Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Ed. I have been mulling them over, and ended up wondering whether "the government" should have anything at all to say in the matter? Is it not best to leave this to the individual and the culture that the individual chooses to embed him/herself in? Is the individual not the only one who should be careful not to extend this 'too far.' How in the world did we ever get into a situation where we cede to the government (or to the rest of society) any control at all in how and when people choose to die? No doubt many of us have had moments of despair where we think about chucking it all in, but does that justify or require a governmental role in preventing it?
And here we are in November! I hope you are doing OK, and am interested in just how this SAD affects you, if this is not getting to inquisitive. Cheers, Lawry -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-futurework@;scribe.uwaterloo.ca]On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 3:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Over Bloody Eighty (was Who's afraid of declining population? I don't disagree that euthanasia should be a matter of some choice, but I think one has to be a little careful of the implications. Like many other people, I suffer from SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder), and when I say suffer, I mean suffer. I find November absolutely horrible, and April only a little less so. During those two months, I would not want to have the choice to get out permanently because I might just take it. Ever so many people would, and quite a few people do. I recall reading a paper on Scandinavia, a place equally sombre to Canada in winter, which said that suicide rates spike during November and April. There may be something in the DNA of people like me, whose ancestry is the gray and sombre north, which makes them want to hibernate and sleep in a near death state during the winter. Because I live in a society that requires me to be awake and productive year round, I can't, of course, do that, but I pay for it. I can accept the idea of euthanasia for people who are very ill and who want to avoid a painful death. But I do feel we have to be careful about how far the choice should extend. Ed Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax (613) 728 9382 > Keith said, > > Let's be in no doubt that the costs of keeping old people alive year after > year is going to be hugely onerous as the proportion rises. There is no > way, financially or emotionally, that we will be able to afford to park > them in nursing homes in 20+ years' time as now. We will have to get used > to the idea of euthanasia when a certain level of decrepitude is reached - > voluntary at first, of course. > > Arthur suggests, > > We have more or less accepted abortion in our society and we will more or > less accept dying with dignity or euthanasia. I think we incur 60 percent > of our lifetime medical expenses in the last 6 months of life. We die high > tech (and very expensive) deaths. Much of this tremendous expense could be > cut if we learned from the women's movement about the value of "choice" > Respecting each individual's right to deal with his or her body and life as > he or she chooses. Preserves dignity, save money and avoids the prospect of > bankruptcy arising from warehousing the frail and elderly. People who want > to be kept alive by whatever means should have that right (just as women who > want to come to full term without any means of financial support have that > right and the state will support them) But the notion of choice (I predict) > will work its way into the social support/ pension debate and once it > enters, it won't leave. I further predict that once the notion of voluntary > exit or dying with dignity (choose your own euphomism) becomes commonplace > and accepted in much the same way that abortion is now, we will wonder what > the worry was about vis a vis pensions and medical care for the elderly. > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Hudson [mailto:khudson@;handlo.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 3:31 AM > To: Steve Kurtz > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Over Bloody Eighty (was Who's afraid of declining population? > > > Steve, > > In England, we have an honour that almost everybody will receive in the > coming decades - the OBE. Either the Order of the British Empire, or Over > Bloody Eighty. > > Yes, you posted a good article (see below), and I agree with its argument. > However, there are some mistakes in it. Also - probably because the article > was printed in "New Statesman" - Anthony Browne didn't mention an obvious > serious consequence for the future which most people afraid to talk about > publicly (though it's amazing how often it comes up in private > conversations between and among the older person). > > Mistakes: > > 1. We haven't had a mere 200 years of rapid population 'growth'. It's just > that (as is the way of exponential graphs) it's been turning towards the > vertical only in recent decades. But the same propensity and rate of growth > has been with us ever since the agricultural revolution at about > 8,000-5,000BC. (Anthony Browne talks about human populations going up and > down throughout history according to the "rise and fall of human fortunes". > That may be so, but only as superimposed on a basic rising curve.) > > 2. He is wrong not to be worried about the increasing dependency ratio > (number of retired people per worker). He says a 0.25% decline in > population is not worriesome economically. However, indigenous population > decline in advanced countries is becoming far steeper - far steeper - than > this. And, besides, the cost of supporting old people is far higher than > the cost of raising children - medical costs astronomically so. (Also > Anthony Browne is far too optimistic about the ability and performance of > 'funded' pension funds to pay