Greetings:
>Geez, we're all family anyway. According to genetic research, all
>people of the world are at most 50th cousins, or closer. Distant
>cousins are family. Why don't we act like it?
Ahh, but perhaps that's our largest problem, we *do* act like it - who ever
said families are peaceful, harmonious places? I have seen very few family
systems that could even vaugely be considered models for global harmony, and a
great many that are the precise models for the wars, bickering, selfishness and
rancourous debates that compose the world community. Very few activists, even
peace activists, can resist (at least occaisionally) falling into the "us vs.
them" patterns of thought ... that at their root, look quite a bit like the
full blown flowers that bloom from the seeds of childhood sibling rivalry.
A few thoughts on population:
In the ongoing debates about what to "do", both on this list and in the
larger global arena, overpopulation seems to be looked at like simply "another"
world problem that "we" (whoever that is) must "solve", and the problem itself
is then defined according to the particular philosophical orientation of
whomever happens to be speaking about it (i.e., there are deep differences in
how the problem is stated - and hence the nature of the solutions proposed -
between, for instance, deep ecologists, marxists, feminists, Chinese
communists, etc., etc).
I guess I'm just not sure whether it *is* a problem that can be
"solved" by conscious intent. Ever cell in our bodies is connected in an
unbroken chain to the very first and simplest forms of life that (according to
current best guesses) arose around 3 1/2 billion years ago. The drive,
embedded in all life, to reproduce may well be considered the most powerful
single and universal drive in existance. Conscious, thought, conscious intent,
is a very recent phenomena ... that because of its nature seems to possess an
incredible arrogance, seems to simply assume it can figure out *anything*.
While I do not believe we are just hapless tools of biological forces, I also
think it a mistake to underestimate the power of a biological force far more
ancient and powerful than our minds can even meaningfully imagine ... a force
that is responsible for our existance. During the numerous global calamities
over the millions of years of life's existance, the single thing that kept life
growing and evolving was the urge to reproduce ... and under even the most
horrendous conditions, through disasters that periodically caused the
extinction of entire species and even entire phyla, life held on ... given even
a fraction of a hold in even the harshest conditions, life continued to
reproduce itself.
To at least some extent, the conscious decision to limit reproduction
on a large scale would likely be viewed, in a large context, as simply another
challenge faced by life's drive to reproduce ... and as challenges go, it is
probably rather weak compared to other challenges already faced and overcome
(e.g., ice ages, asteroids wiping out dinosauers, etc.).
Much as I dislike the Catholic church and its attitudes (for instance)
I think it wrong to place *cause* with any philosophy or religion. Almost every
religion and social structure in the history of our species has placed high
value on fertility, on children. Perhaps because until very recently humanity
really did have but a tenuous hold on existance. It took from the begginig of
our existance until around 1850 for our species to reach the first billion, and
in a mere 150 years we now approach 6 billion. In the historical perspective,
this is so sudden, so utterly unprecedented, that we really as of yet can't
comprehend what it means. There are no patterns, either biological or cultural,
that we can draw upon from the past to either understand or approach
the phenomena. "We" can't yet limit population because "we" didn't choose to
expand it in the first place ... in fact in those places where it is starting
to limit itself (some nations of the western world) it is not being limited
because some philosophy was universally agreed upon and some single solution
proposed and accepted, but rather the limitation is an aftereffect of hundreds
of thousands of individual decisions, made for widely varying motives.
Well, I's just babbling here. The list discussion has been very interesting,
and brought again to the front of my mind an issue I've tried to think through
off and on over the years ... and one which I must admit becomes more and more
confusing, rather than clear, the greater the depth I attempt to reach about
it.
With love & confusion, -JRC
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 12 14:40:04 1995
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Sat, 12 Aug 1995 16:46:18 -0500 (EST)
MR-Received: by mta DER1; Relayed; Sat, 12 Aug 1995 16:46:11 -0500
MR-Received: by mta EPIC66; Relayed; Sat, 12 Aug 1995 16:46:11 -0500
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 16:27:54 -0500 (EST)
From: "Al Rushanan TAL (904)487-1855" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: population sticky
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posting-date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 16:46:00 -0500 (EST)
Importance: normal
UA-content-id: A75ZVWWNYYYP
A1-type: MAIL
Hop-count: 2
JRC:
Au contraire, cuz! Malthusian patterns of population growth are as
common as mistatements by Dan Quayle. Biologists and ecologists
have been studying it for a long time. The growth in human
population over the past hundred years is easy to comprehend. It
follows a very familiar Malthusian curve.
Ecologists have also found that many social animals instinctively
reproduce LESS during overcrowding. The reason may be what
E. O. Wilson calls the "morality of the gene" - that survival of
the species is more important that survival of one's own genetic
line. This is a well documented phenomenon.
One would think that humans, arguably the most social of all
species, would also decrease reproduction when overcrowding occurs.
May I suggest the fact that we don't is culture over biology? The
fertility emphasis by religion that you mentioned may be a
significant factor here. The cutback in family size in more
educated populations, such as America, could be a sign of common
sense winning out over fertility dogma. Therefore, I say there's
hope; and education is the key.
Less confused than before I read your post,
Al
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's the Millennium. "We must either love each other, or we must die."
