Hello Gail,
Hope you have been well since we last met in Ottawa a few years ago.
On 5/9/2010 4:14 PM, Gail Stewart wrote:
If only one of them weren't so right and the other
so wrong! Remind me, which one is which?<grin>
Curious what criteria would suffice for you to make a call on this,
Gail. If history is the criterion, 'top dogs' have always existed to
some extent; and removal always proved to be temporary. Chris says this
time it is (or could be) different due to the internet, etc.. That is
speculative, no?
Also, even in intentional communities (kibbutz, monestaries, etc.) there
are hierarchies. Biology may be a human invention as a field of study,
but living systems have drivers as well as circumstances. (complex
causation)
My primary ethical criterion is the minimization of (qualitative and
quantitative) suffering of humans over the long term. This could mean
that the (psychic?) suffering of limited reproductive opportunities in
the present might be justified by the slowing of population growth. I
also enjoy nature and a healthy, peaceful habitat; and I think overshoot
is ruining that around the planet. That is a second order value judgment
relating to the above.
Here's some grist for Chris!
Best regards,
Steve
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/pages/.
FROM JONATHAN PORRITT'S BLOG
Posted on October 6, 2009 4:35 PM
Under attack, yet again, from George Monbiot in The Guardian
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/28/population-growth-super-rich> (September
28th) for continuing to campaign on population issues. Yes, well .......
On 27th January 1979, George Monbiot was celebrating his 16th birthday.
I'm sure he was having lots of fun, in a precociously
environment-friendly way.
On 27th January 1979, I was happily engaged in drafting the Ecology
Party's Manifesto in preparation for the General Election in May 1979.
As it happens, that Manifesto was particularly strong on equity issues,
with an uncompromising call for the burden of taxation to target the
very rich, and for economic policy explicitly to combat conspicuous
consumption. As a member of the Green Party for the next 30 years, I've
continued to advocate policy positions of that kind at every single
point in my career.
I only mention all that just in case there's anyone else out there
(apart from George Monbiot) who believes that just because I'm concerned
about the issue of population that I must, by definition, be unconcerned
about poverty, unconcerned about the super-rich, and only happy when
schmoozing with billionaires on their luxury yachts.
It seems extraordinary that I should have to account for myself in that
way. But the characterisation of people concerned about population as
elitist, uncaring monomaniacs demeans those who use such rhetorical
devices to exercise their own dim prejudices about population -- such as
George Monbiot.
For this particular attack, George prays-in-aid a new report from the
eminent academic David Satterthwaite, just published in the journal
Environment and Urbanisation. David has looked at the correlation
between population growth and growth in greenhouse gas emissions in
different parts of the world between 1980 -- 2005. He comes to the not
terribly surprising conclusion that in somewhere like sub-Saharan
Africa, population has grown very fast (18.5%) and emissions hardly at
all (2.4%), whereas it's the other way round in countries like the US.
He goes on from there to suggest that the West simply shouldn't bother
about spending billions of aid money providing contraception in the
developing world, because poor people have such low per capita emissions
anyway.
All very logical at first glance. But all very baffling when you dig a
bit deeper. David's article also refers to China -- where emissions have
risen by 44.5% since 1980 (as per capita incomes rose fast), even as the
population grew by very little because of their 'one child family' policy.
So just try out this retrospective hypothesis for the fun of it.
Imagine, back in 1978, that the Chinese Government had petitioned rich
countries to fund its family planning programme. Imagine, we'd said
'no', not on ethical grounds (for the purpose of this retrospective
hypothesis), but because we didn't think it would represent 'good value
for money' in terms of helping China keep future emissions of greenhouse
gases under control.
30 years later, as we now know, had there been no 'one child family'
policy in place, there would have been 400 million additional Chinese
citizens, each one of them now emitting on average 4.5 tonnes per annum
-- precisely because they've been getting richer faster. So do you think
we might feel then just a touch regretful?
Fast forward to today. Imagine India came to us now asking for help with
a new family planning programme. Simply not worth it, says David,
because India's emissions are currently very low -- less than 2 tonnes
per person. So no family planning programme takes place -- despite the
fact that India's population is currently growing by around 15 million a
year.
By 2035, that means that India's population will have risen by roughly
one third of a billion additional citizens. Average per capita emissions
will then have risen to (say) 4.5 tonnes per person -- where China's
emissions are today. (I can assure you that India would be very
disappointed at such a slow rate of growth, by the way). That means
another 1.4 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, that could have been abated,
right now, at a remarkably low price. Nice one, David.
The point is a simple one. Hopefully (because poverty in these countries
is wretched), poor people today (even in Africa) won't stay poor. And
certainly I hope there's no one out there who believes that they will
have to stay poor to help us with the problem of climate change. As
incomes rise, so too will emissions. And if population is rising too,
the end result is a substantial net increase in emissions -- which could
so easily be averted.
Take Uganda. 50% of Uganda's population of 33 million is aged below 15.
Population is growing at 3.2%. Average fertility is around 6.5 children
per woman. On a business-as-usual projection, Uganda's population will
be around 100 million by 2050. (These figures are from the Population
Reference Bureau.)
Worst case for Uganda? The country implodes, primarily because of
completely unsustainable population growth. That means emissions stay
low, but that's hardly a good economic outcome either for Uganda or for
the world.
Slightly better case? Uganda's rich thrive, their incomes rise fast, and
average emissions soar, even as the poor stay poor and their emissions
don't rise.
Best case? Uganda introduces the best ever family planning programme in
Africa, with unstinting support from the rich world. Incomes rise by
more than in any other scenario, emissions rise too, but with a
population of around 40 million (instead of 100 million) that's not
really so much of a problem.
Unfortunately, Uganda's President Museveni is an out-and-out
pro-natalist. He can't wait for Uganda to have a population in excess of
100 million. Neither, apparently, can George Monbiot.
==========================================
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
