From nicka@well.com Sat Jul 4 16:02:59 1998 Received: from smtp.well.com (smtp.well.com [206.80.6.147]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id QAA20729 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 16:02:57 -0600 (MDT) Received: from well.com (nobody@well.com [206.15.64.10]) by smtp.well.com (8.8.6/8.8.4) with ESMTP id PAA24768 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 15:02:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nicka@localhost) by well.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA28187; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 15:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 15:02:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Nicholas C. Arguimbau" Sender: "Nicholas C. Arguimbau" Reply-To: "Nicholas C. Arguimbau" Subject: population control - how urgent, how strict To: PPN@csf.colorado.edu cc: nicka@well.com Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I am a new member of this list. My interest is more practical than academic. I hope you will excuse my naivete. I share the view that there is a close relationship between achieving a balanced population and achieving a variety of humanitarian goals - in particular, adequate social security and health care for aging people and adequate education and professional opportunities for women, and in general a sufficiently stimulating environment that people are content to do something other than constant procreation. I also recognized that in the best of all possible worlds, population control would be implemented through voluntary means. Those things said, I can't help make the following observations. There are at least the following THREE reasons why population REDUCTION is very urgent: 1. Deforestation, global warming, El Nino, inability of science to keep up with the mutation of the AIDS virus, the probable fact that humanity has more biomass by far than any other species in history on earth, the projected very soon depletion of oil reserves (which were/are largely responsible for the enormous increase in agriculatural productivity around the world in the last several decades), all suggest to me that we have gone substantially beyond our carrying capacity on the planet - perhaps by as much as a factor of ten. 2. There is a serioius problem with anthropocentric control of the biosphere even if we haven't yet gone beyond our carrying capacity in other terms, which is this: the former biological diversity of the planet resulted in an almost limitless set of "response times" to fluctuations in weather patterns, energy inputs, etc., permitting the entire system to remain stable almost regardless of inputs; compare, for example, an algal bloom with a redwood forest in ability to serve as a carbon sink. We have essentially one guiding response time - the human generation time, which is roughly the reciprocal of the interest rate. I think a healthy biosphere must, to be a stable and efficient reflection of the energy and other resource inputs, have a biodiversity such that biomass as a function of generation times should be roughly a Laplace transform of the energy/water inputs. When that relationship gets out of kilter, we must inevitably see serious instabilities, such as are already showing up. To put this all in simple terms, we are heading for trouble by having an entire biosphere controlled by the human economic interest rate, practically inevitable if the biosphere is dominated by people. 3. All around there are enormous numbers of very frustrated creative and aggressively "leading" people. The market won't support them. There are on the positive side the talented writers who can't publish, the talented musicians who can't find pay as musicians, etc; on the negative side, there are the Saddham Hussein types who would be quite happy to blow up the world (and might on a personal level have the capacity to do so) to acccomplish some personal "creative" objective. I have been in places where population dnesity was very low On the other hand, I have been in two places (e.g. Alaska in 1974 and Idaho today) where that frustratioin didn't appear to be present - people could be observed thriving in an "anything is possible" atmosphere. I am inclined to think this is related to an aspect of human evolution - that we evolved as a tribal species in which a certain percentage of creative individuals in the tribe (say 1-3 out of 200) would benefit the tribe whereas a larger number would destabilize and hurt it. Given that we are still essentially genetically what we were when we evolved as tribal, we now have a higher percentage of "creative" people and would-be leaders than a stable society wants - hence the frustration and the dangerous destabilization. The earth can be neither a happy nor a safe place when the population is too high for the numbers of such people to stay at a level such that their frustrations can be kept within bounds. In short, it seems to me that there are at least three ways of looking at whether we have exceeded our carrying capacity on the planet, all of which suggest that we have. The problems seem to me to be sufficiently dire that realistically, going about slow, humanitarian, voluntary means of halting population growth, especially given the fact that the population is expected to grow in the neighborhood of 50% after the ZPG level of individual procreation is reached, will cause more severe pain to more people than more stringent measures taken today, and that present policy makers are just burying their heads in the sand. In particular, adequate population control measures must be far more than voluntary measures including (a) availability of birth control devices, (b) social security for the elderly, and (c) equal opportunities for women. These are good things in themselves, but they will be "too little, too late." Having said all the above, I admit I may be totally wrong and would like to get some education. I have the following questions: 1. Quantitatively, what needs to be done in terms of social programs to bring about voluntary ZPG? (i.e. has anyone found that thus and such investment in education for women results typically in thus and such reduction in reproductive rates?) 