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

Re: Response to Greenpeace on population/frosty wooldridge

Expand Messages
  • aditmore@juno.com
    Actually, I m not at all worried about the age structure and the only reason I picked 1.5 over 0.001 is that we can prove that a society can achive 1.5 because
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 19, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Actually, I'm not at all worried about the age structure and the only
      reason I picked 1.5 over 0.001 is that we can prove that a society can
      achive 1.5 because several nations already have. Where only gay
      communities have gotten under 0.5, which is why overpopulation activists
      need to put a very high priority on gay rights, higher than on women't
      rights.
      -Alan

      On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:31:20 +1100 "Jenny Goldie"
      <jenny.goldie@...> writes:
      > I agree with Alan. We should be aiming for 1.5 which will reduce
      > population
      > but at a rate that won't be too damaging to the age structure. I had
      > an
      > article published online recently advocating this:
      > http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13058
      >
      > It may be that after oil peaks, we may be in real trouble and have
      > to go to
      > less than that, but that's what I'm advocating right now.
      >
      > Jenny
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: <aditmore@...>
      > To: <mitch.transparentpictures@...>
      > Cc: <greg@...>;
      > <PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com>; <Jenny.goldie@...>;
      > <mark@...>; <gloomndoom@...>;
      > <madweld@...>;
      > <john.taves@...>; <support.au@...>;
      > <sheiladavis05@...>; <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 19, 2012 6:00 AM
      > Subject: Re: Response to Greenpeace on population/frosty wooldridge
      >
      >
      > >I think that 1.5 is a far more "magical" number than 2. It is a
      > number
      > > that several nations have achieved, but not many. And many of
      > the
      > > nations that have achieved 1.5 don't like it. We need to make
      > clear that
      > > we do like it! The number 2 has no practical importance, it's
      > just an
      > > academic simplification.
      > > -Alan
      > > http://www.change.org/members/218464
      > >
      > > PS. Let's trim our posts a bit, there's scores of pages of
      > repeating
      > > text coming through. So much that I am having trouble finding the
      > new
      > > stuff.
      > >
      > >
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      > > 1a. Re: {Disarmed} Re: [PublicPopForum] Response to
      > Greenpeace/frosty wo
      > > Posted by: "John Taves" john.taves@... johntaves1
      > > Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:23 am ((PST))
      > >
      > > On the one hand, yes, it is very simple. 2 is certainly the magic
      > number,
      > > and that must be known by everyone. On the other hand, I have no
      > > expectation that simple logic will convince any significant number
      > of
      > > people.
      > >
      > > The way people were shifted from believing that it was OK to judge
      > people
      > > by the color of their skin, to believing that it was wrong to do
      > that was
      > > accomplished by many years of news events that effectively stated
      > by
      > > authority figures that it was wrong. Slowly those that continue
      > to
      > > believe
      > > it is OK to be a racist shut up. Young people no longer are taught
      > racism
      > > and eventually the old jackasses die off leaving a society that
      > > understands
      > > racism is wrong. The same sort of process must happen with the
      > morality
      > > of
      > > how many children you can have.
      > >
      > > Unfortunately there are no victims ready to move to the front of
      > the bus
      > > to
      > > create news events, so I have concluded that mass advertising is
      > the only
      > > way to get that message out there.
      > >
      > > Your wall street/growth comments are not an issue. Nobody is
      > choosing to
      > > have more or less children because economists, governments, and
      > wall
      > > street
      > > are concerned with economic growth.
      > >
      > > With respect to this, "Sorry ? I do not have any solutions", I
      > assume you
      > > are saying that you do not know of anyone that you can refer me
      > to. I
      > > appreciate the thoughts. Thank you.
      > >
      > > jt
      > >
      > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Robert Jameson <
      > > robert@...> wrote:
      > >
      > >> **
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> **
      > >> What you are saying John (Taves) is that everyone should know
      > their two
      > >> times tables. Because if they knew that two times 7 billion
      > equals 14
      > >> billion ? and 14 billion times two .... The problem is they
      > already
      > > know.
      > >
      > >
      > > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:50:06 -0500 aditmore@... writes:
      > >> You are way overestimating the political difficulty here. We
      > need do
      > >> nothing like such authoritarian actions as proposed to reverse
      > >> population growth as several nations like Japan and Italy have
      > >> already done it! All we need to do is transfer public spending
      > from
      > >> parental subsidies like baby bonuses and public schools to paid
      > >> contraception. It's a simple funds transfer and requires
      > neither
      > >> new authoritarian regulations nor secret med labs. And every
      > piece
      > >> of the program already has a coalition built around it, it's
      > just
      > >> that only we combine the contraception funding side (with the
      > >> feminists) with the cut parental subsidies side, with the
      > antitax
      > >> lobby.
      > >> Paid contraception needs to receive funding transfers
      > from
      > >> EVERY other government project as well, including immigration
      > guards
      > >> and deportation jet charters; as paid contraception reduces far
      > more
      > >> people per dollar spent.
      > >> What is paid contraception??????? THIS!!!!!
      > >> http://www.projectprevention.org/
      > >>
      > >> Such a strategy also gives us much needed intermediate victories
      > >> which are so important for building political momentum, because
      > one
      > >> penny of tax money transferred from a baby bonus or parental
      > subsidy
      > >> to contraception is a victory for us, where demanding a 2 child
      > >> policy by regulation will have us butting our heads without an
      > inch
      > >> of progress for a long time.
      > >>
      > >> My biggest beef with Greenpeace is that they are so hard on
      > Japan
      > >> (for whaling and dolphin coves), when Japan's fertility rate of
      > 1.3
      > >> more than compensates for that. They have left "stop at two" in
      > the
      > >> dust!!!!! and so has Russia, Italy, Germany, and more. Such
      > >> nations (withe TFRs under 1.5) have earned a license to whale.
      > >> -Alan Ditmore
      > >> http://www.change.org/members/218464
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>

