<x-charset ISO-8859-1>>Thor, > >On the issue of stabilization of population and sustainability I have to >agree, but I think that neither you or I agree with the existence of a >SUPS. This because it is not really an US issue, nor will we solve that >problem by only restricting population growth. It is a problem that >basically growth out of poverty and disparity, not the other way around.
Indeed yes, Hakan. Over-population, where it actually exists - that is, where it's not just marginalisation - is a symptom, not a cause. Often, side by side with alleged over-population, you also find large, under-utilised, virtually depopulated estates with very low productivity. As for population and sustainability, some months back there was a flurry of news items announcing that we'd overstepped the mark - humans now occupied more land in terms of resources used than the planet had room for. This was based on the latest research in eco-footprinting, but what the reports actually showed was a huge disparity, similar to the other disparities of wealth/poverty and energy use for instance. Poor nations for the most part have small eco-footprints, rich nations take up much more than both their fair share and their national share: rich people live off other people's land. So you're quite right, it's a problem of poverty and disparity, not the other way round. This doesn't mean we now all have to live like church mice. It does mean we have to find better ways for all of us, and such ways exist, as we know. Endless economic growth and worldwide consumerism have no future. We do have a future, we humans, and so do our biosphere and our planet. >It >is not many developed countries with distributed wealth and high living >standard, that not have an opposite problem, with a too low nativity >instead. China is interesting, because it is the only country that control >nativity successfully, without a very high and distributed living standard. I don't think it has been very successful, excepting at the superficial level. There are some critical problems. Chairman Mao is I think still credited (?) in the Guinness Book of Records as being the all-time world champion mass murderer, but at the same time he positively encouraged population growth, with IIRC between 300 million and 500 million extra Chinese as the result, over quite a short period. China is now approaching a stage where a large portion, or even the majority, of the population will be old, beyond working age. All at once. An unprecedented burden. The more recent "one-child policy", which is what you're referring to, has had a different effect. While population growth has indeed been cut, it's been very uneven, in a couple of ways. First, it applied more to the poorer classes without the ready cash to pay the bribes required to break the rules and get away with it. Second, the endemic and extreme Chinese patriarchy has meant that babies tended not to survive somehow unless they were boys. As a result of that, there are large numbers of "excess" young males and no women for them. Which might indeed have the result of cutting population growth even further, but of course it's not as simple as that. Meanwhile, to make it worse, trafficking in women and girl children - slavery - continues in China at high levels. And at least 250 million rural workers are unemployed, a "floating" labour force, ripe for exploitation - also slaves, very often, in effect. Chuck in a few more ingredients - no unionism, no human rights, AIDS - and you have the makings of a picture that doesn't bear many of the hallmarks of "success". >If we can solve the environmental, health and social problems, it is very >likely that nativity problems becomes easier to deal with and will have a >natural solution. I am against an organization like SUPS in an industrial >country, it is discriminating and not necessary. I have difficulties to >argue against China's model, if it is temporary tool to bring the country >at a level here it not longer is needed. It does not necessary mean that I >like it, because of the dictate model and the human tragedies that it must >lead to. It is difficult problems in developing countries. In US it is not >a real problem, it is a luxury and maybe a wealth distribution problem. If >people feel secure and happy, the nativity goes down automatically. If it >still is a problem in the richest country in the world, it is some other >important defects in that country's economical, social and political >structure. US is the only country, on the top 20 developed countries, that >in this case have problems with too high nativity, instead of the opposite. And much the highest levels of poverty and hunger. The best way to decrease population growth in developing countries, with the best range of ripple effects and spin-offs for the community as a whole, is to do whatever needs to be done to educate the women. Regards Keith >Hakan > > >At 22:58 30/01/2004, you wrote: > >Keith, thanks for posting this. > > > >The article, however, left considerable doubt as to > >what the two sides are really