Edward, Please excuse any comments I make here as they may fall under the "just out of the diaper years" heading in that they are so obvious, but I feel the need to state them now.
I think it highly unproductive to make nasty comments in response to this posting; I believe the intent of the posting and the article was to get people thinking about the issue of consumption in the U.S. You speak of demographics ruling the world, and I think you missed the point the authors were getting at - we Americans use anywhere from 20-25% of the world's resources, yet we only constitute 5% of the world's population. THIS is the "footprint" that you so brazenly mocked in your response. You talk about how the US doesn't have the fastest growing population, or anywhere near the largest; this is true. However, these countries that do (India and China specifically) will perhaps one day come to reach the economic and presumably consumptive levels of the U.S. and then what? Thinking about our own consumption as it relates to our population size is an important question and can influence the future of places where consumption AND population stand to grow exponentially. OF COURSE people are going to have children, want families, and reproduce. I don't think anyone here would claim reproduction to be something negative. But your view of population decline as a negative is worth thinking about. On a planet with over 6 billion people, how are we to sustain ourselves when projections of the carrying capacity (at today's consumption rates) are in the 1-2 billion people range? Would you rather have mass death and forced migration when food production fails and water resources are completely depleted (or completely take over)? Don't you think gradual, natural population decline, and a change in habits is the best way to go? Dealing with the effects of demographic change (by which I assume you mean, for example, the effects on social security and the economy) and consumptive use are far better a solution then tackling the unintended consequences of exponential population growth and subsequent environmental degradation. OF COURSE there are social factors to population reduction. You so conveniently forget that this article deals with the United States and is making no claim as to the effectiveness or morality of reproductive restrictions in other countries. But now that you brought it up, I ask you; isn't it better that we think about these things now before we are forced into it by necessity? And I'm not even going to bother responding to your assimilation comments; those are statements better suited for another listserv and I have no interest in arguing this socially and politically charged issue with someone here. "It would be nice if the world operated by a few simple rules." Indeed it would be, but it just doesn't. So keep your ignorant stereotypes to yourself. Kristina Donnelly > --- Edward Sismour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 07:30:14 -0800 >> From: Edward Sismour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Fwd: Re: Environmental consequences of >> having a child >> To: [email protected] >> >> Dear Geoff, >> How nice that you're not against people having >> children, provided it's not more than two. Neither >> is the Communist Chinese government. And who is >> doing any underestimating? Are you only now >> becoming aware of this issue, now that you've been >> through the diaper years? >> >> Like it or not, demographics rules the world. >> Which part of the world is currently experiencing >> the largest demographic increases as a consequence >> of child-birth? It's not the US. The author's >> criticism of the birth rate in the US (it's a 1994 >> article) misses one small point. If people in the >> United States stop having babies, then eventually >> there won't be a United States or the United States >> will begin (and by some accounts has already begun) >> to become the dis-United States as more people come >> to this country that choose not to assimilate. In >> other words, there won't be enough people born into >> this culture (by any race) who grow up to appreciate >> and value it. (Don't suggest that I'm bashing >> anyone here. It boils down to a sense of ownership. >> Generally speaking, when someone has a sense of >> ownership they value that thing more than if it were >> common property.) >> >> Look at the demographics of Western Europe. They >> stopped having babies at their replacement rate a >> long time ago. If you want to read something, go >> read about the impact of demographic changes that >> Europe is now experiencing. >> >> Here are two quotes from The Population Media >> Center >> > (http://www.populationmedia.org/issues/demographics.html#popgrowth): >> >> "For at least 25 years, 20 European countries and >> Japan have had below replacement-level fertility >> rates (2.1 children per woman). By now a total of 44 >> countries have fertility levels that low. Without >> the projected gain of 2 million immigrants a year >> from developing countries, many industrial nations >> would shortly experience population declines." >> >> "The 48 countries classified as least developed >> have even more rapid population growth. If current >> trends continue, the combined populations of these >> nations will almost triple by mid-century-from 658 >> million to 1.8 billion. Among the 16 countries with >> extremely high fertility rates (seven children or >> more per woman) are Afghanistan, Angola, Burkina >> Faso, Burundi, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Somalia, >> Uganda, and Yemen." >> >> It would be nice if the world operated by a few >> simple rules or solving one particular problem would >> be the keystone to solving everything else, but then >> there are always unintended consequences. What will >> be the (unintended) consequences of these >> demographic trends? What consequences would you >> like to discuss: political, societal, environmental, >> cultural, religious, (have I left anything out)? It >> would be nice if birth rates in all countries could >> be lowered, some have but many have not. But people >> will be people, influenced by factors other than >> "environmental footprints" and babies will be >> produced (let's not forget the possible unintended >> consequence of sex-selective infanticide in >> countries where birth control is mandated). And, >> unless you live in Communist China where having more >> than two babies could get you jail time (or worse, >> tell me if I'm wrong), reducing the number of babies >> is an entirely volunteer effort counter to >> biological imperative. >> >> For a couple lying together, hearts racing, palms >> (and other places) sweaty with anticipation, what's >> the incentive to deny the biological imperative of >> reproducing the species? (If contraception were the >> answer, would we be having this discussion?) >> >> Edward Sismour >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> Geoffrey Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> A thought provoking reference regarding the >> environmental effects of >> having a child: >> >> A SPECIAL SECTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE AND CONTROVERSY >> - THE ENVIRONMENTAL >> CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING A BABY IN THE UNITED-STATES >> Author(s): HALL CAS, PONTIUS RG, COLEMAN L, KO JY >> Source: POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT 15 (6): 505-524 >> JUL 1994 >> >> Abstract: This paper gives crude estimates of the >> environmental >> consequences associated with the birth of one baby >> in the United States. >> We calculate the magnitude of one hundred >> environmental impacts which >> one American born today will cause over a lifetime. >> The impacts are >> grouped under five headings: waste generation, >> mineral consumption, >> energy consumption, ecosystem alteration, and food >> consumption. We also >> consider, but do not quantify, impacts on >> extinctions of species and >> indigenous cultures. Our purpose is to emphasize the >> role of population >> growth in the creation of environmental problems, >> and to make potential >> parents aware of their ability to impact the global >> environment. We >> conclude that one especially effective way for >> individuals to protect >> the national and global environment, and hence >> protect the wellbeing of >> all existing people, is to stop creating more >> humans. >> >> --------------- >> >> I am not against people having (up to two) children. >> I have a >> 2-year-old daughter myself. But let's not >> underestimate the >> "environmental footprint" of a baby born in the U.S. >> >> -Geoff Poole >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited > (http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited) > > > >
