Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Response to Greenpeace on population/frosty wooldridge

Expand Messages
  • aditmore@juno.com
    I object to two ideas here. One is that it is NOT decision makers who count, it is ordinary people. When the people lead, the leaders will be shoved aside, so
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 29, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I object to two ideas here. One is that it is NOT decision makers who
      count, it is ordinary people. When the people lead, the leaders will be
      shoved aside, so there is no point modifying the message to appeal to
      leaders, only citizens. Also, we should not be compromising on ideology,
      any compromise should be on territory instead. It is better to have the
      exact right population policy in one village than a watered down
      compromise nationwide or worldwide. The right policy anywhere can set an
      example everywhere, where a compromise can't.
      Secondly, I WANT to consume more resources, as do most people.
      It may be that a population of one billion can't sustainably consume 10
      times the resources per capita, but a population of one Million CAN.
      THAT is the goal! Not a population of 5 billion subsisting on half of
      what we use now!
      -Alan
      http://tinyurl.com/townBC2 http://tinyurl.com/towncontraception
      http://tinyurl.com/opcensor
      http://www.change.org/petitions/repeal-andor-ban-all-single-family-zoning
      -and-unit-density-limits
      http://www.change.org/petitions/asheville-lgbt-rights-for-environment
      http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=599
      9
      http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1400/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY
      =6100
      https://secure.ppaction.org/site/Advocacy?page=UserAction&cmd=Display&id=
      12757&s_src=istandwppmarch2011senatetaf
      http://action.freedomworks.org/4151/override-gov-perdues-veto-health-care
      -freedom-act/
      http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6386/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=
      5909

      On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:40:32 +1100 "Jenny Goldie"
      <jenny.goldie@...> writes:
      Dear John

      You have to keep in mind the I=PAT equation. Even if we reduce global
      population down to one billion but resource use per capita increases ten
      fold on average, then we're worse off in sustainability terms.

      You may not like the careful wording of the SPA policy (though it does
      need updating) but if you want to achieve anything politically, you can't
      express it in a way that instantly marginalises you with decision-makers.
      SPA has been operating for 24 years and I suppose you can say we've
      failed on a number of fronts in achieving our objectives, but we have
      been a voice of reason on this side of the debate for all that time and
      we are treated with respect by those people that matter. Every now and
      again you win someone over like Kelvin Thomson MP who moves our cause
      along much more than any of we mere mortals can.

      I sometimes think of setting up Negative Population Growth Australia (or
      equivalent) to provide a more radical point of view so SPA looks as
      though it's the soul of moderation, but we already have a 'reduce
      population growth' clause in our aims and objectives. Perhaps we need to
      advertise that more. But as I said, not much point of radical population
      reduction if there is a concomitant rise in resource use. It's ecological
      sustainability we're after, after all.

      All the best,

      Jenny Goldie


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: John Taves
      To: Sheila Davis
      Cc: aditmore@... ; greg@... ;
      mitch.transparentpictures@... ; PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com ;
      Jenny.goldie@... ; mark@... ;
      gloomndoom@... ; madweld@... ; support.au@... ;
      dae.levine@... ; robert@... ;
      rboni@... ; overpopulation@yahoogroups.com ;
      OverpopulationAwareness@yahoogroups.com ; Why_breed@yahoogroups.com ;
      childfreesnip@yahoogroups.com ;
      conscientiousnonprocreators@yahoogroups.com ;
      childfreetown@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:44 AM
      Subject: Re: Response to Greenpeace on population/frosty wooldridge
      ____________________________________________________________
      53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
      The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
      http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f25b36dd5a79fdedm08vuc

