Colin Stark writes:
> I believe that the balance that must be reached is between Voluntary
> Simplicity (mainly on the part of the developed Nations) and population
> REDUCTION -- the main contribution the City of Aspen (and most of us in N.
> America) can make is in the realm of Voluntary Simplicity
>
Although I support this sort of 'downsizing', the liklihood of this
movement growing beyond a 'fringe minority' is very low in my
estimation. If the US repulsed the lunatic religious right from its
undue influence on things like UN dues linkage to freedom of choice by
the worlds women, and put resources into family planning and womens
education (which is #1 use of Ted Turner's billion dollar pledge to the
UN ), then suffering might be reduced in the future.
> -- rather it
> focuses on Immigration, which is at least one step removed from population
> reduction
>
I agree that it is one step removed. However, the pressures come mainly
from countries which have trashed habitats. Natural systems (like the
USSR economy) can't recover in a 5 year plan! It is imperative to halt
population growth if this viscious cycle is to end. Having a 'National
Population Policy' which includes global concerns seems indispensible to
me.
I'm all for less waste and actual shrinkage of economic throughput
(energy/materials). Try to convince business, government, and religious
leaders(3 main global institutions) that shrinkage, not growth is
preferred! They have vested interests(debt based money, deficit
financing, spending other peoples money, a larger flock...) that
preclude an unbiased wholesystem analysis.
Re-distribution schemes cause increased throughput even if static
population: savings is reduced and consumption increases. So
redistribution demands population *reduction* if throughput is to remain
constant. Thus, social justice based 'solutions' (incl. basic income)
are anti-sustainability unless population reduction measures are
simultaneously enacted.
Comments welcome.
Steve
