Comments on Population

In your vision statement, you say the following: "many Americans are worried about the well being of their children and their children's children."

I find this statement highly problematic for a number of reasons. Not all people in America (or elsewhere) choose to reproduce. Indeed, the expectation that all people should reproduce is a social and environmental problem. A network which promotes sustainable development should not maintain the ideal of unsustainable population growth. Furthermore, I believe that any progressive movement should move beyond normative expectations of family structures.

You might consider changing references to offspring and descendants to "future generations" or something else which does not reinforce normative expectations of reproduction.

Overall, I think your organisation is different a step in the right direction. I applaud your efforts and will encourage others to check out your website.

Cheers, Jamie

www.intercourse.org.uk

_____

Wait a minute. >Shrinking Population??

_____

NEW CONSTRUCTION : With scarcer resources, the practice of destroying still useful buildings to build others on the same site will diminish, and shrinking populations will further decrease the need for new construction,

Hello, according to Planned Parenthood and ZPG, the human population increased by *four billion* in the last *seventy years*.

When I was in grade school, my teacher told us the population was *2.5 billion*. I am now in my early 50's. I have seen the population nearly **triple* in my lifetime.

The human population is now growing at *90 million a year*. According to the UN Population fund *80 million pregnancies were unintended**. Unless women have universal access to birth control and abortion , the Vision is doomed to fail.

Today, conservative men (and a smaller number of female lackeys) control the world's governments. The global worldview is still male supremecist and is supported by all the major male-god religions (Judiasm, Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Hindu faith, Islam.)

All these male created religions claim god gave men the right to control every aspect of women's lives--including reproductive rights. All claim that women must obey men.

Elaine

_____

I write in response to the latest emailing from Rachel's. As far back as the 60s, ecologists have recognized that human overpopulation is the "mother of problems". Overpopulation at the time of the first Earth Day was a major subject of discussion, and the global population stood at that time at four billion, only 2/3s of what it is now. All discussion of the problem ceased when the Reagan Revolution began, and when in 1988 the world population hit five billion it caused no more than passing mention. And as of today many are afraid to mention it, because it involves the immigration situation, and any suggestion that immigration be curtailed brings charges of racism. It appears that the forces that would benefit from a wealth of cheap labor have been able to silence their opponents.

I'm told that back in the 60s a collective of ecologists was polled as to what the ideal human population for the US would be such that a desirable quality of life could be enjoyed sustainably, and that the estimates from those who were used to thinking in terms of ecological situations ranged up to 100 million but tended toward 50 million. And here we are nudging 300 million.

It's amazing how rapidly public thinking can change on an issue when an issue is MADE an issue, but the news media in our country -- well, I won't go there now. But last Fall I spent several weeks in Italy and learned that the country had lost 15% of its population in the last 25 years, this due to how birth rates (couples opting for one child or none at all). So, it's doable.

As it, though, there is no sustainable, or even desirable, future with the population as it is, and as it apparently will be down the road.

Sincerely, Bill

_____

I have read the worldview vision. I have also just recently read a book called "GRAY DAWN" about the implications for the world based upon the demographics of an aging population.

It makes most of what you have presented suspect since there is no reference to the radically changed nature of the United States social makeup and the world's social and demographic makeup. Your model is missing a vital and absolutely certain factor in the assumptions used to create the vision statement.

Joe

_____

I want to live by the vision statement. However, the absence of even one word about over-population, the need to stop population growth in this country by stopping one million immigrants every year, the need to provide various incentives to decrease reproductive rates in this country and around the world, or other population-related missions has rendered the ESDA vision totally mundane and typical. Every piece of the vision will be impossible to achieve without national and world population stabilization. Without the bottom-line statements about over-population, the piece will make no difference anywhere.

Sincerely, Ann

I think I speak for everyone present at the first ESDA conference when I say that we recognize the crucial importance of curbing population growth. The topic came up, but was hardly discussed, most likely because of broad agreement. There was some discussion about whether populations will have stabilized by 2100, or whether they would still be shrinking. We did not discuss how population control would occur, as that is a step beyond creating a vision of a desirable future.

I suspect however that in a very broad group of 'stakeholders' in the USA, this issue may not be one that can be easily included in a shared vision. The UN bill of rights basically affirms the privilege of all people to have as many children as they want, and many religions also believe this right is sacred. Many progressives argue that distribution is the problem, not population, and believe the emphasis on population control is designed to place the blame on poor countries, when the real problem is overconsumption in the richer countries. Personally, I believe there are elements of truth in all these arguments, but also believe that sustainability is impossible without population control, and our ethical obligations to future generations take precedence over the right, sacred or otherwise, of unlimited procreation.

Our goal with this vision is to find a common ground everyone agrees we should work towards. Highly contentious but absolutely critical issues such as population control may not be part of such vision, because there is little shared ground. This does not reduce the importance of working together as a united nation on other issues where there is common ground. After all, Phyllis Schafly and Ralph Nader cooperate in their protest of Channel one (a TV station designed for schools that includes advertising by its sponsors).