      ____________________________________________________________
      Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
      http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210
    • aditmore@juno.com
      I fully understand and agree with #2 below, but since regulating fertility is politically impossible, I don t bother advocating for it. But my main pint is
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 20, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I fully understand and agree with #2 below, but since regulating fertility is politically impossible, I don't bother advocating for it.  But my main pint is that there is a gap a mile wide between free contraception and forced contraception, and that is paid contraception.  And THAT is where there is real political potential partly because it already exists, right here:
        And with paid contraception, a government, even a TOWN government, can achieve any fertility rate it is willing to pay for, without force, in a democracy.  All it takes is a big enough contraception budget supported by high enough taxes and eventually it will become IMPOSSIBLE to pay the contraception tax without the contraception subsidy.
        -Alan 
         
        On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:38:43 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...> writes:
        I hope you are right about this knowledge existing outside of China. I was thinking I would use craigslist to create a help wanted ad. When I do that, I will hit those communities you suggest first, and in general turn to you for advice on that sort of thing.

        I am not convinced you have really separated two different concepts in your mind, and therefore I am not convinced that you have the same definition as I do regarding the knowledge that is needed. The two concepts that I am trying to illustrate and separate are 1) the fact that our numbers need to go down, and 2) the fact that I do not have the right to have as many children as I want.

        I agree that there are many that want to fund family planning, and more specifically want to be taxed so that poor will have lower cost contraception and family planning services. I have no problem agreeing that many know that our numbers need to go down, and argue for, and support a birth rate of say 1.5. I agree that you can tell me where these people are concentrated the most in the USA.

        The societal understanding that I am insisting we must have is #2 above. That doesn't exist in any significant % anywhere in the democratic countries, right? My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, is that these people will not vote for a political candidate or any laws that restrict the number of children each of us can have. In other words, they don't really agree with #2 above. The conventional wisdom of experts seems to me to be just like what Alan Ditmore said. The thinking is that when women are allowed a free choice, they choose fewer. This concept that if women (and men) have the ability to freely choose how many children they have and the birth rate will be OK, is comically stupid.

        jt

        On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:53 AM, <aditmore@...> wrote:
        Firstly, the societal knowledge does exist outside of China, critically, it exists in certain US communities like Santa Cruz CA and Cambridge MA, and these towns have local governments that can transfer funds from prenatal and childcare to paid contraception.  Secondly, the "societal knowledge, will follow the funding.  Once people see the funds move from parental subsidies to paid contraception, or recieve cash to use contraception, they will ask why.  And when we anwer them, they will have the societal knowledge.
        -Alan
         
        On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:26:54 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...> writes:
        This is the conventional wisdom of experts and it overlooks a few facts. Demographers do a fine job of measuring the fertility rates. That science is relatively OK. It is the conclusions we draw from that information that is dreadful.

