🚀 go-pugleaf

   Yep, "C. David Noziglia"  wrote to All on 06 Oct 95  21:30:23 
    about:   reduce population:

N> There seems to be some recognition these days that all of the
N> solutions to environmental problems are mere stopgap measures, and that
N> none of them will work unless real progress is made in not just
N> limiting the growth of population, but actually reducing -- drastically
N> -- the  population of the earth.

   Yep.  We might infer that from what the big boys say:

*     -- Unprecedented joint statement by the National Academy 
*     of Sciences and the Royal Society of London,  1992

*    "If current predictions of population growth prove 
*     accurate and patterns of human activity on the planet 
*     remain unchanged, science and technology may not be 
*     able to prevent either irreversible degradation of the 
*     environment or continued poverty for much of the world." 

   Irreversible degradation?  VERY strong words for scientists.  

N> I agree.  The only problem is that every culture, every society, every
N> economy in the world is based around having children and growing the
N> population.  This is the problem.  

   That is also the solution.  Family size is a function of
   society and culture.  The answer is in education, -- what do
   we take for granted?  Today we take growth-as-good for granted.
   That worked well for centuries.  Now it is becoming silly.
   Perpetual exponential growth on a finite planet is impossible.
   Yet the dogma, our assumptions run deep.  And to discount the 
   power of the vested interests is utterly illogical. 

N> Any ideas how this will happen?  Because if the population is not
N> universally and voluntarily reduced by drastically reducing the number
N> of babies, then  the populations will definitely be reduced by disaster
N> and famine.     N> Oh, boy.

   If not from reason, then from prudence it is wise to assume 
   that is true.  So how can we effect change?  How do we sell it?
   From the above it is a simple logical extraction to say; 
   "Ecologists offer the wealth that growthmania promises, 
   but kills."

   Ecology offers wealth?  EEEK!!  HERESY!!!  EEEEK!  Aren't
   "environmentalists" supposed to push reduced consumption? 
   Aren't we supposed to turn down the heat, and huddle under
   blankets?  No!  We must decrease global consumption, and
   a per-capita reduction is only one road to that, the other
   is via population reduction. 
   
   That is how we can sell ecology.  We must overthrow the
   dominant environmental paradigm of Earth First!.  We have
   tried that, and it does not sell.  If it does not sell
   to Joe Public, then it is utterly useless. 
   
   If Earth First! & Co had not thought of that; "ecology = huddle 
   under blankets" idea, then the corporate growtmaniacs would have.
   They would have pushed that idea so hard that every dittohead
   would firmly believe it.  How nice of us to save them the trouble.

   Ecology offers the wealth growthmania promises, but kills.

"All that was required of them was a primitive    .---.        .------------
patriotism which could be appealed to whenever   /     \  __  /    ------
it was necessary to make them accept longer     / /     \(  )/    -----
working hours or less wealth.   And even       //////   ' \/ `   ---
when they became discontented, as they        //// / // :    : ---
sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, // /   /  /`    '--
because, being with only Company ideas, they//          //..\\  
could only focus it on Company    =========/===========UU====UU=============
scapegoats.  The rebellious ones only fought Company   '//||\\`
enemies.  The source of these evils invariably           ''``
escaped their notice."   [Apologies to G. Orwell]    


... Ecologists offer wealth, full employment & an end to the crime wave!