In a message dated 98-10-15 09:16:32 EDT, you write:
<< . I only stated in
my post that overpopulation and meat eating etc were major contributors to
the degradation of the planet and that reforms in these areas will be opposed
by many religions. (family size via contraception and meat eating by a
review of dietary habits). >>
Hi!
You make a very good point Marguerite, but
This could change! Nothing is carved in stone - people are changing as we I am
typing this - as you are reading this!
In the meantime, addressing the overpopulation issue by asserting population
control is like saying that we should implement solar energy on roofs without
the panels - it just wouldn't work - so it is not an option!
Why not focus on the options that are viable? Education, empowerment,
continued awareness, love, etc.
Peace!
Angeal
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 15 09:25:21 1998
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:16:09 EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: family size,etc.
In a message dated 98-10-15 10:22:10 EDT, you write:
<< yes, a very nice ring.....but i still feel that i would rather address the
larger societal problems that create psychopath strangers in the first
place (poverty, abuse, medical (political) system that turns out mentally
ill patients due to lack of funding, etc), rather than empower my children
with the knowledge that it is dangerous to talk to strangers. (although i
clearly understand how idealistic and how far away obtaining this goal
might be! and that we need to empower our children now in the meantime!)
>>
Hi!
Good point~! However, when thinking this way it is important to understand
that In life there will always be Right and Wrong, Good and Bad, Weak and
Strong, Rich and Poor - life is full of these Polars (you can not eliminate
polars from life but you can change them - - yin and yang, etc. SO - Focus
on the Good, Correct the Bad, Empower the Weak - Enrich the poor by sharing
the wealth and Balance the yin and the yang The answer lies in finding
balance and setting the bad, weak poor to Right, Good, Strong, Enriched -
knowing that these polars can change - implementing those changes through the
use of viable solutions! To solve Hate - Love!
Thanks and peace!
Angela
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 15 10:04:47 1998
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Arlene Plevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Family size & sustainability
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ah, I was not trying to suggest by my "gem" that if Americans stop
consuming and consume less that the planet could support more of us. Not
at all. The fact from Worldwatch introduces a necessary complication into
an overpopulation discussion: that it's not numbers that are the problem
persay (otherwise all us Americans can do that shirking dance, pointing to
the vast number of brown babies, etc., in a supreme evocation of
racism--unexamined--and avoidance of their responsibility). It is a
complex intertwining, I believe, of numbers (which come about as others
have mentioned due to economics, cultural beliefs, environmental concerns,
etc.) and what other numbers USE. Of course there were less Kenyans years
ago and that there are probably levels of population that would be kinder
for the planet. Geesh. I for one would not want to attempt to suggest,
for example, the planet can handle 250 million Americans, 2 million
Kenyans, 10 million Australians, etc. Part of the problem, I know, is
that how Americans lived is held up worldwide as a standard, *the* way to
be. Wouldn't it be a useful (extremely so!) contribution to population
issues if Americans, in addition to currently having less kids (which they
do), stopped rampantly consuming everything, stopped rampant waste, and
exported a valuable image of another way to be?
Historically, women who have access to education tend to have less babies
(usually that suggests an awareness of other options), which I prefer to
mandating (and accusing others) that x population can only have 2 (or
whatever) babies. Most of us know the horrors perpetrated by China's
abortion policy and the preference for boy babies in countries like India.
I, for one, would like to see organizations in both places suggest other
ways of being--as I would be thrilled to see North Americans use far, far,
far less, and thereby stop straining the environment in the way they do,
which to some of them is invisible and hence not a problem (i.e. they get
to avoid their complicity).
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, bunny wrote:
> By suggesting that by consuming less, more Americans can be supported by
> planet Earth is not going to solve things. Each American will still drink a
> set amount of water and will require schooling, clothing and basic sustenance.
> Yes Consumerism is a major problem but in considering Kenyans as a base
> line, remember that once upon a time there were probably less Kenyans also.
> Keep in mind that rising health standards in many countries, including
> African countries and access to vaccines to eliminate disease that once kept
> the human herd in check has allowed for burgeoning human populations world
> wide (so has increased sanitation helped avert disease in many
> areas).Instead of comparing numbers of consuming Americans to consuming
> Kenyans, why not work out how many "ideal" least-consuming or recycling
> humans that planet Earth can sustain and compare that to what the true
> current picture is.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marguerite
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===========================================================================
> /`\ /`\ RABBIT INFORMATION SERVICE: _ _
> (/\ \-/ /\) P.O.Box 30, Riverton, Western Australia 6148 (.\_/.)
> )6 6( http://www.wantree.com.au/~rabbit/rabbit.htm \6 6/
> >{= Y =}< VEGETARIAN PAGE =\ /=
> /'-^-'\ http://www.geocities/RainForest/4620 /O\ /
> (_) (_) / \ (
> | . | U U )
> | |} Pity the human race its illusion of permanence (| |)/
> \_/^\_/ w'-'w
> ===========================================================================
>
>
>
