A while I sent an article on population levels in the U.S. Did not get a = great number of responses. The ones I did get are summarized below. = Thanks.
Mike Nolan I thought this was an interesting article.. A bit long, but worth = reading. Imagine Earth without people 12 October 2006 Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition.=20 Bob Holmes=20 Humans are undoubtedly the most dominant species the Earth has ever = known. In just a few thousand years we have swallowed up more than a third of = the planet's land for our cities, farmland and pastures. By some estimates, = we now commandeer 40 per cent of all its productivity. And we're leaving = quite a mess behind: ploughed-up prairies, razed forests, drained aquifers, nuclear waste, chemical pollution, invasive species, mass extinctions = and now the looming spectre of climate change. If they could, the other = species we share Earth with would surely vote us off the planet. "15,589 Number of species threatened with extinction"Now just suppose = they got their wish. Imagine that all the people on Earth - all 6.5 billion = of us and counting - could be spirited away tomorrow, transported to a re-education camp in a far-off galaxy. (Let's not invoke the mother of = all plagues to wipe us out, if only to avoid complications from all the corpses). Left once more to its own devices, Nature would begin to = reclaim the planet, as fields and pastures reverted to prairies and forest, the = air and water cleansed themselves of pollutants, and roads and cities = crumbled back to dust. Full story at http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19225731.100 Griswold of the Cato Institute writes: "A rising population is entirely consistently[sic] with a higher quality = of life. " He then cites improved longevity and lower infant mortality without acknowledging that many European countries with more stable populations = have better longevity and even lower infant mortality rates. He says that = the air we breath and the water we drink are far cleaner than when we were a less populous country -- but this is due to government regulation, = something the Cato Institute opposes. He writes: "We could give every American household an acre of land and still fit = all 300 million of us in the states of Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri-with the rest of the country set aside as one giant national park." Great idea! Let's do it. But he doesn't acknowledge the biggest problem: Consumption. We may be = a growing population, but we are a population of burgeoning consumption. = This rate of consumption is not sustainable and could be disastrous (e.g., = the global warming side effect). You can probably tell that the Cato Institute is very libertarian in its = philosophy and outlook. The usual "free market solves all problems" kind = of stuff.=20 Seems to me that they conveniently forget that "free markets" are not = free unless they are carefully regulated. Otherwise, as happened = repeatedly in the 18th and 19th Centuries, you get corruption and = insider deals that defeat the ideal of free exchange. Part of the libertarian/conservative view, at least since Reagan's terms = as President, is that population growth is good, and more growth is = better. I'm not sure how they view the likes of the "tragedy of the = commons" overuse of resources, or the fact that our country tends to use = more of its population-proportional share of the resources of the world. = In spite of the optimism of the likes of the Cato Institute, at some = point we're going to reach limits to one or more of our biological = resources and the ugly mathematical realities of Malthus are going to = intrude on the happy free market.=20 I'm also concerned by the trend of our current leadership to adopt = policies that, as Lou Dobbs of CNN puts it, are essentially an attack on = the middle class of this country. The assertion that illegal immigrants = "take jobs that Americans don't want" and are therefore essential to = this country's economy doesn't seem to recognize the "free market" of = labor supply/demand. Americans would want some of those supposed = unwanted jobs should the employers pay enough for them. Opening the = country to unlimited immigration tends to depress wages, and I've seen = serious arguments that the minimum wage should be abolished, not raised. = Is it the intention of our conservative/libertarian leaders to turn this = country into another Third World kind of economy, with most of the = population near poverty, while a few elite are excessively wealthy? = Seems that way some times. I know that the world population exceeds the carrying capacity of the = planet for humans..so yeah, its concerning that people do not recognize = that our extravagent style of living (which, in terms of percieved = happiness, has not increased since the 1950's- as per a study I think I = found at the Center for a New American Dream-) is bound to crash = downwards as the strain on ecoysytems gets translated into decreased = productivity. Bogus statements and arguments (my comments marked *). A rising population is entirely consistently with a higher quality of life. Though our population today is four times larger than it was a century ago, we live much longer and better than we did in 1906.