Population control
Richard Carnes
>[Discussion of Paul Ehrlich's "Nazi-like statements".]
>
>>Sounds like a real Nazi, doesn't he. [Carnes, ironic mode]
>
>Oh yes.
>
>The following is related by the New York Times Index (in its own
>laconic style):
>
>"Dr. P. Ehrlich says U.S. might resort to addition of temporary
>sterility drug to food shipped to foreign countries or their water
>supply with limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps
>by lottery, speech to U.S. Commission for UNESCO conference"
>(Source for both quotes: *Imperialism and the Pill* by Tom Bethell,
>in *National Review*, March 14, 1986).
*The Race Bomb*, coauthored by Paul Ehrlich and Shirley Feldman,
consists of detailed refutations of the allegedly scientific
arguments publicized by Shockley, Jensen, and others in support of
the view that there are inherited differences in "intelligence"
between "races". In his writings Ehrlich (for what it's worth, his
mother's name is Rosenberg) has emphasized the necessity for avoiding
the focusing of population control measures on particular ethnic or
minority groups or other relatively powerless groups (see any of his
writings on the population problem). An important argument he
adduces in favor of planned population control is that it will help
to *prevent* Nazi-like regimes from arising, seeking Lebensraum for
their populations, and practicing "population control" through
genocide.
In view of the foregoing, any attempt to associate Paul Ehrlich in
any way with Nazi ideology is a despicable slander.
Jan's principal error here seems to be relying on Tom Bethell as a
source for anything -- Jan is, I suspect, smarter than Bethell and
ought to do his own research. Bethell is clearly a busy man and has
no time to read Ehrlich's actual writings, and consequently he turns
to the New York Times Index. However, the Index's summary in this
instance is misleading. Following are the relevant portions of the
article to which it refers [NYT, Nov. 25, 1969, p. 19, by Gladwin
Hill]:
[Ehrlich] urged establishing a Federal Population Commission "with a
large budget for propaganda," changing tax laws to discourage
reproduction and instituting mandatory birth control instruction in
public schools.
He also urged "changing the pattern of Federal support of biomedical
research...."
If such steps are unavailing, he continued, the nation might resort
to "the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the
water supply," with limited distribution of antidote chemicals,
perhaps by lottery.
Although it might seem that such a program could be started by
doctoring foods sent to underdeveloped countries, he said, "the
solution does not lie in that direction" because "other people
already are suspicious of our motives."
Rather, he suggested, the United States should stop economic aid to
countries that do not try to limit their populations.
Thus, according to the NY Times, he did not advocate doctoring foods
sent to UDCs or adding anything to their water supply. Within the
United States, the prospect of the addition of a temporary sterilant
to food or water was prefaced by: "If such steps are unavailing, the
nation might resort to...". That is, he presented this as a
hypothetical possibility, and by implication the only justification
for such measures is in the case that they are necessary to avoid a
catastrophe that would be a considerably worse prospect. Ehrlich was
hardly unaware of the difficult political and ethical issues this
would raise (apart from the extreme unlikelihood of the discovery of
a sterilant chemical that would fill the bill). In the second
edition of *The Population Bomb*, which appeared in February 1971,
Ehrlich wrote [pp. 130-131]:
So the first task is population control at home.... One plan often
mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water
supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully
rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.
Those of you who are appalled at such a suggestion can rest easy.
The option isn't even open to us, since no such substance exists....
Technical problems aside, I suspect you'll agree with me that society
would probably dissolve before sterilants were added to the water
supply by the government. Just consider the fluoridation
controversy! Some other way will have to be found.
So Ehrlich did not advocate taking these measures; he merely
described this proposal and implied that the situation would have to
be fairly desperate, with catastrophe impending, before such steps
could be seriously considered. I confess that I am unable to
understand how this shows Ehrlich to be a crypto-Nazi.
I also fail to see anything remotely shocking about the proposal to
deny aid to countries that do not try to limit their populations.
Ehrlich believes, with good reason, that merely sending food aid to
countries with rapidly expanding populations is in the nature of
handing out aspirin to a person who is afraid to see a doctor about
his cancer, or, to put it in terms that right-wingers can understand,
handing out money to "overweight welfare mamas" (Bethell's phrase)
who will then have more babies to get more money to spend on TV sets
and Cadillacs. In fact, the case is even stronger than these
analogies suggest, because the exploding population of an
underdeveloped country will eventually have serious negative effects
on every inhabitant of the planet, as Ehrlich has explained in
detail. The moral thing to do, he believes, is to encourage, in
whatever ways we can, such countries as India to control the growth
of their populations. Further, given that the amount of food aid the
US can send is necessarily limited, we ought to allocate it in such a
way that it will do the most good, by an application of the triage
principle.