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • aditmore@juno.com
      JT has a point about religious groups that overpopulate and pass on their overpopulationg values, though I think he overestimates the ability of parents to
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 29, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        JT has a point about religious groups that overpopulate and pass on their
        overpopulationg values, though I think he overestimates the ability of
        parents to pass on values and underestimates the ability of youth to hear
        reason for themselves from others, like us. Also, this is where
        borders and immigration come in. If the overpopulating groups are
        contained in certain, limited areas, they will make those areas hells on
        earth and thus set a very negative example for the rest of the world,
        like Somalia is today. Zoning and land use planning may do a bit of that
        within nations, but far less effectively than national borders and with
        many very negative side effects. Secession, the breaking up of nations
        into many city-states, all with immigration controls, may help in this
        regard. I hear Cornwall is the latest to move in that direction.
        Arizona and Alabama are moving toward subnational, sovereign immigration
        policies as well. Unfortunately the latter is one of the worst for
        religious pronatalism and racial tribalism, though Arizona has real
        potential, and I may move there myself. The city of Hazleton
        Pennsylvania tried that as well, but largely failed.
        -Alan
        http://tinyurl.com/townBC2 http://tinyurl.com/towncontraception
        http://tinyurl.com/opcensor
        http://www.change.org/petitions/repeal-andor-ban-all-single-family-zoning
        -and-unit-density-limits
        http://www.change.org/petitions/asheville-lgbt-rights-for-environment
        http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=599
        9
        http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1400/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY
        =6100
        https://secure.ppaction.org/site/Advocacy?page=UserAction&cmd=Display&id=
        12757&s_src=istandwppmarch2011senatetaf
        http://action.freedomworks.org/4151/override-gov-perdues-veto-health-care
        -freedom-act/
        http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6386/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=
        5909

        On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:29:45 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...>
        writes:
        See in red below.

        jt


        On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Jenny Goldie
        <jenny.goldie@...> wrote:

        Dear John

        You have to keep in mind the I=PAT equation. Even if we reduce global
        population down to one billion but resource use per capita increases ten
        fold on average, then we're worse off in sustainability terms.
        Your statement above is the same mistake that the SPA makes, and the same
        that I was trying to point out. The algorithm is NOT "we must get our
        numbers down to X". We do not need to figure out X. The algorithm that we
        must follow is: "We must get our numbers down to at least the point where
        we are no longer consuming the resources, that are essential to providing
        for our numbers, faster than they renew." You've got to really think that
        sentence through. It is flawless, and when you really comprehend what it
        means, you'll see that the I=PAT equation isn't really necessary.
        Furthermore, when some scientist attempts to calculate some number, they
        are missing a few concepts. First, they aren't really comprehending that
        sentence and what it means for the economy and technology that will be
        used. We have no clue how efficient or what technologies would be used.
        In addition, there's no way to get to that number today, so by the time
        we are near it, we'll have new technologies that will dramatically alter
        that estimate. If the goal is to use the estimate to light a fire under
        the audience's butt to the seriousness of this, it totally backfires.
        Anyone can challenge these estimates. No two scientists will arrive at
        the same numbers. When the audience hears a lack of agreement, and can't
        comprehend the data that went into it to judge it for themselves, they
        will throw the whole topic out the window. In contrast, most people can
        judge the sentence above. No data, and thus no scientist's opinion, is
        required to conclude our numbers must come down.


        You may not like the careful wording of the SPA policy (though it does
        need updating) but if you want to achieve anything politically, you can't
        express it in a way that instantly marginalises you with decision-makers.
        SPA has been operating for 24 years and I suppose you can say we've
        failed on a number of fronts in achieving our objectives, but we have
        been a voice of reason on this side of the debate for all that time and
        we are treated with respect by those people that matter. Every now and
        again you win someone over like Kelvin Thomson MP who moves our cause
        along much more than any of we mere mortals can.
        I agree with what you are saying if the organization's goals are limited
        to making some policy changes. I am saying that The Population Problem
        will not be solved by this. The SPA must continue as they have been
        doing, and their wording is fine. If they took on the education role that
        must be done, they would lose their source of income and be unable to
        deliver that education. Furthermore, you can see from their writing that
        they ultimately don't understand the issues properly.

        Generally speaking the SPA has a very similar outlook to what
        demographers are telling us. The problem is that demographers simply fail
        to comprehend a fundamental concept. If any group believes that having a
        lot of children is what their god wants, and that results in an average
        above two, and they successfully pass along that belief to the next
        generation to an average of more than two children, that belief will
        overpopulate the planet. When you comprehend what that means, several
        things become clear. One must prove that this belief cannot happen to
        have any reason to believe that current low fertility rates, that
        Australia for example are enjoying, will continue. It seems impossible to
        prove it cannot happen, thus demographers must find these groups and
        measure their growth. To do that, they cannot use their current
        techniques. Their current data sampling methods filter out beliefs that
        are passed from generation to generation. Even if there was some way for
        a scientist to discover a correlation that they were not looking for,
        this one would not pop out of the data because it was filtered out from
        the sampling.

