THE CROWDED PLANET
ZERO POPULATION GROWTH OF GREATER BOSTON
| Volume 10, Issue 4 | July/August 2000 |
|
THE CROWDED PLANET ZERO POPULATION GROWTH OF GREATER BOSTON
|
|
Up Front |
Feature Articles |
In The News |
About Us |
On the evening of May 15, 2000, Zero Population Growth of Greater Boston's Annual Banquet was held at John Harvard's Brew House in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The guest speaker for the event was Dr. Larry Wangh of Brandeis University.
Dr. Wangh, who teaches two courses on population at Brandeis, gave a presentation that was erudite, thought-provoking, and artful. It was titled "How To Teach Population Issues". He presented a comprehensive view of evolution, which took many twists and turns. It included everything from the issue of immigration to a comparison of humans with bacteria. He observed that we have to remain optimistic to be heard. It is important that we be reminded of such. We were very lucky to have had him.
After the presentation, chapter elections were held. Three of the current officers were re-elected: Jeff Herman as chairman, Lee Strauss as sole vice chairman, and Walter Branson as treasurer. Pamela Sinotte was elected secretary, replacing Chris Conty. All ran unopposed.
Last but not least, the food was fantastic!
As an environmental newsletter that advocates long-term sustainability, we decided it was time to "walk our talk". Paper production is an amazingly wasteful process, as documented in Worldwatch Institute's new book State of the World 2000 (updated annually). Chapter Six, Recovering the Paper Landscape, describes the current woeful state of the art, and offers many avenues for improvement. It also reveals what flagrant paper junkies we are. The average American uses 738 pounds of paper every year, as compared to 40 pounds in developing countries. Amazingly, almost half of all paper is made into packaging.
You can do your part to minimize paper use. Remove yourself from junk mail lists (JunkBusters can help with this. Or you can send your name and address to Direct Marketing Association, Preference Service, P.O. Box 9008, Farmingdale NY 11735-9008). Save cardboard boxes and packages for reuse, rather than buying new ones each time. Don't print anything that you can read on your screen. Send email instead of faxes. Read newspapers and newsletters online—including this one.
We want this to be your newsletter. Help us make it better—write us today!
This month's survey is about population
issues in general. It was originally taken by Jeff
Herman as a class project in April 1998. The class was HS 605 - Statistics,
at the University of Massachusetts. There
have been 23
responses so far.
| Question | Response 1 | Response 2 | Response 3 |
| Has the number of people on Earth been a concern to you? | 57% Yes | 13% No | 30% Somewhat |
| Can the number of people now living on Earth be maintained without depleting resources necessary for their continued survival? | 35% Yes | 43% No | 22% Only if there were a major redistribution of resources |
| Will technological advances save us from a crisis of overpopulation? | 17% Yes | 35% No | 48% Their effect will be limited |
| Should the issue be addressed politically? | 61% Yes | 22% No | 17% The government should stay out of the matter |
| Do you expect that there will eventually be a crisis brought on by a population that has grown too large? | 83% Yes | 17% No | |
| Do you support changing the rate of the number of people allowed to immigrate into this country? | 61% Yes | 39% No | |
| If yes, should the rate be increased or decreased? | 22% Increased | 78% Decreased | |
| Have your views toward the issue of population changed over the years? | 48% Yes | 52% No | |
| Should the United States government adopt measures to slow down the rate of global warming? | 78% Yes | 22% No | |
| Would you vote for a political candidate that favored population control, everything else being equal? | 61% Yes | 39% No | |
| Are you for or against abortion? | 65% For | 35% Against |
The survey also asked questions about the respondents. There were 16 males and 7 females. 12 planned to have more children; 11 did not. Twelve had a college degree, and all but one had finished high school. Incomes were split: 13 made more than $25,000 per year, and 12 made less. Most responses were members of the two major political parties, with more Democrats than Republicans. Thirteen respondents considered themselves to be environmentalists. Most participate in recycling programs to some degree.