Anyone with an interest in these issues owes it to him- or herself to
read Garrett Hardin's seminal essay "The Tragedy of the Commons,"
which originally appeared in *Science* 162:1243-48, Dec. 13, 1968.
The thesis of Hardin's article is that the "population problem," as
conventionally conceived, has NO solution that requires a change ONLY
in the techniques of the natural sciences and demanding little or
nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality.
Here's an excerpt:
Perhaps the simplest summary of this analysis of man's population
problems is this: the commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable
only under conditions of low population density. As the human
population has increased, the commons has had to be abandoned in one
aspect after another. ...
Every new enclosure of the commons involves the infringement of
somebody's personal liberty. ... I believe it was Hegel who said,
"Freedom is the recognition of necessity."
The most important aspect of necessity that we must now recognize, is
the necessity of abandoning the commons in breeding. No technical
solution can rescue us from the misery of overpopulation. Freedom to
breed will bring ruin to all. At the moment, to avoid hard decisions
many of us are tempted to propagandize for conscience and responsible
parenthood. The temptation must be resisted, because an appeal to
independently acting consciences selects for the disappearance of all
conscience in the long run [by natural selection], and an increase in
anxiety in the short.
The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious
freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very
soon. ...
Jan also writes, again relying on Bethell:
>Ehrlich, a population biologist, predicted in 1970 that famine would
>be "directly or indirectly responsible for 65 million of American
>deaths in the decade of 1980-1989".
Bethell gives no source for this alleged quotation, and I have been
unable to find it in any of Ehrlich's writings. It certainly does
not appear in the books he wrote around 1970, including *The
Population Bomb* and *Population, Resources, Environment*, which
contain extensive discussions of US demography. Those discussions
seem to contradict the alleged prediction: Ehrlich's position then
seems to be that in the worst possible scenario, the US *could*
experience famine in the 1980's. Even if he did make this bald,
unqualified prediction, one erroneous prediction does not make a poor
scientist. In another article I have given evidence for Ehrlich's
qualifications as a scientist, including election to the National
Academy of Sciences and the respect of his colleagues.
I have read Bethell's article in NR and it is a fine example of what
an ideologue produces when he does not know what he is talking about.
It would be great fun to read an Ehrlich reply, and I am sending a
copy to the Ehrlichs, although I expect they would not think it
worthwhile to send a letter to NR. Bethell professes not to
understand why there was no "leftist outcry" to Paul Ehrlich's
statements quoted above. But I don't understand why there *should*
have been an outcry. Leftists (I say nothing of other political
persuasions) are not opposed on principle to proposals to improve the
lot of humanity and alleviate its suffering. The article also quotes
another gem from Petr Beckmann, an *obviously* confused statement
about population growth in the US, which I am holding in reserve.
The attacks on Ehrlich are without foundation and come from persons
who seek to discredit him by any means possible. This is neither new
nor surprising. It is the usual fate of prophets who bring the
message, Repent and turn aside from your ways, for the day of
reckoning is at hand. As Garret Hardin wrote in *Exploring New
Ethics for Survival: The Voyage of the Spaceship "Beagle"* (1972),
p. 7:
In ancient times absolute monarchs disemboweled messengers for less.
Today we are not much different. But now the absolute monarch is
"the Pee-pull." During the 1970s the Pee-pull finally got sick and
tired of the apocalyptic rantings of Paul Ehrlich, and one fine night
after he had given a rabble-rousing speech at the Marblehead Junior
College he was tarred and feathered by the Youth for American
Freedom, loaded into a cart borrowed from the town museum, and pulled
to the edge of town, where he was thrown ignominiously into the Fort
Mudge Memorial Dump. A great sigh of relief arose from the Pee-pull,
whose patience had been taxed beyond endurance. Patriots can take
only so much.
Richard Carnes
Michael V. Stein
>...In his writings Ehrlich (for what it's worth, his
>mother's name is Rosenberg) has emphasized the necessity for avoiding
>the focusing of population control measures on particular ethnic or
>minority groups or other relatively powerless groups (see any of his
>writings on the population problem). An important argument he
>adduces in favor of planned population control is that it will help
>to *prevent* Nazi-like regimes from arising, seeking Lebensraum for
>their populations, and practicing "population control" through
>genocide.
