(Had to change that subject-header..oops.) O.K. Jay I'll bite... At 02:18 PM 3/8/98 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: >From: John Hollingsworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>There are many factors behind population growth. As always, we should ask >>ourselves who is the "they" in this argument. It isn't, apparently, a >>"we". >>Poverty and birth rates are related, but the implication seems to me to be >>equally, "if you take care of the population, the population will take care >>of itself". Should Jay Hanson or John Hollingsworth be kept from >>reproducing? Who's going to enforce that edict? > >I don't agree that there are "many factors" behind population >growth, I think it boils down to only two: sperm and eggs. <G> >As to whether or not there is a method to stop population growth, >John Hall suggests "contagious contraception". I think it's >a good idea. If humans simply stopped having babies for about >40 years, populations would fall to manageable levels. >See: http://dieoff.org/page119.htm All I can say to close my contribution to this (your) discussion is, I hope this thing isn't some specially-designed biochemical or genetic agent arbitrarily introduced into human populations by their wealthier and more powerful counterparts. For the record, Jay, you should be happy -- I'm not planning on raising children at this point in time. In fact, although I haven't seen any demographic statistics, it appears that changes in the culture and economy of Canada and the United States are shaping an increasingly prevalent reality of people waiting longer to have children. New generations entering the workforce are faced with increasingly bleak options, although it also appears that personal income is less of an issue. This makes continuing to pay for the wealthy and financial elite's privilege a little bit easier, although the fact is as well that we can be happier with less greed and personal ambition. The cost in resources per person to maintain and extend the carrying capacity of the biosphere is not fundamentally an issue, given the means at our collective disposal. Our North American / G7 conception of wealth and the absolute right to private accumulation that is part of our system of laws, dominant ideology, and popular consciousness are issues. But if we are willing and able to transform our planet's economic and social structure, the question of human population containment, which is more than somewhat racist/imperialist and certainly quite an anti-human ideology, becomes much less daunting and no longer really appropriate to an integrated solution to the crises of a certain model of global development. This is to say nothing of the weakness of the theory as a structural model. >I assume that you are suggesting that we rely on the so-called >"demographic transition theory" to limit population growth. In >essence, this theory suggests that if we buy everyone in the >world a TV set and a couple of cars, they will stop having so >many babies. No, I think that statement about TVs was attributable to my favourite Hegelian and Rand Corporation employee, Francis Fukuyama. ;-) The Westernization argument (or 'developmentalist' paradigm) has nothing to do with my argument about democratic development from within, within a supportive supra-national framework. As has been pointed out on recent Futurework posts, democracy and capitalism shouldn't be equated. The limited and shrinking scope of the application of democracy in most of our lives as workers and as citizens is another real issue and one of the challenges facing us, as is the polarization of income and economic power within and between the world's nations. By the way, for a further personal definition of drivel, I'd suggest you provided another stunning exemplar: >[ Part of a book review of WHY DO WOMEN HAVE BABIES? ] > >Factors that INCREASE FERTILITY include anything that reduces >economic pressure or that promises to do so. Chief among these >are: > >1. Government subsidies to the poor in housing, food, and > education, and acting as employer of last resort. > >2. Foreign aid intended to alleviate suffering. > >3. Emigration of one's countrymen (by relieving population > pressure and by raising the hopes of those left behind). > >4. The intrusion of Western culture, as by missionaries, trade, > or television (by destroying old ways of controlling fertility > and by promising prosperity). > >Factors that are INEFFECTIVE in changing fertility are: > >1. Lowering the child mortality rate. > >2. Availability of contraceptives. > >3. Government exhortation or laws regulating the number of > children. > >4. The only national factor certain to REDUCE the average > fertility rate is government-imposed disincentives such as the > withdrawal of subsidies. The same is true for international > subsidies. > >Abernethy, V., Population Politics: The Choices that Shape Our >Future. Plenum Press, 1993. This review is from POPULATION AND >ENVIRONMENT September, 1996. The very nature of the imputed questions to these 'findings' and the highly questionable methodology that it likely followed do not warrant serious comment. Pure right-wing pap. Cheers, John John Hollingsworth (613) 231-2431 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 2-216 James St. K1R 5M7 ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
