Re: Fair Trade
Bruce wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family - more specific example Someone needs to tell them it's a uterus, not a clown car. :-p Jim Brazil Visit beautiful Brazil. Click now for great vacation packages! http://tagline.excite.com/fc/JkJQPTgLVVDjtb6q7s8CQt2Hr4L976lv5M0dc0EM34QXVnTZA4z79C/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family - more specific example Someone needs to tell them it's a uterus, not a clown car. :-p Brin list rule number 1: Never read list e-mail while drinking beverages unless you have a waterproof keyboard. -- Mauro Diotallevi Green Tea Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family - more specific example Someone needs to tell them it's a uterus, not a clown car. :-p Brin list rule number 1: Never read list e-mail while drinking beverages unless you have a waterproof keyboard. I regularly inform people that they've been honored by my Glad I don't drink at the computer award for the day, here as well as in other places. :) Mauro Diotallevi Green Tea Maru You have good taste, and I'm sorry any of it went to waste. Julia p.s. the rhyme was not a ploy to be clever or anything like that ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
At 07:44 AM Thursday 9/18/2008, Jim Sharkey wrote: Bruce wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family - more specific example Someone needs to tell them it's a uterus, not a clown car. :-p I guess that all depends on whether the kids join the circus. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On 17/09/2008, at 8:52 AM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: Deciding who does and does not get to have children (or deciding how many they're allowed to have) is in the same class of problems as deciding who lives or who dies. But noting that in affluent, educated societies, birth-rates fall (and children are born later) provides a way of solving the problem emergently. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
At 05:37 PM Tuesday 9/16/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Sep 16, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: No, it's just what I ask _everybody_ who suggests that approaching 7 billion (or whatever the current world population happens to be) is too many people: where _specifically_ do you suggest that the needed reductions be made, and if you personally are not at the head of that list, how do you justify putting anyone else ahead of you? . . . ronn! :) The fact that deciding which of the existing 6-7 billion should be allowed to live is an extremely thorny ethical and moral question (and one I wouldn't even begin to be qualified to answer) doesn't take away from the fact that a population of 6-7 billion is far in excess of what this planet appears to be able to support on a sustainable basis, nor does it address the problem that the moment anything improves on the supply side, the population immediately accelerates growth to more than wipe out those gains on the demand side. (In other words, saying it's a potentially insoluble problem doesn't make the problem go away.) Which is why I feel it is appropriate to point out to all of those who make arguments about overpopulation that ultimately what they are saying is that there are too many people alive and they need to face that that is what they are saying and say how they plan to address that matter. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
- Original Message - From: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] The fact that deciding which of the existing 6-7 billion should be allowed to live is an extremely thorny ethical and moral question (and one I wouldn't even begin to be qualified to answer) doesn't take away from the fact that a population of 6-7 billion is far in excess of what this planet appears to be able to support on a sustainable basis, nor does it address the problem that the moment anything improves on the supply side, the population immediately accelerates growth to more than wipe out those gains on the demand side. (In other words, saying it's a potentially insoluble problem doesn't make the problem go away.) Lets hope that that technology will eventually enable 6-7 billion humans to exist on Earth on a sustainable basis. Mind you, I think we should be ambitous and work towards a population of 20-100 billion plus near immortal humans, living in stimulating artifical environments in underground arcologies, with say 5-10% of the earths land surface built over, and the remainder left as or reverted to natural environment. We should be trying for fusion power, and biological and nano machines that recycle everything, etc. etc. We should be trying for a technological utopia, and not giving up and dreaming of reverting back to a non-existant preindustrial golden age. Regards, Wayne Eddy. Where is the Science Fiction spirit in you lot? Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
Bruce Bostwick wrote: There is a third option, if viable enough habitats can be created elsewhere in the solar system -- ::eyes Mars enviously:: Opening new frontiers is never a solution to overpopulation. The reason is that emmigration will only reduce the home population by a tiny fraction, and sooner than we think we will have overpopulation in the new frontier. Just look at what Africans did to Europe and Asia, and what Europeans did to America and Oceania. BTW, instead of looking at Mars, there are viable spots right here on Earth: the Seas (given that we find an economically viable way to separate fresh water from seawater), Antarctica (plenty of fresh water!), the deserts, etc. Alberto Monteiro PS: Not to mention that bloody and useless rainforest :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On Sep 17, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 05:37 PM Tuesday 9/16/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Sep 16, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: No, it's just what I ask _everybody_ who suggests that approaching 7 billion (or whatever the current world population happens to be) is too many people: where _specifically_ do you suggest that the needed reductions be made, and if you personally are not at the head of that list, how do you justify putting anyone else ahead of you? . . . ronn! :) The fact that deciding which of the existing 6-7 billion should be allowed to live is an extremely thorny