global actions.
As far as going local solving problems, then there is no poverty in your locality? No one goes hungry? Farm workers are treated fairly?
Mostly going local seems to be going local in terms of retail purchases, not a whole lot else.
I hope I am wrong, and eagerly await sources!
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:00 pm
11 Oct 2006
Here is the likely scenario (near or mid term future).
Americans do nothing about global warming until it's too late (peak oil, if it occurred would be too late to avoid a very nasty tipping point, and would likely only mean more coal consumption and and even nastier tipping point).
Waves of environmental refugees start to wash over the developed world. Africans are most likely to head for Europe.
Southeast Asians will head North into China and South into Australia.
Southwest Asians are likely to head North into China, South into Australia, and East for Central Europe.
South Americans will head North into the United States.
Expect between 80 and 100 million for dinner.
That will be when immigration becomes a real issue!
patrick
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 12:26 am
12 Oct 2006
According to the Global Footprint Network, in 2002 (the latest year for which data was available), the per person average ecological footprint in the U.S.A. was 24 acres, but only 4.4 acres of what they call biocapacity were available per person at that year's population of 6.2 billion. That means we would have needed an additional 5 planets in order to sustain the entire world's population indefinitely at the U.S. average eco-footprint. Given that we don't have even one additional Earth, much less five, I think we need to be thinking seriously about changing the way we live, not increasing the number of people living this way.
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:20 am
12 Oct 2006
No, John. I am serious. When global warming gets to the tipping point, hundreds of millions of people worldwide are not going to sit and die, they will get on their feet and move. And the ones in South America will move North (the Southern part of the continent is mountainous, thin and poor).
Solutions? Okay here is a dream.
In 2007, a new congress full of angry Democrats and Republicans (many of the old leadership have been thrown out in the anti-incumbent election) indicts the Bush Administration. Nancy Pelosi becomes our first woman President.
The US turns Iraq over to the UN which sends in Muslim troops from Ghana, Indonesia and China allowing the situation to truly stablize.
The US announces a plan to spend 600 billion a year on global warming for ten years. 400 billion will be spent converting the US electrical system to renewables as much as possible. 200 billion will be spent worldwide. (The money will be saved by not fighting wars, and the Pentagon budget (except for that needed to clean up will be slashed). (As one task is done, money is shifted to another).
(Taxes on the wealthy are raised, and oil, auto and power company executives are tried for treason and executed. Their replacements understand what they may and may not do.)
The EU matches this sum. Japan contributes too.
Coal production is made as clean as possible while the world engages in an absolute orgy of building renewable power (which largely means sustainable) and also educating children and providing health care and clean water all over the world.
The huge sums spent create sustainable local economies worldwide.
(As part of the plan, the US requires that all cars in the country be replaced by electric vehicles by 2010.)
The age of the gas engine is over. The age of coal power ends shortly. A new sustainable global economy takes shape.
The tipping point when it comes is milder (and population growth slows dramatically, peaking mid century at just below 8 billion).
The 21st century is the time of the real green revolution.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:28 am
12 Oct 2006
I do understand the appeal of the "localization" movement.
But, global warming is truly a global problem and must be addressed as such, or we will fail.
We need to look outwards to our global neighbors and in a spirit of love and comradery, share our wealth in a way which will enchance the lives of all on our planet.
We can do this if we choose. We can create a world which is sustainable, and in which all have a chance at a decent life.
But turning away from the world, will, I am afraid, cause us to miss this chance.
America faces a great challenge. It is the richest nation in the world and has the ability to help transform the world in ways which are really remarkable.
Not as master, not as emperor, not as bully nor preacher, but as a friend and neighbor acting in our own self interest as well as in the interest of all living things.
If we turn away from this challenge, we will not only fail as a nation, but as a people. The consequences will be disastrous to not only the rest of the world, but to ourselves.
This, more than any time, can be our moment of greatness, if we are willing to grasp it.
Wake up! Seize the day!
patrick
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 2:30 pm
12 Oct 2006
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 2:35 pm
12 Oct 2006
Though I differ with you on details (I certainly don't think putting a President Pelosi in the White House would initiate the kind of change you envision), I'd love to see a green revolution happen and soon. That's what I'm working to bring about most every day. I'm still waiting to read about the immigration policies you support for the U.S., though.
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 2:41 pm
12 Oct 2006
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:40 pm
12 Oct 2006
Dear John,
Where do you think that hundreds of millions of people will go? You say that "The industrialized nations of the world are highly armed and I think it's safe to say they won't just sit quietly as massive numbers of refugess pour across their borders."
So, the industrialized nations, having caused global warming, will kills the hundreds of millions of environmental refugees they have created?
