Dear Tor,
Thank you for commenting. Any snow yet in your area? A light frost here a
few days ago.
I'll try to better explain my position.
> It is certainly not right to construct a conflict between social justice
> and ecological concerns!
I don't think it is a construction; rather it is reality - the result of
very rapid growth both in human numbers and in the impacts of rapid
technological change on the planet.
> Therefore I do not think that the solution to
> overpopulation is to starve the "unnecessary" people to death, or hope
> for their annihilation by war and plague.
I neither advocated for, nor implied that. The number starving and dying
from consumptive diseases and violent conflicts increases without anyone's
hopes. Rational population management is the alternative to this irrational
(but not unnatural) sort.
Voluntary freedom of choice and foreign aid in family planning is, IMO, the
most humane action available to human society.
> Today it looks like that the European populations are trying to
> eliminate themselves.
That is a speculation as to the motives of free people. Perhaps many do not
want to bring babies into an increasingly difficult and dangerous society.
You and I are fortunate to live in sparsely populated areas with reasonable
environmental conditions.
We are in the vast minority of 6 Billion.
> I no country in Europe are so many children born
> that the children will replace their parents generation.
> In Italy the population will be reduced by 50% within a century, since
> the average woman in Italy gives birth to less than 1.4 child.
These numbers exclude in-migrations, which cannot be stopped without armed
borders.
Cultures may be threatened, but de-population in Europe is unlikely.
> Some countries are producing more children than they can raise and feed
> - but in Europe so few children are born, and have been born after 1970,
> that the development of European societies will be hampered few decades
> ahead. The reason is I guess that women in Europe are free to decide
> themselves how many children they will have.
I consider that a positive for the species as a whole.
> The most important reason to overpopulation is the supression of women
> in those countries which are producing more children than they can feed.
I agree that is a very important factor. Ted Turner (Turner Broadcasting)
has pledged 1 Billion US$ to the UN specifically for womens empowerment,
education, and family planning aid in developing countries. BRAVO!
> To prevent overpopulation one has to given poor women a larger slice of
> the pie, an equal slice of the pie, and education and the possibility to
> run their own lives.
If the (necessarily renewable)pie is already(or nearly) inadequate (water,
forests, topsoil...), with 250,000 Net humans added DAILY, there is a
clear race to halt the momentum rationally versus the four horsemen of the
apocalypse.
Thomas has sent me another copy of his piece. I will respond to him first
off-list, since we must work out our definitions and understandings. I
apologize for the frequency and length of these exchanges, and hope that
some benefits accrue from them.
Best wishes,
Steve