ethical and moral question (and one I wouldn't even begin to be qualified to answer) doesn't take away from the fact that a population of 6-7 billion is far in excess of what this planet appears to be able to support on a sustainable basis, nor does it address the problem that the moment anything improves on the supply side, the population immediately accelerates growth to more than wipe out those gains on the demand side. (In other words, saying it's a potentially insoluble problem doesn't make the problem go away.) Which is why I feel it is appropriate to point out to all of those who make arguments about overpopulation that ultimately what they are saying is that there are too many people alive and they need to face that that is what they are saying and say how they plan to address that matter. . . . ronn! :) Exactly. It's a horrendously difficult ethical problem, because it's nearly impossible to avoid the temptation to skew the rules to ensure one's own survival, as well as that of one's family and friends and affinity group, and be truly objective about what the ideal criteria should be. I'm not sure I know anyone who's objective enough to make that decision without applying some form or other of personal motivation. And the moment personal motivation comes into the equation, it becomes one of the ugliest and most reprehensible things imaginable, an Endlösung or ethnic cleansing on a global scale. Whether it involves choosing who gets to live and who doesn't, or choosing who gets to have children and who doesn't .. I think it would be a good idea as a symbol to signal that China is serious about a relationship with us if they stop running over their citizens with tanks. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (It also doesn't address the fact that certain subcultures within that population are deliberately breeding children at a greatly *accelerated* rate, specifically as a long-term strategy to promote their own ideologies by skewing the demographics and/or breeding loyal followers they can easily control later on. But that's a tangent to this discussion.) Cite? Come on, you knew that was coming. :-) -- Mauro Diotallevi The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
At 03:30 PM Tuesday 9/16/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: I said that we can't feed the world and dispense with agribusiness, but i hope we can dispense make food production more productive and less destructive to habitats. we are approaching 7 billion people and little sign of reaching zpg. So what selection criteria do you suggest be used? And again, are you volunteering to be first? First for what; are you suggesting that it's all my fault and I should commit suicide? No, it's just what I ask _everybody_ who suggests that approaching 7 billion (or whatever the current world population happens to be) is too many people: where _specifically_ do you suggest that the needed reductions be made, and if you personally are not at the head of that list, how do you justify putting anyone else ahead of you? Fair enough, Ronn. As someone who has made that argument myself on this list, I will say that I had my vasectomy at the age of 20 (and it took some convincing of the doctors to pull that one off, let me tell you!). My view is that if it is true that the number of people of is exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet (and the evidence is not 100% clear at this point), the population will in fact be reduced by the usual means nature uses to correct such problems: war, disease, famine,... One of the lessons I learned in my training as an economist is that you have to make choices among the actual feasible alternatives, not the alternatives that you wish you had in some other, better world. I run into a lot of people who want some other alternatives when the issue of population comes up. I prefer to stay in the reality-based community. 1. If you want other people to have fewer children you are a racist - This is a great debating trick, but it does not pass the relevance test. Population growth rates in most developed countries are at zero or negative numbers. Restraining overall population growth will have to happen in countries that are experiencing positive growth. That is where the people are, after all. 2. Advocating population control means advocating genocide - Again, a debating trick, but it is not what the real issue is. No one I know of who is advocating a limit to population growth is suggesting gas chambers, blankets with smallpox, or mass firing squads. If the only way to reduce population is through increasing the death rate, nature will do that without any need for action on our part. I'd prefer to do it by reducing the birth rate, which strikes me as a more humane way to go about it. And as I pointed out above, I have very definitely put my money where my mouth is on this one. My wife and I agreed that if we wanted to have children we would adopt, but as it happened we decided against having children altogether. 3. No one needs to do anything, the demographic transition will take care of it all - This is the best counter-argument I have heard, since on one level it is pretty clear that it would work, given enough time. The question is whether we will have that time. Every time I read another article on what climate scientists are finding, the discovery seems to be that the climate is changing faster than anyone had previously predicted. It may in fact already be too late to do anything, but in any case it seems pretty clear to anyone excpet a diehard denier that the tipping point is not far off. But we cannot afford to have 7 billion people use energy at the rate that we use it in the U.S. right now, and if they cannot do that, will they grow enough economically to make the demographic transition happen? I don't think so. Of course that is manifestly unfair, since the worst of the damage came from the developed world, and the worst of the carnage to follow will undoubtedly hit the de veloping world. But as I said, I am trained to only look at feasible alternatives, not wishful thinking, and I don't see any really good outcomes short of a major effort to address both population growth and energy use right now in an attempt to stop short of catastrophe. And even then, the catastrophe may be inevitable if we have already past the point of no return. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. - Dwight D. Eisenhower ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On Sep 17, 2008, at 2:46 AM, Wayne Eddy wrote: From: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] The fact that deciding which of the existing 6-7 billion should be allowed to live is an extremely thorny ethical and moral question (and one I wouldn't even begin to be qualified to answer) doesn't take away from the fact that a population of 6-7 billion is far in excess of what this planet appears to be able to support on a sustainable basis, nor does it address the problem that the moment anything improves on the supply side, the population immediately accelerates growth to more than wipe out those gains on the demand side. (In other words, saying it's a potentially insoluble problem doesn't make the problem go away.) Lets hope that that technology will eventually enable 6-7 billion humans to exist on Earth on a sustainable basis. Mind you, I think we should be ambitous and work towards a population of 20-100 billion plus near immortal humans, living in stimulating artifical environments in underground arcologies, with say 5-10% of the earths land surface built over, and the remainder left as or reverted to natural environment. We should be trying for fusion power, and biological and nano machines that recycle everything, etc. etc. We should be trying for a technological utopia, and not giving up and dreaming of reverting back to a non-existant preindustrial golden age. Regards, Wayne Eddy. Where is the Science Fiction spirit in you lot? Maru. As soon as we have a next-generation energy source to replace our current petroleum-based energy economy, and fusion is probably the best horse to bet on in that race, that science fiction future comes within reach, and you'll have more science fiction spirit around you than you'll know what to do with, trust me. :D Energy is everything, and the science fiction future is energy-intensive to say the least. Not that I wouldn't want to live in it, just that it requires an order of magnitude more energy expenditure per capita than we're capable of even now .. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On Sep 17, 2008, at 7:27 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (It also doesn't address the fact that certain subcultures within that population are deliberately breeding children at a greatly *accelerated* rate, specifically as a long-term strategy to promote their own ideologies by skewing the demographics and/or breeding loyal followers they can easily control later on. But that's a tangent to this discussion.) Cite? Come on, you knew that was coming. :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull - only one example, but rather representative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family - more specific example There are other natalist movements elsewhere in the world, but this one is a fairly notable example in the neopentecostal religious subculture .. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fair Trade
No, it's just what I ask _everybody_ who suggests approaching 7 billion (or whatever the current world population happens to be) is too many people: where _specifically_ do you suggest that the needed reductions be made, and if you personally are not at the head of that list, how do you justify putting anyone else ahead of you? i am not any position to make a list since it is out of my control. however, if i was benevolent dictator of the world i would address the problems in those parts of the world where population was increasing exponentially by doing everything possible so people would not breed like bunnies for religious or labor intensive reasons, etc. i would also do everything possible to get away from destructive industries like petrochemical, automotive, pharmaceutical and other for profit at any cost corporations, and redirect economies away from materialism toward sustainable lifestyle. i hate to accept that the likely reality based scenario to reduce materialism and the birth rate is that nature will take its course, and the number of people is exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet. unfortunately when demographics are adjusted by war, disease, and famine it is usually those who are powerless who are the victims... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On Sep 17, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 17/09/2008, at 8:52 AM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: Deciding who does and does not get to have children (or deciding how many they're allowed to have) is in the same class of problems as deciding who lives or who dies. But noting that in affluent, educated societies, birth-rates fall (and children are born later) provides a way of solving the problem emergently. A Modest Proposal of a different kind? Eat the Rich Maru Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 17, 2008, at 7:27 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: Cite? Come on, you knew that was coming. :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull - only one example, but rather representative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family - more specific example There are other natalist movements elsewhere in the world, but this one is a fairly notable example in the neopentecostal religious subculture .. Wow. This is brand new to me. Thanks for sharing. One of the reasons I'm still on brin-l is that people occasionally pass along info like this and broaden my knowledge of the world. -- Mauro Diotallevi News To Me Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On Sep 17, 2008, at 4:27 PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 17, 2008, at 7:27 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: Cite? Come on, you knew that was coming. :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull - only one example, but rather representative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family - more specific example There are other natalist movements elsewhere in the world, but this one is a fairly notable example in the neopentecostal religious subculture .. Wow. This is brand new to me. Thanks for sharing. One of the reasons I'm still on brin-l is that people occasionally pass along info like this and broaden my knowledge of the world. -- Mauro Diotallevi News To Me Maru It's not widely advertised, and when it is, it's very much downplayed. The bulk of the promotion of this sort of thing is done off-grid or virally through the subculture itself. Most people are surprised when they find out its actual extent. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