for a growing percentage of old people year > after year. Who will fund such pensions? Most people can't afford them. > Certainly the state can't.) > > Consequence > > Let's be in no doubt that the costs of keeping old people alive year after > year is going to be hugely onerous as the proportion rises. There is no > way, financially or emotionally, that we will be able to afford to park > them in nursing homes in 20+ years' time as now. We will have to get used > to the idea of euthanasia when a certain level of decrepitude is reached - > voluntary at first, of course. Pre-agricultural societies had various ways > of dealing with old people when the burden became excessive. Agricultural > societies did so by simply not feeding the old during famines and poor > harvests. Modern society will have to reinvent such traditions. > > <<<< > POP THE PILL AND THINK OF ENGLAND > > > Who's afraid of declining population? Only politicians, obsessed with power > and prestige. The rest of us, particularly the workers, would be better off > > by Anthony Browne > ___________________________ > > > It's been a part of the ebb and flow of human society since we raised > ourselves up on our two hind legs. But now, after an almost total absence > since the industrial revolution, it's threatening to come back with a > vengeance across the western world. And we don't like it one little bit. > > After 200 years of continuous rapid population growth, there is little that > inspires as much panic from political leaders, big business and right-wing > populists as the prospect of population decline - which is imminent, > according to the UN, in more than 60 countries. > > Some countries, such as Japan, Russia and the Baltic states, have already > fallen into the abyss. Italy's population and Germany's are shored up only > by immigration. The recent British census showed population decline in > Scotland and parts of northern England. Across the UK as a whole, it could > start as soon as 2020. In Scotland, as elsewhere, population decline > prompted two predictable responses. On the one hand, the Scottish National > Party MSP Alex Neil urged tax breaks to encourage couples to 'conceive for > Scotland'. On the other, the Scottish Executive told people to prepare for > more immigration. The First Minister, Jack McConnell, told the Institute of > Directors: 'For a growing economy, we need a growing population, and I am > determined to see us focus policy and promote Scotland to meet that > objective.' > > Yet the rational response is the one you never hear publicly: 'Don't panic, > let the numbers fall. It will be good for us.' > > Population decline drums up visions of collapsing markets, permanent > recessions, devastated communities, bankrupt pension funds and decrepit > wrinklies with no young to replenish and support them. All this might > indeed come to pass if population decline were rapid. A gradual population > decline would be a different matter. The environmental benefits are obvious > - fewer cars, fewer houses, more wilderness. But population decline could > also empower workers, raise the status of the socially marginalised, reduce > inequalities and eradicate poverty. It will not make Britain poorer, as the > politicians fear, but wealthier. From British universities to Japanese > think-tanks, the benefits of slow population decline are being increasingly > studied and promoted. But this new thinking has yet to reach the echelons > of elected politicians. > > Population decline is usually associated with economic decline, political > turmoil, famine and disease - but that is not because it causes them, > rather because it is caused by them. Declining economies lead people to > leave in search of opportunities elsewhere - a quarter of the population of > Europe's poorest country, Moldova, have emigrated since the collapse of > communism. HIV in some African countries may throw previously prodigious > population growth rates into reverse, just as the Black Death wiped out a > third of the population of Britain. Devastating climate change eliminated > the medieval Greenland colonies. Potato blight shrunk the population of > Ireland from eight million to four million through famine and emigration. > > For millennia, when humanity was not the author of its own destiny, > population went up and down with the rise and fall of human fortunes. Good > times led to a growing population, bad times to a declining one. Now, for > the first time in history, we are faced with a decline caused not by bad > times but by good times. Now it is affluence, not poverty, that leads to > falling numbers. > > But if the causes are benign, what about the consequences? If the decline > in the number of people is slower than the natural growth in productivity > (or output per person), then the economy will still grow. For example, a > modest population decline of 0.25 per cent a year would reduce Britain's > trend economic growth rate of 2.25 per cent to just 2 per cent a year. > That's hardly a recession. The number of consumers may decline, but the > growth in incomes - and export markets - will ensure that demand stays > buoyant. Nor will there be a demographic crisis, with huge numbers of old > people overburdening those of working age. Population decline also leaves > fewer children to support, train and educate for the first 20 economically > unproductive years of their lives. The dependency ratio of workers to > non-workers is virtually unaffected whether the population is growing 0.25 > per cent a year or falling 0.25 per cent. Adjustments to an ageing society > - discouraging early retirement, moving from pay-as-you-go to funded > pensions - will be necessary in any case. > > However, a declining population - and this is why businesses fear it - will > involve a gradual but significant redistribution of power from the owners > of capital to the owners of labour. A declining workforce puts those who > work in a far stronger position - and for those marginalised in the > workforce, it can have a very dramatic effect. Companies will be forced to > train the unskilled, provide family-friendly policies to retain women and > to entice the elderly to stay on rather than forcing them out. People who > own properties will have to rent them out at lower rates, while those who > rent can choose bigger places to live. > > The dramatic and beneficial effects of this transfer of power from the > owners of productive assets to the owners of labour - from the employers to > the employed - were seen after the Black Death, which cut the population by > a third, led to the collapse of feudalism and heralded the 'golden age of > peasants'. Landowners could no longer force the landless to work for them > for free under the bonds of feudalism - the shortage of labour was such > that the peasants could go elsewhere to get paid real wages. The deaths > from the disease may have been devastating, but the lives of those left > behind improved dramatically. > > So what would life be like in a Britain with fewer people? Imagine the M25 > without traffic jams, imagine trains where you could always get seats. > Imagine all the postwar tower blocks being knocked down, and trees planted > in their stead. Imagine large houses, now divided into flats, becoming > proper homes again. Imagine low-income people learning the joys of spare > bedrooms, playrooms and studies. > > The Green Party has long championed a smaller population in Britain, one of > the most crowded islands in the world. The Optimum Population Trust, > chaired by John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University > College London, argues passionately for letting the population of Britain > decline naturally over the next 150 years to the level it was 100 years ago > - 30 million. 'The case for lower populations both worldwide and in the UK > is now irrefutable - the environment is suffering like there is no > tomorrow,' he said. 'The prospect of population decline is a new feature > which is worrying people, but it shouldn't.' > > Increasingly, economists and demographers agree. Bob Rowthorn, professor of > economics at Cambridge University, said: 'There are no credible arguments > against gradual population decline.' The Japan Centre for Economic > Research, after an extensive study, concluded: 'The negative consequences > of population decline can be avoided. An increasing scarcity of labour > would stimulate the incentives for more efficient utilisation of resources, > shifting the economic growth pattern from the 'input-driven type' to that > of 'gains in efficiency'.' > > In other words, instead of bluntly boosting the economy in a dumb, Jack > McConnell way by boosting the population, you train everyone up more and > mechanise more - fewer people working more smartly. Scotland's problems are > not that its population is falling, but that good people are leaving > because the good jobs aren't there. Simply bringing in people does nothing > to address the underlying problems. All the arguments against gradual > population decline are based on false assumptions or on 19th-century - or > even totalitarian - ways of thinking. Arguments about collapsing markets > assume we live in a closed economy, whereas economies depend increasingly > on international trade. > > Studies by the OECD show there is no correlation between population size > and GDP per capita. If big populations create wealth, then the world's most > populous countries, China and India, would be the richest, not among the > poorest. Many low-population countries, such as Norway and Switzerland, are > very wealthy. Ireland, with only four million people, has overtaken > Britain's 60 million in GDP per capita. By far the smallest member of the > EU, Luxembourg, is also by far the wealthiest. > > Once, countries needed large populations for military strength in a hostile > world: large numbers of people meant large armies. Women in Victorian > Britain were urged to lie back and think of England so that they could help > sustain an overstretched empire. Women in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany > were urged to have babies to promote the power of their country. But with > kill-by-satellite, large armies don't matter; with international peace > treaties, being small no longer means being vulnerable. > > Political leaders still like large populations because it enhances their > prestige, and their negotiating power. Nowhere is this better seen than on > a local level - for example, Quebec is promoting population growth as a > form of demographic warfare against Anglophone Canada. Leaders of > Midwestern US states with falling populations want to reverse the trend so > they can become more important on the national stage. > > The same is true on the international level. Canada has an explicit > programme of rapid population growth so that it can hold its own against > its domineering neighbour. Australian leaders want more citizens so they > can hold their own against the vast populations of India, China, Indonesia > and Malaysia. > > Will a Britain with just 30 million people be able to maintain its seat on > the UN Security Council, or its influence in the EU? British politicians > may care, but their voters would probably prefer larger houses, empty roads > and more wilderness. > > From Hitler and Stalin to Jack McConnell, you should never trust a > politician who tries demographic engineering on his people. Instead of > lying back and thinking of their country, women should think of their > country and pop the Pill. > > _________ > > New Statesman , November 4, 2002 > Anthony Browne is environment editor of the Times > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ------------ > > Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com > 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:khudson@;handlo.com > ________________________________________________________________________
