Newbies, DGIs, and neighbors worth saving...

What might happen if each of us came to this forum to notice something new?

What if each of us made an effort to connect with someone who's wrestling with questions of the day, trying to get enough understanding of an issue to take a meaningful next step?

And the question I ask myself: How can I be a neighbor worth saving?

-- Critt Jarvis (Wilmington, NC) (critt@critt.com), January 03, 1999

Answers

I am of the politically incorrect opinion the there are NOT too many people in this world. I have traveled extensively and have personally seen how vastly UNPOPULATED THE EARTH REALLY IS. I will not be brainwashed with the propaganda put out by those who worry not so much about "mother earth" as about the number of people they could reasonably hope to totally control. I believe PEOPLE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, THEY ARE THE SOLUTION TO THE PLOBLEMS WE FACE. Most of the problems we see associated with "overpopulation" are really the results of political and business decisions made without considering the human suffering they would cause.

-- Ann Fisher (zyax55b@prodigy.com), January 03, 1999.

I am of the politically incorrect opinion the there are NOT too many people in this world. I have traveled extensively and have personally seen how vastly UNPOPULATED THE EARTH REALLY IS. I will not be brainwashed with the propaganda put out by those who worry not so much about "mother earth" as about the number of people they could reasonably hope to totally control. I believe PEOPLE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, THEY ARE THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEMS WE FACE. Most of the problems we see associated with "overpopulation" are really the results of political and business decisions made without considering the human suffering they would cause.

-- Ann Fisher (zyax55b@prodigy.com), January 03, 1999.

Since when does the government and business get into the bedrooms of millions of human beings and tell them to screw like rabbits and bring millions of unwanted and uncared for children into this world? It's ignorance and religion that keeps people in poverty, and the government feeds upon it. What good are the ignorant and poor to a government? They don't produce anything but more mouths to feed and another generation of the same. They are a burden on its vital resources, and they rob the working class of it's ability to be a free people.

-- SeenItAll (SeenItAll@BC.com), January 04, 1999.

Under populated?! By what standard? We still have standing room left? Read "Population, Resources, Environment", Paul & Ann Ehrlich, 1971.

-- curtis schalek (schale1@ibm.net), January 04, 1999.

Oh yes the world is certainly underpopulated. There's lots of sand land in the Sahara. There's lots of tundra. There's lots of high desert land where wildflowers grow two weeks of the year and tumbleweeds the rest of the time.

You religious wackos, etc., -- are you stupid, in denial about the reality of population and carrying capacity or what? Yes, there is lots of unpopulated and sparesly populated land. The reason being -- IT SUCKS! Get it.

The GOOD land and a lot of the marginal land is taken. Get your heads out fo your butts. Ever try to get to a relatively nice beach in the summer? Yellowstone? Yosemite? Sheesh.

-- GI (GI@weararubber.com), January 04, 1999.

They aren't making good land anymore, but people are still making babies. My neighbor just died, but my other two neighbors just had babies. And wasn't there a family here the other day that had 8 babies, no money, and an estimated cost of $2,000,000 for medical care and quadruple that for the next 18 years. They were are TV the other day asking for money to help care for their babies. And the other couple who had 8 babies got a house, and all kinds of free goodies. Something is wrong here people, your rewarded for over populating the earth, yet your penalized by the IRS for being married and choosing not to have children. How come we don't hear much from the environmentalists on population control? I'm in agreement with you Seen It All and GI.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), January 04, 1999.

Don't forget that these kids would be useless, nonproducing people themselves..

In my opinion, anyone who asks the public for charity, does not deserve it.

-- Leo (lchampion@ozemail.com.au), January 04, 1999.

Ann, I'm sixty and I've seen the population DOUBLE in my lifetime. If you factor in exponential growth, it makes the looming population disaster more horrifying. The ignorance of self-seeking politicians, religion and corporations have caused a natural disaster in the near future even if there was no threat from y2k. For an objective assessment of the situation, check out http://dieoff.org/page55.htm and DESIP.

Bardou, eveytime we enviornmentalists attempt to address the very real problem of overpopulation, we are slapped down, outshouted, and overrun by the same people listed in the above post, or those who fear appearing politically incorrect. Overpopulation is just as big a threat as y2k; it will just be slower and more painful. Actually, you could look at non-remidiation, of y2k systems, as a faster solution to the population problem.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), January 04, 1999.

I get your point Gilda, maybe we need Y2K to take care of the population problem. However, it's my fear that people won't practice birth control and will bring in more unwanted children into the world, only to be dumped off in garbage cans or on church steps. You always hear about blackouts and severe storms causing a population explosion 9 months later. Well, I'm not politically correct as you can well tell by my posts. But WTSHTF, it won't matter who is or who isn't politically correct, the problem will take care of itself.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), January 04, 1999.

Looks like Critt Jarvis' original question here got lost in the shuffle.

"What if's" are always hard to answer, but even so...

In regard to whether there are, or are not, more people in the world than can possibly be provided a comfortable life -- I always go back to Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons:

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

So far as I know, this dilemma has never been solved.

Hardin continues:

Some would say that this is a platitude. Would that it were! In a sense, it was learned thousands of years ago, but natural selection favors the forces of psychological denial. The individual benefits as an individual from his ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole, of which he is a part, suffers. Education can counteract the natural tendency to do the wrong thing, but the inexorable succession of generations requires that the basis for this knowledge be constantly refreshed.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 04, 1999.

And because we're up to our hips in alligators, we need

a way to attend to the unknowns.

-- Critt Jarvis (Wilmington, NC) (critt@critt.com), January 04, 1999.