At 03:55 PM Sunday 9/14/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: I'd like to see some numbers on how we could feed the existing mouths at a price they can afford to pay if the latter restrictions were enforced worldwide. Do you have any? . . . ronn! :) hell no!~) i said that we can't feed the world and dispense with agribusiness, but i hope we can dispense make food production more productive and less destructive to habitats. we are approaching 7 billion people and little sign of reaching zpg. jon So what selection criteria do you suggest be used? And again, are you volunteering to be first? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
I said that we can't feed the world and dispense with agribusiness, but i hope we can dispense make food production more productive and less destructive to habitats. we are approaching 7 billion people and little sign of reaching zpg. So what selection criteria do you suggest be used? And again, are you volunteering to be first? Historically civilizations have often used abortions and infanticide to cull unwanted populations. The occassional war contributes but unless one side is committed to genocidal resolutions wars don't really cull that many (more people were alive at the end of WW2 than its start). Though once upon a time when tribes fought they didn't used to be coy about wiping out the opposition to enjoy their resources. Today we can do it by using more humane methods of contraception and it has helped slow growth. IIRC U.N demographers believe the worlds population will stabilise at between 9 and 12 billion with the estimates tending lower and lower over the last few years. Which doesn't really help when the highest rate of consumption on the planet uses about six times our sustainable production of possible renewable resources and everyone aspires to that consumtion. Ideally we need wealth and high standards of living for all which is a proven supressor of population but without it being coupled to ruinous consumption of resources. A tricky proposition. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On Sep 14, 2008, at 10:59 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: On Sun, 14 Sep 2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: Any solution yet to the problem that any sort of advance in the efficiency of growing and producing crops is immediately countered by a corresponding increase in population and thus demand for the food being produced? She was a supersized meal of pop culture. We gobbled her down—in Playboy or on the E! network—felt a little sick afterward and then blamed her, like heart patients suing a fast-food chain. -- James Poniewozik in an essay about Anna Nicole Smith in Time magazine I've got to ask, Bruce - was that .sig a deliberate choice or random chance this time? Julia I think it was random, but I read it and decided it fit the subject in a rather skewed fashion. :) Listen, when you get home tonight, you're gonna be confronted by the instinct to drink a lot. Trust that instinct. Manage the pain. Don't try to be a hero. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fair Trade
I said that we can't feed the world and dispense with agribusiness, but i hope we can dispense make food production more productive and less destructive to habitats. we are approaching 7 billion people and little sign of reaching zpg. So what selection criteria do you suggest be used? And again, are you volunteering to be first? First for what; are you suggesting that it's all my fault and I should commit suicide? I've used birth control all my life, but it was the woman's choice when accidents happened. I took responsibility and married both of them. Eventually the world's population will stabilize but conspicuous consumption continues to increase. I don't know if humans will learn to control their materialistic greed and adopt sustainable lifestyles... Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: I said that we can't feed the world and dispense with agribusiness, but i hope we can dispense make food production more productive and less destructive to habitats. we are approaching 7 billion people and little sign of reaching zpg. So what selection criteria do you suggest be used? And again, are you volunteering to be first? First for what; are you suggesting that it's all my fault and I should commit suicide? I've used birth control all my life, but it was the woman's choice when accidents happened. I took responsibility and married both of them. Eventually the world's population will stabilize but conspicuous consumption continues to increase. I don't know if humans will learn to control their materialistic greed and adopt sustainable lifestyles... Jon If you don't want to father a child but you want to have sexual intercourse with a woman, a vasectomy is a really great line of defense there. (A number of the guys that I know who have decided hey, they really don't want to father children, or don't want to father any *more* children, have had vasectomies. I can give the names of 2 docs in the North Austin/Round Rock area that do a good job with vasectomies, and could probably come up with 4 more names in the Greater Austin area within 48 hours.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
