> Family planning education and devices are quite inexpensive. But must fight
> through 1. big business which wants cheap labor(oversupply) & growing mkts,
> 2. religions which want larger flocks, and 3. govts hooked on deficit
> spending & need "fix" (like junkies) of growing tax revenues. The living
> standard goes up when there are half the mouths to feed, healthier
> children, less crowded homes & schools...
>
However, poverty is the main reason for high number of children,
it is an insurance for old age. So people need to perceive
a secure old age without a lot of children. For this they
need to see education for their children, income for them, etc.
Cutting social spending on the poor but raising it
spending on the rich as not-collected taxes,
as you suggest above, doesn't work as failed
IMF policies show world-wide..
> > Even at present the world income/capita is not a bad figure, but
> > could be much better. If private appropriation of socially produced
> > products would stop, there would be sufficient goods for everyone.
>
> Is water a produced product? "Figures" aren't edible.
>
>
So what is the precious market do for more and better
water in thirld world countries? What caused the
loss of top soil all over the place?
How will be resources re-focussed to provide
more drinking water? It was you who mentioned
"the pie" which is a "figure" I responded to.
...DC-based Worldwatch Institute's annual Vital
> Signs report on global trends. The report, released on 5/9,
> analyzes more
> than 50 environment- related indicators.
> Eighty million more people were added to the world's population
> last
> year, slightly more than in the previous year, although the
> population
> growth rate has slowed since the 1960s. But a record world grain
> harvest
> did not keep up with population growth, leading to a drop in per
> capita
> grain output from 324 kilograms to 322 kg.
>
How many European and US farmers are paid for NOT
producing grain? How much of it is produced for
animal consumption? How much of third world
countries produce goods for the western market and
for the profit of a few landowners, instead of producing
food they need? How much more could be produced?
> Water scarcity is emerging as "a serious constraint on efforts to
> expand
> world food production." For example, excessive water use upstream
> prevented China's Yellow River from reaching the ocean for 226
> days last
> year, depriving downstream farmers of irrigation water.
>
> Heightened economic activity "has had its most visible effect" on
> the
> world's forests, both in terms of deforestation and the
> "uncontrolled"
> land-clearing fires in Southeast Asia that have "irreversibly"
> damaged one
> of the Earth's richest ecosystems.
> E.D.
> > Only if planned and integrated, can production be consistent
> > with the conservation of the necessary ecology.
>
> I do strongly agree that a social contract/compact should drive the use &
> care
> of the "Commons". There is overwhelming evidence in the view of scientists,
> that we are borrowing from the future by depleting "natural capital" on
> which human economy depends.
> And I do agree that the gap between rich & poor is exacerbating the
> problematique. That pendulum will swing back, but the pie is shrinking
> incessantly.
>
"swing back"? On what indicators or past experience you rely
on saying this? When did re-destribution favoured the poor
on a global - or indeed any - scale?
The pie is not yet shrinking due to scarcity of resources.
If it is shrinking, it is due to poor management by the
chaotic market system that only sees profit and not human needs
and the two coincide less and less often.
> >You can't even do it
> > in the richest countries.
>
> false. US has ZPG fertility among women born here. W. Europe has
> *declining* fertility rate of 1.5/couple. Women elsewhere are screaming for
> this empowerment, and the growth rate is declining as more services are
> delivered.
>
However, even in these countries successful family planning and
the "enpowerment of women" is directly related to the economic/
educational status of the women.
> The largest portion of Ted Turner (& Jane Fonda) $ US Billion donation to
> the UN is for womens programs - and most of that is for family planning.
> Indeed, this arena has been by far the most successful "environmental"
> activity during the past ten years.
>
oh, great. We should rely on the random benevolence of
our millionaires and all will be fine...
Eva
> I'm going to drop the subject for now. Others feel free. :-) (If anyone
> wants data, write me off list.)
>
> Steve Kurtz
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
