10/20/09
Bioneers
This last week I attended the 2009 Bioneers conference. Bioneers is an organization concerned with all matters of sustainability and healing the earth...except, apparantly, questions of population. Now, granted, I couldn't be everywhere at once; I attended all the plenary talks except for those held on Saturday...it could be that they brought up overpopulation and questions of the sustainability of human population on that day...however, if any of the talks in that roster had sounded remotely like they might do that, I would have attended with a great fire in my heart.
I attended workshops in the afternoons, and heard many marvelous ideas about sustainability education, living buildings, and empowerment of towns to say 'No' to industry and protect their local resources. But at no time in any of the many, many hours that I attended the conference, did anyone mention overpopulation, even hint that it might be an issue, that it might be one of the reasons why our natural systems are crashing.
Sigh.
I attended workshops in the afternoons, and heard many marvelous ideas about sustainability education, living buildings, and empowerment of towns to say 'No' to industry and protect their local resources. But at no time in any of the many, many hours that I attended the conference, did anyone mention overpopulation, even hint that it might be an issue, that it might be one of the reasons why our natural systems are crashing.
Sigh.
9/9/09
Contraception is the cheapest solution to global warming...
...so says a report commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust, carried out by the London School of Economics. Link to the news release here:
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release09Sep09.htm
Here's a link to another article mentioned on the OPT site about carbon legacy of individuals:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/2009/07/carbon%20legacy.pdf
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release09Sep09.htm
Here's a link to another article mentioned on the OPT site about carbon legacy of individuals:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/2009/07/carbon%20legacy.pdf
8/21/09
Found within the Wiki for Overpopulation, this quote:
David Pimentel, Professor Emeritus at Cornell Cornell University, has stated that "With the imbalance growing between population numbers and vital life sustaining resources, humans must actively conserve cropland, freshwater, energy, and biological resources. There is a need to develop renewable energy resources. Humans everywhere must understand that rapid population growth damages the Earth’s resources and diminishes human well-being."[1][2]
From Science Daily: Overpopulation is the worst environmental problem
http://http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm
I would go so far as to say that overpopulation is the root of all environmental problems.
Without overcrowding and unsustainable, prolonged use of resources, our planet would be able to rebound from our impact. But when there is so much impact, the effect can't be healed.
Excerpt from the article:
"“Overpopulation is the only problem,” said Dr. Charles A. Hall, a systems ecologist. “If we had 100 million people on Earth — or better, 10 million — no others would be a problem.” (Current estimates put the planet’s population at more than six billion.)"
I would go so far as to say that overpopulation is the root of all environmental problems.
Without overcrowding and unsustainable, prolonged use of resources, our planet would be able to rebound from our impact. But when there is so much impact, the effect can't be healed.
Excerpt from the article:
"“Overpopulation is the only problem,” said Dr. Charles A. Hall, a systems ecologist. “If we had 100 million people on Earth — or better, 10 million — no others would be a problem.” (Current estimates put the planet’s population at more than six billion.)"
4/20/09
It's been almost two months since I've posted here. Triage has overwhelmed me; I have had work to do within the more immediate range of my family, and this takes precedence over population studies. I've managed to keep my toe in the door by continuing to collect online articles relating to population issues for analysis. Here is a recent one from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1
This blog is my way to gather and organize and refine my observations of the population problem, which is a unwieldy mass of interrelated issues.
I look forward to proceeding with my exploration and analysis of this mass.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1
This blog is my way to gather and organize and refine my observations of the population problem, which is a unwieldy mass of interrelated issues.
I look forward to proceeding with my exploration and analysis of this mass.
David Attenborough weighs in on population
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6121737.ece
An excerpt:
“...there are three times as many people in the world as when I started making television programmes 56 years ago. It is frightening. We can’t go on as we have been. We are seeing the consequences in terms of eco-logy, atmospheric pollution and in terms of space and food production”.
He is the first to admit the problem is a thorny one. “Indeed; indeed it is,” he says, “but we can make sure women have the choice as to whether they have children. If you spread literacy, education, a decent standard of living, the population increase drops. That’s why the notion, the ability, to restrict population growth should be around.
I don’t believe women want to have 12 children where eight of them die, as they did in this country 150 years ago. Now they have a choice, and that is the reason we have an almost static population here – if you discount immigration.”