>
>In view of the foregoing, any attempt to associate Paul Ehrlich in
>any way with Nazi ideology is a despicable slander.
You know perfectly well that I said Ehrlich used "Nazi like
statements." Trying to prove I, or anyone else, said he is personally
associated with the Nazi regime is simple deception on your part.
Thus the maiden name of Ehrlich's mother has as much relevance
here as your mother's maiden name.
While it is true that neither the Constitution nor the Declaration
of Independence gurantees the right of reproduction, neither does it
explicitly gurantee the right to choose your own job, your spouse,
your home or any of a million other personal choices. To say that
the government has a right to interfere in such a personal choice,
such as the choice to have children, is abhorrent.
Authoritarian governments have never had this disposition against
the government controlling such decisions. The Chinese today
practise forced abortions and infantcide. Other totalitarian
regimes such as the Nazi's would reward women
for producing as many children (cannon fodder) as possible. The
view that coercive population control is a right of the state
is not a view that is very compatible with a free society.
>I also fail to see anything remotely shocking about the proposal to
>deny aid to countries that do not try to limit their populations.
>Ehrlich believes, with good reason, that merely sending food aid to
>countries with rapidly expanding populations is in the nature of
>handing out aspirin to a person who is afraid to see a doctor about
>his cancer, or, to put it in terms that right-wingers can understand,
>handing out money to "overweight welfare mamas" (Bethell's phrase)
>who will then have more babies to get more money to spend on TV sets
>and Cadillacs. In fact, the case is even stronger than these
>analogies suggest, because the exploding population of an
>underdeveloped country will eventually have serious negative effects
>on every inhabitant of the planet, as Ehrlich has explained in
>detail. The moral thing to do, he believes, is to encourage, in
>whatever ways we can, such countries as India to control the growth
>of their populations.
Even today, as several people have noted when talking about the
Ethiopian problem, the world produces enough food. The problem is
distribution and storage.
What started this entire discussion was the attack on Dr. Cohen by
Mr. Ehrlich. (This is also about my only interest in this
discussion.) From Mr. Ehrlich's article we found out that
he is expert enough in the field of nuclear science to not
only attack the integrity of all nuclear engineers but also
all researchers in any related fields if need be. Dr. Cohen's
survey of health physicists was dismisssed with a wave of the
biologist's hand.
Interested readers will remember that it was energy scholar Mr.
Ehrlich who said that nuclear waste in a river caused oysters to
glow.
> ...During the 1970s the Pee-pull finally got sick and
> tired of the apocalyptic rantings of Paul Ehrlich, and one fine night
> after he had given a rabble-rousing speech at the Marblehead Junior
> College he was tarred and feathered by the Youth for American
> Freedom, loaded into a cart borrowed from the town museum, and pulled
> to the edge of town, where he was thrown ignominiously into the Fort
> Mudge Memorial Dump.
If this is true it is sickening. I hope the thugs were arrested..
--
Michael V. Stein
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services
UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs
Richard Carnes
>To say that
>the government has a right to interfere in such a personal choice,
>such as the choice to have children, is abhorrent.
Since you do not provide any argument in support of this view, your
statement is mere name-calling. Responsible people, in discussing
such an important issue, will want to do more than simply label
opposing views as "abhorrent".
>Authoritarian governments have never had this disposition against the
>government controlling such decisions. The Chinese today practise
>forced abortions and infantcide. Other totalitarian regimes such as
>the Nazi's would reward women for producing as many children (cannon
>fodder) as possible. The view that coercive population control is a
>right of the state is not a view that is very compatible with a free
>society.
Brilliant argument, Michael. Some bad governments do it, sometimes
in bad ways, therefore it's intrinsically bad. But the view that
everyone should be allowed to have as many children as they want,
with no attempt to use government to influence or control the
population level, is not a view that is very compatible with a good
life for future generations of humanity. What alternative do you
suggest? How about this one: letting the population increase until
war, genocide, disease, and/or famine stop the increase.
Recommended background reading for studying population control
issues: Garret Hardin's essay on "The Tragedy of the Commons" and
Hobbes's *Leviathan*.
>Even today, as several people have noted when talking about the
>Ethiopian problem, the world produces enough food. The problem is
>distribution and storage.
My understanding is that the world currently produces enough food to
feed everyone, or nearly everyone, adequately. But the enormous
problem of distributing the food to those who need it has been and
will continue to be aggravated by overpopulation, in various ways.
