To: overpopulation@googlegroups.com

All,
I can hear that having a clear direction would be a relief and its own reward. The direction I hear being taken, though, is one that sounds the same as the ones taken many times before with much effort and commitment, and I don’t hear any sense of curiosity about how the others might have gotten lost along the way and why they failed to accomplish what they set out to do, or perhaps made matters worse.

Natural systems are so incredibly complicated. They frequently do things quite backward from how we think, and don’t come with any instruction manual… and we ARE talking about further interfering in natural systems that we appear to have made a mess of already. I’ve spent a lifetime closely observing them, all kinds. I developed a rigorous observation method. It’s my sig. ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸. · ´ ¯ ` ·. ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸

To understand any system you need to understand it’s complete life cycle. Systems are evolving loops of relationships (their ‘inside’) that begins with unstable growth, that either upsets it’s own development by achieving a stable climax (amazing magic) or by disintegrating at the peak of its ’success’ by overextending its connections. You don’t see as many of the latter because they don’t survive for us to see. If a living system invents a way to climax it may maintain itself with homeostasis for a while, but eventually starts to fall apart and then finally decays.

That’s 4 symmetric evolutionary development processes, growth, climax, disordering & decay, each quite different, each much the same, with one stable state in the middle. That’s all there is to systems theory, except for connecting it to the events all around us. Only you can do that. You don’t actually need any more except to simply watch systems behave, be a perceptive and unbiased observer, and slowly accumulate an understanding.

When the house is on fire, is it a good time to study the theory of combustion? Well, yea, if that’s not the only thing you do, and you feel a certain lack of understanding of what’s happening. Maybe it’s just a matter of the stove that was stoked too hot and all you have to do is send the fire tender on another errand and let it cool down! There’s all sorts of things to learn from how habits get stuck on multiplying what’s ‘good’ without considering the whole effect.

Phil Henshaw ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸. · ´ ¯ ` ·. ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Replying to:
From: Melanie Szabo
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:06 PM
To: overpopulation@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: religion and overpopulation

I also agree with Bob’s viewpoint. It would be a sad, sad world with human beings as the only living beings. For me, nature and all its creatures have medicinal, spiritual and restorative powers. Everything in nature offers lessons that we can learn, but unfortunately, most people believe nature is here only to serve us. Nature in and of itself is not a final means to an end. I tend towards Rationalism and some Transcendentalism (in that I think an ideal spiritual state is only realized through the individual’s intuition, rather than through the doctrines of established religions), and I agree with Stan about not needing €œno church, no book, or no weekly sermon to feel something spiritual.
Melanie
—————————————————
From: Frank Vraniak
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:00 PM
To: overpopulation@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: religion and overpopulation

All, I agree with Bob’s view that it needs to encompass all beings on the planet. Most of humanity has forgotten about the other living creatures that have no say so in the matter about how the world is run or destroyed. My thoughts,
Frank

From: bob.heinonen
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 4:37 PM
To: overpopulation@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: religion and overpopulation

That is a good basic definition, but Bonnie left an open end on the statement. €œthan the earth has resources to support € implies support of only humans. Should an expression of the overpopulation problem include concern for the welfare of all species (animal, plant, any living creature), not just humans? Or should the expression only revolve around the welfare of humanity?

Bob Heinonen

Replying to: Chynah Moon Wednesday, September 20, 2006 4:22 PM
To: overpopulation@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: religion and overpopulation

I imagine it could have many meanings but for us, as simply put as possible, does it not mean that there are more people on earth than the earth has resources to support?

Bonnie

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.    –Margaret Mead