The following is an excerpt from Gary Snyder's Four Changes, written in 1969 when the world's population was somewhere around 3.5 billion:
"I. Population
The Condition
Position: Man is but a part of the fabric of life -- dependent on the whole fabric for his very existence. As the most highly developed tool-using animal, he must recognize that the unknown evolutionary destinies of other life forms are to be respected, and act as gentle steward of the earth's community of being.
Situation: There are now too many human beings, and the problem is growing rapidly worse. It is potentially disastrous not only for the human race but for most other life forms.
Goal: The goal would be half of the present world population, or less.
Action
Social/political: First, a massive effort to convince the governments and leaders of the world that the problem is severe. And that all talk about raising food-production, well intentioned as it is, simply puts off the only real solution: reduce population. Demand immediate participation by all countries in programs to legalize abortion, encourage vasectomy and sterilization (provided by free clinics) -- free insertion of intrauterine loops -- try to correct traditional cultural attitudes that tend to force women into child-bearing -- remove income tax deductions for more than two children above a specified income level, and scale it so that lower income families are forced to be careful too -- or pay families to limit their number. Take a vigorous stand against the policy of the right wing in the Catholic hierarchy and any other institutions that exercise an irresponsible social force in regard to this question; oppose and correct simple-minded boosterism that equates population growth with continuing prosperity. Work ceaselessly to have all political questions be seen in the light of this prime problem.
The governments are the wrong agents to address. Their most likely use of a problem, or crisis, is to seize it as another excuse for extending their own powers. Abortion should be legal and voluntary, but questions about vasectomy side-effects still come up. Great care should be taken that no one is ever tricked or forced into sterilization. The whole population issue is fraught with contradictions: but the fact stands that by standards of planetary biological welfare there are already too many human beings. The long-range answer is steady low birth rate. Area by area of the globe, the criteria of 'optimum population' should be based on the sense of total ecological health for the region, including flourishing wildlife populations.
The community: Explore other social structures and marriage forms, such as group marriage and polyandrous marriage, which provide family life but many fewer children. Share the pleasures of raising children widely, so that all need not directly reproduce to enter into this basic human experience. We must hope that no woman would give birth to more than one (two?) child, during this period of crisis. Adopt children. Let reverence for life and reverence for the feminine mean also a reverence for other species, and future human lives, most of which are threatened.
Our own heads: 'I am a child of life, and all living beings are my brothers and sisters, my children and my grandchildren. And there is a child within me waiting to be brought to birth, the baby of a new and wiser self.' Love, love-making, a man and woman together, seen as the vehicle of mutual realization, where the creation of new selves and a new world of being is as important as reproducing our own kind."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you agree with Snyder? How serious is the problem of over-population, and what are some solutions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_control
Originally posted by LemonJelloI personally believe there are way too many people. Though there are many individual people I enjoy and value, I do not enjoy or value masses of people. And I do not believe that people will ever sit down and formulate a workable, humane plan to reduce their numbers. I do belive that the time will come when nature will yawn, shrug its shoulders and billions of people will die. That seems to have happened in the past only there were not billions of people to experience it. Then for a long time the problem for the species will not be overpopulation but repopulation.
The following is an excerpt from Gary Snyder's Four Changes, written in 1969 when the world's population was somewhere around 3.5 billion:
"I. Population
The Condition
Position: Man is but a part of the fabric of life -- dependent on the whole fabric for his very existence. As the most highly developed tool-using animal, he must re ...[text shortened]... //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_control
Originally posted by DelmerIn general, I share your pessimism. Ecologically, the damage is already done. Literally tens of thousands of species die off every year as a consequence of supporting such a large human population. By some estimates, we have already passed the point of sustainability; regardless of whether or not that claim is accepted, most estimates I have seen predict that the point of zero population growth will occur sometime in the next few to several decades.
I personally believe there are way too many people. Though there are many individual people I enjoy and value, I do not enjoy or value masses of people. And I do not believe that people will ever sit down and formulate a workable, humane plan to reduce their numbers. I do belive that the time will come when nature will yawn, shrug its shoulders and billions o ...[text shortened]... t. Then for a long time the problem for the species will not be overpopulation but repopulation.
I have a few of these books around the house, and I get them out every so often to laugh at the prognasticators such as this gentleman. One can almost imagine the writer's inner hushed voice, fear-tinged in the face of the guaranteed coming Armageddon.
Chicken Little's vision never transpired, despite supposedly far surpassing the thresholds of earth's fragile resources.
But doomsayers were not the only ones left looking a lot silly. I seem to recall how the 80's would bring the age of rocket-packs and all manner of futuristic ease via devices. Hell, I can't get my new car's fan to operate properly.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAs usual, Pangloss, you are consistent. For God's sake, don't try to save Jacques from drowning or anything.
I have a few of these books around the house, and I get them out every so often to laugh at the prognasticators such as this gentleman. One can almost imagine the writer's inner hushed voice, fear-tinged in the face of the guaranteed coming Armageddon.
Chicken Little's vision never transpired, despite supposedly far surpassing the thresholds of earth's ...[text shortened]... r of futuristic ease via devices. Hell, I can't get my new car's fan to operate properly.
Which part of Snyder's "prognosticating" do you find particularly silly?
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhich part of Snyder's "prognosticating" do you find particularly silly?
As usual, Pangloss, you are consistent. For God's sake, don't try to save Jacques from drowning or anything.
Which part of Snyder's "prognosticating" do you find particularly silly?
Comments such as this one, for starters:
"There are now too many human beings"
He asserts this with (presumed) informed authority on the matter, and yet despite four decades of explosive growth following his dire predictions, the sky remains.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAn enormous amount of species have vanished, so it is not quite the same sky. I guess you're ok with that.
He asserts this with (presumed) informed authority on the matter, and yet despite four decades of explosive growth following his dire predictions, the sky remains.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWith a population of more than 6 billion people, we have an easier time feeding everyone now than perhaps ever before.
What is our capacity?
Do you value biodiversity?
If nature brings drought to an area, the rest of the world can easily supply food. Only politics get in the way.
Originally posted by techsouthPity most people are fed on crap. With endemic obesity, the population has doubled in size in more than one sense.
With a population of more than 6 billion people, we have an easier time feeding everyone now than perhaps ever before.
Is feeding human beings the most important thing? What about maintaining the planet as an efficient life-support system--for the other species too?
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePersonally, I fear a government so empowered that it can enforce population reduction a lot more than I fear over-population.
Pity most people are fed on crap. With endemic obesity, the population has doubled in size in more than one sense.
Is feeding human beings the most important thing? What about maintaining the planet as an efficient life-support system--for the other species too?
Along with prosperity, many cultures have reached a point they don't even have the birthrate to sustain their existing populations. And that has happened in spite of their governments wishing for more population growth.