🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <01JAN93.01077145.0061@VM1.MCGILL.CA>,
 CXIR@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CXIR000) writes:
>In article <donb.725749564@crash.cts.com>,
> donb@crash.cts.com (Donald Bowen) writes:
>>In <1992Dec29.190706.17698@bellahs.com>,
>> jlwilson@bellahs.com (JAMES L WILSON RD) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Great ideas, all of them.  But they are still just band aid solutions
>>>to the real dilemma:  too many people putting too great a stress on a
>>>planet with a finite amount of resources.  When we can come up with a
>>>real solution for curbing the current population growth we will ease
>>>the increasing strain on our fragile environment as well as alleviate
>>>many other ills facing society today (e.g. crime, poverty, education).
>>>This seems to be too big an issue for any country, let alone politician,
>>>to handle but one which will sooner or later need to be dealt with.
>>
>>>Jim Wilson
>>
>> All other problems pale by comparison.  If we can control population
>>growth, we can then progress on the enviornment, on poverty, on education,
>>on .....
>> DonB
>>.
>>.
>- Population control does not solve anything in itself. Our resource
>gobblers in the "first world" use up over one hundred times as much of t
>he earth's resources and energy as those in the third world. And history
>teaches that we in the first world did not limit our population voluntar
>ily until we had acheived a raised standard of living which included med
>ical care that raised average life expectancies to a high level and insu
>red the survival of most children born into adulthood. No ethnic group a
>anywhere or at any time in history has ever lowered its "fertility rate"
>before infant mortality rates are reduced, additionally, educational lev
>els have to be raised. So history teaches that it is precisely the other
>way around: FIRST you educate and raise living standards, reduce poverty
>THEN population can be controlled. To expect the third world to do it an
>y other way is unrealistic and, in fact, it could not be done without a
>fascist dictatorship world wide, which I don't think anyone would advoca
>te.
>Yours, Ian Ritchie,
>CXIR@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

	Donald Bowen lists as examples three beneficial consequences of
population control: 1) decreased poverty, 2) better education, and 3) an
improved environment.  Ian Ritchie suggests that we must educate and
raise living standards first, and that population control is a conse-
quence of a better quality of life.  Which is the chicken, and which is 
the egg?

	For myself, I believe that history teaches us that improved
living standards are the cause, and that reduced population growth is the
effect.  Yes, we need to educate and combat poverty first.  However, I
think that history shows us that improving the quality of life RAISES
per capita consumption rates.  Look at the United States.  Imagine the
trouble we would have if the First World grew at Third World rates! 
Therefore, population control IS a necessary precursor of an improved
environment.

-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man w/o charity in his heart - what has he to do with music?" - Confucius
============================================================================