        There is no mechanism that ensures the birth rate will stay below 2. Demographers have discovered that lower birth rates correlate to wealth, women's rights, education, and of course access to birth control. The conclusion that these factors will bring the birth rate down is fine. The conclusion that it will come down to below 2 is rubbish, and the conclusion that it will stay below 2 is double rubbish, and that it will stay "low" is also rubbish. There is nothing in the correlation that has anything to do with 2. Experts know 2 is the magic number, so they compare the fertility rate to 2 and when they see it is below 2, they proclaim success. There is a difference between a correlation to "below 2" and a correlation to "lower, that happens to be below 2 in some places". Furthermore, a correlation is not a mechanism, and if scientists had found a mechanism, instead of just proposing possible mechanisms, the correlation would be forgotten. The only possible mechanism that could exist that would ensure we do not over breed, is the societal knowledge that we must not over breed. That societal knowledge is non-existent, except in China.

        Here is another way to say roughly the same thing. If a belief system (for example the belief that god wants you to have a lot of children) produces an average of more than two children and the beliefs are passed along to an average of at least two children, people with that belief system will overpopulate the planet. Demographers have not proven that this cannot exist. It isn't clear how you could prove that it cannot exist, especially when we know that many different religions do encourage lots of children. Demographers must find these groups and measure their growth. Demographers simply do not know this. If they did, they would recognize that their current techniques for measuring birth rates filters out information regarding beliefs that are passed from one generation to the next. This means that they are incapable of discovering a very possible correlation that goes against the lower birth rates. Of course there's no point in worrying about that correlation when we know the mechanism. The only antidote for the belief that you must have a lot of children, is the societal knowledge that it is wrong, morally wrong, to have that belief.

        The moral logic is pretty damn simple. If my descendants average more than 2 two they will overpopulate the planet, therefore it is morally wrong for my descendants to average more than two. Many smart people think that if they have more than 2, someone else that has less than 2 will offset their extras. This is not true. It must be your descendants that have fewer than 2 to offset your extras above 2.

        Imagine a world where there was a constant limit to the number of people that could be provided for. If you refuse to do this simple math example, read about the Island of Tikopea in Jared Diamond's book "collapse..." to see a real world where there was a constant limit. If the population is at that limit, and the people average three children, then 1 in 3 children will die. The over breeding does not have to kill adults. It must kill children. (See http://stopattwo.org/explain.aspx). Over breeding kills children. If you recognize this, you'll recognize that averaging more than two children, is much worse than abortion.

        The notion that Japan has solved the population problem and poor African nations that have high birth rates are the only ones that need to change is a common misconception. Rich countries have a moral obligation to provide birth control. If a group cannot afford birth control, and don't know they must not average more than two, and don't know that over breeding kills children, we rich people must correct this. There are many, in the USA for example, that are against providing family planing aid because that money might go towards abortions. These people, and basically everyone else, are simply ignorant of the reality of what I call the StopAtTwo concepts.

        Do I think that everyone simply needs to read http://stopattwo.org/explain.aspx? Hell no! It will take societal or social pressure to get someone to change their current "I have the right to have as many children as I want" beliefs regardless of the fact that the logic is irrefutable. It will require unrelenting pressure.

        jt

        On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:50 PM, <aditmore@...> wrote:
        You are way overestimating the political difficulty here.  We need do
        nothing like such authoritarian actions as proposed to reverse population
        growth as several nations like Japan and Italy have already done it!  All
        we need to do is transfer public spending from parental subsidies like
        baby bonuses and public schools to paid contraception.  It's a simple
        funds transfer and requires neither new authoritarian regulations nor
        secret med labs.  And every piece of the program already has a coalition
        built around it, it's just that only we combine the contraception funding
        side (with the feminists) with the cut parental subsidies side, with the
        antitax lobby.
               Paid contraception needs to receive funding transfers from EVERY
        other government project as well, including immigration guards and
        deportation jet charters; as paid contraception reduces far more people
        per dollar spent.
        What is paid contraception??????? THIS!!!!!
        http://www.projectprevention.org/

        Such a strategy also gives us much needed intermediate victories which
        are so important for building political momentum, because one penny of
        tax money transferred from a baby bonus or parental subsidy to
        contraception is a victory for us, where demanding a 2 child policy by
        regulation will have us butting our heads without an inch of progress for
        a long time.

