From: chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Evil Man Is (Was: Re: Pigs
Date: 13 Apr 92 13:43:05 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Apr12.131523.27311@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
<In article <1466601323@igc.org>, alanm@igc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:
<>
	Much deleted to save bandwidth and prevent unnecessary fires.
<
<However, not being the ecodidal goon he makes me out to be, I'll present the
<rest of the argument as well, to wit:  It's also likely that continued human
<population growth will eventually result in the premature deaths of lots of
<people.  Let's consider two extreme cases:
<	1)  We immediately begin breeding as rapidly as we can;  This is
<	    certain to cause massive numbers of premature deaths in the near
<	    future.
<	2)  We reduce our population to what Alan considers a reasonable level
<	    overnight.  This, too is certain to cause massive numbers of
<	    premature deaths in the near future.
<In fact, case 1) will cause more deaths than case 2).  Somewhere between these
<two extremes, there is likely to be an optimal strategy which will minimize the
<number of premature deaths.  If we place a value on other species for the sake
<of the other species, this will, in all likelihood, push the optimal strategy
<in the direction of faster population reduction.  If we try to go too far in
<that direction, however, we risk societal disturbances that could destroy
<enough of our infrastructure that the attempt at a controlled reduction in
<population fails, instead resulting in civil disturbances severe enough to
<damage our current infrastructure to the point that we end up reverting to
<primitive slash-and-burn agricultural practices and subsistence farming, along
<with all the incentives such a society has to breed at a rather high rate.  One
<possible result of such an outcome is an extinction rate much greater than what
<we're seeing now, since we wouldn't start out with the regulatory mechanisms
<that societies that used such practices in the past took many years to develop
<to regulate their populations.
<
<Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
<

	This short excerpt from a much longer, and grievously soot-blackened,
exchange includes what I consider to be the nugget in the garbage heap.

	Our population is still growing.  Our per capita resource use is
still increasing.  Our resources are limited.  We have no guarantee that
technology will continue to rescue us from the above dilemma forever.

	Could we spend more time and effort exploring how we might discern
a pathe that will avoid the Scilla of a population crash because we ignored
any possible limits to resource use, and the Charibdis of a population
crash because we attempted too draconian a population reduction and triggered
a wave of civil unrest that effectively de-civilized us?  Do we have to
expend so much time and bandwidth setting up strawmen and torching them?

	If we agree that there are problems ahead, could we not try to
identify them and look for possible solutions?  Or is it more fun, more
satisfying, to determine who can collect the most coup in the game of
insults?

								Irv

-- 
I do not have signature authority.  I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.  They do not tell me what their policy 
is.  They may not have one.		Irving L. Chidsey  <chidsey@brl.mil>
Newsgroups: sci.environment