Re: Fwd: Controversy over genetically modified organisms (fwd)

1999-01-15 Thread Eva Durant


 ...
 
 Africa has is just now reached its physical limits and is beginning a
 massive dieoff -- population control by increasing death rate instead of
 decreasing birth rate
 
 Is this really true? (see simultaneous article, Will Humans Overwhelm
 the Earth?



In Afrika wars and AIDS are not relating to 
population densities.
They relate to tribal ars with considerable
western intersts still, fighting for
economic domination and dismal healthcare.

Africa is a more sparsely inhabited continent 
than the others, even the fertile bits.
East-Anglia and Belgium  e.g. are far more
densely populated and there is no sign of dioff.


Eva
 
 Caspar davis
 
 
 




Re: Fwd: Controversy over genetically modified organisms (fwd)

1999-01-14 Thread Jay Hanson

- Original Message - 
From: Caspar Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Africa has is just now reached its physical limits and is beginning a
massive dieoff -- population control by increasing death rate instead of
decreasing birth rate

Is this really true? (see simultaneous article, Will Humans Overwhelm
the Earth?

Yes.

HOLD FOR RELEASE
06:00 PM EDT
Saturday, September 26, 1998

Demographic Fatigue Overwhelming Third World Governments

Many countries that have experienced rapid population growth for several
decades are showing signs of demographic fatigue, researchers at the
Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, DC-based environmental research
organization, announced today.

Countries struggling with the simultaneous challenge of educating
growing numbers of children, creating jobs for swelling ranks of young
job seekers, and dealing with the environmental effects of population
growth, such as deforestation, soil erosion, and falling water tables,
are stretched to the limit. When a major new threat arises-such as AIDS
or aquifer depletion-governments often cannot cope.

Problems routinely managed in industrial societies are becoming
full-scale humanitarian crises in many developing ones. As a result,
some developing countries with rapidly growing populations are headed
for population stability in a matter of years, not because of falling
birth rates, but because of rapidly rising death rates.

"This reversal in the death rate trend marks a tragic new development in
world demography," said Lester Brown, President of Worldwatch and
co-author with Gary Gardner and Brian Halweil of Beyond Malthus: Sixteen
Dimensions of the Population Problem. In the absence of a concerted
effort by national governments and the international community to
quickly shift to smaller families, events in many countries could spiral
out of control, leading to spreading political instability and economic
decline, concludes the study funded by the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation.

Marking the bicentennial of Thomas Malthus' legendary essay on the
tendency for population to grow more rapidly than the food supply, this
study chronicles the stakes in another half-century of massive
population growth. The United Nations projects world population to grow
from 6.1 billion in 2000 to 9.4 billion in 2050, with all of the
additional 3.3 billion coming in the developing countries. However, this
study raises doubts as to whether these projections will materialize.

Today, two centuries after Malthus, we find ourselves in a
demographically divided world, one where national projections of
population growth vary more widely than at any time in history. In some
countries, population has stabilized or is declining; but in others,
population is projected to double or even triple before stabilizing.

In 32 countries, containing 14 percent of world population, population
growth has stopped. By contrast, Ethiopia's population of 62 million is
projected to more than triple to 213 million in 2050. Pakistan will go
from 148 million to 357 million, surpassing the U.S. population before
2050. Nigeria, meanwhile, is projected to go from 122 million today to
339 million, giving it more people in 2050 than there were in all of
Africa in 1950. The largest absolute increase is anticipated for India,
which is projected to add another 600 million by 2050, thus overtaking
China as the most populous country.

To understand these widely varying population growth rates among
countries, demographers use a three-stage model of how these rates
change over time as modernization proceeds. In the first stage, there
are high birth and high death rates, resulting in little or no
population growth. In the second stage, as modernization begins, death
rates fall while birth rates remain high, leading to rapid growth. In
the third stage, birth rates fall to a low level, balancing low death
rates and again leading to population stability, offering greater
possibilities for comfort and dignity than in stage one. It is assumed
that countries will move gradually from stage one to stage three. Today
there are no countries in stage one; all are either in stage two or
stage three. However, this analysis concludes that instead of
progressing to stage three as expected, some countries are in fact
falling back into stage one as the historic fall in death rates is
reversed, leading the world into a new demographic era.