2. What is the dollar cost of #1 ? Who can pay it? How far over present payments is it? 3. What is the realistic carrying capacity of the earth over the short term (next century) and long term (geological) for humanity under each of the constraints outlined above 1-3? 4. Which will really be more painful to humanity - a benign voluntary program to eventually reach ZPG (followed perhaps by a drastic, violent, chaotic reduction to a much lower carrying capacity) or a less benign, perhaps mandatory program to reduce population which will eleiminate the painful uncontrolled reduction? If one doesn't perceive that we have yet reached carrying capacity, a variant of the same question still applies - whether implementation of a voluntary and benign program is justified when the tradeoff is taken into account of postponement, perhaps indefinitely, of goals of adequate standards of income for the poorer nations. This is a long e-mail. What I would like is to be directed towards literature, preferably on line, which quantitatively and objectively addresses these questions, and towards progressive activists and activist organizations, also preferably on line, interested in the same issues. Thank you in advance for any guidance you can give me. Nick Arguimbau From ohalpern@hsph.harvard.edu Tue Jul 14 12:45:09 1998 Received: from ackroyd.harvard.edu (ackroyd.harvard.edu [128.103.208.29]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id MAA14781; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:45:01 -0600 (MDT) Received: from hsph.harvard.edu (hsph.harvard.edu [128.103.75.21]) by ackroyd.harvard.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA08722; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:44:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hsph.harvard.edu by hsph.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA07929; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:44:02 -0400 Message-ID: <35ABA869.45A46FE3@hsph.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:50:18 -0400 From: Orit Halpern MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marxist feminist , PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK , Repro-Hlth-L CC: "Ra'eda al'Zubi" , lisa Mccarthy Subject: Call for Submissions to Reproductive Health and Gender Forum Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Colleagues: I'm writing you to announce the recent launch of the Global Reproductive Health Forum (GRHF), http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet, and to call for submissions of original research for this Internet project. The current discussions of reproductive health on the internet often fail to encourage original approaches and critical analysis of the ideas of reproduction, gender and rights. The need for innovative work and ideas cannot be overstated. Even more pressing, is the necessity of allowing these ideas a space for representation and distribution on the internet. We seek to encourage the proliferation of critical discussions about reproductive health and gender on the net by providing an electronic forum presenting work from a variety of disciplines and approaches. We are interested in material which uses reproduction as an entry point to the study of social life, and discusses the (re) production of power relations as embodied in the discourses of public health and bio-medicine within a global context. We are particularly interested in analysis which examines the roles of race, class, gender, and ethnicity within reproductive health. To reach this end we are soliciting materials to present via our web project. We are interested in submissions of publications, articles, research, websites, and commentary concerning the following topics: 1) Gender representation in the discourses of reproductive health and/or international “development” 2) Critical discussion of population and family planning projects within the context of “globalization”. 3) Emerging Reproductive Technologies (both assisted reproductive technologies and contraceptive technologies) 4) Reproductive Rights 5) Any other work which challenges dominant ideas of reproductive health, including training/teaching materials, and activist materials. We encourage graduate students and non-academic organizations to submit work. Acceptance of work is rolling, and there is no deadline. We prefer full text with full citations, references and a bibliography. Submissions should be no more than 5000 words. Please include short biographical information with the submission. Your submission will be refereed by our board of academic staff. Submissions can be returned with comments and changes suggested by the editorial board. Please send submissions by email attachment in Microsoft Word. Our email address is: grhf@hsph.harvard.edu or you can submit via our website at www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet . If you do not have access to email, you can send the work by snail mail. We require a hard copy of the submission and a copy on diskette ( IBM 3.5”diskettes). Please send submissions to: Ra’eda Al-Zubi Global Reproductive Health Forum Department of Population and International Health Harvard School of Public Health 665 Huntington Ave. Boston, MA 02115 Copyrights remain with the author and full academic credit and citation will go to the author and/or copyright holder of the article. We will gladly link back to organizations, publishers, or authors from the article, simply send the URL with the work. Your input and participation are invaluable to us and we welcome your submissions as well as your comments and ideas about our Internet project. If you would like more information on our project, please contact us at: grhf@hsph.harvard.edu We look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Sincerely, Orit Halpern Project Manager Global Reproductive Health Forum Harvard School of Public Health Tel: (617)432-2936 Fax: (617)566-0365 E-mail: ohalpern@hsph.harvard.edu From slayman@2nature.org Thu Jul 30 10:17:43 1998 Received: from 2nature.org (2nature.org [204.164.18.10]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with SMTP id KAA01770 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:17:40 -0600 (MDT) Received: by 2nature.org(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.1 (569.2 2-6-1998)) id 85256651.005B150A ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:34:51 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: SECOND NATURE From: "Stephen Layman" To: SLayman@2nature.org Message-ID: <85256651.005A3162.56@2nature.org> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:34:44 -0400 Subject: Educational Resources job announcement Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Second Nature is a nonprofit organization that works with college and university faculty, administrators and students to help them make environmental and sustainability principles the foundation of learning in the classroom, the campus, and in community outreach. Second Nature's Educational Resources Program acquires, creates and disseminates tools and resources to help educational professionals teach about sustainability. These resources are then made available as hard-copy publications and/or website content < http://www.2nature.org >. The primary responsibility of the Educational Resources Program Associate will be to acquire educational materials from higher education faculty and related sources. Specific tasks will include developing and implementing content acquisition strategies; reviewing and summarizing content submissions; data entry, formatting and management; recommending database improvements; and developing collaborative relationships with external stakeholders. The ideal candidate will be a goal-focused, self starter who can work with minimal supervision. He/she must have strong organizational and communication skills and an interest in environmental issues and education. Candidates should also have a working knowledge of Macintosh computers and the World Wide Web. This position is a full-time position through the end of April 1999, with an excellent benefit package. Salary low 20s. Minority applicants are strongly encouraged to apply. Our office is easily reached by public transportation. To apply, please mail or fax your resume, cover letter, and salary requirements prior to August 7, 1998 to: Steve Bolton Second Nature 44 Bromfield Street, Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02108-4909 USA Fax: (617) 292-0150 No phone calls, please. From cincotta@popact.org Thu Jul 30 13:14:22 1998 Received: from popact.org (popact.org [205.197.158.2]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id NAA17623 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 13:14:19 -0600 (MDT) Received: from cincotta.popact.org (dyna223.popact.org [205.197.158.223]) by popact.org (8.8.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA11468 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:35:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980730143123.00740690@popact.org> X-Sender: cincotta@popact.org Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:31:23 -0500 To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu From: Richard Cincotta Subject: US Congress, contraceptives, & international family planning funding Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Information about US congressional legislative action concerning US contraceptive testing and the FDA approval process, and US-funding for international family planning, can find these at the following web site: http://www.populationaction.org/politics/legupdate798.htm Richard P. Cincotta Senior Research Assoc. Population Action International 1120 19th St., NW Suite 550 Washington, DC 20036 USA (202)659-1833 x168 (202)293-1795 (fax) cincotta@popact.org See PAI Web site: http://www.populationaction.org/ From cincotta@popact.org Fri Jul 31 09:59:37 1998 Received: from popact.org (popact.org [205.197.158.2]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id JAA02037 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:59:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from cincotta.popact.org (dyna223.popact.org [205.197.158.223]) by popact.org (8.8.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA17191; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 12:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980731120005.007373c0@popact.org> X-Sender: cincotta@popact.org Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 12:00:06 -0500 To: nicka@well.com From: Richard Cincotta Subject: Re: how urgent, how strict Cc: ppn@csf.colorado.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Yours was a long and interesting email, Nick. I'm not sure that anyone has gotten back to you -- but I'd like to give it a shot (using my own reading of the literature and opinions, of course). >1. Quantitatively, what needs to be done in terms of social programs to >bring about voluntary ZPG? (i.e. has anyone found that thus and such >investment in education for women results typically in thus and such >reduction in reproductive rates?) There's quite a bit of writing on this topic. For an easy-reading review, I like the publication written by Laurie Mazur and put out by the Rockefellor Foundation last year entitled "High Stakes." It concludes (as I have) that the programs that most affect fertility are those that promote girls' education, promote women's participation in the workforce -- which seem to stimulate a decline in desired family size -- and programs that promote family planning, and maternal and child health. Quality voluntary family planning programs provide the means for families to meet their childbearing goals, whether in terms of frequency or timing. Maternal and child health programs reduce infant mortality, and help families escape a vicious poverty circle that include poor health, poor childhood development, and household insecurity. There are, of course, other aspects of economic development, culture, and livelihood that weigh upon childbearing -- but the three that I mentioned are those that most development agencies focus upon. Donor agencies have yet to do a very substantive job to change the situation of lagging girls' education in the developing world. You can get "High Stakes" from: Rockefellor Foundation 420 5th Av. New York, NY 10018 USA or http://www.rockfound.org/frameset.html Laurie Mazur, “High Stakes: The United States, Global Population and our Common Future,” (New York: Rockefellow Foundation, 1997). >2. What is the dollar cost of #1 ? Who can pay it? How far over >present payments is it? A total packet of these costs were figured for the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, 1994 (ICPD). Including a reproductive health component, which addresses sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV/AIDS prevention), the total bill comes to US$17 billion per year for the world. Presently, most developing countries pay the lion's share of their family planning services through state programs and private enterprise. Cairo calls for developed countries to contribute one-third of the bill -- and they fall far short of that goal. PAI has a report coming out on this shortly -- I only have rough figures. The developed country goal is $5.3 billion annually by year 2000. They now contribute about $2 billion (less than 40%). Developing countries need to contribute $11.3 billion by year 2000. They are now at about $8 billion, around 75%. US assistance to family planning programs is among the lowest contribution for developed countries (figured as a percent of GDP basis), though the US is still the biggest player (probably around 40 percent of international funding) despite the large cutbacks from Congress. One point not well known by US citizens: US family planning does not contribute to abortion services, and has been forbidden by law to make those contributions since 1972. You can read our factsheets on funding at: http://www.popact.org/ I recommend the following review of Cairo: Lori S. Ashford, “New Perspectives on Population: Lessons from Cairo,” Population Bulletin (Population Reference Bureau) 50, no. 1 (1995). You can read about costs and donor assistance trends at: http://www.popact.org/programs/minidac.htm >3. What is the realistic carrying capacity of the earth over the short >term (next century) and long term (geological) for humanity under each of >the constraints outlined above 1-3? I don't think anyone really has a clue (though they may believe they do). I suppose it depends on what people expect life's qualities to be, for themselves and for others, including other species. Read Joel Cohen's book: Joel E. Cohen, How many people can the Earth support? (New York: Norton, 1995). >4. Which will really be more painful to humanity - a benign voluntary >program to eventually reach ZPG (followed perhaps by a drastic, violent, >chaotic reduction to a much lower carrying capacity) or a less benign, >perhaps mandatory program to reduce population which will eleiminate the >painful uncontrolled reduction? If one doesn't perceive that we have yet >reached carrying capacity, a variant of the same question still applies - >whether implementation of a voluntary and benign program is justified >when the tradeoff is taken into account of postponement, perhaps >indefinitely, of goals of adequate standards of income for the poorer >nations. Experience suggests that population "control" doesn't appear to work in the long-run. Quality voluntary programs with lots of information and choice are in high demand, however. Coercive programs mandated by elites have led, eventually, to substantial setbacks for voluntary programs that have succeeded them. India is a prime example -- where there are good NGO and state-supported programs, they must deal with the residual stigma of India's quota system, and the incidents that occurred during "the Emergency". China has, most recently, allowed coercive programs in some of its provinces and localities. Besides this being a morally reprehensive approach to family health, most family planning professionals believe that replacement fertility (total fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman, on average) would have been reached without coercion -- all of the more rapidly developing countries in East Asia have achieved substantial reductions in fertility (UN 1996 data: Thailand (TFR=1.9), Singapore (1.8), Taiwan (TFR = 1.7, from a Taiwan survey), South Korea (1.6), Indonesia (2.9), Hong Kong (1.3)). China is at TFR 1.9 . I think there is a high likelihood that China's coercive program could produce in-country backlash long after it has ended. Other findings suggest coercion was unnecessary. About one-third of China's reduction in fertility occurred as a result of delayed age of marriage, and first childbirth. Demographers suggest that Chinese minorities in Southeast Asia -- outside of China -- have generally experienced the most rapid declines in desired family size and the quickest to adopt modern contraceptive use. You can read about fertility changes in Southeast and East Asia at: http://www.popact.org/why_pop/tigers.htm I hope this is helpful. There is more info on our web site -- though it is being re-organized to make it more accessible. Regards, Richard Cincotta Richard P. Cincotta Senior Research Assoc. Population Action International 1120 19th St., NW Suite 550 Washington, DC 20036 USA (202)659-1833 x168 (202)293-1795 (fax) cincotta@popact.org http://www.populationaction.org/ Download "Economics & Rapid Change: the Influence of Population Growth" on population, economics and institutions at: http://www.populationaction.org/why_pop/wealth.htm From nicka@well.com Fri Jul 31 13:00:00 1998 Received: from smtp.well.com (smtp.well.com [206.80.6.147]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id MAA11054 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 12:59:56 -0600 (MDT) Received: from well.com (nobody@well.com [206.15.64.10]) by smtp.well.com (8.8.6/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA22854; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 11:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (nicka@localhost) by well.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA29784; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 11:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 11:59:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Nicholas C. Arguimbau" To: Richard Cincotta cc: ppn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: how urgent, how strict In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980731120005.007373c0@popact.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by csf.Colorado.EDU id MAA11055 Richard - I greatly appreciate your detailed response to my query. It seems to me there are "externalized costs" to large families (e.g. the cost of public eduction, public medical care due to increased population density, global warming, lower standards of living for future generations, etc., etc.). When any private decision externalizes costs, it tends to be part of the dogma of modern economics that things aren't efficient unless the costs are internalized. In any event, people make lots of decisions in deciding the size of their families which have large impacts on society as a whole. If those impacts are large enough, coercive action may be justified. In particular, if we end up with billions of people dying of famine or disease and 90% of the world's species being lost as an alternative to coercive population control, then coercive population control begins to look less morally reprehensible and perhaps even morally imperative because it will prevent much more pain than it creates. The difference perhaps lies in objective, scientific answers to the four questions I posed. I'll read your sources with interest. Thanks. Nick On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Richard Cincotta wrote: > Yours was a long and interesting email, Nick. I'm not sure that anyone has > gotten back to you -- but I'd like to give it a shot (using my own reading > of the literature and opinions, of course). > > >1. Quantitatively, what needs to be done in terms of social programs to > >bring about voluntary ZPG? (i.e. has anyone found that thus and such > >investment in education for women results typically in thus and such > >reduction in reproductive rates?) > > There's quite a bit of writing on this topic. For an easy-reading review, I > like the publication written by Laurie Mazur and put out by the Rockefellor > Foundation last year entitled "High Stakes." It concludes (as I have) > that the programs that most affect fertility are those that promote girls' > education, promote women's participation in the workforce -- which seem to > stimulate a decline in desired family size -- and programs that promote > family planning, and maternal and child health. Quality voluntary family > planning programs provide the means for families to meet their childbearing > goals, whether in terms of frequency or timing. Maternal and child health > programs reduce infant mortality, and help families escape a vicious > poverty circle that include poor health, poor childhood development, and > household insecurity. > There are, of course, other aspects of economic development, culture, > and livelihood that weigh upon childbearing -- but the three that I > mentioned are those that most development agencies focus upon. Donor > agencies have yet to do a very substantive job to change the situation of > lagging girls' education in the developing world. > > You can get "High Stakes" from: > Rockefellor Foundation > 420 5th Av. > New York, NY 10018 USA > or > http://www.rockfound.org/frameset.html > > Laurie Mazur, “High Stakes: The United States, Global Population and our > Common Future,” (New York: Rockefellow Foundation, 1997). > > >2. What is the dollar cost of #1 ? Who can pay it? How far over > >present payments is it? > > A total packet of these costs were figured for the International Conference > on Population and Development in Cairo, 1994 (ICPD). Including a > reproductive health component, which addresses sexually transmitted > diseases (including HIV/AIDS prevention), the total bill comes to US$17 > billion per year for the world. Presently, most developing countries pay > the lion's share of their family planning services through state programs > and private enterprise. Cairo calls for developed countries to contribute > one-third of the bill -- and they fall far short of that goal. > PAI has a report coming out on this shortly -- I only have rough > figures. The developed country goal is $5.3 billion annually by year 2000. > They now contribute about $2 billion (less than 40%). Developing countries > need to contribute $11.3 billion by year 2000. They are now at about $8 > billion, around 75%. > US assistance to family planning programs is among the lowest > contribution for developed countries (figured as a percent of GDP basis), > though the US is still the biggest player (probably around 40 percent of > international funding) despite the large cutbacks from Congress. One point > not well known by US citizens: US family planning does not contribute to > abortion services, and has been forbidden by law to make those > contributions since 1972. > > You can read our factsheets on funding at: > http://www.popact.org/ > > I recommend the following review of Cairo: > Lori S. Ashford, “New Perspectives on Population: Lessons from Cairo,” > Population Bulletin (Population Reference Bureau) 50, no. 1 (1995). > > You can read about costs and donor assistance trends at: > http://www.popact.org/programs/minidac.htm > > > >3. What is the realistic carrying capacity of the earth over the short > >term (next century) and long term (geological) for humanity under each of > >the constraints outlined above 1-3? > > I don't think anyone really has a clue (though they may believe they do). I > suppose it depends on what people expect life's qualities to be, for > themselves and for others, including other species. > Read Joel Cohen's book: > Joel E. Cohen, How many people can the Earth support? (New York: Norton, > 1995). > > >4. Which will really be more painful to humanity - a benign voluntary > >program to eventually reach ZPG (followed perhaps by a drastic, violent, > >chaotic reduction to a much lower carrying capacity) or a less benign, > >perhaps mandatory program to reduce population which will eleiminate the > >painful uncontrolled reduction? If one doesn't perceive that we have yet > >reached carrying capacity, a variant of the same question still applies - > >whether implementation of a voluntary and benign program is justified > >when the tradeoff is taken into account of postponement, perhaps > >indefinitely, of goals of adequate standards of income for the poorer > >nations. > > Experience suggests that population "control" doesn't appear to work in the > long-run. Quality voluntary programs with lots of information and choice > are in high demand, however. > Coercive programs mandated by elites have led, eventually, to > substantial setbacks for voluntary programs that have succeeded them. > India is a prime example -- where there are good NGO and state-supported > programs, they must deal with the residual stigma of India's quota system, > and the incidents that occurred during "the Emergency". > China has, most recently, allowed coercive programs in some of its > provinces and localities. Besides this being a morally reprehensive > approach to family health, most family planning professionals believe that > replacement fertility (total fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman, on > average) would have been reached without coercion -- all of the more > rapidly developing countries in East Asia have achieved substantial > reductions in fertility (UN 1996 data: Thailand (TFR=1.9), Singapore (1.8), > Taiwan (TFR = 1.7, from a Taiwan survey), South Korea (1.6), Indonesia > (2.9), Hong Kong (1.3)). China is at TFR 1.9 . I think there is a high > likelihood that China's coercive program could produce in-country backlash > long after it has ended. > Other findings suggest coercion was unnecessary. About one-third of > China's reduction in fertility occurred as a result of delayed age of > marriage, and first childbirth. Demographers suggest that Chinese > minorities in Southeast Asia -- outside of China -- have generally > experienced the most rapid declines in desired family size and the quickest > to adopt modern contraceptive use. > > You can read about fertility changes in Southeast and East Asia at: > http://www.popact.org/why_pop/tigers.htm > > > > I hope this is helpful. There is more info on our web site -- though it is > being re-organized to make it more accessible. > Regards, > > Richard Cincotta > > > Richard P. Cincotta > Senior Research Assoc. > Population Action International > 1120 19th St., NW > Suite 550 > Washington, DC 20036 > USA > (202)659-1833 x168 > (202)293-1795 (fax) > cincotta@popact.org > http://www.populationaction.org/ > > Download "Economics & Rapid Change: the Influence of Population Growth" on > population, economics and institutions at: > http://www.populationaction.org/why_pop/wealth.htm > >