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: Sun, 03 Jan 93 03:51:18 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1993Jan2.194139.16483@sactoh0.sac.ca.us> kberry@sactoh0.sac.ca.us writes:

 > The problem with your proposal that we solve the population problem
 > by providing education, reducing poverty, and raising living
 > standards is that is nearly impossible on a global scale.

*Nearly* impossible is a crock. Indeed, attempting to do anything on a
global scale is far too complex to achieve acceptable returns per unit
input. The trends are to raise living standards on a *local* scale by
handing people back their own problems (current jargon is "community
empowerment").

 > The U.S. cannot even curb these problems within its own borders,
 > and the global economy depends upon the exploitation of poorer
 > countries. Automated factories flood the world with consumer
 > goods while providing relatively little employment opportunities.
 > Economists generally agree that the U.S. could not survive if it
 > severed all trade in and out. So why should we believe a global
 > economy comprised entirely of first-world countries could exist? 

Your "global economy" is also a crock. Read Wallerstein and Wolf, as
examples, now well established critiques of the European World System
underwriting development trends over the past twenty years.

A more reliable reframing of the question on the survival of the US
is rather more concerned with the situation where people simply went
elsewhere to do their shopping, where in the absence of an armed
presence at every corner of the globe how the US would attract their
custom once again. I doubt myself that "a global economy comprised
entirely of first-world countries could exist", but that is not the
question, is it?

The question raised is somewhat oriented toward the US consuming so
much more than they possibly need while so many others starve for
anything at all, underwritten by US marines *not* equitable trade
policies. But whether your navy visits here regularly or not, I am
still free to buy Japanese (or Chinese, or Bangladeshi, or Pakistani,
or wherever) where I see the value and quality for my money, so your
strategy like the British before it isn't finally going to work very
well, is it?

 > You correctly stated that individuals in the first world consume
 > 100 times the earth's resources and energy as third world
 > individuals. And I hope you agree that this level of consumption
 > is a crisis. Yet your proposed solution would perhaps triple the
 > number of first world individuals in the world.

You grievously misinterpret the situation, where in fact relatively
few countries will industrialise to the order of magnitude of those
already industrialised. Australia for one has no plans to that effect
either, but sees itself as a resource provider where its interests are
negotiated in terms of value-added on-processing of those resources in
partnership with its clients.

Wool scouring is a classic example of a case where we produce the
commodity and our client is the consumer, while in joint venture the
heavy, greasy wool attracting high freight charges is scoured here
in Australia so that light, clean wool is exported cheaply. The wool
by-products (esp. lanolin) in theory cover the cost of scouring as
well as providing better employment opportunities for Australians not
otherwise available.

We are also involved with metal refining, where for example we are
able to add value one thousand fold to titanium units prior to export.
There are specialist foundries which produce high quality steel and
alloy castings to the client's specification for export. Honda make
alloy cylinders for Ford as a good clear example, but there are very
many specialised one-off and small batch castings which can be made
most economically, and then sent off to the client's factory to be
finished and assembled.

The only outstanding matters *currently* in dispute, if you care to
keep yourself up to date on developments, are focused on the terms of
trade from one situation to the next, and in particular training the
local people to participate as equity partners in such ventures as
appropriate. There is *plenty* for everybody, and the potential is
not being fulfilled to our mutual detriment, that's a fact.

 > Face it. The PC term "Developing Nation" is a misnomer, since in
 > the past 30 years conditions in most "developing nations" have
 > deteriorated. What hope do Egypt, Somalia, and Ethiopia have of
 > competing globally against Japanese and Korean mega-corporations?
 > Even the U.S. was unable to compete in the cellular telephone and
 > LCD video screen market. The U.S. cannot play AFDC-to-the-world by
 > unconditionally air-lifting food to countries that have populated
 > themselves beyond their carrying capacity, while ignoring its own
 > economic problems.

During the past 30 years these countries have suffered the effects of
the Cold War, where now the UN has a chance to step in as it is doing
in fact. None of the countries you mention are even trying to compete,
and indeed have no ambitions to do so at any time. Why would anyone
waste so much capital and resources manufacturing goods which can be
bought so incredibly cheap as they are already? The task at hand is
merely a matter of balancing the terms of trade, and again why don't
you come up to date on what is happening in the real world out there?

 > I disagree that a "fascist world-wide dictatorship" would be
 > required to reduce population growth. In poor countries money is
 > a more powerful incentive than laws.
 >  
 > o    Provide educational assistance to poor children in places like
 >      Brazil and India in exchange for sterilization.
 >  
 > o    Make voluntary sterilization a condition of receiving food aid
 >      in places like Ethiopia and Somalia. 
 >  
 > o    Even in the U.S., deny AFDC increases based on additional
 >      children, and limit deductions to two dependents.
 >  
 > Certainly there are better ideas. If you feel these are "fascist"
 > measures, consider the alternative: Eventually the first world will
 > be unable to provide aid as the number of Somalia's increases
 > exponentially. Much of the world will deteriorate into a chaotic
 > nightmare of street gangs killing people for the shirt off their
 > backs.

Gaack! John McCarthy, here is *the* original doom-prophecy if you do
want to have a good look at it. It's basic scenario is outlined in
the Bible; The Relevation to John, in fact, right there in the last
chapter. But this particular form of the millenarian prophecy has been
around since at least the English Civil War (revived again by the US
for the duration of the Cold War), while none have yet to even appear
much less have any effect on reality beyond its capacity to induce
total paranoia among all true believers in apocalypse.

Chaotic nightmare of street gangs killing people for the shirt off
their backs, indeed! Anyone can tell you it is *far* more easy to
sew a shirt (or grow food, or whatever) than it is to kill someone.

Sterilisation has already been tried, BTW, but the people subjected to
such egregiously invasive programs rose up violently against it. As I
(and I imagine you) would, were a team of foreigner experts to arrive
demanding we pull down our jocks for a quick snip and tuck. What about
I just arrive on your doorstep with my little black bag, a pretty nurse
in tow, and an "Education Officer" to explain in your own language how
very badly overpopulated the US has become, and therefore we need to
subject you to a vasectomy? If you are lucky and the funds have not yet
run out, we may even be able to pay you $5.00 each. If you are really
lucky we may even have enough cash left over to install a hand pump at
the well in your village. Yes?

The Ghandis tried exactly that in India, to a monthly quota system no
less, and for no small reason the dynasty is now very much *EXTINCT*.

 > Question: How did Ethiopia and Somalia get by for so long without
 > first world aid? For thousands of years African people survived
 > without huddling around U.N. food distribution centers. Conditions
 > have changed, so must the solutions.

The UN food distribution centres are intended as temporary measures to
prevent mass starvation. They can always leave, and take their troops
with them, as the other stresses creating the situation relax. It is
*never* a simple, one-dimensional issue, and your manner of framing
the question merely attests to your manifold ignorance.

 > Please propose a solution to the education, poverty, crime, and
 > unemployment in the U.S. before you attempt to solve these problems
 > globally.

As you are aware, there is no simple solution to US problems, much
less to the wholly untenable extrapolation of those problems onto
other situations. Each case must be addressed on its merits and you
might simply begin somewhere (anywhere at all; there is no shallow
end to the pool, unfortunately) in a spirit of practical enterprise
rather than pursuing this sort of millenarian nit-picking from your
pulpit.

Maybe you have merely been listening to Ronnie and George for too
long, but if you don't want to get your *own brain* into gear please
do us a favour and leave the rest of the world be.

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy