Ronnie and others;
Thanks for responding to my comments. I guess I never thought of my view as
"culturally deterministic" which is interesting to think about - I can see
why you would say that. Also, thank you for pointing out my "us" and "them"
use of language - it was certainly counter-productive to the point I was
trying to make!
I think you are right that one shouldn't hold their opinions to themselves
when an issue concerns cross-cultural situations and that individuals have
the right to define themselves as they see fit, what I meant to suggest is
that top-down, World-council-type solutions are not the best answer. As I
said, I think concerned people should collaborate, meet, educate and
campaign eachother, but that certain decisions can not be made remotely.
Of course, if I feel nuclear testing in the South Pacific is wrong, I should
write the French governement, it is matter of global concern, but
unfortunatley I can only give them my opinion, however strongly, and behave
in accordance. Also, for example, the United States government should not
feel that it has the authority to limit population growth in Mexico. Even in
the case of education, it is not an objective science and when attempting to
promote the empowerment of women through education the morass of curriculum
ideology gets in the way. *None of my comments are meant to be cynical or
suggest that people should never act, but acting in the most local and
personel level, I feel, is ultimatley the most effective world-wide.*
In the case of non-humans, I feel that a certain amount of presumptive
intervention is necessary to speak for those who can not speak for
themselves. But again, unless the root of human cruelty is addressed, the
problem will continue. Many would call this anthropocentrism but in essence
it isn't. It would anthropocentric for me to think that I can know what a
species wants, needs, etc. I can only do what is in my power to protect their
possibilities, as a human, and promote that attitude in other humans.
Have "we" passed the point of no return? Maybe I just think that this is the
wrong question. I would ask, where did the balance go.
I guess my point, which I would love the hear as many other opinions about as
possible, is that the idea of 'population as a problem' is far too broad and
all-emcompassing to address as a cultural OR biological phenomenon. I do
believe it is an issue of global ecology, but in some regions it is
over-consumption, in some it is development, in some it is food distribution,
in some it is not overpopulation but underemployment, and in some it is shear
over-crowding. I wonder if looking at population as a global crisis is
counter-productive to solving the regional problems that will ultimately
solve the population issue.
By the way, I want to say that I love these discussions. I am learning alot,
thank you to everyone.
KIM
