From: mnb@voodoo.boeing.com (Mike Burr)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Progeny limits
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:10:57 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Boeing Graphics project, Bellevue WA

I been biting my pencil, trying to stay out of this thread, but with
Shailendra Save's posting I bit it half and almost broke a molar!
So for the sake of my teeth.....

>What can you do? First, realise that there is enough to go around. 
>Believe it or not. [some text deleted]  If we all started to consume 
>just about what we can produce, we would be fine.  

First, Shailandra's argument only addresses the present and not the 
future.  Secondly, we can't produce  [effectively] the core elements 
of life... ie. fresh water, topsoil, arable land, or a balanced 
atmosphere.  We're feeding everybody... (for now) but we're "emptying 
the pantry" to do it.  Even at current population levels we are using 
up resources which accumulated over many millenia.  Some examples. 
We're depleting underground aquifers which took thousands of years to 
fill - while most surface sources become increasingly polluted.  
Topsoil levels around the world are falling - being used up by crop 
production.  Many of the world's "bread basket" areas (including S. 
Cal) are beginning to fail under the loads being placed on them.  
Topsoil depletion and salinization are major problems.  The world 
supply of ocean fish is declining rapidly.  Ozone depletion and carbon 
dioxide increases - you can debate the consequences, but the changes 
are pretty well documented.  These are core resources which you can't 
just make more of - nor will their levels rise quickly if you cut back 
on their useage, and without them we're in deep trouble. 

Even if we could live on nothing, we would still require space - 
and even it will be gone in less than 200 years at current growth
rates!

      World Population Growth
        Year        Millions

        1650         510  <----
        1700         625      |
        1750         710      |   ~2.2x increase in 200 years
        1800         910      |
        1850        1130  <----
        1900        1600      |   ~2.2x increase in 100 years
        1950        2510  <----
        2000        5500  <----   ~2.2x increase in 50 years


The world population is increasing geometrically, every cycle doubles 
the population in half the previous cycle time.  At current rates 
there will be twice as many people on the planet by 2025 and four 
times as many by 2050.  If the core resources are being used up faster 
than they can be replenished at the present population, how is this 
planet going to support 4 times as many people by 2050?  

>I do not contend to say that our population should increase at its 
>present growth rate. All I am saying is that your "One child policy" 
>is not the way to limit it. 

>Perhaps nature will kick in and begin eliminating the human species 
>for balance. Cancer due to pollution, artificial coloring and 
>additives in food, AIDS, chemical poisoning from sea-food, skin 
>cancer due to the lack of the ozone layer, asbestos inhalation, DDT, 
>Lead and mercury in ground water, and a kazillion other effects the 
>supposedly-intelligent human species has been doing to increase the 
>so-called standard of living. (Not standard of LIFE mind you, but 
>standard of LIVING.) 

Then you agree that population growth must be lowered.  You just 
aren't willing to commit to self-limitation, prefering instead to let 
nature do the dirty work.  I can't understand this reasoning.  Would 
you really want your children to grow up starving, poisoned, diseased, 
- fighting constantly with 50 billion others for a piece of ground or 
a scrap of food?  

I'm not advocating a "one child" policy, but I am suggesting that we 
remove the unproductive emotionalism which surrounds this issue. We 
need to stop waiting for the problem to go away, or expecting some 
miracle technology to save us at the last moment.  We need to start 
thinking about (and accepting) the tough decisions which need to be 
made  - and we need to let our leaders in public office know we're 
concerned, because they won't touch this topic with a 10' pole until 
they feel that the hostile and emotional nature of this issue has 
changed. 

>PS: If we all have to die some day, what's the big deal?

A few paragraphs ago you were criticizing the selfish and uncaring, 
yet now you're casually ignoring your responsibilities to future 
generations with the justification "we've all got to die, so what's 
the big deal".  Well I would suggest that those future generations 
would like (no, make that have a right to) at least a chance for a 
decent life... you know, like you enjoy Shailandra. 

-- 
Michael Burr   mnb@voodoo.boeing.com  | Boeing Computer Services, Bellevue WA