Finally, we took a pop quiz. We asked respondents to identify the three most populous countries from a list of six. Most people got this one (the answers are China, India, and the U.S., respectively). We also asked them to specify the current populations of the United States and the world. Sixteen people correctly gave the U.S. population as 270 million (more or less). Fourteen people got the world population right at around six billion.
Last month's survey was called "Bottle The Genies!". It dealt with technologies and cultural practices that may contribute to overpopulation. The survey's "meta-question" was "If you could, would you put these genies back in the bottle?" Seventeen people responded. Eight technologies were listed; the one most people wanted to scrap was biological weapons (84%). Forty percent said the listed technologies contributed to overpopulation, while thirty percent said they didn't; the rest were neutral. Also, eight cultural practices were listed. Tobacco topped the list as the one to be stuffed back into Pandora's Box (76%). However, recreational drugs were a close second (71%). Again, most people felt that the listed cultural technologies did contribute to overpopulation (47% versus 12%).
If you have a suggestion for a future survey, please let us know.
I want to compliment Lee Strauss on the interview with Eric Brown of the Center for a New American Dream. It was riveting, and the questions were well thought out, probing and meaningful. Because I so deeply believe that U.S. population growth is a major domestic and global problem, I was most impressed by the questions dealing with our role beyond the usual consumption issues. And the fact that Eric too sees that U.S. population must be stabilized put a smile on my face.
By our talking about this issue, more people will think and talk about this issue of domestic population growth. And one day, we will actually stop our own sprawl, reduce the need for genetically engineered foods, and stop eating the rest of the world's fish and polluting its oceans.
Well done.
Mike Hanauer
Lexington, MA
The following letter to the editor was sent to the Asheville Citizen-Times, but never published:
Throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, and she jumps out. Heat the water slowly, and she gradually cooks to death. That’s because frogs can’t sense slow changes in temperature.
Likewise, we live in an environment that is slowly heating up. The Earth got a few degrees warmer during the last century. Much larger increases are forecast for this one.
Heat drives the weather engine; small changes in temperature make a big difference in climate. We are due for increasingly severe hurricanes, floods, droughts, and earthquakes.
Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases emitted from our power plants, factories, cars and trucks. Here in Western North Carolina, these gases form a gray haze over the mountains, and aggravate asthma and other respiratory problems.
Global warming acts in concert with other major, but gradual, environmental changes: deforestation, pollution, and overpopulation. These forces each egg the others on, worsening their effects. Together, they conspire to make our planet all but unlivable by the year 2100. They are slow trends, but powerful ones—and their pace is accelerating.
Unlike the frog, we can’t just jump out. Will we at least have enough sense to turn off the heat?
Gregory Wilcox
Candler, NC
After reading the articles in the Citizen-Herald concerning the Mormon Steeple, I wonder why the size of a steeple would galvanize so much discussion. I believe that the discussion ought to be about what the temple and steeple represent. Taking on organized religion is always controversial. However, anyone who can envision the future life of our planet must question a religion that advocates having tons of children. Overpopulation has ruined countries all over the world. It is time to make the connection between too many people and the loss of our natural surroundings. For many people, this loss of nature is also a spiritual and inspirational loss.
The world has much changed since the 1800s, when the Mormon faith began. We were then an underpopulated, new country, with minimal health care. If you had 10 children, usually only half survived. Now in the U.S. children rarely die of childhood diseases and our country has become very crowded. It is time for Mormons to change their outdated philosophy and develop one that is healthy for our world.
Overpopulation is our #1 environmental issue. It affects us at all levels of life. Too many people means less open land, which means less wildlife. Too many people means more pollution and much more crowded conditions. We have enough people, enough traffic jams, enough shopping malls. Can you imagine what the world would be like if we all had so many children in our families? I look at it this way: every time a child is born, a tract of land is being razed to provide housing for that child.
Rachel Carson once said, “Natural beauty has a necessary place in the spiritual development of any individual and any society.” And President Harding once remarked, upon seeing Yellowstone Park for the first time: “Never allow the grandeur of the mountains and the majesty of this great western country to become so common to you that you lose the ability to appraise the value of their inspiration and worth.”
