Greg, Your criticism of the ESA's failure to speak out on the primacy of human population growth as a driver of global change is accurate. The problem began with the decision to emphasize sustainability that was made in the 1990's. In the document on sustainability, human population growth was acknowledged but not emphasized, which I considered an error at that time. Sustainability was often touted in the popular press as a means of transforming "bad" growth, growth that degraded the environment, into "good" growth, which would, at the least, not degrade the environment. I felt that, without an assessment of the human global K, we were simply using a fad to pry funding out of the government (an important conclusion in the document was the need for expanded research into sustainability).
I felt, at that time, that many members of the society were of the opinion that the ESA could be more effective if it were not to emphasize hot-button political issues. The US Congress was evermore conservative and there was a bit of a save-what-you-can mentality operating. Sustainability would deflect the criticisms because it meant different things to different political factions and adopting it as our focus was, to some extent, a survival strategy in hard times. Global warming has fundamentally changed this. Accepting that it has an anthropogenic component means that K looms and fundamental questions about growth can now be asked. Your message should be the starting point for those considering preparing a statement to take to the members of ESA. There are, of course, many ecologists and even a few economists who have never lost their focus on human population growth but it is now time for the society to officially adopt the same focus. Phil Ganter Tennessee State U. On 1/18/08 5:16 AM, "Greg Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any statement on economic growth should EXPLICITLY refer to human > population and population growth in the SAME statement. > > FAILURE to mention the problem of human population growth as THE driver > of economic growth (as witnessed in the prolix, potential E.S.A. policy > statement circulated on this list the other day) will render the > statement otiose and near-useless. > > Your message itself reads somewhat like insipid bureaucratic waffle. > Surely, from fundamental ecological canons, the premise of exponential, > infinite (economic) growth against a base of finite resources is simply > impossible? What more scientifically and ecologically can there be left > to cogitate over in your multifarious committees? > > Can an outsider (i.e. non-ESA member) and amateur ecologist (i.e. > non-professional) such as myself possibly divine in your email that the > real reasons for E.S.A. foot-dragging on this important issue are > actually more of a political and sociological flavour, and the wish to > avoid "controversy"? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nadine Lymn > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re ESA and Economic Growth Statement > > Dear Ecologers, > > There have been several postings over the last months urging the > Ecological Society of America to consider issuing a position statement > on economic growth. In addition, a group of ecologists submitted a > request to the Governing Board in August, followed by additional letters > of interest supporting such a statement. > > The ESA Governing Board is taking this interest seriously and has asked > the Society's Public Affairs Committee to oversee the development of a > position statement for its consideration and review. > > This process is underway and there will be an opportunity for interested > members to offer feedback to the proposed statement. In addition, the > Public Affairs Office has been collecting the many letters that have > already come in offering views on this topic. > > As with all the Society's position statements, ESA takes very seriously > the task of producing documents that are carefully reviewed and > appropriately reflect the underlying science and the Ecological Society > of America. We will notify this list when a draft is available for > comment and appreciate the interest in this topic. > > Nadine Lymn > ESA Director of Public Affairs
