Don't read this if you believe god will take care of all our problems. Please don't lay a bunch of dogma on whoever is interested in discussing a serious issue. Thanks.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

Why are folks only looking at two alterntives to growth these days? Here's and interesting perspective:

http://www.numbersusa.com/cgi/text.cgi?08-30-00-DenverPost

The Denver Post August 30, 2000

'Growth debate offers choice ranging from A to B' By Al Knight, Denver Post Columnist

Aug. 30, 2000 - How did the ongoing public debate over "controlling growth" become so limited, offering as it does just two well-worn and utterly familiar points of view?

The first is that there is little to be done about growth except to get used to it. The second is that growth must be managed by applying restrictive zoning and planning policies that will magically channel growth in the "right" places while not completely destroying traditional concepts of private property rights.

Put another way, the public is presented with two options, more growth or what is quaintly dubbed "smart growth."

Notice the absence of some other perfectly reasonable points of view, like "no growth" or "sharply reduced growth."

Those points of view used to be on the table, used to be a part of any discussion of population-growth issues, but they have disappeared into the mist. Why?

The answer can be found in a refreshing article in the Pennsylvania State University Press Journal of Policy History. The authors, Roy Beck and Leon Kolan kiewicz, describe in detail how it came to be that the American environmental movement has all but abandoned its support for stabilizing U.S. population. They also describe how immigration, both legal and illegal, has come to be a taboo topic, too laced with racial overtones even to be discussed, and how the U.S. media have re-enforced the notion that population simply can't be controlled.

As recently as the 1970s, most environmental groups were on record urging a stabilized population. The reasoning was quite straightforward. Damage to the environment, they said, can be reduced in only two ways. The impact of each individual can be lessened or the number of total individuals can be reduced. Makes perfect sense. What doesn't make any sense is to do little or nothing to reduce the impact of an individual while allowing the number of individuals to increase. Yet that is what is taking place.

Total population growth, 70 percent of which is driven by immigration, is wiping out any advances that have been made in lessening individual environmental impacts.

The U.S. Census Bureau says current trends will continue and predicts a total head count of 400 million in the next 50 years. Meanwhile, environmental groups that once talked of stabilized population by 1990 have accepted these numbers as a kind of inevitable fate and prattle on about conservation of resources as though nothing has happened.

Beck and Kolankiewicz point out that Zero Population Growth, another oncezealous group, now seems focused on population problems anywhere but in America. That group is interested in the empowerment of women, international family planning funds, and the like.

As for immigration issues, they have largely been put off-limits by two factors. For one thing, the new immigrants contain far lower percentages of non-Hispanic whites, so every discussion of the issue plunges the participants into a discussion of race and ethnicity.

Years ago, the Rockefeller Commission heard virtually everything there was to say about race and immigration from two witnesses,Jesse Jackson and Manuel Aragon. Jackson's community was suspicious "of any programs that would have the effect of either reducing or leveling off our population growth," he said. "Virtually all the security we have is in the number of children we produce."

Aragon said, "What we must do, is to encourage large Mexican-American families so that we will eventually be so numerous that the system will either respond or it will be overwhelmed."

Comments like these have been enough to send once tough-minded politicians to the sidelines, never to return to the discussion of immigration.

No explanation can be offered for the current constricted debate over growth, however, without a word for the media, which has chosen to discuss growth without ever mentioning immigration.

A University of Southwestern Louisiana professor conducted a study of news coverage of urban sprawl, endangered species and water shortages, and found that of 150 news stories on those issues, just one mentioned that part of the solution was a stabilized U.S. population.

This revelation should surprise no one. At a meeting on urban sprawl in Tennessee, media representatives flatly stated that as far as they were concerned the spectrum for discussion was limited to "more growth" and "smart growth."

No wonder there is such a sense of unreality hanging over those endless local forums on "managing growth."

People instinctively know, as do Beck and Kolankiewicz, that these will remain largely futile political exercises until someone asks and answers the question, "Where are all these people coming from?''

Al Knight is a Denver Post columnist and editorial writer.

E-mail Al about this column.

Copyright 2000 The Denver Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweeb.net), February 13, 2001

Answers

WEll my recommendation is to YELL at politicians unti we once again get back into the Space rcae. Lets colonize the moon, mine astroids and terraform Mars. Its really simple there is room enough for everyone.

