I think the point of this article was to call for the reduction of consumption in developed nations.
Is population growth important? Of course! However, all the projections I've seen recently show the human population leveling off at around 9 billion about midcentury. Plus, overpopulation is widely acknowledged as a problem. Neither of these things is true of economic growth and consumption. Here, the ideal is still infinite growth, which is impossible in a finite system. For this reason, taking a position on economic growth is more important than reiterating for the umpteenth (sorry for the technical term) time that overpopulation is a problem. Just my 2 cents, Jane On Jan 20, 2008 1:45 PM, Ganter, Philip F. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jane (and Jared, perhaps) > > I am always confused by the message in stating the inequality between > consumption between the developed and developing economies. Is it that we > should live like Kenyans or that Kenyans should live like us? Pointing out > the inequality does not point to a solution. Economists seem to say that, > if we join into a world economy, all will eventually live like us. The > invisible hand of the free market will do the job. They would point to > recent increases in per capita incomes in some rapidly growing economies as > evidence to support this contention. Ecologists will remind economists that > only an increase in real productivity will lift the developing world to our > standard of living and that looking at areas of increase may only be > variations within a zero-sum overall game. This means we must consider > population, as we must ask if, at present population levels, there is > sufficient resource to attain this. If we (ecologists) present evidence to > conclude that this is not attainable, then we must advocate reduction of > some sort. This could be reduction in the gap between living standards (a > solution only if there is no more population growth) or that we reduce > population (or both). This is the 800 pound gorilla in the corner. We seem > to be acting that, if ignored, it will go away. I guess I want to ask the > ESA if, based on the evidence they can find, the committee drafting the > statement would call for population reduction. If you go to my original > post on this topic, I wrote that I thought the ESA failed in its duty in the > 1990's when it chose sustainability rather than population size as its > focus. If tough recommendations about population size are off the table > once again, we may be part of the problem once again. Please do not think I > am unaware of the many difficult questions that arise if we must consider > recommending a reduction in human population size. The questions are such > that many among us will discourage a recommendation for reduction because it > is either so unpopular as to make us ineffectual in the political sphere or > unethical because the recommendation might be used by those willing to harm > the powerless of this world to maintain, or even increase, the gap between > the poor and the wealthy. There is danger in addressing these issues but we > are already on the edge of this discussion in the debates over carbon > emissions. The gorilla may already be stirring. > > Phil Ganter > Tennessee State University > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Jane > Shevtsov > Sent: Fri 1/18/2008 6:27 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Population, Consumption and Economic Growth > > Here's an article by Jared Diamond that may be of interest re: the > discussion of economic growth. > > Jane Shevtsov > > --------------------------------------------------- > WHAT'S YOUR CONSUMPTION FACTOR? > By Jared Diamond > > The population especially of the developing world is growing, and some > people remain fixated on this. They note that populations of countries > like > Kenya are growing rapidly, and they say that's a big problem. Yes, it is a > problem for Kenya's more than 30 million people, but it's not a burden on > the whole world, because Kenyans consume so little. (Their relative per > capita rate is 1.) A real problem for the world is that each of us 300 > million Americans consumes as much as 32 Kenyans. With 10 times the > population, the United States consumes 320 times more resources than Kenya > does. > > People in the third world are aware of this difference in per capita > consumption, although most of them couldn't specify that it's by a factor > of > 32. When they believe their chances of catching up to be hopeless, they > sometimes get frustrated and angry, and some become terrorists, or > tolerate > or support terrorists. Since Sept. 11, 2001, it has become clear that the > oceans that once protected the United States no longer do so. There will > be > more terrorist attacks against us and Europe, and perhaps against Japan > and > Australia, as long as that factorial difference of 32 in consumption rates > > persists. > > [More] > http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge233.html#diamond > >