At 03:30 PM Tuesday 9/16/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: I said that we can't feed the world and dispense with agribusiness, but i hope we can dispense make food production more productive and less destructive to habitats. we are approaching 7 billion people and little sign of reaching zpg. So what selection criteria do you suggest be used? And again, are you volunteering to be first? First for what; are you suggesting that it's all my fault and I should commit suicide? No, it's just what I ask _everybody_ who suggests that approaching 7 billion (or whatever the current world population happens to be) is too many people: where _specifically_ do you suggest that the needed reductions be made, and if you personally are not at the head of that list, how do you justify putting anyone else ahead of you? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On 17/09/2008, at 8:05 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: No, it's just what I ask _everybody_ who suggests that approaching 7 billion (or whatever the current world population happens to be) is too many people: where _specifically_ do you suggest that the needed reductions be made, and if you personally are not at the head of that list, how do you justify putting anyone else ahead of you? How about - let's try to lower the birth rate, rather than increase the death rate? Hmmm? As education and life expectancy and SoL increase, birth rate plummets. As has been pointed out, if we can raise living standards world-wide without the gross overconsumption of Australia or the US then we may be sustainable in the long run. Right now, we're not. C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On Sep 16, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: No, it's just what I ask _everybody_ who suggests that approaching 7 billion (or whatever the current world population happens to be) is too many people: where _specifically_ do you suggest that the needed reductions be made, and if you personally are not at the head of that list, how do you justify putting anyone else ahead of you? . . . ronn! :) The fact that deciding which of the existing 6-7 billion should be allowed to live is an extremely thorny ethical and moral question (and one I wouldn't even begin to be qualified to answer) doesn't take away from the fact that a population of 6-7 billion is far in excess of what this planet appears to be able to support on a sustainable basis, nor does it address the problem that the moment anything improves on the supply side, the population immediately accelerates growth to more than wipe out those gains on the demand side. (In other words, saying it's a potentially insoluble problem doesn't make the problem go away.) (It also doesn't address the fact that certain subcultures within that population are deliberately breeding children at a greatly *accelerated* rate, specifically as a long-term strategy to promote their own ideologies by skewing the demographics and/or breeding loyal followers they can easily control later on. But that's a tangent to this discussion.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On Sep 16, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 17/09/2008, at 8:05 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: No, it's just what I ask _everybody_ who suggests that approaching 7 billion (or whatever the current world population happens to be) is too many people: where _specifically_ do you suggest that the needed reductions be made, and if you personally are not at the head of that list, how do you justify putting anyone else ahead of you? How about - let's try to lower the birth rate, rather than increase the death rate? Hmmm? As education and life expectancy and SoL increase, birth rate plummets. As has been pointed out, if we can raise living standards world-wide without the gross overconsumption of Australia or the US then we may be sustainable in the long run. Right now, we're not. C. Deciding who does and does not get to have children (or deciding how many they're allowed to have) is in the same class of problems as deciding who lives or who dies. Neither one is a problem I'd want to be responsible for trying to solve in detail. (There is a third option, if viable enough habitats can be created elsewhere in the solar system -- ::eyes Mars enviously:: -- but the current overpopulation problem makes it difficult or even impossible to consider that, because too much of our resources are going into barely keeping up with the demand for feeding and housing and transporting the 6-7 billion who are already here.) And likewise, the fact that deciding who does and who doesn't live, or have kids, is a tough moral question, doesn't change the fact that the overpopulation and accelerating population growth are problems worth attempting to solve. I'd really like to live on an Earth whose population is limited to about 2-3 billion. :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fair Trade
I'd like to see some numbers on how we could feed the existing mouths at a price they can afford to pay if the latter restrictions were enforced worldwide. Do you have any? . . . ronn! :) hell no!~) i said that we can't feed the world and dispense with agribusiness, but i hope we can dispense make food production more productive and less destructive to habitats. we are approaching 7 billion people and little sign of reaching zpg. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On Sep 14, 2008, at 3:55 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: I'd like to see some numbers on how we could feed the existing mouths at a price they can afford to pay if the latter restrictions were enforced worldwide. Do you have any? . . . ronn! :) hell no!~) i said that we can't feed the world and dispense with agribusiness, but i hope we can dispense make food production more productive and less destructive to habitats. we are approaching 7 billion people and little sign of reaching zpg. jon Any solution yet to the problem that any sort of advance in the efficiency of growing and producing crops is immediately countered by a corresponding increase in population and thus demand for the food being produced? She was a supersized meal of pop culture. We gobbled her down—in Playboy or on the E! network—felt a little sick afterward and then blamed her, like heart patients suing a fast-food chain. -- James Poniewozik in an essay about Anna Nicole Smith in Time magazine ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
Jon said: You have it bass ackwards, Rich. Fair trade makes poor people less poor. Some poor people less poor in the short term, anyway. Are you in favour of subsidies in general? (Not that fair trade is quite a subsidy, but it's close.) What is GCU Way? I was just commenting on being behind reading Brin-L email. For anyone who doesn't know, a GCU is a General Contact Unit, a type of sentient spaceship from Iain Banks' Culture books. Many of the Culture ships have names that are witticisms of various kinds. People on the Culture list often amend such shipnames to their emails (but in this case I was just adding a parenthetical aside rather than a witticism). Presumably the Marus here are an emulation of this habit. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
