NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/14235

Text File | 1993-01-03 | 4.5 KB | 98 lines

Newsgroups: sci.environment
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!pacbell.com!pacbell!sactoh0!kberry
From: [e-mail] (Kim A. Berry)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix, Sacramento, Ca.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 19:27:46 GMT
Lines: 87

The key assertion of my post was that "providing education,
reducing poverty, and raising living standards" is not a realistic
solution to the world population problem since accomplishing this
worldwide would be "nearly impossible."

Gil responds by stating that the trend is to raising living
standards on a local scale via "community empowerment." He shares
my doubt that "a global economy comprised entirely of first-world
countries could exist," but suggests that is not the issue. He says
the issue instead is one of distribution: "the U.S. consuming so
much more than it needs while so many others starve for anything
at all."

Unless we agree that worldwide population growth is a significant
environment problem, there is no point in furthering this
discussion.

Assuming you're still with me, the debate seems to be: A) What
social changes would result in third world families reducing their
birthrate to replacement level? B) Can we realistically expect
those changes to occur?

My opinion is that third world nations would have to successfully
compete in the global economy in order to attain the living
standard necessary to induce a voluntary drop in birthrates, and
the countries would essentially have to become first world nations.
Due to our shared skepticism of the ability for the global economy
to be comprised entirely of first world nations, my answer to B)
is "No."

Gil's remark that "your [U.S.] strategy [of using military force
for economic exploitation?] like the British before it isn't
finally going to work very well, is it?" suggests he has personal
political bias against U.S. policy which seems irrelevant.

I understand his point of how other countries can participate in
the global economy as "value added processors" without the need for
massive high-tech investment. My concern is that countries such as
Mexico and the Philippines engage in this, and the low wages do
little to raise the economic status of the workers, and the high
birthrate continues.

Gil suggests I "come up to date on what is happening in the real
world." He says countries such as Egypt, Somalia, and Ethiopia
(high birth rate nations) have no ambition to compete in the mega-
high-tech global market. (He also says UN aid there is
"temporary"...I won't hold my breath.) So I repeat my question:
What hope do these countries have of attaining an economy necessary
to result in a voluntary birthrate reduction?

Gil mocks my fear of countries deteriorating into chaotic
nightmares of street gangs killing people for the shirt off their
backs. My concerns have little to do with "millenarian prophecy,"
but rather with human nature.

Here in Sacramento, California in the past year we have several
instances of people being murdered or beaten senseless for their
pocket change. There have been 21,000 car jackings in the U.S. --
you don't move fast enough and they shoot you in the head. Our
state legislature Lloyd Connelly had his car taken from him at
knifepoint. In other cities people have been murdered for their
Rolex watches, designer sunglasses, and tennis shoes. In San Jose
CA, and 15 year old shot a bicyclist dead because "he wanted to try
his gun on a moving target."

An overnight power failure in many American cities leads to rioting
and looting.

In South America, it is not uncommon for homeless clans to invade
a farmhouse, murder all the occupants, and resume life on the farm.

I am aware not everyone shares my pessimism, nor do I believe "doom
and gloom" is inevitable. But I consider the blind faith of those
like Julian Simon who claim "in the future there will be less
problems because there will be a lot more people working on
solutions" dangerous.

Gil closed by suggesting I have been listening to Ronnie and George
for too long. Although I voted for both, I disagreed with their
big-picture view of the world. I have much more faith in our new
vice president (although I voted for Perot), Al Gore. I would
recommend his book, but I can't recall the title.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------
     (Mr.) Kim Berry              [e-mail]