janw@inmet.UUCP (09/10/86)
[bstempleton@watmath.UUCP ] /* ----- "Population control & Freedom" ----- */ >There really isn't a problem here because free societies increase >wealth, and wealth is the most powerful contraceptive known to >man. True. There are two other simple effects in free and wealthy so- cieties which tend to solve the problem. One is that life expec- tancy grows, compared to child-bearing age. This reduces birth rate, irrespective of people's intentions and habits. The other is, of course, wealth itself making population growth painless. >Wealthy nations like Canada and the US actually have NEGATIVE po- >pulation growth rates at the current time, due to birth. Any to- >tal growth is coming entirely from immigration. The first sentence is not quite true, but it is moving that way. *With* immigration, the growth is not negligible, but easily absorbed. Much faster growth could be absorbed without misguided social legislation such as minimum wage. >So this is a non-issue. A government in a free state would see no >need to even think about population control. Agreed. >The biggest problems arise when the not-so-free states are extra >fecund, and later come claiming a bigger share of the planet be- >cause they are so numerous. In theory, that might be a problem. In practice, these claims are not correlated to fecundity. Germany used that pretext, but she was far from overpopulated (in today's FRG, density is much, much higher, but there's no Lebensraum talk). The USSR is the current superexpansionist power, but it is clearly underpopulated com- pared to most nations. China does *not* make claims even in Si- beria, though she has historical rights; she claims Taiwan, which is densely populated, and Hong Kong, populated more than densely. India is not expansionist. Population excess isn't the issue in any current territorial debate. Mexico could well make a claim against the USA - with some justification even. But she makes other claims, not land. So this is a non-problem. If someone claims your territory, they are just as likely to be less fecund than you are, as more fecund; and the answer shouldn't be different. >Currently it is not a good political move to deny this. If we >ever do have to run into this problem, the best (although un- >pleasant) solution is to say that rights to the commons are in- >herited, with a slop factor while both generations are alive. >Thus if you come from a family of 2, you get the same rights your >parents had. Family of 4, half the rights. If you don't have any >kids, you may sell or transfer your inheritable rights to rela- >tives or the highest bidder. I don't think this is realistic. Most commons are common because they aren't easily divided - such as air and the ocean. Land is either privately or nationally owned, except the Antarctic and the Moon. (Those will be probably divided later). Returning to fecund, not-so-free countries, the problem is lack of freedom. It may yet kill us. If not, the relatively free, cap- italist nations will expand spaceward, and the problem will be less fatal then - and if the unfree nations become free, it will go away. Meanwhile, liberal immigration policies would both cushion the pressure and accelerate progress. >This is not perfect, of course. Since fatherhood is harder to >verify, we get a can of worms. It would be nice if technology >could fix this - a gene scan, perhaps. Please don't. Not another area of state supervision! IRS & FBI scientifically snooping on marital infidelities - that's all we need :-(. >Now the big problem with this (or any other population limiting >scheme) is that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the >sons. But if you get people arguing that 1/4 of the world's popu- >lation (China, for example) should own 1/4 of the world's common >property (air, water, some resources, electromagnetic spectrum) Just give them the finger. They mostly don't mean it - just appealing to the morbid Western guilt complex. As the Oriental proverb goes, "Ask your relative for a camel, he'll get scared and give you a donkey". In any case, the answer to such a claim is simple: *governments* don't have a good claim to resources because *people* are numerous. As for giving all *private individuals* equal access to common resources in conditions of freedom - this is quite accept- able. But they (3d world governments) are almost all nationalis- tic, and most of them are dictatorships. They'll refuse. >Note that overpopulation among the poor is en- >couraged by most forms of welfare. If it became popular policy to >cut all charity to any family with more than 2 kids, a lot of the >problem would be solved. Certainly nobody should get extra chari- >ty because they have an extra kid. The welfare system is a mess, but we need healthy, well developed kids. Discriminating against large families won't do it. Elim- inating most welfare, but letting adults and kids earn a living, would. There is no reason why children need be a great burden on parents *or* taxpayers. A five-year old could do some kinds of work al- ready, and learn in the process. (Apropos to net.socialists: this idea was propounded by Marx, and is, if I am not mistaken, in the Communist Manifesto). School years are mostly wasted, for poor kids and rich kids, too. The 12-year course, properly taught, need take no more than 2 years. (I'd undertake to do it in 18 months, working full-time with one pupil - and beat the SAT of the average school products). Abolish most welfare, abolish public schools, abolish minimum wage; permit child labor under healthy conditions. Create (privately) a network of apprentice schools where kids would be paid a little, and fed, and taught. Let charities chip in where the parents can't; but that may not be needed. Industries will likely jump at the chance to have a workforce tailored to their needs many years in advance, meanwhile doing something useful. Kids will be *needed*. Get rid of race prejudice interfering with adoption of minority kids. Babies are needed, too. The problem is not inequality, but lack of social mobility. As we are graduating into a post-industrial era, a part of our popu- lation is stuck and unable to adapt. It is *not* a matter of their getting too little, or too much, of the pie. The problem is qualitative, it is one of skills, incentives and role models. And of intermediate steps; a family does not have to make it in one generation. What's wrong with this progress report: grandmother on welfare, mother a cleaning lady, daughter an electrician, granddaughter an engineer? Even the Kennedy clan didn't make the presidency in one generation... Jan Wasilewsky