After several decades of rapid population growth, many societies are
showing signs of demographic fatigue, a result of the struggle to deal
with the multiple stresses caused by high fertility. As recent
experience with AIDS in Africa shows, some countries in stage two are
simply overwhelmed when a new threat appears. While industrial countries
have held HIV infection rates among their adult populations under
1percent or less, a 1998 World Health Organization survey reports that
in Zimbabwe, for example, 26 percent of the adult population is HIV
positive. In Botswana it is 25 

Re: Fwd: Controversy over genetically modified organisms (fwd)

1999-01-13 Thread Caspar Davis

At 9:45 AM -1000 1/13/99, Jay Hanson wrote:
...

Africa has is just now reached its physical limits and is beginning a
massive dieoff -- population control by increasing death rate instead of
decreasing birth rate

Is this really true? (see simultaneous article, Will Humans Overwhelm
the Earth?

Caspar davis





Re: Fwd: Controversy over genetically modified organisms (fwd)

1999-01-12 Thread Eva Durant

I found this post informative, so I forwarded
it to you as the science is a bit lacking in fw.  
Eva



Kevin wrote:
I guess my first question is:  How is this diabolical genetic engineering
any different from the time-honoured practice of breeding?  Farmers,
cattlemen, ranchers, all intervene in the "natural" order of things in=
 order
to select for certain traits that are deemed desirable.  So how is directly
altering the gene different from getting your sow with pig from a certain
boar?

Ludwig Krippahl wrote:
[snip]
 -In genetic engineereing you place 'foreign' DNA on an organism,
 which does not occur in breeding
 
 -To do that you need vectors, wich may be problematic in themselves,
 and are unecessary in breeding.
 
 I think that, as with any technological advance, it has its dangers
 if not used carefully. However, I feel the dangers are being blown
 out of proportion (this technology has been used successfully for
 vacine production and general protein sinthesys for some time).

Perhaps it would be good to add a few points.

In the place of "engineering" should be the word "art" or "science".
The only point where we can really speak of "engineering" is that
we can make any kind of protein sequence or RNA sequence we wish.
Exactly what it *does* -- if anything -- is typically another matter.
Moreover, how to target an organism in the "engineering" sense, is
still basically a guessing game. 

Breeding is usually seeking a "phenotype" (selecting a particular
"measurable" characteristic) as opposed to a genotype which my not
even be "measurable".  By "measureable" I mean that it displays a
characteristic like resistance to disease, a particular color of fir,
etc.  Much of breeding is aimed a visible characteristics, but in
agriculture, there are certainly plants that are breeded for
resistance to infection etc.  In such cases, you might call "breeding"
a crude form of genetic "science".

Perhaps it is important to point out the benefits of such research,
which are many I think.  

* The AIDS, hepatitis C virus, and some other pernicious vermin will
most likely be conquered only via genetic engineering (when it really
becomes "engineering").  Hence, our best weapon against pathogens
is knowledge, not fear.

* Most cancers and chemotherapies will eventually turn to genetic 
engineering (when it really becomes "engineering") to rid this 
scourge.  Hence, our best solution to transcriptional corruption
is knowledge, not fear.

* Possibly when we really understand life cycles of cells, we may
even be able to develop therapies for cell regeneration.  Hence,
our best "alternative medicine" is knowledge, not fear.

Of course, without some form of ethics, we might have reason to fear
such capabilities, but once again, whether we are fundamentally
theistic or a-theistic, the best form of ethics come from a desire to
understand this world and seek to do right, not a blind fear that some
utterly diabolical boggyman (with black hat) could succede in some
nefarious scheme or a fear that some Cosmic Dictator who will become
angry if we find out how the world works. We already have plenty of
potential to destroy ourselves many times over if we want to hurry up
the end of the world.

Wayne
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- End of forwarded message from Wayne Dawson -