From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Population
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:45:37 GMT

In article <C0ILup.FsG@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>,
bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>
>   According to some enviromentalists even one human is too many. Some
>recovering schizophrenics now in the fore-front of enviromentalism,
>have convinced themselves that other species of fauna on this
>beleagured planet are more deserving of life than human beings. Some
>of the less stable even argue that animals may even be more ethical
>than humans (maybe that's the real reason for Carl Sagan's search for
>ET - any species, even the most alien, is preferable to homosapiens).
>
>   Yes, you and yours are probably right, there are entirely too many
>people on this planet. So, what next? Surely you've discovered some
>final solution ...
>
>Bill
>
>

Hi, Bill,

	If you read my earlier argument, posted on this group about a
week ago, you would know that my argument for population reduction was
made from a strictly "eco-humanist" viewpoint.  No tree-hugging.  No 
aliens from outer space.  Feel better?  BTW, I'm a little young to be
a recovering schizophrenic.

	My back-of-the-napkin calculations suggested that roughly one
billion humans could live sustainably on the Earth.  This was based on
the assumption that every one should enjoy a First World standard
of living, and that, through technological improvements and social
restructuring, we were able to increase the resource use efficiency of
a First World lifestyle by about a factor of ten.

	Some people in the Green Party/movement assert that we should 
live "simpler" lifestyles, closer in character to Third World living.
I'm a frugal person, but I think that that is a recipe for disaster.
If we look at Third World countries, they possess the highest rates of
population growth.  This has a lot to do with people's desire to provide 
better lives for themselves.  Labor is an asset, so have kids!  Some First
World countries (West Germany, Japan) actually have negative growth rates,
if one does not include immigration.  The cost of raising kids in First
World countries is much nearer to the benefit received from kids.  One
may very well enjoy a high quality of life without having any children
in the First World.  The same cannot be said for the Third World.

	Other Greens argue that giving people the tools to improve 
their quality of life - sustainable farming, democratic government, and
birth control (some even include industrial opportunity) is the best
first step.  I agree with this.  If people are able to live comfortable
lives without requiring a two-generation labor pyramid to support them,
then populations tend to stop growing.  (BTW, two generations of labor
support the elderly in the First World, too - however, the support is
generally anonymized through taxation, and the two generations of labor
are not pyramidal, owing to little population growth.)

	So, what's my "final solution?"  Well, I basically agree with
all the provisions in the California Green Party's proposed Population
plank (remember, this was not adopted for 1992).  The First World needs
to shift some significant fraction of its post-Cold-War peace dividend
into genuinely constructive programs for the the Third World.  History
suggests that, if we get to a universal First World quality of life, the
population will begin to decline slowly of its own accord.  There's a big,
unavoidable "bubble" of increased population ahead of us.  I see no way
to avoid that on the person-to-person level except through coercion, which
I do not advocate.  However, there's more.

	What were my problems with the proposed Green Party Population
plank?  

	1) The word "population" was scarcely mentioned, except in the 
title.  The wording of the platform suggested that the "supply side," if
you will (the distribution of more aid to the Third World) was the problem
that needed to be solved, and that stabilization of population was merely
an incidental effect.  My point is that the "demand side," population size,
is also a major problem.  My fears were concerned when I spoke with 
some Greens who felt that the Earth could (and should, if people chose to
procreate) support many more people - it was clear that they did not 
feel that population was a problem. 

	2) I stated above that I was against person-to-person coercion to
control population growth.  However, the United States espouses several
positions that negatively affect the drive to control population.  We should
do something about this.  Examples: a) The United States provides income tax
subsidies to families for each child.  The tax break is significantly less
than the cost of raising a child, but it sends the wrong message.  The Green
Party should call for its elimination.  b) Recently, it was reported that
Japan's Labor Ministry had determined that the dramatic improvements in the
Japanese standard of living, and the dramatic drop in birth rates, was pre-
cipitating a crisis for their Social Security system.  Basically, a lot of
people were going to live a long time off the public rolls, and by the time
they got there, the number of productive workers paying into the system would
be lower than anyone had expected.  Now, there's all kinds of skilled labor
available in Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, and elsewhere.  The Japanese government's
proposal to deal with the coming crunch was not to take advantage of 
workers already born and willing to work, but rather to enact a tax policy
encouraging Japanese women to have more children!  Ceaucescu's government
in Romania pulled a similar stunt during the mid-80's.  I consider policies
such as these to be racist and, indirectly, an abuse of human rights.  The
Green Party should call for a nation's population policy to figure promi-
nently into our negotiations with that country.

	I would like to hear comments, especially from the California Greens,
to whom this issue is perhaps most important.

-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man w/o charity in his heart - what has he to do with music?" - Confucius
============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens