<?xml version="1.0" ?><html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> I've rarely heard green arguments about overpopulation</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> in reference to the US in particular.  What's</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> particularly Nazi about the notion of human</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> overpopulation?  Mostly I hear it in terms of</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> wealthier humans being a bigger environment burden. (Andy F)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">>And you seem to be lucky then.  Usually it seems that it's not the white cafe crowds that are
>associated with "overpopulation" (KDR)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">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.  </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">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)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt"> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">>Either way, the concept of "overpopulation" seems to be relative--I'm</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">>sure a pop of 5000 could be an "overpopulation" issue in some circumstances if there are
>distribution problems. (KDR)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">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)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt"> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">>Can you offer me a definition of "overpopulation"?  </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">>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?  </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">>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)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">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? </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">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.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">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?</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">John Thornton</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt"> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"></div>
</body>
</html>