An excerpt:
“...there are three times as many people in the world as when I started making television programmes 56 years ago. It is frightening. We can’t go on as we have been. We are seeing the consequences in terms of eco-logy, atmospheric pollution and in terms of space and food production”.
He is the first to admit the problem is a thorny one. “Indeed; indeed it is,” he says, “but we can make sure women have the choice as to whether they have children. If you spread literacy, education, a decent standard of living, the population increase drops. That’s why the notion, the ability, to restrict population growth should be around.
I don’t believe women want to have 12 children where eight of them die, as they did in this country 150 years ago. Now they have a choice, and that is the reason we have an almost static population here – if you discount immigration.”
2/27/09
Too many fishers, too many fish-eaters.
Here's a very depressing news story about depletion of fisheries. It's a lot worse than I thought it was...this article summarizes the results of a 10-year study of world fisheries.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/14/coolsc.disappearingfish/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/14/coolsc.disappearingfish/
2/25/09
Rebuttals to a few common objections to population limits
“The birth rate is dropping in Europe and
First off, it’s true that when birth rates fall, there will be a dearth of support from younger people as the present bulge of population ages. I haven’t been able to identify any remedy for this that won’t make other problems worse.
However, that is no justification for allowing the population graph to continue to curve ever upward. The World Wildlife fund’s Living Planet Report 2008 notes that if we continue to grow at our present rate, …"by the early 2030s we will need two planets to keep up with humanity’s demand for goods and services.” 1
Increasing our population at the present rate will set us up for a crash of infinitely larger proportions, meaning that suffering will be on a huger scale than that experienced by the under-supported ‘bulge’ of boomer geriatrics. Of whom I myself will be one. No, I’m not looking forward to it. But we got ourselves into it…it’s up to us to be brave, and not drag the entire future of humanity down with us…just so we can have a nice old age.
The fact is, we’re way, way over the carrying capacity for the earth to support us RIGHT NOW. Population levels need to drop enormously to become sustainable. Sustainable carrying capacity means human population numbers low enough that our resource use (of water, of soil, of air, of fish, for example) impacts the environment only to the extent that the environment can retain its integrity and ability to renew itself. Estimates2 place this population number at between 1.5 and 2 billion people….for the entire planet.
So yes, there’s going to be a collapse of social security, very likely. The main choice that I see facing everyone, whether we like it or not, has to do with relative levels of human suffering. Do we wish to minimize human suffering and trauma? Or are we willing to tolerate conditions temporarily more comfortable, more convenient, and in so doing, inflict a much larger level of suffering in the (not that distant) future?
“Government interference in our personal choices about the number of our children is tantamount to socialism, communism, totalitarianism.”
Most of the laws and policies that regulate how we act in our society are developed and put in place to protect lawful citizens from being harmed by those who are out to take more than their share. Laws are in place to keep rapists, grifters and murderers from being free to ply their trades. Do these laws represent totalitarianism to you, or are they a welcome sign of a civilised society?
Secondly, do you accept that a sufficient supply of water, for drinking but also for agriculture, is necessary for sustaining life on this planet? Do you also accept that clean, breathable air is necessary for sustaining life? How about food? I think we can all agree that these are necessary to sustain human life on this planet.
There is a finite amount of farmable land on the planet at this point. There is a finite, and quickly shrinking, supply of fresh water3. These two factors determine how much food can be produced per year on the earth’s surface. These numbers have shrunk steadily for the past 50 years, and they will continue to shrink for the forseeable future – until the demand upon them is dropped down to a sustainable level.
Having more than one, or at most two, children in a family amounts to reckless endangerment of not only your own future grandchildren, but everyone’s. How would you feel once you understood that you have to starve your own future grandchild so you could have one more baby now? At what point do we realize that we are robbing our own children – doing them a grave disservice by cramming and crowding our families, our planet?
Right now, in terms of reproduction, we are in a state of anarchy. I suggest that we go from anarchy to state of lawfulness, to pull us back from the brink of destruction.
Conditions now are radically different than they were when we were children – and even more radically different than when our parents were children. What our parents taught us, what our schools taught us, about our planet and reproduction is no longer true. Our planet and its resources are not limitless. It can be damaged, it has been damaged, and we need to put a tourniquet on what very soon will be mortal damage – inflicted on natural systems by overuse.
What we’ve always thought was our right – to reproduce at will, to the extent we wish – this right, if exercised, now has the potential to damage our environment to the extent that it cannot recover. If that happens, we will all suffer and eventually perish.