Just for a change I wish people would remember WE are on a ball of dirt floating in space. This is not the center of the universe.

And in my opinion Please remember There is only one race on Planet Earth...Human. Lets all join in keeping that race alive, healthy and FREE.

-- Kenneth in N.C. (wizardsplace13@hotmail.com), February 13, 2001.


JOJ-Is the serious issue we are suppose to be discussing here the restriction of immigration? What limits are you suggesting? Closing it all together? Just trying to clarify the discussion.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

Could you please tell me where you got this information JOJ?

"Total population growth, 70 percent of which is driven by immigration, is wiping out any advances that have been made in lessening individual environmental impacts."

Thanks.

-- Anne (HealthyTouch101@wildmail.com), February 14, 2001.


Kenneth, Maybe the ISS is the first step in that direction. If the chance ever came to colonize, I would like to become a "Farmer in the Sky".

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), February 14, 2001.

Yeah, Jay. Vermaculture on Planet X, as told by Jay Blair. Love it!!!

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 14, 2001.


Yes, this is supposed to be a serious issue. I'm in favor of stabilizing our population, and it seems that we, here in the us. of a. have pretty nearly done so, except for immigration.

I am sure that some folks will think I'm a real bigot for blaming immigrants for our population problems. I'm not. I have nothing--ABSOLUTLELY nothing against anyone who moves here from another country. Many of them move here for honorable reasons. It's the policy I object to. For one thing, I can't see why we should handle all the population pressure caused by the Pope's dogma against birth control, which is part of the problem in Latin America.

Anne, I got this info from an article I read last night; the url is near the top of the post.

As far as what limitations I'd put on immigration, I'm afraid I don't have a good answer. I posted this as much to generate discussion as anything else.

I don't think we would ever have enough space ships/fuel/volunteers to make much of a difference in our population pressure on the earth. I'm afraid we need to deal with the problems ourselves, rather than waiting for "deus ex machina".

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweeb.net), February 14, 2001.


I am wondering what "policy" are you opposing?? We currently have many "quotas" of sorts. I am still confused as to what you are offering up as a solution.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 14, 2001.

How about a policy that regards the freedom and dignity of each person. That we move away from a self-centered attitude towards the good of the other.How about having a personal responsibility policy for changing conditions,rather than looking to the state or other institutions to provide. Could we not, instead of trying to interject all these new people (and ones here allready)into the bigness of government,industry,etc. maybe encourage them into self-sufficiency through farming,crafting,homesteading projects,worker ownership and management of small factories,etc. so they can rely on the fruits of their own toil and labor and no longer have to be regarded as commodities.

-- Tom (tjk@cac.net), February 14, 2001.

Tom, most of the immigrants I have met don't need encouraging to do just what you are suggesting. I think the fact that so many of them do so WELL at it, because they have a real work ethic, is what makes so many really want to keep them out. I am seeing that we have a generation of "entitlement" that is not limited to the welfare recipients. Interesting, I am learning soooo much about society right here on this forum.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 14, 2001.

I'm not a religious whacko, but I do believe in the sovereignty of God. There is a biblical balance to be found. Mankind is not a parasite of nature. We are the center of God's creation and exist to glorify Him. He created the universe and this world and put us here to fill it and subdue, not to abuse or destroy it. I categorically reject the notion that there is overpopulation. The problem is bad stewardship of creation. We supposed to be stewards, wisely caring for and using the resources of this world, but instead, selfish, power hungry people abuse and destroy. Entire nations of people in Africa starve while dictators steal foreign aid and while farmers in America are ordered by our government to destroy agricultural production to control prices.

Some European countries who indoctrinated their people in population control are now faced with rapid negative poplulation growth and are trying to re-educate their people to have more babies!

Will God just take care of us? That's a pretty simplistic idea. He has a will that will not be thwarted, but we have a responsibility to act wisely in accordance with that will.

-- Skip Walton (sundaycreek@gnrac.net), February 14, 2001.



Again I'm reminded of "Small is Beautiful: Economics as if people mattered" by E.F. Schumacher. The gist of the book was rather than overloading the metropolitan areas with massive numbers of new people (immigrants) who are merely seeking a better life for themselves take the better life to them in the rural villiages and towns they come from by promoting the use of indigenous materials, soft technology, micro-businesses etc.

Another side of the coin is the fact that immigrants help provide downward pressure on the lower-end labor market, thus keeping minimum wage where its at and providing competition for the better jobs, also helping to stabilize labor costs.

I don't know what THE answer is. In fact I don't think there is a THE answer. But there are several things when combined that could contribute to THE answer.

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), February 14, 2001.


Seems to me ,out here in the countryside,people ought to be tuned into natures ways a little bit more. Ever notice how some animals have enoough sense to curb their numbers when the food supply goes down. Or conditions kind of go in the toilet? If we look around at the population centers it doesn't take much insight to realize things cannot go on indefinately with respect to population growth. Either we get a little horse sense and reduce our numbers or i'd be willing to bet mother nature will. There are those who will come up with some excuse or other,blaming god or the government or who knows. The tough thing to do is look in the mirror and see what responsibility each of us have to take care of this lifeboat we share.

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), February 15, 2001.

Diane,I too see alot of people coming from other countries and because of their values of family life and strong work ethics they do very well here and you are right I think alot of born here american people our just jealous of them succeeding. As too encouraging them what I meant was we need to knock down the roadblocks that are put up by corporations,government,etc. that do not encourage them things but are put there so they can have cheap labor. I think this country is fine with whatever number of people we have the trouble lies in as Skip pointed out we have wacko policies and very bad stewardship. That needs to change but it won't as long as we have the easy life in this country and the thinking that if I had more money then everything will be better. Modern society has made the bank account the standard of values. When the bank account becomes the standard of values the banker has the power.When the banker has the power the technician has to supervise the making of profits and the politician has to ensure law & order in the profit-making system.When the banker has the power the educator trains students in the technique of profit making and the clergyman is expected to bless the profit-making system or join the unemployed,and the Sermon on the Mount is declared unpractical. When the banker has the power we have an acquisitive society, not a functional one.

-- Tom (tjk@cac.net), February 15, 2001.

In 1995 scientists estimated that people in "developed" (I say mutilated) countries use resources equivalent to 12 acres of land each. They then went on to estimate that if all the worlds people wanted to live as the developed countries do we would need at least 3 more earths!

It was further estimated that if the earth is to survive in a healthy state the human population would have to be reduced to between 1 and 2 million people. Any more than that and the naturals systems are no longer functioning properly.

Human population, human consumption, and human economic growth are considered to be the 3 major problems destroying our earth today.

-- debra in ks (solid-dkn@msn.com), February 15, 2001.


Sorry, that last post should have said 1 to 2 billion people instead of 1 to 2 million. At any rate we are way past the optimum number.

-- debra in ks (solid-dkn@msn.com), February 15, 2001.


I'm with JOJ.

-- Rick (rjconstruction1@excite.com), February 15, 2001.

Someone once said that they regarded "humans as nothing more than bubonic plague with legs" actually something to think about if you could image how the earth would look without humans on it.

-- Tom (tjk@cac.net), February 16, 2001.

Well, I guess its all a matter of perspective. I live in NW Minnesota and the "foreigners' that live in this area seem mainly to be of Russian origin and are as back to earth, agriculturally minded as you would ever hope to meet. There are abandoned farmsteads everywhere in the upper Midwest, just waiting for someone to come and till the soil again. And that is where many of them are choosing to come. I spent several years out in the Bitterroot valley S. of Missoula, MT and before that lived 7 or 8 years in the San Luis Valley of SW Colorado and in both places, there is a huge influx of domestic migration - from California. The same thing is happening throughout the West - or all the pretty, cool places, anyway. Ask people who were raised in those areas and they are MUCH more concerned about this wave of newcomers (from within our own borders) than anything else because that is what is changing their lives, property values, taxes, crime rate, quality of life, etc SOOOO dramatically. So, I guess it just depends on your perspective as to what you think is messing with your quality of life the most. Well, better get off here, time to go read my Bible. Oh and by the way, I agree with Skip Cynthia

-- Cynthia Speer (farmsteader@gvtel.com), February 17, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