The size of a steeple is unimportant. One does not need a huge steeple to be closer to God. If we could ask God His opinion, I am sure He would opt for a pure, uninterrupted sky. What is important is a viable future for our children. We must be visionary for their sake. If all the religions in the U.S. advocated having multitudes of children, our country would resemble Bangladesh.
Sharon Wilcox
Belmont, MA
Having appeased the antiabortion movement last year in order to win funding for the United Nations, the Clinton administration and congressional supporters of family planning are now trying to undo the damage. It will be difficult to wrench the egregious language restricting the actions of family-health agencies overseas out of this year's UN appropriations. But the administration is obligated to repair the mess it created.
Last year legislation to pay back some $1 billion in UN dues was taken hostage by a small band of anti-abortion zealots who insisted that riders be attached restricting the funds. The language prohibits nonprofit organizations receiving US funds from lobbying, advising, or educating about abortion, even with their own money. In other words, these groups are precluded by US law from exercising democratic rights in their own countries. As Clinton himself said last week in a speech urging Congress to lift the ban: "That's not the American way." Clinton and many in Congress were genuinely anguished at this devil's bargain, but they succumbed in order to achieve the crucial goal of fully funding the nation's commitment to the UN. This year, however, Clinton has submitted a budget restoring international family planning efforts to 1995 levels—$451 million—and he is asking that Congress appropriate the money without the riders.
The request will not be honored easily. Already Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey, a chief antagonist of women's reproductive rights, has pledged to fight what he calls "US subsidies to the international abortion industry." His rhetoric is not just overheated, it is false. It is already law—and has been for almost 30 years—that no American funds can be used to pay for abortions overseas.
While the politicians wrangle, women in developing countries die from hemorrhages in childbirth, victims of eight or nine pregnancies by their 25th birthdays. Or they die in botched illegal abortions. Or their babies die. The pressures of a growing world population strain public health, the environment, even peace across borders. To ignore such suffering is also not "the American way."
Lee: My ideas for the original column are crystallizing a bit. It would consist of interviews with people and organizations trying to expand current levels of context and awareness, trying to simultaneously honor global and local, long-term and short-term interests. We are not after mathematical perfection here, but heartfelt attempts to effectuate accurate rough approximations of both kinds of needs, in terms of both space and time, free enterprise and quality of life. This is our big challenge: how do we simultaneously respect the short-term and local interests, while meeting long-term goals and facing up to global realities? It can no longer be either/or, "zero-sum" thinking. This must be replaced wherever and whenever possible by mutually beneficial decision making. I therefore thought a good title for the column would be "Simultaneities."
I also thought that I would like to do a "Media Watch" column. Not books, since the book review thing seems well in place. But a column that would highlight and celebrate places (shows, anchors, etc.) in the media where people can go to find ecologically responsible thinking or, at least, a deeper quality of questioning than the usual fare provides. Maybe it would have an occasional movie review as well.
Greg: I'm glad to see you're putting some thought into how you want to contribute.
Your "big challenge" sounds good in theory. Very holistic, balanced, rational, and all that.
However, it sounds like that same old tired ‘sustainable development’ routine, which I detest. If I hear those popular PC buzzwords one more time, I am going to scream!
If I understand you correctly, when you talk about short-term local interests and free enterprise, what you mean is business as usual: yet more development. By long-term goals and global realities, you mean sustainability. And 'simultaneously respecting' both implies what corporations love to call sustainable development.
The problem, as I see it, is that claiming allegiance to sustainable development is a convenient way that corporate America has found to give lip service to environmental issues without really doing anything. Just this morning I got a letter from Ford Motor Company, in response to an email I sent them. I was pointing out that they still belong to the noxious Global Climate Coalition, a brownlashing group if there ever was one. In response, they sent me a position paper titled "Position on Global Climate Change". They say a lot of impressive things, but the bottom line is that Ford still sells gasoline powered vehicles almost exclusively. Plus they are the makers of the newly introduced Ford Excessive (ahem, I mean Excursion), the biggest, baddest meanest SUV to ever foul the skies of our smoggy nation.