It’s been demonstrated time and time again that a majority of individuals will not willingly limit their personal behavior for the good of the group. Though a minority of conscientious individuals may limit their reproduction voluntarily, the majority of irresponsible and short-sighted individuals will not do so. That is why there needs to be some legal structure in place that creates the incentive – both with the carrot, and the stick if necessary – for ALL individuals to limit their reproduction.
I don’t believe that is totalitarianism. People are used to thinking that unlimited reproduction is, quite literally, their ‘birthright’. However, this concept dates from another era. It was true for our parents, and their parents; but it can’t be true for us. Actions that cause environmental disaster must be made illegal, as illegal as thievery, assault, or murder.
Notes:
- Published in October 2008 by WWF–World Wide Fund For Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland.
Ferguson, AR. Intractable limits to a sustainable human population. Medicine, Conflict and Survival Apr-Jun 2005; 21(2):142-51.
Brown, LR. Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 2006.
2/19/09
Categories of objection to the idea of population control: taken from comments on articles published on the web
I've been following with a great deal of interest a couple of articles published earlier this month in the London Times Online. One is by Jonathan Porrit, Chair of the UK's Sustainable Development Commission. LINK The other, published on the same date, is by Dr. Pippa Hayes, a general practitioner in the UK. LINK
The articles themselves are great; people speaking plainly about the risks and responsibilities of reproduction and over-reproduction. However, what's been even more interesting to me is to follow the online commentary for these articles. I've been watching online articles about population control for about a year now, and have also read many articles published online in past years.
What I'm noticing is that there is a greater percentage of people who agree with the author responding than I've seen before. In the past articles, and even articles as recent as half a year ago, by far most of the commentary was negative. I thought I saw more positive responses to these two articles, and to check on that, printed all the commentary out and tallied it up.
The Porrit article had 438 comments on the day I collected my data; out of those 438, 113 were in agreement with the author. That is more than 25%. One out of every four responders agreed that overpopulation was a problem that should be directly addressed.
This is encouraging, I think. I take it as a sign that the Hardinian Taboo may be easing!
As I scanned through the responses to the Porrit article, I began to notice that the nature of the opposing commentary was predictable. Almost all of it fell into the following categories, which I've coded for myself.
I plan to go back through the commentary and find out which category is the most prevalent - and maybe develop a letter to the editor that directly addresses that particular objection. Here are the categories (which, by the way, correlate somewhat with King's Demon List, and my list of Objections.)
The articles themselves are great; people speaking plainly about the risks and responsibilities of reproduction and over-reproduction. However, what's been even more interesting to me is to follow the online commentary for these articles. I've been watching online articles about population control for about a year now, and have also read many articles published online in past years.
What I'm noticing is that there is a greater percentage of people who agree with the author responding than I've seen before. In the past articles, and even articles as recent as half a year ago, by far most of the commentary was negative. I thought I saw more positive responses to these two articles, and to check on that, printed all the commentary out and tallied it up.
The Porrit article had 438 comments on the day I collected my data; out of those 438, 113 were in agreement with the author. That is more than 25%. One out of every four responders agreed that overpopulation was a problem that should be directly addressed.
This is encouraging, I think. I take it as a sign that the Hardinian Taboo may be easing!
As I scanned through the responses to the Porrit article, I began to notice that the nature of the opposing commentary was predictable. Almost all of it fell into the following categories, which I've coded for myself.
I plan to go back through the commentary and find out which category is the most prevalent - and maybe develop a letter to the editor that directly addresses that particular objection. Here are the categories (which, by the way, correlate somewhat with King's Demon List, and my list of Objections.)
