Ashwani and All, Let me start by conceding Ashwani's penultimate point: the immediate focus in the US and EU should be on reduction of resource consumption. Some pollution reduction is harder to localize because much manufacturing has moved out of the US and EU but much pollution is still generated within their political boundaries and so that is also a rational immediate focus. But I still think that population is also a necessary focus although I do see that, as a resident of a net population importer, I am advocating for solutions others must adopt. However, the assertion that a focus on population shifts the burden to the Third World in the same response that claims 9 billion for the stable human population and also reminds us that equity is an absolute requirement for a just future and, finally, implores us to think about it makes a mix from which interesting questions arise. Given 9 billion, equity of ecological footprint, and the requirement that we do not exceed Earth's carrying capacity, what would the average person's life look like (assuming no breathtaking technological advances)? Could one own a car, live in a ranch house, commute to work, etc. at present levels of technology? Is a population of 9 billion unsustainable at a reasonable living standard (I ask this from an American's perspective and realize that "reasonable" is a value judgment)? I don't ask these questions rhetorically but to elicit links or references to sources that have crunched the data to answer these questions. After all, by advocating for equity and ecological stability we are asking for the future inherent in these numbers (once again, assuming current technologies)
One question I do have that will not be answered by any amount of historical analysis is this: is Ashwani's faith in technology justified? Technology has produced much of the pollution and must be considered as part of the problem as well as a possible solution. To be honest, I ask the above questions because I fear we have, in fact, bumped into some global limitations and that, without faith in technology, thinks look bleak. Phil Ganter Biology Department Tennessee State University On 12/18/08 9:58 AM, "Ashwani Vasishth" <[email protected]> wrote: Actually, I think this is a conversation that needs to happen here--both because ecologists need to be engaged in this discussion, and because a truly ecological perspective is sorely missing from the population debate. May I submit that, from a process-function view, that population is not the big problem for planetary carrying capacity--rather we need to be watching consumption and pollution, and that includes GHG emissions. Ehrlich and Holdren and Commoner gave us I=P*A*T. As a life-long Third Worlder, I would suggest there are real reasons why population cannot be the wedge we use to get at carrying capacity. But at least, read Kates, Population, Technology and the Human Environment: A Thread Through Time. I'm sure we have a carrying capacity problem. But a sustainability frame includes equity. Making this about population puts the problem of carrying capacity on the shoulders of the Third World. In effect, we externalize the problem onto "them," and can then sit back and enjoy the "fruits of Western Civilization" for ourselves. Making this about consumption, and to some extent about pollution, puts the problem squarely where I believe it belongs, on us. Think about it. The world population is at 6.7 billion (and most likely to stabilize around nine billion). America has a population of 300 million and is said to use 30% of the world's resources. India and China have a population of over 2.5 billion, and they want what we got--mainly because we've spent decades telling them that what we got is what they ought to want. Hollywood ensures that the American "way of life" be the ideal that all civilizations shoot for, in order to show that they too are modern. Its roosting time, folks. Anything we can possibly do about population will have a lag time of decades. Anything we do about consumption and pollution can have immediate impacts. The choice is ours. And yes, innovation, though taken differently than Julian Simon meant it, is still the answer. Cheers, - Ashwani Vasishth [email protected] (818) 677-6137 -------------------------------------------------------- Director Institute for Sustainability http://blogs.csun.edu/sustainability Assistant Professor Department of Urban Studies and Planning http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/ -------------------------------------------------------- At 9:29 AM -0500 12/18/08, Kevin Mueller wrote: >I think some folks are still missing Jane's point about overpopulation. While >I wouldn't disagree with Andy or Bill's responses regarding the validity of >borders to overpopulation in some contexts, both of these responses ignore >that 'overpopulation' at a sub-global scale can be alleviated by imports, etc. >(e.g. Canada as Andy describes). Globalization is not going away soon, >regardless if some would rather see populations and economies be sustainable >at the local or regional level. As long as the economy is global, I think the >most relevant scale to discuss overpopulation is at the global level (but not >the only, especially you you are living in the third world). > >I have not heard or read anything which convinces me that we can't sustain our >current growing population (globally or within the US for example) with some >wealth and food redistribution and reasonable technological advances. For >example, how do we know we are not underestimating the contribution of >innovation as EhrIich did? I am NOT suggesting that there aren't costs of >globalization (e.g. burning fossil fuel to import food to Canada), that there >aren't regions of overpopulation currently not 'saved' by globalization (e.g. >Africa), or that technology will save us all and we should continue business >as usual. Anyone know of any good books or articles addressing the >sustainability of global populations? I am especially looking for positions >with solid backing here rather than editorials, although I know there is lots >of gray there. > >Should we think about continuing this discussion in a new venue to spare those >not as interested and not dilute the job adverts, etc? >Perhaps a list-serve or other venue aimed explicitly at Ecology and Economics >would be more appropriate? > >Kevin
