In order to effectively inform the public and lawmakers as well as develop reliable solutions to some big problems heading humanity's way... Science (monitoring based) must become a branch of government with equal power of the other branches with external and internal checks and balances...rather than the second-class stepchild that its treated as by corporations and their politicians (not to mention religious institutions).
A. Yost --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I certainly agree with Bill Silvert that population > pressures have led > nations and ethnic groups into civil strife and even > war. I also agree > that some human populations have risen exponentially > until breaching > the environmental capacity to support them. > However, if Bill is > suggesting that Homo sapiens is an r-selected > species, and that > therefore policy solutions are futile, I tend to > disagree. After all, > in most respects Homo sapiens displays the classic > characteristics of > K-selected species, morphologically, > physiologically, and > ethologically. Homo sapiens is a large-bodied > vertebrate of late > maturation, long gestation, generalist diet, > relatively low > reproductive rates, and massive quantities of > parental care. > (K-selected species do sometimes breach carrying > capacity, though.) > > More importantly, humans have the capability to > modify their social > institutions and to plan. Which brings us to Bills > lament about a > shortage of practical solutions on how to do this > [including the > establishment of a steady state economy with > stabilized population and > per capita consumption]. Perhaps this is partly > semantics, but I dont > think there is any shortage whatsoever. In fact, I > think the problem > is that there are too many solutions allocated among > too few solvers. > > We should be the solvers: Wall Street and the > American Enterprise > Institute wont be helping us out any time soon. > > We can summarize the most policy-relevant solutions > easily, beginning > with what I think is the clear #1 and the necessary > condition for > remaining solutions or approaches. That would be > replacing the > national goal of economic growth increasing > production and > consumption of goods and services, facilitated by > increasing > populations and per capita consumption - a goal that > served H. sapiens > well for several decades to the newer national > goal of a steady state > economy, the only sustainable macroeconomic policy > goal among the 3 > basic alternatives (growth, steady state, and > recession). > > Once the goal is set correctly, then we can talk > about the optimal size > of that steady state and the policy tools to attain > it. Optimal size > gets worked out in a capitalist democracy both in > the market and the > voting booth, and then in government (not likely in > firms) - no > politburo required when the democratic rider is > strong enough for the > capitalist horse. > > Policy tools are almost a no-brainer, for many of > them are the same as > the current fiscal, monetary, and trade policies we > currently employ > for a different (growing) rate than steady state. > Your basic IS-LM > model in a macroeconomic textbook will tell you in a > nutshell about the > solutions, in terms of policy levers. > > But I dont mean to make light of Bills message. > The fact is there is > a marathons worth of political hurdles to get over > on the way to > establishing the sustainable policy goal and setting > the economic > levers accordingly. I really do believe hurdle # 1 > is for the > professional natural resources societies to develop > solidarity on this > issue of whether or not there is a conflict between > economic growth > thats increasing production and consumption of > goods and services - > and environmental protection. Until we do that, we > should expect Wall > Street et al. to run roughshod over us in the policy > arena. > > Cheers, > > Brian Czech, Ph.D., President > Center for the Advancement of the Steady State > Economy > SIGN THE POSITION on economic growth at: > www.steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html . > EMAIL RESPONSE PROBLEMS? Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This exchange prompts me to raise an issue which has > been bothering me > for a > long time. We keep seeing postings on this list > about the need to stop > population growth, restrict economic growth, reach a > steady state economy > and so on, but there seems to be a shortage of > practical solutions on > how to > do this. We need both to look at the causes of these > problems and at > realistic solutions, but first we need to see > whether in fact we are > setting > possible goals. > > We know some of the driving forces for the expansion > of human impact. For > example, poverty promotes population growth, since > poor people (at > least in > rural communities) need lots of children to do work > to support the family. > Do we have any quick fixes for poverty? Improved > medical care also > contributes to population growth, but who is willing > to oppose it? > > Butg it is also important to ask whether we can > actually hope to stabilise > our social system and achieve the steady state > economy that Brian Czech > promotes. During the past few decades there has been > a growing realisation > that not all systems have a stable equilibrium, and > this realisation is > perhaps Buzz Holling's most important contribution > to ecology and to > science > in general. > > One of the earlier projects carried out by Holling's > group was a study of > the spruce budworm infestations in New Brunswick, > which followed a pattern > of sever infestation followed by collapse of the > budworm population, > recovery of the spruce, and eventual repetition of > the cycle. A more > familiar example is the cycle of forest fires which > clear out combustible > brush, followed by years of recovery, accumulation > of dead wood and brush, > and then another fire. We have seen that attempts to > control this cycle > and > stabilise it without fire often prove disastrous. > > Human populations often follow a similar type of > cycle. The population > builds up to an excessive level, which leads to > conflict, war, and high > mortality. Rwanda was one of the most densely > populated countries on earth > when civil war broke out. Sudan is overpopulated, > given its limited > resources and drought. Population pressure is a > factor in many if not most > major conflicts in human history. > > So how are we going to break this cycle? We at least > have to recognise > that > it exists. When the first report to the Club of > Rome, "The Limits of > Growth", came out I attended several seminars on it, > and although some of > the scenarios involved very high levels of > population density, whenever I > suggested that this could lead to armed conflict the > idea was rejected > with > horror -- whatever might happen, war was out of the > question. And of > course > 90 years ago we had the war to end all wars. Have we > learned === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