        My biggest beef with Greenpeace is that they are so hard on Japan (for
        whaling and dolphin coves), when Japan's fertility rate of 1.3 more than
        compensates for that.  They have left "stop at two" in the dust!!!!!  and
        so has Russia, Italy, Germany, and more.  Such nations (withe TFRs under
        1.5) have earned a license to whale.
        -Alan Ditmore
        http://www.change.org/members/218464




        ____________________________________________________________
        60-Year-Old Mom Looks 27
        Mom Reveals Free Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
        ConsumerLifestyles.org



        --
        jt

        John Taves
        StopAtTwo


         
      • aditmore@juno.com
        One important fact about India that I think you are missing; India is currently moving back towards more fertility reduction incentives, this time more
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 27, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          One important fact about India that I think you are missing; India is currently moving back towards more fertility reduction incentives, this time more gradually and thus with less public reaction.  India really is starting to do it right with the exception of their suppression of ultrasound for gender selective abortions, which are very effective because it is the number of women that determine the reproductive capacity.  If there are fewer women, there will be fewer children even if the number of children per woman remains constant.  This is one area where traditional sexism HELPS overpopulation, significantly.  It is also just the opposite of why cows outnumber bulls in most pastures.
          -Alan
           
          On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:22:13 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...> writes:
          All those incentives/disincentives, are fine. The problem is that no politician will be elected if they bring up the concept of limiting births. The more effective and necessary that these incentives are, the more that people will hate them and won't allow the politicians to continue them. This is the lesson that population experts took from the fertility reduction programs that were rejected in India several decades ago. The experts failed to comprehend that the more hated these laws are, the more that they are needed. If Japan put in place a draconian one child policy, where the forced sterilization on someone that had produce one child, how many would complain? Free vasectomies when I don't want more children? Cool! In contrast, American's would throw a fit, and America clearly needs that policy more than Japan does.

          I don't know about the Aussies or Japanese, I am American and our education on these issues is dreadful. If the Japanese are aware of the following set of facts, better than say Americans, then indeed they are a model to follow. Is that what you are saying with respect to "societal limit on family size"?

          My take on Americans is that:
          1) a good percent comprehend that more than two children per increases our numbers and less decreases.
          2) A huge percent believe something along the following lines:
          a) we can handle a lot more (e.g. they believe the horseshit that all humans on the planet can fit into Texas)
          b) we'll figure out new technologies to handle an increasing number of people (but they basically barf on the fact that averaging more than 2 attempts to grow the numbers to infinity),
          3) Of those that comprehend #1, I will say that very few recognize that the following logic is crap, or rather a large number will say the following "I had 4 children, but others had fewer than 2 so it works out".
          4) None, and that means that I would be surprised if any significant number of people that receive this email, know that you can't rely on others to have fewer than two to offset your extras. It must be your descendants that offset your extras above two.

          Regarding #4, it is a different way to say the same thing that I have stated in the previous two emails. Your response indicates that you don't understand the concept. You referenced a demographer for support, but that just confirms my point that demographers are clueless about this too. This concept if vital. Yes, very large families (VLF) might not affect the total fertility today, but the values, beliefs, or desires, that caused that VLF must not be passed along to the next generation. If they are, those values or beliefs will overpopulate the planet. The VLFs must occur totally randomly. There must not be any increased probability of the descendants of a VLF producing another VLF. I cannot emphasize enough that this concept must be comprehended by anyone that wants to be a population expert.

          When you do comprehend it, two things should be concluded. Everyone must know this concept, and the fact that demographers don't know it means nearly nobody knows it. A vital key to the whole population problem is figuring out how to get demographers to recognize this concept. Right now they are hampering efforts because they don't know this.