=20 *Correlation is not causation (assuming there is a correlation). This implicit assumption underpins the entire piece. Was a rising population (in contrast to a population above a certain threshold) necessary for the discovery of the germ theory of disease and modern sanitary sewers in dense urban areas? Lifespans didn't suddenly increase because there were more people, but because technology was developed allowing the larger and denser population to control or evade the diseases that flourished in the dense urban environment. The Cato Institute's logic could be used to eqally support the theory that all the "blessings" of modern civilization that they attribute to increasing population were actually caused by the ascension of organized labor. =20 Notice that "better" is not defined. Life expectancy at birth has grown from 48 to 78 years, infant mortality rates have plunged, a host of deadly diseases have been conquered, and the air we breathe and the water we drink are far cleaner than when we were a less populous country.=20 *When we were less populous before the the passage of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts (which these libertarian capitalists doubtless regard as unwarranted government meddling in the market)? When we were less populous in 1823?=20 Our homes, too, are much bigger,=20 * Notice that this is implicitly presented as "better." and food is more plentiful than ever. There is no reason why these trends cannot continue as the population rises. *In 10 years these idiots will long for the good old days of $3/gallon gas. One need only gaze out the window at 30,000 feet while flying cross-country to appreciate how much of America remains rural or unpopulated.=20 * If one is ignorant of the vast and omnipresent manipulation of the landscape by people through agriculture and industrial forestry, as well as mining, and (at least) attempted intensive management of vast hydrological systems. Areas that are unmanipulated (i.e. "unpopulated") are fairly small. We could give every American household an acre of land and still fit all 300 million of us in the states of Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri-with the rest of the country set aside as one giant national park. *I have a sneaking suspician that most that of land in these states is devoted to activities (i.e. intensive fossil fueled agriculture) that wouldn't do very well in the new locations it was displaced to. What the new inhabitants of these states would do to each other without their life support infrastructure (assuming the "national park" was off limits to agriculture anf forestry, extraction of coal and oil, mining etc.) is pretty horrible to contemplate.=20 Notice we never worry about who will pay for the new houses, grocery stores, gas stations, and shopping malls that accompany a growing population.=20 *That's a relief. I'm sure then that there will be no problem getting the population to vote for taxes to support the public infrastructure needed for this development. Guess I don't have to worry about school levies passing anymore. Let the market decide!=20 The market supplies those goods and services, efficiently and abundantly, and we eagerly pay for what we get. *Numerous studies show that this new "growth" (really sprawl) in suburban areas is made possible by a combination of government policies and subsidies that essentially pass the cost on to the existing residents. Eager? And a growing population actually reduces the cost to each=20 individual for national defense and interest on the public debt. *Consider so-called "defense." Does someone providing an additional gas tank to fill actually pay the additional costs they've generated? The rapidly increasing US national debt, driven by the need to maintain the largest military establishment that has ever existed, argues against this, though there are, of course, both economies and dis-economies of scale.=20 In contrast, Western Europe, Japan, and Russia face the far more sobering prospect of a demographic implosion. *Have Western Europe and Japan seen any erosion in key indicators of quality of life, such as infant mortality, life span, diet, etc.? I think not.=20 As you very well know, based on strong evidence from the media and many = parents of students we teach, the population issue, if this is an = issue??, is truly one of "third world" countries. "The U.S. is not = growing, it is the countries that cannot support their people that are = the problem" - Fox / CNBC. Yes, these are my words, stated in total = sarcasm. =20 We are science teachers not bullshitters. "We need to grow up and = mature" -Richard Dawkins, from a 2006 The New Yorker podcast. This was = in reference to the lack of understanding of evolutionary biology. = However, I will generously toss Dawkin's quote to those that also lack = the maturity to discuss with rational mind the population crisis.=20 ---------- If we are on another line or away from the phone, please leave your = number, best time to return your call and/or your e-mail address. =20 After hours and weekend phone appointments are available upon request. Sincerely, J. Michael Nolan, Director =20 Rainforest and Reef 501 (c)(3) non-profit *************************************************************************= *********** "Outstanding-Affordable Field Courses in Rainforest & Marine Ecology" "Spanish Immersion in Spain, Mexico, Central and South America" Rainforest and Reef 501 (c)(3) non-profit P.O. Box 141543 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49514-1543 USA Local Phone: 1.616.604.0546/Toll Free: 1.877.255.3721 Skype: mikenolan1 MS IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: buddythemacaw E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.rainforestandreef.org Latin America: Juan Pablo Bello San Jose, Costa Rica E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 011.506.290.8883/011.506.822.8222=20 Europe: Marion Stephan Frankfurt, Germany E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 49.172.305.4738 *************************************************************************= ***********