        If you accept that these beliefs can happen, and what better way to
        explain the fact that the Americans are not enjoying the same low
        fertility rate even after factoring out recent immigrants as several of
        the other developed countries, then you'll realize it can only be
        combated with knowledge (Americans tend to be more religious than other
        developed countries). The simple knowledge that it is wrong to average
        more than two is the only way to eliminate that belief. The logic
        continues. If no group can exist with the belief that it is OK to average
        more than two, then doesn't everyone have to know that averaging more
        than two is wrong? The SPA is in no position to provide this education.
        What the SPA and a collection of other similar organizations are doing is
        not sufficient to put an end to deaths due to over breeding.


        I sometimes think of setting up Negative Population Growth Australia (or
        equivalent) to provide a more radical point of view so SPA looks as
        though it's the soul of moderation, but we already have a 'reduce
        population growth' clause in our aims and objectives. Perhaps we need to
        advertise that more. But as I said, not much point of radical population
        reduction if there is a concomitant rise in resource use. It's ecological
        sustainability we're after, after all.
        An additional mistake that the SPA and basically all population experts
        make is with that PAT formula. I agree the concept is sound. I have no
        problem with the fact that if the population drops by 1/10th and per
        capita consumption increases by 10, we've made no progress towards
        sustainability. But why would you assume that that's the end of the
        population drop? If we can average 1.5 children, why can't we average
        that as long as it takes to get our numbers down to where we are not
        consuming resources faster than they renew?

        I enjoyed reading your article. I thought it was excellent. However,
        throughout that article, and your subsequent emails, you have dodged a
        question. You have not answered how to get a birth rate that you are
        proposing we aim for.

        Thanks,

        jt



        All the best,

        Jenny Goldie


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: John Taves
        To: Sheila Davis
        Cc: aditmore@... ; greg@... ;
        mitch.transparentpictures@... ; PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com ;
        Jenny.goldie@... ; mark@... ;
        gloomndoom@... ; madweld@... ; support.au@... ;
        dae.levine@... ; robert@... ;
        rboni@... ; overpopulation@yahoogroups.com ;
        OverpopulationAwareness@yahoogroups.com ; Why_breed@yahoogroups.com ;
        childfreesnip@yahoogroups.com ;
        conscientiousnonprocreators@yahoogroups.com ;
        childfreetown@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:44 AM
        Subject: Re: Response to Greenpeace on population/frosty wooldridge


        I read the SPA's objectives. Just like all other population/environment
        organizations, they are not equipped to solve the problem. They do not
        have the objective that reads something like: "ensure that every Aussie,
        knows their moral responsibilities regarding how many children they can
        make". Without that objective, the other objectives are just pissing in
        the wind.

        I skimmed
        http://www.population.org.au/sites/default/files/public/SPA_Population_Po
        licy.pdf and found that it has the same disease that all population
        experts have. I don't mean to belittle the work. The people that wrote
        that put in countless hours and really thought it through. The problem is
        that they have simply failed to comprehend two simple facts that make the
        whole paper a big waste.

        1) All of the items talking about sustainability, such as soil depletion,
        oil consumption, etc, can be boiled down to one simple sentence. We must
        reduce our numbers to the point where we are no longer consuming
        resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than
        those resources renew. - The policy objective of the SPA "to determine
        what is an optimal population both nationally and internationally, that
        is, one that can be sustained in the long-term without degrading the
        natural resource base, noting that recent studies have shown that the
        Earth has already exceeded its regenerative capacity by 25 per cent, and"
        Is pointless. We don't need to determine this. Nobody can wave a wand and
        set our population number to what they determine. We know we must average
        less than 2 according that sentence above. Some future generation can
        debate whether their new lower population numbers are indeed being fed
        sustainably, they can report back to our long since deceased bodies what
        that population number happens to be at that time.

        2) If your descendants average more than two, they will overpopulate the
        planet. This fact of nature tells us two important things:
        a) It is immoral to do this.
        b) This concept must be known by everyone. Thus the 29 recommendations
        by the SPA to the government are all inadequate. Only 2 or 3 mentioned
        birth rates. (e.g. 22. ensure that sex education programs in Australia
        are adequately funded and that a wide variety of contraceptive measures
        are available and affordable to all who need them; 23. end pro-natalist
        policies including such initiatives as the baby bonus")

        jt
        ____________________________________________________________
        53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
        The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
        http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f25b92490a81fe62m08vuc

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.