I am going to guess you are joking.
If they try (and there are reasons they are unlikely to be successful, umm, see Iraq and Vietnam Wars), then the people who live in those countries would be war criminals.
Would be worse than the Nazis.
Would deserve what would happen to them...
Two further points along this line, if when the first wave of 20 million (or so) arrives at the US border, they are shot and killed, then the next wave will come with all the arms we have been selling to South American countries for all those years, and are likely to come organized.
There would be a big difference to America (or Europe) in accepting and nuturing refugees and in being overrun by armies of the dispossessed.
The second point is to remember that WE are CAUSING global warming.
To suggest that we refuse the refugees we create strikes me as a strange refusal to grow up and accept responsibility for our actions.
I suspect that while some people would want to refuse them, others would insist we accept them, and that would cause serious divisions in American society.
The better possiblity would be to solve the problems.
At least in my opinion (not a popular one, it seems!).
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:44 pm
12 Oct 2006
Dear John,
So, in your pessimistic view, the industrialized nations would 1) kill the refugees and/or 2) have no resources left to help them.
(BTW I want to be clear, I am NOT accusing John of personally advocating the killing of those refugees, merely describing what he would expect to take place.)
And I thought I was a pessimist!!
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:49 pm
12 Oct 2006
I am not trying to suggest that any particular localization process is evil, merely that I see no sign that any of them include such issues as economic and social justice for poor farm workers.
Nor am I trying to criticize John for not having localized his personal life. (I don't see much discussion of these issues by other "local" advocates, nor when I have asked these questions in other threads has anyone responded.)
All of the effort put into localization will not solve the global problems of global warming. And if we cannot learn to hang together, we will all burn seperately.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:54 pm
12 Oct 2006
I would bring together representatives of all parts of American society to develop a new immigration policy.
It would have the following constraints.
1) It must accept refugees (including those created by our global warming problems, if we are not going to fix the problem, we should be adults and accept responsiblity).
2) There must never be second class citizens in this country.
3) It must include strict enforcement of the rights of immigrants, refugees and workers.
4) It must reflect the rights and desires of families to live together.
5) It must reflect the history of past discrimination and make allowances for groups that have been discriminated against.
And probably a whole buncha other stuff I can't think of right now (grin).
patrick
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 12:29 am
13 Oct 2006
Do you deal with all those you disagree with so disrespectfully, Patrick?
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 12:35 am
13 Oct 2006
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 3:56 am
13 Oct 2006
Dear John,
You said "The industrialized nations of the world are highly armed and I think it's safe to say they won't just sit quietly as massive numbers of refugess pour across their borders."
I understand you think that I am not giving you proper respect. But, this statement without a lot of clarifying language, tossed casually into a short piece, well, please read it and think about it.
The very idea send chills up and down my back.
If you have a "nice" interpretation of this, please provide it. I did say, that I hoped you were either joking or describing a situation that you did not personally advocate. (You never said yourself if you do or not).
It is not my intention to attack you, but really, when you post outrageous comments, you should expect a reaction?? No?? Did you NOT wish a reaction to such language?
Neither of us knows each other in real life, nor does anyone here. If you were not a regular poster, I would regard that as a troll-like statement.
Again, please try to read that statement as if someone else had posted it and see how it sounds.
It frankly shocked and outraged me.
patrick
Permalink
Pandu Posted 5:13 am
13 Oct 2006
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/arch...
Also, another thing. If people think we have too many people in the world, why are they still here? I'm sorry it's hard to say without seeming rude. I mean, if ethically motivated people can't raise the carrying capacity of the world or otherwise have a net positive impact, then wouldn't the responsible thing be to just kill ourselves for the good of everyone else? If we wouldn't do that, then we have to either admit to a selfish agenda or false assumptions. It's probably both.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 5:27 am
13 Oct 2006
Permalink
kmp Posted 5:29 am
13 Oct 2006
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:39 am
13 Oct 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 1:23 pm
13 Oct 2006
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:11 pm
13 Oct 2006
The suicide option is not an obviously dismissible absurdity. Remember the jataka of the Buddha, in rabbit form, sacrificing himself in order to feed a starving beggar.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:42 am
14 Oct 2006
(are you nuts?)
Ahh no, it wouldn't. It wouldn't be responsible to kill anyone to save the planet.
It would be responsible to keep on trying to attain reproductive rights for women and trying to get human technology to assume a symbiotic role with the living planet.
Giving up? Not responsible.
Fighting this hopeless battle, responsible.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 4:03 am
15 Oct 2006
Now, did you look into what I and others have said about parents having little influence over the values their children end up living by?
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
Amfora Posted 11:32 pm
03 Mar 2008
Permalink