- Spectre of Totalitarianism/Communism: “1984” =TOT
- Distrust of ‘experts’, be they scientists, politicians, or anyone but themselves…=EXP
- Overpop/global warming is fake and a conspiracy = FAKE
- Cornucopian argument (there’s plenty of room) =CORN
- Overconsumption, not overpopulation, is the problem =CONS
- Limiting children not necessary in X nation, which is at/below replacement =LOW
- Immigration is the problem = IMM
- Ever-growing population necessary for social systems = PONZ
- Children are a gift from God, not to be interfered with = GOD
- Having children is human nature and shouldn’t be controlled = NAT
- My large family is not the problem, we recycle! = NOT-US
- Overpopulation is only a problem in 3rd World countries =3WOR
- "Idiocracy factor"; if only the yahoos reproduce, we'll only have yahoos =IDIO
- Referring to the work of Malthus as a failed theory, and grouping all overpopulation discussion to those theories =MALT
- Belief that technology will save us =TECH
- And last but not least, Unclassifiable responses - flippant, referring to space aliens, and so on. =UNCL
2/10/09
Possible Motivators for Encouraging Smaller Families
INCENTIVES
* Priorities in jobs, housing
* Government underwriting of community improvements as reward for achieving stable population
DISINCENTIVES
* Higher taxes for each additional child
* SS payment percentage to parents decreases with each additional child
* Higher maternity and educational costs for each additional child ("user fees")
- Payments for not having children. Tax incentives to single-child families. Greater SS accrual to parents with only a single child. (help alleviate some anxiety about old-age support)
- Tax incentives to families in which both parents are 25 or older at time of child’s birth. (delaying fertility)
- Paid, government-subsidized college education/vocational training available only to offspring of single-child families, similar to the GI Bill.
- Government from local to national level should be geared to support one child per family, in the areas of enrichment (music, art, sports), health care, and higher education. Each adult in the community would understand that if they have one child, that child would be fully and richly supported (call this 100% support level). If they have a second biological child, the government support for each of the two children will drop to not ½, but 1/3. A third child, and support disappears for all three children. This is brutal, because it’s depriving children, when it is not the children’s fault. How to penalize the parents without penalizing the children?
* Priorities in jobs, housing
* Government underwriting of community improvements as reward for achieving stable population
DISINCENTIVES
* Higher taxes for each additional child
* SS payment percentage to parents decreases with each additional child
* Higher maternity and educational costs for each additional child ("user fees")
Credit!! This outline is largely taken from a table on the website, "www.dieoff.org", from an excellent paper written by Dr. John Weeks. There has been some adding by myself, expanding on some of his ideas.
2/2/09
Diachronic Competition (stealing resources from future generations)
People talk more about the right to have babies than they do about the babies' rights! It is the right of each of those babies to be raised in a world free of famine, free of water wars and resource struggles. Those babies have a right to oceans which are teeming with non-human life. They have a right to breathe clean air, drink clean water. What about the rights of each of those babies? Who is really looking out for their rights, and THEIR children's
rights?
The true advocates for babies - which is to say, people - and their quality of living, or simply their survival - where are they? They are not the people who would sacrifice the future of every human already 'on the ground' for one yet unborn, and the right to breed unlimited numbers more. Those people give lip service to the sanctity of life, but they sacrifice their own children and grandchildren's future by their actions.
This doesn't even begin to go into the rights that other species have, to habitat, to survival, to space, to resources.
rights?
The true advocates for babies - which is to say, people - and their quality of living, or simply their survival - where are they? They are not the people who would sacrifice the future of every human already 'on the ground' for one yet unborn, and the right to breed unlimited numbers more. Those people give lip service to the sanctity of life, but they sacrifice their own children and grandchildren's future by their actions.
This doesn't even begin to go into the rights that other species have, to habitat, to survival, to space, to resources.
1/30/09
Those that have children, should have greatest care
"Yet it were great reason that those that have children, should have greatest care of future times; unto which they know they must transmit their dearest pledges." - Francis Bacon
A news story struck my mind like a blow yesterday. NPR reported that octuplets had been born in the Los Angeles area. The delivering physician reported, in a haze of euphoria, the careful and effective planning that it took to get eight pre-term babies processed simultaneously in his hospital. There was a crew of 46 marshalled for the deliveries, which were 9 weeks premature.
My husband and I, enroute to work, were aghast. Eight children at one fell swoop - three of which are not yet breathing without assistance, and all eight of which weighed two pounds or less at birth. Think of what it's going to cost to get those eight babies home. How much does it cost to keep a premie for a couple of weeks (minimum) at the hospital? Multiply that by eight.
Although it was mentioned that fertility drugs were involved in the pregnancy, no explanation was given as to why there wasn't the (typical) selective reduction of embryos. Why were eight implanted? Lots of details missing here, but the overall joy and exuberant enthusiasm expressed by the delivery doctor was, in my opinion, misplaced. Everyone loves babies. No denial there! They are miraculous. BUT...if you really love the CHILDREN...not just the babies, but the CHILDREN that they become...they are better off in a situation where they have enough resources, enough attention, and maybe a chance at going to full term in the uterus.