          An analogy might help. The astrologers (demographers) are telling you how the stars move across the sky. It has never occurred to them to imagine the sun as the center of the planets and Earth's orbits. They have not imagined that the earth is spinning on a wobbly axis, thus they simply cannot make sense of the motions of the stars. They can predict with reasonable accuracy where the stars, moon, and planets will be in the sky in the next few minutes or hours, but they stink at longer durations. They know they stink at it too, but they are the experts and people turn to them for the facts. Along come the Chinese (I like this analogy because the Chinese have the same role in both), who explain this stuff to Italians and spark the renaissance. Demographers are unable to predict birth rates long term. They don't comprehend #4 above.

          Regarding your last paragraph that starts with "In the end though". I think you mean "in the short term...". If you consider the long term, many many generations, you can make sense of #4. Comprehending that helps us know what we must do in the short term to mitigate the disaster that the "Limits to Growth" people predict.

          jt

          On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Jenny Goldie <jenny.goldie@...> wrote:
          John
           
          In answer to the question: How to get the birthrate we're aiming for, I advocate a whole lot of incentives and disincentives. Some in the feminist movement call this coercion but I don't.
           
          For instance, you can't get a Government job in Vietnam if you have more than two children. Or...you can hand out child support measures (e.g. tax deductibility for child care costs) for the first and second child only. If you must have a baby bonus, you give it for the first child, less for the second and none at all for subsequent children. You ensure universal access to reproductive health measures, including a wide range of contraception. You have mandatory sex education in schools so no adolescent remains ignorant in matters of sex - both physiological and psychological. You create an awareness in society of limits as the Japanese did post-World War II when they learnt the lesson that they could not endlessly expand geographically to accommodate an ever-growing population. When I lived there in 1968, no-one questioned the societal norm of two children per family. Now, of course, women are rebelling and the birth rate is a mere 1.21. Young Japanese women would rather work and travel and have fun than stay home in cramped apartments and have two children as their mothers did. The Japanese, of course, don't have religious groups that promote large families and they don't have immigration to speak of, so it's easier for them to stabilise and reduce their population, but they are a model of sorts in terms of setting a societal limit on family size.
           
          I was once told by a demographer not to worry about the few very large families in Australia as they didn't affect total fertility rate all that much and I think he was right.
           
          In the end though, the imminent decline of oil and other energy sources will determine the future for us. Food (in)security will set the agenda. I interviewed someone yesterday who has done a follow-up on Limits to Growth (40 years old this year) and we're basically on track with the business-as-usual scenario which will see (to quote him): "... the industrial output starts to decline in the modelling in 2015, then food and services some years  later, like 2020, and then ultimately the death rate will go up with the lack of food and services. So population actually starts to decline in about 2030 and then drops by about a billion a decade, I think, at that sort of rate."
           
          On that cheerful note, all the best, Jenny
           
           
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:29 PM
          Subject: Re: Response to Greenpeace on population/frosty wooldridge

          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
           
           
          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_Policy.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

          On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Sheila Davis <sheiladavis05@...> wrote:
          SPA is Sustainable Population Australia -  http://www.population.org.au/about 

          ... and you won't find the message about having more immigration there.  Australia is a country of very low carrying capacity - births over deaths (natural increase) or immigration - both need to be lowered in keeping with that carrying capacity.  Many countries are at the point of ecological collapse - it will do no good for Australia to join them - if we haven't already done so.

          sheila d

          On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:16 AM, John Taves <john.taves@...> wrote:
          Thanks Sheila,

          What is SPA?

          I don't agree that government or industry's desire for cheap labor has any affect on how many children people choose to have. Any sort of message like that is directed a nobody in particular, and does not make any significant impact on the birth rate. Even things like tax breaks or subsidies for children have a minimal impact.

          These messages, and the opposite messages delivered by population advocates, do not do anything significant to address #9 below, because they are addressed to nobody. "we need to end corruption... we need more cheap labor... we need to bail out the banks... we need to lower the birth rate... " All of these messages are somebody's problem, but not mine. The police need to end corruption, the government needs to allow immigrants, Obama needs to bail out the banks, and I'm not sure who, but it isn't me that needs to lower the birth rate.

