From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 10:16:35 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1993Jan3.192746.1372@sactoh0.sac.ca.us> kberry@sactoh0.sac.ca.us writes:

 > The key assertion of my post was that "providing education,
 > reducing poverty, and raising living standards" is not a realistic
 > solution to the world population problem since accomplishing this
 > worldwide would be "nearly impossible."

My problems differ from yours, and your providing me with solutions
based on your own experience assuming that they have a world wide
applicability is plainly untenable.

 > Gil responds by stating that the trend is to raising living
 > standards on a local scale via "community empowerment." He shares
 > my doubt that "a global economy comprised entirely of first-world
 > countries could exist," but suggests that is not the issue. He says
 > the issue instead is one of distribution: "the U.S. consuming so
 > much more than it needs while so many others starve for anything
 > at all."

No, I said the issue is one of complementary development through the
process of empowering local people to look after themselves, to date
grievously inhibited by the imposition of "global solutions" by the
few countries with the power to do so, to their own benefit. The US
does not consume so much by sheer chance or good fortune, and while
the issue has been flogged to death I much prefer to take a "wait and
see" approach.

 > Unless we agree that worldwide population growth is a significant
 > environment problem, there is no point in furthering this
 > discussion.

There is *NO* worldwide population growth. There *is* growth and over-
population in many areas (not even many countries; yet *parts* of many
countries and not other parts), while other areas are virtually empty.
That is not to say that over-population in China is not of concern to
Australia; we would be foolish not to be monitoring the situation very
closely since it poses a potential threat to our stability.

But essentially, it is their problem and they are the ones working on
it.

 > Assuming you're still with me, the debate seems to be: A) What
 > social changes would result in third world families reducing their
 > birthrate to replacement level? B) Can we realistically expect
 > those changes to occur?

Why are you picking on this putative "Third World" situation? Which
areas do you want to discuss specifically with respect to the actual
history and current circumstances they experience?

We don't always know what changes will occur. At best we can assess
the probability that particular changes will take place while keeping
an acute weather eye open on any side-effects which might emerge, and
try to hold a steady course. But it requires an awful lot of hard work
and discipline as we take one step at a time and then have a look to
see what is happening before we take the next step.

 > My opinion is that third world nations would have to successfully
 > compete in the global economy in order to attain the living
 > standard necessary to induce a voluntary drop in birthrates, and
 > the countries would essentially have to become first world nations.
 > Due to our shared skepticism of the ability for the global economy
 > to be comprised entirely of first world nations, my answer to B)
 > is "No."

We do not have to compete. For the most part we can coexist, and as
particular contingencies arise or projects loom we can then have a
look at the situation and negotiate a consortium or joint venture
to sort it out accordingly. Each individual person might just stop
worrying about it so much, and take time out to study and develop
expertise so that we have access to a considerably enhanced pool or
talent and ability on a global scale to tackle situations as they
develop.

If you never get called in to work on a particular job, consider
yourself well educated and better off for it anyway. In the meantime,
I enjoyed the New Years Eve repeat of the Three Tenors concert at
Caracalla in 1990 immensely, thank you very much. Total bliss!

 > Gil's remark that "your [U.S.] strategy [of using military force
 > for economic exploitation?] like the British before it isn't
 > finally going to work very well, is it?" suggests he has personal
 > political bias against U.S. policy which seems irrelevant.

Well no, it is not irrelevant at all. I simply do not pretend not to
have any biases; it is far better that you be aware of them than for
me to bullshit that I love you all so dearly. Biases against certain
countries and certain people are the very first to be considered as a
project looms, as we would not want to be mistaken in how the various
participants are going to get along together, would we?.

Why risk an important project in such a manner?

 > I understand his point of how other countries can participate in
 > the global economy as "value added processors" without the need for
 > massive high-tech investment. My concern is that countries such as
 > Mexico and the Philippines engage in this, and the low wages do
 > little to raise the economic status of the workers, and the high
 > birthrate continues.

Certainly, and as foreign intervention declines and the people are
able to slowly get a grip on their problems, we might make progress.
Again, as Mexico or the Philippines flag their intention to invite
overseas experts in to assist them, you might be ready submit your CV
for short-listing, yes?

 > Gil suggests I "come up to date on what is happening in the real
 > world." He says countries such as Egypt, Somalia, and Ethiopia
 > (high birth rate nations) have no ambition to compete in the mega-
 > high-tech global market. (He also says UN aid there is
 > "temporary"...I won't hold my breath.) So I repeat my question:
 > What hope do these countries have of attaining an economy necessary
 > to result in a voluntary birthrate reduction?

Well, I don't know what hope they have. It is for them to decide as we
keep an eye on the situation. There are simply no answers to the types
of question you pose, and I wonder why you persist in framing them so.

 > Gil mocks my fear of countries deteriorating into chaotic
 > nightmares of street gangs killing people for the shirt off their
 > backs. My concerns have little to do with "millenarian prophecy,"
 > but rather with human nature. 

Your *view* of human nature, quite remarkably consistent with the
Judeo-Christian tradition.

 > Here in Sacramento, California in the past year we have several
 > instances of people being murdered or beaten senseless for their
 > pocket change. There have been 21,000 car jackings in the U.S. --
 > you don't move fast enough and they shoot you in the head. Our
 > state legislature Lloyd Connelly had his car taken from him at
 > knifepoint. In other cities people have been murdered for their
 > Rolex watches, designer sunglasses, and tennis shoes. In San Jose
 > CA, and 15 year old shot a bicyclist dead because "he wanted to try
 > his gun on a moving target." 

Sure, but as Somalia has its problems so you have yours. We have our
own here we have been putting some very effective programs in place to
ammeliorate. We have a relatively small population, and it is easy for
us to keep track of who is doing what that we can catch up with them
much more easily.

In fact, catching them has never really been that much of a problem
here. It is how we are to rehabilitate them, or indeed to help them
toward a more positive and fulfilling career before they do get into
strife, that we have been concentrating on.

 > An overnight power failure in many American cities leads to rioting
 > and looting.
 >  
 > In South America, it is not uncommon for homeless clans to invade
 > a farmhouse, murder all the occupants, and resume life on the farm.

Well, I'd be rolling my sleeves up and getting on with it, if I were
you people. I don't have to live with it, you do.

 > I am aware not everyone shares my pessimism, nor do I believe "doom
 > and gloom" is inevitable. But I consider the blind faith of those
 > like Julian Simon who claim "in the future there will be less
 > problems because there will be a lot more people working on
 > solutions" dangerous.
 >  
 > Gil closed by suggesting I have been listening to Ronnie and George
 > for too long. Although I voted for both, I disagreed with their
 > big-picture view of the world. I have much more faith in our new
 > vice president (although I voted for Perot), Al Gore. I would
 > recommend his book, but I can't recall the title.

Sure, do your homework. But you might cheer up a little.

Gil