"Sustainable development" is an oxymoron, pure and simple! There is no way that you can develop sustainably. That is, at least not in the way developers use the word—as PC doublespeak for 'growth'. Developers want to grow endlessly, and you just can't do that in a finite world.
All kinds of organisms—including Gaia—develop in the true sense of the word. They go through stages of birth, infancy, adolescence, maturity, and old age. At certain stages (while maturing, pregnant, or healing), growth is a natural and necessary adjunct. But at others (obesity, cancer) it is decidedly unhealthy. At this stage, most of our planet's growth can only be correctly perceived as being in the latter category.
Another favorite term of mine is 'economic climate'. But I've ranted enough already; you get the point.
That is why this whole environmental problem is so hard. We cannot just continue to sit on the sidelines carping, as we have for so long. All that does is make enemies. On the other hand, we cannot and must not compromise and capitulate; there is no time for that! William R. Catton Jr., in his book Overshoot, makes a cogent case for the argument that we are already well past the point of no return. Similarly, Bill McKibben writes in The End Of Nature that we currently inhabit what he calls 'Earth II': a planet vastly and irretrievably different from the one that would exist without us. If there is any faint hope of saving the Earth, we must begin to do so immediately (not by 2012, as we agreed to at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto, Japan). So to me, the problem is not how to achieve the balance you seek. Rather, it is to find a new strategy that gets us past all the politics and onto the business of healing the planet.
Part of that is to dispense with all the doublespeak, greenwashing, brownlashing, and PCing. Only when we can talk about the real issues in real terms will anything get done. The obfuscation, spin-mongering and outright lying must end. I will agree with you on one point: it is a language issue. There is a war being fought between the corporations and the good people of America, and its weapons are words.
Lee: Greg my friend, I fear it has finally happened. Overwork has done you in! What the heck are you talking about?
First of all, listen to what I said. Did you hear me use the words "sustainable development"? No, you didn't. So, you just spent a lot of time and energy ranting and raving about nothing.
I probably wouldn't use those terms, in any case, for reasons not so far removed from the ones that got you so upset. Though I'm not sure what exactly has motivated this irrational response from you. Look, I thought I had made it very clear to you by now that I am very skeptical of any existing corporate approach to changing anything—whether it be from the top down or the bottom up.
What I want to do in this column is exactly this: stop all the complaining about what's wrong—we already know what's wrong. What we don't know is what to do about it. So let's try to find some people who are doing things to benefit both long and short term goals, in ways that may actually work!
I don't have any specific agenda about this: I'm completely open to new ideas. You are the one working full time every day for corporate America, not me. But for the record, schools are corporations; cities are corporations. Even the professions, by way of the medieval guilds, are corporations, so ...
Greg: It is true that I work for corporate America. It is very difficult to live in this country otherwise. As you point out, almost all employers are part of it. However, I only work part time: 20 hours per week. And I work in the environmental, health and safety division of my company. This division is nominally devoted to helping corporations deal with environmental problems. (In practice, however, that is not usually the case, for a variety of reasons.) In short, I try to mitigate and minimize my contribution to the rat race. But you're right; I'm still a hypocrite.
Lee: So you are compromised by corporate America. Aren't we all in some way? Of course we are. Just study our history—everything is corporate America. I just finished writing a book that addresses this topic. In the book, I devote much space to showing how pervasive and complex the relationship between us and "the corporate" is. Yes, I think that there are ways to work change in spite of this. But yes, you are right: it is very difficult. And blatantly misinterpreting email from your friends certainly doesn't help.
"Free enterprise" and "quality of life" are just very general terms that can be used in all kinds of ways. You're going to have to trust that I'm not a corporate hack or a dope if we're going to get anywhere with this stuff. If do an interview with a supposedly well-meaning corporate type that I wind up deciding is baloney, I just won't run it. But each one of us is starting out from a culturally compromised situation in one sense or another. Who do you think pays our bills? Cochise or Karl Marx?
So, it's no good coming in with so radical an approach that nobody will talk to us. If E.O. Wilson's corporate friends in Washington aren't letter perfect on ecofeminism, so what? Would that surprise anyone? What is important is whether someone there is earnestly thinking about how to do something new, something which recognizes at least a part of the problem the way in which we do.
