It seems that we are quite involved in the population issue. I know I have to
contribute my perspectives to the list, but I am very busy right now to do it.
Anyway, I would like to say that ecologists are highly interested in the
population issue, too.
Toshihide Hamazaki
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 00:54:00 EDT
Reply-To: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs,
news" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs,
news" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Population and the American West (Education Videos)
EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS
While the American West is experiencing rapid population
growth, its native biodiversity is suffering from the westward
expansion infringing on its space. Recently, the Colorado State
University, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, produced
two videos dealing with the implications of population growth in
the American West and its biodiversity.
Subdividing the West: Implications of Growth examines
aspects pertaining to this most recent Western expansion.
Included in this examination is a focus on the societal drives
and motivations behind this rush on the land, and how the
different values and perspectives are affecting western
communites and cultures. Suggestions that may minimize impacts of
growth on wildlife and open spaces are also discussed. Another
video, 40-minutes of Saving the American West: Protecting Open
Space, explores a variety of approaches being used to protect
open space in the West. This video contains footage from a
symposium at Colorado State University on growth and its impacts
on the American West. Cost for each video is $10 to cover
duplication and postage. Requests for the videos should be sent
to: Instructional Services, Colorado State University, A71 Clark
Bld., Fort Collins, CO 80523.
------------ End Forwarded Message -------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 11 09:44:05 1995
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:48:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Population - STICKY!
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kim and others--
I'm really enjoying this discussion, and I think we're getting to some
interesting points. Hope it's not a distraction to others.
> 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.
I'm glad this makes sense to you. To me, it seems very empowering to
begin to think about the degree to which we might be able to change our
cultures in certain ways, through discussion and conscious decision
making (*not* of the top-down sort!).
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!
How we define our group boundaries seems like an important area to
explore--think of its importance to war, ethnic violence, gang violence,
racism, sexism, etc. While people may argue about whether or not
gender differences have a biological basis (I personally think that
the preponderance of such differences are a product of culture, not
biology), certainly things like ethnic identity are social
constructions--a newborn baby does not think of him- or herself as a Serb
or a Croat, so how does one come to be killing people over the difference
within a few short years?! And the North-South fingerpointing over who's
responsible for the ecological mess is, I agree, totally nonproductive,
and serves to justify nobody making any changes.
> I think concerned people should collaborate, meet, educate and
> campaign eachother, but that certain decisions can not be made remotely.
>
I agree!
> Also, for example, the United States government should not
> feel that it has the authority to limit population growth in Mexico.
I agree again!
> *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.*
We agree about lots of things. But I think speaking out politically, and
addressing global issues as well as local ones, are also important.
> 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.
I'm not so sure the difficulties we're imposing on nonhumans are the result
of intentional cruelty, any more than I think, for example, that
laboratory researchers are sadists who enjoy inflicting pain and
suffering on animals. I think the problem is more institutional and, as
you have pointed out, ultimately cultural--we are taught from an early
age that nonhumans don't count for nearly as much as people, that they're
here just to be used for our purposes, that we don't need to consider
their interests when we decide to pave over a piece of land, etc. But if
we really take seriously, for instance, one of the most prominent themes
of evolutionary biology, we should recognize that there is a great
continuity among lifeforms, that we don't differ from many other forms
of life all that much (this, in fact, brings out one of the great
contradictions of animal research--we are using other animals in
experiments we wouldn't perform on people, and we use them on the
assumption they resemble us in certain ways or else the information
gained wouldn't be relevant to us, but we continue to deny that
any moral implications follow from this fact. Not so good at their
evolutionary theory, the lab scientists!).
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.
>
I don't think it is "anthropocentric" to try to discover what nonhumans
of different species need--a lot has been determined through recent
ethological studies and conservation biology. (It *would* be misguided to
just assume we know what their needs are without studying them, of
course, and could lead to inappropriate actions on our part.) Educating
ourselves and others about nonhuman requirements can help very much in
giving them what they need to survive by making certain alterations in
what we think *we* need (often only slight modifications can make a very
big difference to them!)--discovering that large or predatory mammals
need very large territories to travel over can lead us to try to provide
travel corridors linking large blocks of habitat (if any remain) together,
helping them find mates and food while avoiding human disturbance, for
example.
> 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 see it as like being in the last few, precious minutes of a basketball
game--we can blow it all, or we can pull it out of the fire.
But there will have to be quite a bit of cultural change pretty rapidly
or we *will* blow it all.
> 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.
Again, I think it has to be addressed on all these levels--local, regional,
AND global, addressing what the major problems seem to be on each of
these levels. But I agree, if it's presented as a problem so overwhelming
that people just feel helpless to do anything at all, nothing will ever get
done.
> By the way, I want to say that I love these discussions. I am learning alot,
> thank you to everyone.
Me too!
Ronnie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 11 09:48:52 1995
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:53:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Population and the American West (Education Videos) (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Toshihide--
Thanks so much for posting the info about these two videos--I will send
for both of them right away. I'm on the lookout for good videos to use
in my environmental ethics class, also for classes dealing with
evolutionay issues and bioethics--if anyone has other suggestions, they
will be greatly appreciated!
Ronnie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 11 13:45:28 1995
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 15:57:26 PDT
From: mary hallock morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: birth control
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Didn't mean to snap at you either. It's been a long, HOT week here in Ohio.
Got my car stuck in the mud and had to have it towed. etc.
Mary
-------------------------------------
Name: mary hallock morris
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mary hallock morris)
Date: 08/11/95
Time: 15:57:26
Grad student: The McGregor School of Antioch U.
Yellow Springs, Ohio
majoring in Community and Environmental Ed.
"In Nature, Nothing Exists Alone." -- Rachel Carson
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