arguing about. > > > >First, I think the term "anti-migrant plan" is a > >misnomer; the text states that the SUSPS (Sierrans for > >US Population Stabilization) believes that long-term > >population policy for the United States is an > >essential to component of long-term US environmental > >policy. > > > >I don't see how anyone could reasonably disagree with > >this, given that population stabilization has long > >been identified by most governments and NGOs as the > >single most serious global challenge to achieving a > >sustainable socio-economic world. > > > >The article quotes many opponents of SUSPS labeling > >them as "right wing extremists" and "fascists." But I > >see no acknowledgement whatsoever on their part that > >population is indeed an important issue, and one which > >the is not explicitly on the US government's policy > >agenda. > > > >I've looked at SUSPS's website, and I don't see them > >advocating any simplistic solutions, but rather > >wanting to raise the profile of this issue for debate. > > Naturally, this is threatening, by its controversial > >nature. But that's not a reason to ignore the issue. > >Instead, the Club should seek to engage all Americans > >on this question because, if rapid, sustained > >population growth does threaten our ecosystems, then > >it concerns everyone. > > > >However one feels about this issue, I think we'd all > >agree that current global population trends are not > >sustainable. Just as our economic system is not > >sustainable, in it's current form. > > > >I took a look at the SUSPS website, and they don't > >seem overtly extremist. Clearly they focus on > >immigration, legal and illegal, as the principal > >source of US population growth. Whether they are just > >stating fact or have a hidden racist agenda isn't > >clear to me. However, they are raising an important > >policy issue that the Sierra Club used to address and > >dropped. From SUSPS's site: > > > >"SUSPS‡˛was formed in 1996 after the Sierra Club > >reversed its 30-year comprehensive population policy > >which addressed both the impacts of fertility and mass > >migration on U.S. population growth. SUSPS's founders > >created the grassroots SUSPS network to express the > >concerns of thousands of Sierra Club members at the > >Club's departure from long-term environmental policy. > >SUSPS believes that, in conformity with past Sierra > >Club environmental policy and the very roots of the > >environmental movement, the large contribution of > >over-immigration to the rapid growth in U.S. > >population must not be ignored." > > > >I don't see how that "threatens" the open, grassroots, > >democratic process of the Club. > > > >In my experience, the Sierra Club can be a > >bureaucratic, entrenched, and untransparent > >organization, unresponsive to members' interests. > > > >good for SUSPS for injecting a little debate. > > > >thor skov > > > >---------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 24 > > Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:24:37 +0900 > > From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Anti-migrants plan coup at Sierra Club > > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1129587,00.html > >Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | > > > >Anti-migrants plan coup at 100-year-old green group > > > >'Extreme concern' for future of US Sierra Club > > > >Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles > >Friday January 23, 2004 > >The Guardian > > > >The most powerful and venerable environmental > >organisation in the United States is facing what is > >being described as its greatest crisis in its 112-year > >history. There are claims that anti-immigration groups > >are planning to take over the Sierra Club, in a battle > >that has reopened the debate on the priorities for > >environmentalists worldwide. > > > >The Sierra Club was founded in the 19th century by > >John Muir, a Scottish immigrant regarded as the father > >of American environmentalism. It now has 700,000 > >members and is the best known of all environmental > >groups in the country. Because of its vast membership > >and its history, its stance on major political issues > >carries much clout. > > > >In March, elections are due for five seats on the > >club's 15-strong board. Supporters of anti-immigration > >and anti-population growth stances are running for > >election and hoping to establish a majority on the > >board, partly in order to formulate an > >anti-immigration policy for the club. > > > >The environmental rationale behind the move is that > >the ecological infrastructure of the US will be > >irreparably damaged if millions more people arrive. > > > >Last week, 12 past presidents in a joint letter > >expressed their "extreme concern" for the "continuing > >viability" of the Sierra Club if this group of > >candidates is elected. > > > >"It would be the end of John Muir's vision as we know > >it," said Lawrence Downing, a past club president and > >spokesman for Groundswell, a group formed within the > >club to fight what they describe as