          I have found no organizations that have the capability or plans to deliver the correct message: "You must not have children". This is what StopAtTwo.org will do, and could use some help getting it done.

          jt


          On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:16 AM, Sheila Davis <sheiladavis05@...> wrote:
          John T, appreciate your enthusiasm.  

          This is what we at SPA have been doing for the last 20 years and more.  until the powers that be get that growth economics is a ponzi scheme, that message will not get out.  

          As long as governments and industry want more cheap labour and more consumers, we will constantly be getting the wrong messages, i.e., that we need more births, more immigration, etc. etc.  

          if you find a way to spread the message, more power to you!

          Sheila D



          On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:00 AM, John Taves <john.taves@...> wrote:
          #2 is unknown, thus regulations are impossible. Thus the StopAtTwo mission is not a political one, it is an educational mission.

          This thread started by people complaining that Greenpeace was not willing to take on the job of population control. Greenpeace cannot do this. The other population related organizations are either clueless with respect to the fact free choice cannot possibly end deaths due to overpopulation long term, or they do not want to alienate whatever small base they have. There are others like Gregary Boyles and Al Bartlett that correctly recognize that we have overshot, and don't think any solution has the time to take effect before some ill defined collapse happens.

          No matter how you slice it, there must be a new organization that's dedicated to educating everyone, including experts. The set of facts that everyone must understand are roughly these:
          1) averaging more than two, kills children. (for brevity, I did not define "averaging more than two" here)
          2) averaging more than two has been killing children, of all species including humans, forever.
          3) our ignorance of this forces us to find ways to increase production of sustenance, which throughout history has sometimes in limited locations (for the past 500 years in North America for example) exceeded the necessary rate to keep ahead of the population growth determined by how many children we are averaging, but these instances are rare in human history and of course population always catches up to resume the killing.
          4) Our ignorance of this causes the life expectancy of adults to drop and ends up killing even more children.
          5) You cannot rely on others to have fewer than two to offset your extras above two. It must be your descendants that offset any extras.
          6) The TwoFourEight algorithm, no more than 2 children, no more than 4 grandchildren, no more than 8 great grands, will ensure that your family does not contribute to growth.
          7) Every country and the whole planet is overpopulated with humans because we are consuming resources that are essential to providing for our numbers faster than those resources renew. Which means that we must average less than two until we are no longer doing this. (e.g. we all do the OneTwoFour algorithm)
          8) The fear of human extinction because of too few births is completely bogus. No human will ever experience human extinction. No human will be harmed if we all choose to have no children. (this is speaking to "experts" that make human extinction a worry.)
          9) The only possible way to end the childhood deaths caused by overbreeding (averaging more than two) is to ensure that everyone, which means every society and religion and country, knows these facts. It must be taught to children, just like "murder is wrong" is taught to everyone. This is determined by the fact that if your descendants average more than two, they will overpopulate the planet even if everyone else has no kids from now on.
          10) Any group that refuses to comprehend this, must be economically and physically isolated.

          All of the above are simple facts of nature. All but 7 can be explained with simple logic, just like the Pythagorean theorem is explained with simple logic. (7 is just as logical, but it requires you to know that oil and other non-renewables are necessary to make 7 billion meals a day.)

          I call these concepts the StopAtTwo concepts. I need help refining them, and explaining them. I need help creating a business plan that will eventually snag huge money to begin the education process which will be started through mass advertising.

          jt


          On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:45 PM, <aditmore@...> wrote:
          I fully understand and agree with #2 below, but since regulating fertility is politically impossible, I don't bother advocating for it.  But my main pint is that there is a gap a mile wide between free contraception and forced contraception, and that is paid contraception.  And THAT is where there is real political potential partly because it already exists, right here:
          And with paid contraception, a government, even a TOWN government, can achieve any fertility rate it is willing to pay for, without force, in a democracy.  All it takes is a big enough contraception budget supported by high enough taxes and eventually it will become IMPOSSIBLE to pay the contraception tax without the contraception subsidy.
          -Alan 
           
        • 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 4 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
             
            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 -----
            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
            consumerproducts.com
          • 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 5 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
               
              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
               
               
              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_Policy.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
              consumerproducts.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.