For example, overgrazing has resulted in desertification in the
Sahel.
An excellent introduction to the population crisis is the special
section (edited by the Ehrlichs) in the April 1986 *Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists*. This issue is available for $3.50 from the
Bulletin at 5801 S. Kenwood, Chicago IL 60637. Here is a quote from
the Ehrlichs' introductory essay:
"Earth is overpopulated today by a very simple standard: humanity is
able to support itself -- often none too well, at that -- only by
consuming its capital. This consumption involves much more than the
widely publicized depletion of stocks of fossil fuels and dispersion
of other high-grade mineral resources. Much more critical are the
erosion of deep, rich agricultural soils, the diminution of our fresh
water supply by pollution and mismanagement of groundwater, and the
loss of much of the diversity of other life-forms that share the
earth with us. All these are intimately involved in providing humans
with nourishment from the only significant source of income, the
radiant energy of the sun, which, converted by photosynthetic plants
into the energy of chemical bonds, supports essentially all life on
the planet.
Two crucial points must be remembered. The first is that with
today's technology, humanity could not support anything like its
current numbers without continually using its nonrenewable resource
subsidy. The second is that while exploiting that capital subsidy,
civilization is continually degrading the systems that supply its
income. Consider only the accelerating extermination of other
organisms, which is intimately connected with brute increase in the
human population and its exploitation of the planet.
Those organisms are working parts of the ecosystems that provide
society with a wide variety of indispensable services, including
regulation of the composition of the atmosphere, amelioration of
weather, the generation and preservation of soils, the cycling of
nutrients essential to agriculture and forestry, disposal of wastes,
control of the vast majority of potential crop pests and carriers of
human diseases, provision of food from the sea, and maintenance of a
vast genetic library, from which humans have already drawn the very
basis of civilization, and whose potential has barely been tapped.
All of these services are directly or indirectly involved in
providing necessities to humanity derived from our solar income.
Ecologists standardly measure that income in terms of net primary
productivity. Net primary productivity is the total amount of the
energy bound each year by plants in the process of photosynthesis,
minus the portion of that chemical energy that the plants themselves
must use to run their own life processes. The global net primary
productivity can be viewed as the basic food supply for the entire
animal world, including *Homo sapiens*, as well as a major source of
structural materials, fibers, medicines, and other things of
importance to humanity. ...
The population is now growing at a rate that, if continued, would
double it in about 42 years. Even if *Homo sapiens* could persist
after wiping out most of the other animals, population growth clearly
would soon carry it past the limits of Earth's short-term human
carrying capacity, and a population crash would ensue."
I will not have any more time to read the net, but I can be reached
via email.
Richard Carnes
Marc Campos
>>To say that the government has a right to interfere in such a personal
>>choice, such as the choice to have children, is abhorrent.
>
>Since you do not provide any argument in support of this view, your
>statement is mere name-calling. Responsible people, in discussing
>such an important issue, will want to do more than simply label
>opposing views as "abhorrent".
But most responsible people do not consider meddling with other peoples'
lives as a reasonable alternative. It *is* abhorrent to interfere with
such a personal choice because the individual's right to lead his own
life is inalienable and self-justifying; it does not belong to the
state. And unless you can point out solid reasons why some peoples'
having children directly and forcibly harms other people, you don't have
a moral case.
>>Authoritarian governments have never had this disposition against the
>>government controlling such decisions. The Chinese today practise
>>forced abortions and infantcide... The view that coercive population
>>control is a right of the state is not a view that is very compatible
>>with a free society.
>
>Brilliant argument, Michael. Some bad governments do it, sometimes
>in bad ways, therefore it's intrinsically bad. But the view that
>everyone should be allowed to have as many children as they want,
>with no attempt to use government to influence or control the
>population level, is not a view that is very compatible with a good
>life for future generations of humanity.
Well, how do you propose to enforce coercive population control? Since
you've already stated that the state has the moral right to control the
lives of others, what's wrong with the way "bad" governments are doing
it? If you concede that the state has the right to control a couple's
reproductive choices, then it's a small step to say that the state has
the right to force the issue with an abortion or infantcide.
Your view is not very compatible with a good life for the *present*
generation of humanity. Sorry, but I'm not willing to give up my
freedom to support ghosts of the future, especially for the dubious
arguments that you've cited. Such population gloom-and-doom scenarios
neglect the facts that people tend to reproduce *less* as their standard
of living increases, that the Earth still has plenty of resources and
can feed its inhabitants, and that this is not the only place to live in
the universe.
