To: ‘overpopulation@googlegroups.com’
Subject: RE: We are saved!
All,
Doespopulation collapse solve population explosion? I call that quandary the game of intellectual ‘pin the needle’, arguing by extremes that are all off the chart. You see it all the time, like the Republican abhorrence of taxes because 100% taxation would slow down the economy. It’s amazingly seductive, apparently because people are so heavily influenced by fear, and lots of people who should know better are shameless in exploiting it.
Perhaps you could think of the evidence of simultaneous population explosion and collapse asdifferent responses to the same thing bycommunities which are self-controlledcompared to those thatare not. The ’smart’ choice for people in productive and responsive communities is to cut their reproduction toward extinction responding to the rising planetary burden of those who don’t, while the people in unproductive and unresponsive communities multiply uncontrollably on the surpluses of the communities they’re replacing by the difference in their growth rates. When the first group disappears the other group rapidly undermines their own life supports and the second wave of the grand collapse makes it final…. (throwing in a little ‘pin the needle spin there at the end for excitement).
Well, I guess that solves the problem….sort of.
Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Responding to:From: bob.heinonen
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 10:40 PM
To: overpopulation@googlegroups.com
Subject: We are saved!
I just got through reading an article in the new Smithsonian magazine (October, 2006) entitled €œ300 Million and Counting€ by Joel Garreau. The title refers to the U.S. population count and that the U.S. is the third most populated nation in the world behind China and India.
First he talks about Paul Ehrlich€™s book €œThe Population Bomb€ of 1968 and how wrong it was. Then he says,
€œThat€™s why some people find it hard to wrap their minds around the big news in demographic circles today. It€™s not catastrophic population growth. It€™s catastrophic population shrinkage.
€œYes, shrinkage. True, the total global population has not yet finished increasing. But nearly half the world€™s population lives in countries where the native-born are not reproducing themselves fast enough to replace themselves. This is true in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Russian, Japan, Canada and the United States. It’s also true in much of East Asia, pockets of Latin America and such Indian megacities as New Delhi, Mumbai (Bombay), Kolkata (Calcutta) and Chennai (Madras). Even China is reproducing at levels that fall short of replacement.
€œTypically, a couple has to produce about 2.1 children to replace themselves, allowing for death among the young. Even in traditionally Catholic countries in Europe, the birthrate has dropped to shockingly low levels in the last two generations: 1.3 in both Italy and Spain in 2005. In metropolitan Tokyo, the rate dropped to 0.98. In Hong Kong and Macau, it hit 0.96 and a hitherto unthinkable 0.84, respectively. Few demographers ever dreamed that in the absence of war, famine and pestilence €“ the fact, as a result of urbanization, development and education €“ birthrates would drop so dramatically. No one knows where the bottom is. Keep this up, and eventually your civilization will disappear.
Why does the author have such a totally opposite view from this group? And why did Bombay, Calcutta and Madras change their names?
Bob Heinonen