From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths (was  Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Organization: The World
	<1992Nov16.184439.19349@mercury.cair.du.edu>
	<BxyExr.4I1@lincoln.technet.sg>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:31:39 GMT


From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
>There is no overpopulation problem.
>
>People are nowhere starving as a result of overpopulation. On the
>contrary, increasing population is the key commerce and human
>advancement, generally.

The point you are perhaps trying to make is that there are, or easily
could be, sufficient calories and other nutrients to support the
current world's population (and likely more.)

The problem being mostly distribution, most of that food is not where
the hungry people are, and it would cost a lot of money to get it
there (not to mention that the hungry cannot pay for the food itself,
let alone its transportation even if the food were free.)

To posit that observation as demonstrating there is no overpopulation
problem is a bit disingenuous, unless you have some plan to fix the
distribution problem then some areas of the world are heavily
overpopulated *for the amount of food they are able to produce or
likely to obtain*. It's a relative problem, and will be so long as
transportation (at least) costs more than some can afford.

The desertification of the north of Africa is a particularly harsh
problem, entire countries are being rendered unable to support their
existant populations due to changes in climate. There is no doubt that
in many of these same areas political and other troubles exacerbate
the problems, but there are also relatively orderly societies there
who are dying in the same way, if not so dramatically.

>As Juliam Simon as amply demonstrated, every resource of
>signifance, from metals to food stuffs, has decreased in price over
>the last century. And, of course, when you consider other sources of
>human wealth such as knowledge and skill, the finite resources
>argument crumbles even further.

This is probably true, but it doesn't seem to help the fact that
thousands of people die of starvation daily. Perhaps your answer is to
tell them what they should be doing. Good luck.

>Of course, those who push the population problem usually have an
>agenda which requires it.

Unlike those who blithely deny any?

>For example, many leftists are weded to
>the idea of controlling population because it is a convenient
>bridge to controlling people, generally.

Unlike the right-wing anti-welfare sterilize welfare mothers crowd?

Unlike Dan Quayle's Murphy Brown right-wing moralist comments, and
more importantly what they represent? Unlike the right-wing
dictatorships in South America that turn their backs on gangs-for-hire
who "disappear" unwanted teen-agers?

I don't think this particularly ugliness, where it is ugly, has any
particular political affiliation. You just want to rail against your
favorite bogey-men. Any port in a storm I suppose.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs