Dear Ecolog-listmay I suggest to the list, before we go overboard, and going
back to basic Ecology, that in our species, women are the ones that get
pregnant and have babies? I see in recent posts "population" is addressed as an
abstract concept, when in fact,the ability and opportunity of a woman to
control her own reproductive output is by far the most valuable resource to
prevent and correct overpopulation.The demands of motherhood are so taxing that
women, when not forced by religion, society or tradition, will be careful to
take in very small doses, hence reducing their offspring significantly.Now,
when you add the factors religion + society + tradition, are you 100 % certain
that they do not influence at all new births in the USA (for either nationals
or immigrants?) What about in the rest of the world?Sarah Frias-Torres, Ph.D.
Marine Conservation Biologist [Writing as an independent scientist]> Date: Mon,
15 Dec 2008 11:18:08 -0600> From: [email protected]> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] FW:
[ECOLOG-L] ECONOMICS AND ECOLOGY Growth or Equilibrium? Re: [ECOLOG-L]
Climate Change Experts lose faith in Renewable Energies> To:
[email protected]> > To All,> > The recent posts on a steady-state
economy and economic growth have lost focus on the ecological underpinnings of
any macroeconomic model. Even if one uses a model that postulates an infinite
universe of material resource (accomplished deus ex machina by substitution and
the genie of technology), one must still account for population size.
Steady-state economy is obviously not possible without steady-state population
size unless we are are willing to condemn future generations to ever-sinking
living standards. Andy Park wonders why we have to grow. Population,
population, population. This is so without considering such evils as worldwide
income disparity (and consequent ecological footprint disparity), which is a
significant driver on growth. If you narrow your focus on the US, which is
reasonable given that the ESA is based in America, and that the US has a
monstrous per-capita footprint and a growing population, one still has to
account for growth (even if migration is a driver on the growth rate) when
promoting a shift to a steady-state economy. The issues surrounding limiting
human population size touch deeply into our attitudes, our perception of
freedom, and our religious beliefs but that does not justify ignoring the
problem. The history of attempts to affect population growth rate is full of
successes, failures, and cautionary examples of bureaucratic tyranny. We might
find it easier to promote a steady-state economy if we also recommended
policies consistent with our values that promoted a steady-state population
size.> > Phil Ganter> Biology Department> Tennessee State University> > > On
12/14/08 12:40 AM, "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]> wrote:> > Ecolog:> > Quite!
But I suppose that any decline in support for romantically appealing
"alternatives" that can thus easily convince the taxpayers to support more and
more subsidies for "green" fleecing is encouraging. That means that a whopping
34% see through the schemes for what they are.> > Nonetheless, even if
anthropogenic global warming also turns out to be hyperflummoxing technically,
it still may be just the surrogate needed to put the brakes on energy waste.
Certainly, if one looks at replacing the waste fraction (Advertizing signs,
inefficient transport, concentrated generation) one will get numbers in
infeasible territory. The message that has got to get out is that, regardless
of the reasons used, energy use has got to decline, and if it does, everybody
will be better off (except for the gamblers that don't care what happens to
their children and grandchildren).> > Cutting just the waste fraction out need
cause no pain for anybody in the world--on the contrary, it has more potential
than all the "alternative" profit-centers on the block, and they won't even
cost the energy producers a dime, because they will still be able to gouge
their customers ever more, out of proportion to the reduction in use. If we
need more energy reduction, just going to bed at night need not be a huge
sacrifice--and the list goes on, all without the flocks of yellow-bellied
grantsuckers eating the seed corn, if any is left over after its conversion to
alcohol fuelishness.> > This shot across the bow in the "economic" (laughable,
eh?) sphere (irony intended) will seem like a pebble compared to the coming
skyrocketing of energy PRICES, not to mention the VALUE lost in human habitat
(even if you forget all the other species and habitats that will go first,
concurrently, and afterwards) degradation and cultural chaos. The gamblers may
be some of the last to feel the full weight of the resolving of the real
factors that influence life quality at a greatly reduced level of
ATTAINABILITY--forget mere SUSTAINABILITY! But even the Emperiors will have to
do without their gold toilets, not to mention having to beef up their defenses
at every level.> > WT> > Apolgies for getting off into opinion territory . . .>
> > ----- Original Message -----> From: "Tom Giesen" <[email protected]>> To:
<[email protected]>> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 4:43 PM>
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Experts lose faith in Renewable
Energies> > >> Odd headline - I read it as "they don't think they will work"
while the>> actual reductions in support are from 4 - 8%, and, for two of the>>
technologies, way above 50% support (66 and 61%). It is "just a tad less>>
faith" instead.>>>> Tom Giesen>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Geoff
Patton <[email protected]> wrote:>>>>> (originally seen in post by Sam White
of Cedar Rock Farm/CSA)>>>>>> Climate Change Experts lose faith in Renewable
Energies:>>>>>>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change->>>
renewable-energy<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change-renewable-energy><http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change-renewable-energy>(>>>
http://tinyurl.com/56hoah).>>>>>> Cordially yours,>>>>>> Geoff Patton,
Ph.D.>>> Wheaton, MD 20902>>>>>>>>>>> -->> Tom Giesen>> 629 NW 29th St.>>
Corvallis, OR 97330>> (541) 554-4162> > >
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > > The New Scientist Editorial that (re) initiated this Discussion thread>
had the following to say about growth:> > "This is the logic of free-market
capitalism: the economy must grow> continuously or face an unpalatable
collapse."> > This facet of our economy has always been a bit of a mystery to
me.> You are either forever growing; otherwise you face collapse. In the>
current system (which we may characterize as socialist / capitalist> after the
bail out of money losing and still doomed companies), it> seems "steady state"
cannot work.> > It seems to me that this aspect of the economy is the Achilles
heel of> any attempt to mitigate carbon emissions, manage fisheries>
effectively, or achieve any number of other desirable ecological> outcomes.
Tony Blair said it best when he stated that "there is a> mismatch in timing
between the environmental and electoral impact".> In simple terms, a politician
(even Obama) will always choose to grow> now and pay later. The penalty for
not doing so is collapse.> > But these sad facts beg some serious questions
that I have been trying> to answer in vain. Maybe you , dear Ecologgers, can
offer some answers:> > 1. Why does the globalized economy have to grow or
collapse; that is,> what are the mechanics that dictate it.> > 2. What would
happen if the global economy grew at, say, 0.5 percent> for 1, 5, 10, or 20
years?> > 3. is there a way to get to a steady state economy from where we
are?> That is can we decouple social and political stability from growth?> >
I have some thoughts on this that involve the economic multiplier> effect,
which is a positive feedback that reinforces the effects of> adding or
subtracting money form the economy. But surely it has to be> more complex than
that?> > Interestingly, I have been exploring the economic literature (I know,>
I know, it's horrific, but someone has to do it!). Turns out that> economists
may know a good deal less about economic growht than one> might have imagined.
Not so surprisingly, the literature appears to> concentrate on understanding
the drivers of growth or how to achieve> more of it. I have searched in vain
for literature describing in> detail the consequences of failing to grow.....>
> Ciaou,> > Andy Park> > ------ End of Forwarded Message