Baloney, well-meaning or otherwise, just won't be run. Ink on people basically feathering corporate nests, consciously or unconsciously, beneath an ecologically correct veneer we can save for a different column or article. We might entitle it "How Not to Do It."
So, of course, what we are trying to do here is very difficult. I assumed you knew that. I also assumed you knew that I knew it. There's a big lie out there, constantly being bolstered up by many little lies. But we've already tried running around yelling "liar, liar" and found out that this just makes things worse. Part of the problem is that some people don't care. And others just don't know. But a lot of people actually think they know something else. They may even feel sure they know it, even though they're wrong.
Greg: I think it is actually much worse than that. It is not just that people don't know, don't care, or only think they know. Most corporate managers do know, and don't want anyone else to—least of all the consumers of their products. So they actively work at deceiving the public. These people do not want to be enlightened, and no amount of information will make them change their minds.
Lee: Well, to the extent that remains true, it makes our job very difficult. What makes it even more difficult is that we have to do it with a smile. A firm smile maybe, but a smile nonetheless. Most of the time, anyway. Otherwise we scare off the very people we need the most, the ones sort of wavering on the brink of getting it. That's my opinion. Hit 'em over the head and they just either run for cover or pick a side and continue the polarization.
Greg: I don't think there are many people "wavering on the brink". There is so little truly independent thought today. Most people are so thoroughly brainwashed that they genuinely believe the opinions of the mass media are their own. And the few who actually "get it" are rarely in the position to do anything about it.
Lee: Well, all that would make it harder still. But don't we still need to try to reach these people? And to do so, don't we need to be smart about it? If so, we should look for solutions, not enemies.
Anyway, the gist of all this is: no, you didn't understand me correctly. Why, I'm not sure. You may well be better able at seeing through some of the current corporate hypocrisies than I. But please believe that I already know my main job in doing this column lies in distinguishing between what might actually advance what we want advanced, and what just looks good. It's a balancing act between being generous enough to encourage change among the fence-sitters without getting duped in the process.
Greg: I would advise a healthy sense of suspicion when making that judgment. It is increasingly often the case these days that corporations will actually do something right (or very close to it) just to get the brownie (or in this case "greenie") points for it. They know that mere greenwashing is no longer sufficient. But all too often, it is merely a token gesture, and later retracted.
Furthermore, I think it is a mistake to define our role as "encourag[ing] change among the fence-sitters". As I suggested above, their numbers are few. Even if we were successful, the culture would just even up the score by producing more opponents. Rather, we need to find ways for fomenting organic systemic change: change that will sustain and grow over time until it engulfs our entire cultural mindset and way of life.
Lee: And let's not get too hung up on the words. The term "sustainable development" is troublesome because it's currently connected to a half-baked concept. Almost all the current concepts are, at best, half-baked, so we could do worse than to avoid concepts altogether for a while.
My column will be about what people are doing, have done, plan to do, and about what they think they are doing. If I can't find anyone sufficiently self-aware, it's going to be a big exercise in frustration anyway.
The column will be in part an experiment and, for me, an education. I don't really know how it will turn out yet. But it's only marginally going to be about me advancing my own theories or grinding my own axes. I have whole books to do those things in.
I do know this, however. The whole world is still hooked on adversarial debate and adrenaline rushes. And as long as this continues, nothing much is going to change. We need very smart peacemakers, self-aware synthesizers, people not afraid to penetrate beyond orthodox assumptions and risk change in the face of their own imperfections as well as a largely ignorant, confused or unsympathetic system, people whose ideas might really bring us closer together rather than drive us farther apart. I see a value in trying to find these people and support them any way we can. That's it. No more, no less.
And I'm not necessarily talking about the Ford Motor Company. (But I’m not necessarily not talking about them, either!)
Greg: Yes, absolutely! And well said. We do see basically eye to eye. My objections are mostly just cautions to avoid getting caught in the corporate greenwashing snare.
You are right that, initially, I misunderstood you. I thought you were advocating the kind of wishy-washy compromise that normally results in a few minor victories for the enviros, but lets the corporate world continue with business as usual.
