goedel

Last week, on a Bill Moyer's TV program, I viewed an interview of E.O.Wilson, the noted biologist-entymologist, on the threats to our environment from loss of species, global warming, developmental encroachments on flora and fauna. Like many other similar interviews and lectures I have attended, I find that there is an elephant stomping about in the room; yet, no attention is being paid to the beast.

I live in St Petersburg, Florida, and I have attended several lectures at the Weedon Island Nature Preserve - a wonderful place to learn about the endangered mangroves of Florida. These mangroves are nurseries to the growth of fish like snook that grace our dinner-places, if we are so lucky. The lectures warn about over-development, pollution of our rivers that feed the mangrove swamps, destruction of the Everglades, etc.

Recently, a reporter for the Washington Post, who had just taken up residence in the Miami area spoke about the destruction of the Everglades by development and the consequences to us in south Florida and the nation. When, afterwards, he took questions from the audience, I rose to ask why in all of the lectures and interviews I frequent - like the Moyer's one of E.O.Wilson - I never hear anyone mention human population control. Indeed, a ten percent reduction in the population of the United States would mitigate many of our environmental problems: energy, living-space, water supply.

He replied that there is plenty of space for more population; that no one has found that population increase is a factor in the destruction of our planet !

I found his statement astounding and could not resist mentioning to him that he did not choose to relocate recently in the deserts of Arizona or the high plains of Wyoming, but rather in one of the most densely populated regions of Florida, Miami.

He is not the only ostrich, burying his head in the sand. Hardly anyone mentions population control as an important policy-remedy, along with renewable energy, etc., etc. Why not?

I'll tell you why. Our entire economy is dependent on growth, growth, growth. The idea of a society with a stable or decreasing population is almost unpatriot, even suspect as a socialist plot. How could people become wealthy - those who are not now wealthy - in an economy that had no population growth?

The question now is not that. The question is how can the human race survive if the only economy that is acceptable is based on unlimited growth?

perdidochas

He's absolutely right.

And yet there was room for him.

Population growth is not a problem until you get close to carrying capacity of the environment. We are not close to that. HEck, the percentage of starving people in the world has decreased in the last 30 yrs, despite the fact that the earth's population has come close to doubling in that time.

__________________
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

goedel

Yes, there was room for him, because as a WP reporter he earns a good income. The closer we get to the "carrying capacity of the environment", the more wealthy citizens will have to be to live decently. Others will increasingly suffer. I don't think we ought to accept your view of our responsibilities.