--
Marc Campos, GenRad Inc. {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!mxc
Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Avenue, Concord, MA 01742 USA (617) 369-4400 x2336
Richard Carnes
>But most responsible people do not consider meddling with other
>peoples' lives as a reasonable alternative. It *is* abhorrent to
>interfere with such a personal choice because the individual's right
>to lead his own life is inalienable and self-justifying; it does not
>belong to the state. And unless you can point out solid reasons why
>some peoples' having children directly and forcibly harms other
>people, you don't have a moral case.
But why must having a child (an additional child) DIRECTLY and
FORCIBLY harm other people for there to be any moral justification
for population control through incentives or any form of coercive
control? Why not if it harms others indirectly?
Most libertarians and anarchists agree that an individual's natural
right to lead her own life and do as she pleases stops at the point
where she inflicts harm on others. "Your right to swing your fist
stops at my nose." If I dump tons of pollutants into the atmosphere,
don't the people whom my pollution harms have the right to force me
to put less in the air or to pay for the damage? Or do you take the
position that everyone has the right to pollute the air and water all
they want, without any interference? If everyone does so, then we
have an multiperson Prisoner's Dilemma: each individual has an
incentive to pollute *more* than the optimal amount, and the result
will be a collectively suboptimal amount (excess) of pollution; i.e.,
society as a whole will be suffering greater COSTS from the pollution
than it is receiving BENEFITS from allowing this amount of pollution,
and yet no individual will have an incentive to reduce the amount
pollution he generates, since the individual alone bears the costs of
doing so, while the benefits, even though larger than the costs, are
spread out over the whole society. Obviously, the consequences could
be severe.
There is thus a prima facie case for some sort of enforcement
mechanism that would INTERNALIZE the cost of pollution, e.g., through
taxes equal to the social (total) cost of the pollution (at a given
level) to be paid by the polluter. Then the polluter, to maximize
profit, will reduce his pollution to the collectively optimal amount.
If this is unclear, please see any basic economics textbook.
Now, if it is reasonable to impose a tax on a polluter, why isn't it
reasonable or legitimate to impose a tax or other penalty on a family
that chooses to have an "excess" child, if the *net* effect of excess
children is harmful?
The point is not that we can calculate the exact costs and benefits
of an additional child -- clearly, we can't. The point is that there
is nothing obviously immoral about penalizing parents for having
another child, or attempting to change their preferences through
propaganda (or public-interest advertising, if you prefer
euphemisms), if an extra child (directly or indirectly) has a net
harmful effect on other people. After all, that is how we handle
pollution, or should. Or do you have a better plan? Because let's
get one thing straight: the potential consequences of overpopulation
are catastrophic. They could well include the premature deaths of
millions or billions through war, disease, or famine; and the
extinction of large numbers of species, which alone would have severe
consequences for humans. The potential consequences are a *severe*
reduction in the quality and/or length of life for present and future
generations -- we're not talking about reducing the per capita income
by 1% or some other triviality.
The fact must be faced that the individually optimal choice does not,
in general, produce the collectively optimal outcome, except in
certain special circumstances, such as the free market rather
stringently defined. It seems to me that you may have fallen into
the habit of overgeneralizing from the marketplace so familiar to us,
and attributed market characteristics to non-market situations.
There is no *a priori* reason to think that allowing individual
parents to choose the number of their offspring just as they please
will lead to a collectively optimal or even to a non-catastrophic
outcome.
>Since you've already stated that the state has the moral right to
>control the lives of others...
That's clearly not what I said.
> If you concede that the state has the
>right to control a couple's reproductive choices, then it's a small
>step to say that the state has the right to force the issue with an
>abortion or infantcide.
In my opinion there is room for debate as to whether a state may ever
legitimately *require* an abortion, and under what circumstances.
But no population control advocate I know of supports infanticide as
a means of population control, even though infanticide has been
commonly practiced in many historical periods, including in modern
Europe, as a means of "birth" control.
>Your view is not very compatible with a good life for the *present*
>generation of humanity. Sorry, but I'm not willing to give up my
>freedom to support ghosts of the future, especially for the dubious
>arguments that you've cited.
Calling the arguments I've presented "dubious" does not answer them,
nor does it answer the arguments in favor of population control
presented by other people in books and articles. You are not being
asked to "give up your freedom", any more than a manufacturer is
being asked to give up his freedom when he is taxed for polluting.