a takeover. "It > >would turn the club into the hands of outsiders who > >have their own personal agenda." > > > >Some members claim that far-right groups are now > >urging people to join to take control of the club. The > >civil rights group the Southern Poverty Law Centre has > >joined the battle and is running a candidate of its > >own to highlight the issue. > > > >"Without a doubt, the Sierra Club is the subject of a > >hostile takeover attempt by forces allied with a > >variety of rightwing extremists," said the centre in a > >letter to club members. "By taking advantage of the > >welcoming grassroots democratic structure of the > >Sierra Club, they hope to use the credibility of the > >club as a cover to advance their own extremist views. > >We think members should be alert to this." > > > >The debate has intensified, as people who join the > >club before the end of the month will be able to vote > >in March. In past years, voter turnout has been low, > >with only 8% of members voting last time. > > > >The anti-immigration issue has been summed up by one > >internal group, Sierrans for US Population > >Stabilisation, which put forward its policy to members > >under the heading of "why we need a comprehensive > >US population policy". The position as stated when the > >matter was first debated in the club in the 1990s was > >that "ignoring the 60% of US population growth caused > >by current legal immigration is like trying to heat a > >house with the windows open". The group suggested > >that the club's desire to avoid the issue was based on > >"globalism over nationalism" and "political > >correctness over environmental correctness". > > > >The so-called outsiders claim that their views and > >intentions have been distorted and misinterpreted. > >Paul Watson, a co-founder of Greenpeace who is now > >with the radical environmental group Sea Shepherd, is > >already on the Sierra Club's board of directors and > >supports others who back immigration control. He is > >accused by Groundswell of planning to take over the > >club and change its direction, with a more militant > >approach on animal rights issues also. > > > >"People are trying to paint us as bigoted", said Mr > >Watson, "but I am not anti-immigrant - I'm an > >immigrant. I'm Canadian." He said that at the present > >rate of growth, the US population would reach 1 > >billion by the end of the century, and that that was > >unsustainable. > > > >Referring to suggestions that some far-right groups > >were now joining the club to influence the vote, he > >said: "There is nothing we can do about it; we can't > >stop the Ku Klux Klan from joining if they want." > >He said that the candidates he supported were > >respected figures, such as a former governor of > >Colorado, who deserved to be elected. He added that > >the Southern Poverty Law Centre was being hypocritical > >by raising the race issue, not least because one of > >the candidates was black. > > > >Ben Zuckerman, professor of astro-physics at UCLA and > >another board member, agreed with Mr Watson. "I regard > >this as an internal power struggle," he said. "The old > >guard have been running the Sierra Club for as long as > >I can remember." He said that the US had not had a > >president committed to the environment since Jimmy > >Carter, and it was time for the club to play a bigger > >role politically. "We have to do better than we have > >been doing." > > > >Professor Zuckerman said immigration was only one of > >many matters > >that needed to be addressed. "It's a much bigger > >problem." He > >abelieved that "rapid population growth is the number > >one issue for > >the US, and possibly the world." > > > >Mark Hertsgaard, author of Earth Odyssey and The > >Eagle's Shadow and a commentator on environmental > >affairs, said the way the battle was perceived was of > >great importance to the environmental movement. "If a > >bunch of extremist political groups that espouse these > >kind of ideologies are able to take over, that is a > >black mark on American environmentalism, because the > >Sierra Club is one of the oldest and most respected > >environmental organisations in the country." > > > >Mr Hertsgaard added that one of the problems for the > >club was that an anti-immigration stance would feed > >into some people's perceptions of environmentalism as > >having fascist leanings, which was very far from > >the reality of mainstream opinion within the club. > > > >The issue has split the club before, in the late > >1990s, when the then club president, Adam Werbach, > >stated that "immigration is not an environmental > >issue". This time, however, the stakes are much higher > > > >and the result will be watched closely by > >environmentalists in the US and abroad. > > > > > > > > > >===== > >"Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." > > --Edward Abbey > > > >Grants Manager, Stillaguamish Tribe Of Indians > >P.O. Box 277 Arlington, WA 98223-0277 > >Phone: (360) 652-7362 Ext 284 > >Fax: (360) 435-7689 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ </x-charset>