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/24/86)
>>The worst thing that can happen -- will happen [in the 1980s] -- is >>not energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or >>conquest by a totalitarian government. As terrible as these >>catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired within a few >>generations. The one process ongoing in the 1980s that will take >>millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species >>diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly >>our descendants are least likely to forgive us. --Edward O. Wilson, >>*Harvard Magazine*, Jan.-Feb. 1980 > >Tosh: the other disasters he mentions are worse, and less rever- >sible. Genetic diversity can be increased very fast by creating >*artificial* habitats, by genetic engineering and cross-breeding. >[janw] Utter nonsense. Jan, please provide one shred of scientific support for your claims. (This means: document your statements by references to a scientific author or journal with authority to speak in this area, e.g., E.O. Wilson. Quotes from *National Review*, *Time*, or *Gung-Ho For Freedom* do not count.) One has to admire Jan's chutzpah in implying that the distinguished population biologist and behavioral ecologist Edward Wilson doesn't understand the facts about genetic diversity. But of course it's entirely possible that Jan has a better understanding of this subject. So please give us a lecture on this subject, Jan, and explain where Wilson goes wrong. Explain what genetic diversity is, how it is quantified and measured, and the nature of the present threat, if any. It shouldn't take you very long. If time permits I will post some passages from Wilson that support and amplify the passage I quoted. Richard Carnes
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/29/86)
>/* Written 8:21 pm Sep 23, 1986 by carnes@gargoyle.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >>>The worst thing that can happen -- will happen [in the 1980s] -- is >>>not energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or >>>conquest by a totalitarian government. As terrible as these >>>catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired within a few >>>generations. The one process ongoing in the 1980s that will take >>>millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species >>>diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly >>>our descendants are least likely to forgive us. --Edward O. Wilson, >>>*Harvard Magazine*, Jan.-Feb. 1980 >> >>Tosh: the other disasters he mentions are worse, and less rever- >>sible. Genetic diversity can be increased very fast by creating >>*artificial* habitats, by genetic engineering and cross-breeding. >>[janw] > >Utter nonsense. Jan, please provide one shred of scientific support >for your claims. (This means: document your statements by >references to a scientific author or journal with authority to speak >in this area, e.g., E.O. Wilson. Quotes from *National Review*, >*Time*, or *Gung-Ho For Freedom* do not count.) And now, Richard, it is time for you to go back to the books and consider a thing or two about what the word "scientific" means. 1. The word "scientific" does not mean "argued from authority", or "supported by a journal chosen by Richard Carnes" 2. The word "scientific" has to do with they way hypotheses are tested. Not with who argues them nor, except tangentially, where they are written up. I wouldn't be so harsh on you, but you have argued from authority and then attempted to bolster this conduct by ducking the issue of whether Jan was right or not and requiring Jan to give "scientific" support (where you incorrectly define the term "scientific"!). However, the proper answer to arguments from authority is not simply: "but that's an argument from authority!" but includes:, "oh? and why does HE say it". Wilson may feel, or even be able to show (scientifically) that genetic diversity is in peril if nothing changes. Jan, you will note, did *NOT* argue that nothing should change, but rather that the danger may be avoided or the damage repaired via certain means -- means that your quote from Wilson does not attack. >One has to admire Jan's chutzpah in implying that the distinguished >population biologist and behavioral ecologist Edward Wilson doesn't >understand the facts about genetic diversity. But I admire yours more! You have not answered Jan at all, and you've attempted to brand him as unscientific, all the while arguing from authority rather than firm grounds. I particularly like your idea of "scientific" as something that goes on in journals. Does this mean the Targ-Puthoff work on remote viewing is "scientific"? It did appear in "Nature"! No -- science has to do with subtler questions than mere appearance in a journal. Just for example: it is not scientific to talk about proving the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent God -- because there'd be no way to prevent such a being from interfering with the experiment itself. On the other hand, there are many learned journals of theology and philosophy: does that make their content scientific? >But of course it's >entirely possible that Jan has a better understanding of this >subject. Not difficult, at least in this one case, for Jan to have a better understanding of it than YOURS: you misunderstood his point and quoted an answer to the wrong question. You're in no shape to argue that Jan's understanding is flawed! >So please give us a lecture on this subject, Jan, and >explain where Wilson goes wrong. Explain what genetic diversity is, >how it is quantified and measured, and the nature of the present >threat, if any. It shouldn't take you very long. Tsk! When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law, and when neither one is on your side, pound the table! Since you understand argumentation so well, Mr Carnes, and since you feel it proper to assign topics, here's a lecture topic for you: Why the argument from authority is specious, and why one should never quote an authority in answer to the WRONG QUESTION. >If time permits I will post some passages from Wilson that support >and amplify the passage I quoted. But none, I trust, that actually attack Jan's proposal. (Of course if there are some, I'd be eager to see them, they'd be important and they would likely shed light on other answers to the problem).
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/29/86)
[carnes@gargoyle.UUCP ] This goes under a wrong title: the problem is unrelated to population control. >>The worst thing that can happen -- will happen [in the 1980s] -- is >>not energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or >>conquest by a totalitarian government. As terrible as these >>catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired within a few >>generations. The one process ongoing in the 1980s that will take >>millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species >>diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly >>our descendants are least likely to forgive us. --Edward O. Wilson, >>*Harvard Magazine*, Jan.-Feb. 1980 >>Tosh: the other disasters he mentions are worse, and less rever- >>sible. Genetic diversity can be increased very fast by creating >>*artificial* habitats, by genetic engineering and cross-breeding. >Utter nonsense. Jan, please provide one shred of scientific support >for your claims. Scientific ? Neither my statements nor Wilson's were *scientific*. He speaks, e.g., of reversibility of global totalitarianism - this is not only outside *his* science, but *any* science. He also speaks of a future "millions of years" ahead - a future, mind you, with a human factor in it. No one can scientifically know it. My assertions I'll discuss below. >(This means: document your statements by references to a scien- >tific author or journal with authority to speak in this area, >e.g., E.O. Wilson. As I've shown above, no one has a scientific authority to speak "in this area". But I can justify my statements without stooping to an argument from authority. >Quotes from *National Review*, *Time*, or *Gung-Ho For Freedom* >do not count.) Er... of these three, I actually quoted one. Is the above a sample of the scientific integrity you are after? And from that one magazine, I quoted one of your "authorities": Paul Ehrlich. Surely, that is kosher! >So please give us a lecture on this subject, Jan, and >explain where Wilson goes wrong. A short one, O.K. ? His passage was a short one, too. First, a global totalitarian conquest is very likely to be ir- reversible, except through total extinction of humanity, for rea- sons I can give separately. If so, it cannot be repaired "within a few generations". Wilson goes wrong here. Secondly, this, or the other disasters he lists, would probably disable all possibilities of preventing or alleviating the ecological disaster. A world in a state of economic collapse or war desolation couldn't afford conservationism. Since these prob- lems include his one (but not the other way) - they are worse and less reversible. Once again, Wilson is wrong. Thirdly, he obviously excludes future human activity from his prognosis. Otherwise, he wouldn't speak of millions of years - we are not *that* predictable. But this activity can create species and varieties, as well as destroy them. New organisms are already being produced commercially. Omitting this factor was wrong. When I said our activity *can* rapidly increase genetic diversi- ty, - I was speaking of *future* technology. However, there ap- pears to be nothing (as long as progress continues) to prevent it happening. If you think it *cannot*, please say why. >If time permits I will post some passages from Wilson that support >and amplify the passage I quoted. You might want to check, though, if Wilson's predictions of species depletion for the 80's are coming true. The decade is 67% over... He said *will happen*. Did he quantify that? Jan Wasilewsky
tracye@hpfcph.HP.COM ( Tracy Evans) (09/30/86)
I doubt that men were more 'sickly'. More likely they fell victim to the feudal wars and to more strenous labor than the women. Tracy
ed@plx.UUCP (10/04/86)
CHINA: Pandas: too few People: too many Solution: Keep them in cages and encourage or discourage them to breed... Ed Chaban Plexus Computers Inc. Phone: (408) 943-2226 Net: sun!plx!ed