What he loses is his freedom to pollute as much as he likes without
paying for it, and you are being asked to give up the freedom to have
as many children as you want, at least in some circumstances, without
paying some sort of price for it.
>Such population gloom-and-doom
>scenarios neglect the facts that people tend to reproduce *less* as
>their standard of living increases...
This is known as the "demographic transition" and, far from being
neglected, is well known to everyone who has even a casual knowledge
of human population studies. If you wish to argue that the
demographic transition will keep the earth from being overpopulated,
(as Dr. Ruth would say if she heard that you were using
contraceptives) terrrific. So let's hear your argument.
>that the Earth still has plenty of resources and can feed its
>inhabitants,
Did you read the latter half of my article, in which I quoted the
Ehrlichs to the effect that humanity is using up its "capital" and
degrading its sources of income? If you're going to respond to my
articles, please at least address the points I make, don't simply
ignore them. Of course the earth still has plenty of resources, but
it is not feeding its inhabitants now, although perhaps it "can". At
any rate the question is what will happen in the future, not just
what is the situation right now.
>and that this is not the only place to live in the universe.
Again, what is your plan? How many will go and when? First, it is
simply false that the possibility of emigration to other planets has
been neglected by "gloom-and-doomers", and second, you are merely
waving your hand and saying that emigration will solve the
overpopulation problem. Give me some numbers. Perhaps your
great-grandfather was on the Titanic, telling everyone, "Relax, there
are other ships out there somewhere".
Again, if anyone replies, please send a copy by email if you want to
make sure that I read it. Thank you.
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
OlsonDL
[Michael Stein]
>>Even today, as several people have noted when talking about the
>>Ethiopian problem, the world produces enough food. The problem is
>>distribution and storage.
>My understanding is that the world currently produces enough food to
>feed everyone, or nearly everyone, adequately. But the enormous
>problem of distributing the food to those who need it has been and
>will continue to be aggravated by overpopulation, in various ways.
>For example, overgrazing has resulted in desertification in the
>Sahel.
A while back I read in the newspaper something about that everybody in
the world could be placed into an area the size of the state of Texas, and
the population would be about that of New York City. I was skeptical,
but it turns that NYC is more densely populated. Texas covers 267,339
square miles. For 5 billion people, that's 18,702/sq mi. New York covers
about 319 square miles. For 7 million people, that's 21,943/sq mi.
>Richard Carnes
David Olson
..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo
"Eliminate the impossible, my dear doctor, and whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth." -- Sherlock Holmes
Andre Guirard
--
/'C`\ TWALG ASHALC RITMOHF. Andre Guirard
( o_o ) Botoj de timeco
)) _ (( AWSWG SWVVG BWSWBSWH! ihnp4!mmm!cipher
/// \\\
Richard Carnes
>All these were widely predicted in the 60's for the 70's and the
>80's [and did not come to pass].
Again I would ask Jan to cite chapter and verse, explain what was
predicted and what actually happened, and explain why some mistaken
predictions invalidate all such predictions.
>The above is full of "potential", "could" and "would". One could
>just as easily draw a scenario in which too *few* people would
>prove perilous. E.g., a new virus killing off everyone but
>bearers of a rare immunity trait. The more people, the more
>chance that a viable remnant survives.
But the more people, the greater the chance of a virulent pandemic in
the first place. The high population density, unsanitary conditions,
malnutrition (which reduces resistance to disease), and ecosystem
degradation associated with overpopulation provide a fertile medium
for the spread of infectious diseases. Our ancestors survived for
millions of years (which saw extreme climatic changes) at population
levels far lower than the present 5 billion (probably much less than
1 million, if memory serves). I don't know if there has been any
species whose extinction was primarily due to infectious disease.
The genetic variability of the human population is much less
important in the modern control of infectious disease than the
genetic library found in other species. Many medicines have been
developed from other species, some examples being quinine,
penicillin, streptomycin, tetracycline, and cytarabine. We have
barely begun to tap the potential of other species to provide medical
benefits -- a strong argument in favor of species and ecosystem
preservation (especially in tropical forests), which in turn is a
strong argument in favor of human population control.
Richard Carnes
Bill Trost
As I understand it, there is a large outcry these days for an
increase in the birth rate in the United States. This even
seems to have worked its way into law, or at least into the courts.
The Supreme Court opinion on sodomy laws, if I am not mistaken,
referred to the idea that this laws would eventually mean
the end of human existance.
Admittedly, the connection hear is tenuous, and I may not even be considering
the correct nation -- this may have been the opinion of a Belgic
justice.