Don said:
Just because some segments of the scientific community are unfamiliar with
current topics in population science does not mean that it has been ignored
for "a generation" by everyone.
Fair enough. I think we are also concerned with what is considered
fair game for public conversation. Demographics is certainly a crucial
issue in managing global change, more so than has been acknowledged of
late. This is not to imply that nobody has been thinking about it at
all. The question is whether it is a primary component of our
circumstance. I believe that it is, and I believe that the debate has
lost sight of this fact (just as the problem of nuclear armaments has
mysteriously vanished from discourse without actually being solved).
One should not go further in the
"population v. environment" discussion without first reading the consensus
statement of major social and environmental scientists on the subject:
"Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment" K Arrow, et al.
-dl
Thank you! I'm on it.
I'm a bit confused by the tone of your response, though. Whatever the
flaws in Rapley's understanding, he above all is arguing for a place
at the table for demographers. I'd think you'd be in agreement.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
