>And you seem to be lucky then. Usually it seems that it's not the white cafe crowds that are
>associated with "overpopulation" (KDR)
Maybe you're unlucky instead? My experiences are more along the lines of Andy's. I have not seen any evidence that most people concerned with population feel the way you describe. Some do but the vast majority don't. You can say that about most movements though. Some loud voices in the area of population issues are racist but then again cranks tend to have loud voices and get media play. The environmental "footprint" idea, while rough, demonstrates the current thinking of most environmentalists. The "footprint" of a farmer in Brazil is much smaller than that of a suburban dwelling North American. Most people I know interested in population concerns incorporate this idea into their thinking. (JT)
>Either way, the concept of "overpopulation" seems to be relative--I'm
>sure a pop of 5000 could be an "overpopulation" issue in some circumstances if there are
>distribution problems. (KDR)
Overpopulation isn't a distribution problem, it is a carrying capacity problem. We can't even get the distribution right why add overpopulation to the problem? (JT)
>Can you offer me a definition of "overpopulation"?
>If it is defined as a condition where there are not enough resources to sustain some x number
>of humans, then why not ally ourselves with the right and say survival of the fittest, only
>capitalistic market structures can control supply and demand, ect? How does the "left" in
>whatever definition you wish claim that everyone can have a equitable rights beyond simply
>basic needs, and gain some form of liberation for themselves but at the same time say there
>is an "overpopulation" issue? What does it mean?
>Prove overpopulation, I guess I'm asking. "Overpopulation" is something I reject, and usually
>associate with some sort of anti poor and brown contention. (KDR)
Overpopulation is real. Rejecting it doesn't make it less real. Much like climate change though evidence for it is slow in coming. Saying prove overpopulation is much like saying prove climate change. How much certainty do you want? It isn't a simple physics problem with a simple proof for an answer. To determine the carrying capacity of the planet at a specific standard of living is not possible right now. We can have some rough ideas but they will vary a great deal. I'm not a Malthusian but I am aware that if the population reaches a point that resource scaricity becomes an issue the poor will be hit harder than the rich. Why not try to avoid that if possible? The carrying capacity of the planet appears to be changing right now too. What is sustainable today may not be sustainable 50 years from now depending on how adverse the effects of climate change are. Certainly reject any claims that place the burden predominantly on the third world but don't pretend that the problem doesn't exist there either. The governments of China and India recognize overpopulation as a problem to be addressed. Why do you reject it? Because you're smarter than they are?
John Thornton
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20050324/dc1e442b/attachment.htm>