Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.rush.limbaugh,alt.activism
From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Subject: Re: How overcrowded is the world? ?
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
	<GPRIORES.92Dec4120127@fish.oracle.com> <aquilanm.724040477@helium>
	<1992Dec11.155242.25291@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:24:16 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Dec11.155242.25291@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> In article <aquilanm.724040477@helium> aquilanm@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Mark T Aquilano ) writes:
>>What is the 
>>number one form of birth control in the world?  Read UNICEF's State of the
>>World's Children Report - it is education for women! (obviously this is not 
>>at the expense of education for men).  Educated women have a much better
>>shot at stability in life, and it is instability and a feeling of insecurity
>>that breeds population growth.

Hear hear! Even in the U.S., there is a high negative correlation
between education level (and economic well-being) and birth rate.


>>If growth is a reflection of insecurity,
>>and insecurity can never exist for long without leading to wars and a 
>>general escalation of violence in the world [...]

But wars _are_ Nature's way of controlling the human population... :)/2


>>I'm replying to an old thread, but I think you're leaving something very    
>>critical out of the overpopulation problem - what kind of quality of life
>>will we have when more and more true wilderness is tamed to provide for teh
>>growing population.
> Mark, you just don't get it. :{  As I stated in the post, I was not arguing 
>that everyone SHOULD move to Texas, merely answering the self-evident (I 
>thought) question:  If it is possible for everyone to live in Texas, is 
>our world overcrowded?  The answer is obviously no.

I disagree; IMO the "quality-of-life" issue is completely legitimate.
The "object" of the game is not to pack human beings onto this planet
as densely as possible; we should try to ensure a reasonable amount of
happiness for a reasonable number of people.

I would be the first to admit that the definition of "overcrowded" is
a matter of personal preference. I am sure there are misanthropes out
there who would rather have a continent to themselves; on the other
hand, I am sure there are hive-dwellers out there who like downtowns
of European cities just fine and would not cry if the entire world
were that dense. I think we should find a happy medium. Where it is is
open to dispute, but I think it's on the near side of your Texas City.

I don't dispute that the world _could_ support many more people. I
just don't want my children or their children to have to live in a
world that _does_, and if we don't start doing something about it,
that's where we're headed.


>  All of these other 
>problems, such as lack of education, lack of freedom, lack of political 
>power, lack of (fill in the blank) are all exactly that.  Other problems.  
>They should be dealt with on their own and not by attempting to goad 
>people into believing that our planet is overpopulated.

But it's a relevant argument that overcrowding exacerbates these
problems.


> Have you heard about Paul Erlick?  He wrote "The Population Bomb" many years 
>ago. [...] Only one of his predictions was 
>correct.  The population increased nearly exactly as much as he said it 
>would, but without a single one of the bad consequences.

Activists would do well to learn that overstating their case to cause
short-term panic is extremely counterproductive in the long run. How
much credibility do you expect people who, like me, learned in
elementary school that the world would be out of crude oil by 1985 to
give to new estimates of the world's oil supply, or to any other
gloom-and-doom prophecy? Extremists have been crying wolf so
consistently for so long that it's entirely possible that a
legitimate, pressing problem will get lost in the noise.

For instance, how much time and money is being diverted from the real,
serious ozone problem to the oh-so-expensive global warming boondoggle?
[Yes, I know I'm asking for trouble...]


                                      Cordially,

                                           -g
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12720 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11129 alt.politics.clinton:19414 alt.politics.bush:15287 alt.politics.homosexuality:8743