Then, today more information came out: the mother lives with her parents in a 3-bedroom house in Whittier, and ALREADY HAS SIX CHILDREN. Here's a link to the news story: LINK
This whole situation is horrifying. One person made a comment which I thought was incisive - asking that the news media follow up on this story in a couple of year's time, and see just how these 14 kids are doing in that three-bedroom house.
The babies are faultless. It's the parent's actions that are reprehensible.
A news story struck my mind like a blow yesterday. NPR reported that octuplets had been born in the Los Angeles area. The delivering physician reported, in a haze of euphoria, the careful and effective planning that it took to get eight pre-term babies processed simultaneously in his hospital. There was a crew of 46 marshalled for the deliveries, which were 9 weeks premature.
My husband and I, enroute to work, were aghast. Eight children at one fell swoop - three of which are not yet breathing without assistance, and all eight of which weighed two pounds or less at birth. Think of what it's going to cost to get those eight babies home. How much does it cost to keep a premie for a couple of weeks (minimum) at the hospital? Multiply that by eight.
Although it was mentioned that fertility drugs were involved in the pregnancy, no explanation was given as to why there wasn't the (typical) selective reduction of embryos. Why were eight implanted? Lots of details missing here, but the overall joy and exuberant enthusiasm expressed by the delivery doctor was, in my opinion, misplaced. Everyone loves babies. No denial there! They are miraculous. BUT...if you really love the CHILDREN...not just the babies, but the CHILDREN that they become...they are better off in a situation where they have enough resources, enough attention, and maybe a chance at going to full term in the uterus.
Then, today more information came out: the mother lives with her parents in a 3-bedroom house in Whittier, and ALREADY HAS SIX CHILDREN. Here's a link to the news story: LINK
This whole situation is horrifying. One person made a comment which I thought was incisive - asking that the news media follow up on this story in a couple of year's time, and see just how these 14 kids are doing in that three-bedroom house.
The babies are faultless. It's the parent's actions that are reprehensible.
1/26/09
GREAT article...great clarity. "Treading on a Taboo" by Jack Hart
I read an article that populationpress.org has on its website. It is a GEM! Written by a former managing editor of the Oregonian newspaper, Jack Hart, it is a wonderful logical overview of the taboo and the root problem. Here's the link:
http://www.populationpress.org/publication/2008-3-hart.html
http://www.populationpress.org/publication/2008-3-hart.html
1/25/09
Knuckle Down
Here am I - someone who is convinced of the importance of reduced, stabilized, sustainable population for our survival - yet it is very, very difficult to get myself to keep a sustained, ongoing focus on the subject.
I need to learn and read all I can about it, in order to see as deeply into all aspects of the problem that I can...but I find myself, like the majority of other humans, going about my daily life, becoming entranced by cultural memes, paying attention to the needs of the moment and allowing myself to read fiction rather than the non-fiction material that I need to study this issue.
If a person who is convinced of the importance has this much trouble looking at it...how much more of a challenge will it be to get the people who have never thought about it, or would rather not think about it, or who are vaguely, emotionally opposed to negative population growth...to take a good long look at it and allow themselves to think it through?
I have a stack of 15 books, at least...waiting to be read...I'm not spending enough time on this. My hair is on fire, and I'm just humming and going about my business as if it isn't burning. Come on, woman, snap out of it!
The euphoria of the election, which injected the 2008 holidays with extra joy for me, has been very satisfactorily concluded with a corking inauguration. Now, like President Obama, I need to knuckle down. Knuckle down!
I need to learn and read all I can about it, in order to see as deeply into all aspects of the problem that I can...but I find myself, like the majority of other humans, going about my daily life, becoming entranced by cultural memes, paying attention to the needs of the moment and allowing myself to read fiction rather than the non-fiction material that I need to study this issue.
If a person who is convinced of the importance has this much trouble looking at it...how much more of a challenge will it be to get the people who have never thought about it, or would rather not think about it, or who are vaguely, emotionally opposed to negative population growth...to take a good long look at it and allow themselves to think it through?
I have a stack of 15 books, at least...waiting to be read...I'm not spending enough time on this. My hair is on fire, and I'm just humming and going about my business as if it isn't burning. Come on, woman, snap out of it!
The euphoria of the election, which injected the 2008 holidays with extra joy for me, has been very satisfactorily concluded with a corking inauguration. Now, like President Obama, I need to knuckle down. Knuckle down!
1/14/09
Dr. Martin Luther King
On May 5, 1966, The Planned Parenthood Federation of America presented the Margaret Sanger Award to Dr. Martin Luther King. This award is given annually to individuals of distinction in recognition of excellence and leadership in furthering reproductive health and reproductive rights.
Here are excerpts from his acceptance speech, which can be found in its entirety on the PPFA website at the following link: (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/the-reverend-martin-luther-king-jr.htm). Emphasis in red has been added by me.
Family Planning — A Special and Urgent Concern
Here are excerpts from his acceptance speech, which can be found in its entirety on the PPFA website at the following link: (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/the-reverend-martin-luther-king-jr.htm). Emphasis in red has been added by me.
Family Planning — A Special and Urgent Concern
by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Recently, the press has been filled with reports of sightings of flying saucers. While we need not give credence to these stories, they allow our imagination to speculate on how visitors from outer space would judge us. I am afraid they would be stupefied at our conduct. They would observe that for death planning we spend billions to create engines and strategies for war. They would also observe that we spend millions to prevent death by disease and other causes. Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain.
There is no human circumstance more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a remedy is readily available. Family planning, to relate population to world resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess.
What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victims.
...For the Negro, (...) intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command.
...This is not to suggest that the Negro will solve all his problems through Planned Parenthood. His problems are far more complex, encompassing economic security, education, freedom from discrimination, decent housing and access to culture. Yet if family planning is sensible it can facilitate or at least not be an obstacle to the solution of the many profound problems that plague him.
...The Negro constitutes half the poor of the nation. Like all poor, Negro and white, they have many unwanted children. This is a cruel evil they urgently need to control. There is scarcely anything more tragic in human life than a child who is not wanted. That which should be a blessing becomes a curse for parent and child. There is nothing inherent in the Negro mentality which creates this condition. Their poverty causes it. When Negroes have been able to ascend economically, statistics reveal they plan their families with even greater care than whites. Negroes of higher economic and educational status actually have fewer children than white families in the same circumstances.
...For these constructive movements we are prepared to give our energies and consistent support; because in the need for family planning, Negro and white have a common bond; and together we can and should unite our strength for the wise preservation, not of races in general, but of the one race we all constitute — the human race.
1/9/09
Cherchez L'Argent
...which means, in French, look for the money.
Since getting into Maurice King's list of impediments to the open discussion of overpopulation as a problem (see my post of 12/8/08), I have been taking a side-jaunt into economics and how it's affecting these issues.
I've ben reading a really excellent, clear book by Peter Barnes called Capitalism 3.0 - a guide to reclaiming the commons. It concisely explains how the structure of Capitalism as it is now practiced, is the opposite of sustainable and in fact, cannot be made sustainable. The book is remarkable in that it actually outlines specific suggestions of how Capitalism can and must be re-tooled to be sustainable. Barne's ideas are marvelous - I wish I had half the brain he does - and I recommend his book highly. Here's a link to the book on Amazon.com. LINK
In other news:
I decided to write to Sheri Tepper and personally ask her if she'd participate in the Global Population Speak Out. I finished the letter today and have just sealed the envelope. I don't know if she'll listen to my request, but the more people who pledge to GPSO, the better - especially people who can express themselves as well as she can. Check out the site and consider pledging:
Global Population Speak Out
Since getting into Maurice King's list of impediments to the open discussion of overpopulation as a problem (see my post of 12/8/08), I have been taking a side-jaunt into economics and how it's affecting these issues.
I've ben reading a really excellent, clear book by Peter Barnes called Capitalism 3.0 - a guide to reclaiming the commons. It concisely explains how the structure of Capitalism as it is now practiced, is the opposite of sustainable and in fact, cannot be made sustainable. The book is remarkable in that it actually outlines specific suggestions of how Capitalism can and must be re-tooled to be sustainable. Barne's ideas are marvelous - I wish I had half the brain he does - and I recommend his book highly. Here's a link to the book on Amazon.com. LINK
In other news:
I decided to write to Sheri Tepper and personally ask her if she'd participate in the Global Population Speak Out. I finished the letter today and have just sealed the envelope. I don't know if she'll listen to my request, but the more people who pledge to GPSO, the better - especially people who can express themselves as well as she can. Check out the site and consider pledging:
Global Population Speak Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)