How is it that we wring our hands over excessive population growth, yet the numbers cast a strange light on the topic: population growth in the US stands at less than 1% while Kenya's is nearly 3%, even taking into account "excess mortality" from AIDS and other diseases. So whose population needs "curbing"? Ethiopia's birth rate is over 2%, as is Chad, Cameroon, the Congo and Gabon, and others such as Burundi are well over 3%. Is anyone discussing how to slow the birth rate of Arab nations? Libya and Afghanistan are over 2.5%, and Kuwait is over 3% (reflecting a return of post-war immigrants). The peasantry in some of the African countries are kept ignorant and poor by their governmental regimes...hence the foiling of so many of our relief efforts over the years. Environmental regulation is low as well, so I realize there are lots of factors to consider when talking about population growth, I just hope we can keep things in perspective. Kelly Stettner, Founder & Director Black River Action Team Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:45:36 -0600 From: "Ganter, Philip F."
Subject: Re: Population, Consumption and Economic Growth 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 Black River Action Team (BRAT) 45 Coolidge Road Springfield, VT 05156 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blackriveractionteam.org ~Making ripples on the Black River since 2000! ~ --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