I actually suspected that it was not what you meant. However, I believe what you said could be interpreted that way. So I began chiding you on this point. It started out as an attempt at sardonic humor—lighthearted and in good fun.
But as I spoke, I got more and more into my indignation. I realized that I was not directing my words to you, but rather to the corporations of the world. I was venting a pent-up anger at their blithe dismissal of any and all ecological concerns. They have found that it is sufficient to merely appear to be green, and the public will buy it. They can achieve this by actually doing extremely little: a photo-op here, a recyclable product there. Then we come along and complain, and look like bad guys, and our wins are few and far between. Under the circumstances, some make much hay of these wins. It's all very nice when we wrest some conciliations from the mighty giants, especially in the face of seemingly impossible odds and stonewall resistance. Change is happening, and the tide is slowly turning. But as I pointed out, this is not nearly enough! We need to move much faster. There is no time for anything short of an all-out effort, and a complete paradigm shift.
What resulted is something that I hoped would evolve into an article on the subject. I knew this as I was saying it, and should have told you. I did not intend for you to take it personally.
In any case, I believe you and I are on the same side. (And so is everyone else; they just don't know it yet. :-)) I have great respect for you, and I think your column will be a worthy addition to the newsletter. I look forward to reading it.
In conclusion, I don't wish to sound too cynical, just realistic. Maybe it would be better if you just ignore me, and proceed with eager optimism. That is certainly the face we need to present to the rest of the world, even if we harbor our own private misgivings.
Editor's note: For a somewhat more optimistic view of the above themes than either of us presents here, please take a look at the first Simultaneities column in the May/June issue of The Crowded Planet.
The first person to send us a correct solution (by snail mail, email or fax) wins a free one-year membership in ZPG/Boston. Of course, your membership includes a subscription to this newsletter.
If you prefer, you can also work this crossword online. The Java applet that it runs on is by Carl Haynes, who submitted it to Sun Microsystems for their Java Cup International Contest. Gregory Wilcox extended it by adding arrow keys to move up, down, left and right.
| ACROSS
1 Lawyer (abbr.) 5 Dispensable candy brand 8 Short-nosed dogs 12 Crawl 14 Roberto's yes 15 Baseball player Yogi 16 Rapidly growing Asian nation 17 Total fertility rate (abbr.) 18 Superior 19 Compass point 20 Ship initials 22 Pollution source 24 Wonder 25 Rate causing population decrease 27 Families should make them 29 Stop at two 31 State of our chapter 32 Population change over time 35 Fetch 37 Just two, please 41 Self-esteem |
42 Build (slang)
43 Grain 44 Brief biographical sketch 46 Head of 48 Across 48 United Nations Population ___ 49 Financial status of Third World 51 Sierra ___ 53 Power controlling device 55 Quiet remark 58 School grp. 59 Ingested 61 Cell stuff 62 Popular music genre 64 First name at ZPG? 66 Wildebeest 68 Adult insect 70 Zealous 71 Polluting liquid 72 Ladies 73 Paul Ehrlich's wife and coauthor 74 Fast jet (abbr.) 75 Not one |
DOWN
1 Skin disease 2 Demographic tendency 3 Indian dwelling 4 Congressional vote 5 Cooking vessels 6 Sprite 7 Ideal population growth rate 8 Equalizing pop. org. 9 ___ sprawl 10 What Earth's population does 11 Fill 13 Smallest planet 15 Globes 21 Thick carpet 23 Ehrlich's famous equation 26 Population growth rate factor 28 Question 30 Said of a rounded part 31 Physician 32 Pastor (abbr.) 33 Reproductive choice org. |
34 Tyke
36 Deity 38 Debt note 39 Newsman Rather 40 Syphilis, e.g. 45 Blooming mo. 46 Chimney dirt 47 Racist grp. 48 Crime probing agcy. 50 Egg maker 52 Foreign assistance org. 53 Beer mug 54 Dined 56 Play 57 Agog 58 PP in US 60 New life cells 61 Detritus 63 Bouquet 65 Bard's before 67 Birding grp. 69 Fertilizer? |
