Zero Population
Growthof Greater Boston
Zero Population
Growth
| Volume 8, Number 2 | March/April 1998 |
See Yahoo! Maps for a map
and driving
directions to this location.
Again, we will be meeting at the home of Barbara Clapp, 100 Lexington Street in Belmont. From Rt. 95/128: take either Exit 28A, which says Trapelo Road/Belmont, or Exit 28, which says Trapelo Road/Lincoln. Which exit you take depends on whether you are traveling north or south. Go east towards Belmont.
Immediately you will see an intersection with a light. From this point travel straight ahead on Trapelo Road for 3 and 1/2 miles (do not turn right onto Lexington Street to Waltham Center) at which point you will pass a park and Andros Diner on your RIGHT. Take next RIGHT passing AA Rental and Mobil gas station. Pass through light and in two blocks see large brick building on LEFT. Park in lower lot in one of the first eight spaces to your right or on the street. Enter lobby from parking lot.
From Rt. 2, going in either direction, take Exit 59 and go South on Pleasant Street (Rt. 60). After about 2 miles, Pleasant Street merges into Trapelo Road by the Star Market. Take a sharp left (Getty station on left) and then an immediate right onto Lexington Street passing AA Rental and Mobil gas station. Go thru light and in two blocks will see a large brick building on LEFT. Park in lower lot in one of the first eight spaces to your right or else park on the street. Enter the lobby from the parking lot.
Buzz Function Room. If you have questions, call Barbara at (617) 484-7986. If you need or can give a ride, call Howie Breinan at (617) 225-8905.
Meeting will begin on time at 7:30 PM! The deadline for the May-June issue is April 22.
Please see the meeting schedule for general information and other meeting dates.
President
Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Clinton,
As one head of state to another, I am writing to ask your help and advice with a most difficult problem in my country.
If you have not heard of Nmuurtlia, I will not be offended. We are a tiny island nation in the South Atlantic. Our entire land mass is only 42 square miles -- less than the size of your capital city. The current population is about 195,000, although this is expected to double in 30 years.
Nmuurtlians are an indigenous people, proud and hardworking. Ours is primarily a farming economy, with the exception of our one small city whose major industry is tourism. As is typical of many third world countries, our people are desperately poor.
Despite their poverty, however, Nmuurtlians are not unsophisticated. They are well aware of the world beyond our shores -- especially the U.S.A. They have read everything they can get their hands on about your country. The few who can afford it are addicted to American television. They picture a land of unimaginable wealth and opportunity. It is an irresistible draw to them; the dream of the average Nmuurtlian is to save enough money to emigrate to the U.S. They know that you have an extremely liberal population policy, and weak border enforcement. They regard the INS as merely a yapping poodle: all bark and no bite.
Also due to the influence of your culture, our people hunger for the lifestyle and material trappings of Americans. They eagerly latch onto whatever bits of Americana they can manage to acquire: a Sony Walkman, a Timex watch, a pair of Guess? jeans. If they can, they move to Nmuurtlville (our capital and only city), where they crowd into tiny apartments and work furiously to raise money for their day of passage.
As you know, your country is the envy not just of Nmuurtlians, but of people the world over. Americans are enjoying unparalleled good times: your economy is booming, your armies are at peace, and your citizens are largely content. What is happening in our country is repeated over and over in nations around the globe.
However, our problem is worse due to our minuscule size. We are rapidly running out of natural resources. Our Minister of the Interior informs me that we have now passed the point of sustainable agriculture, and will henceforth be dependent to an increasing degree on imported crops. Fresh water resources are scarce, forcing us to turn to expensive technological solutions. Native wildlife has been all but obliterated as Nmuurtlians expand into every crevice of our former island paradise. Nevertheless, our population continues to grow. The cultural tradition here is that large families garner wealth, status and respect in proportion to their number.
My perspective is that of a former American citizen. I was born in Toledo, Ohio, in 1940. I got my Ph.D. in sociology from Case Western Reserve University. After finding that I was not cut out to be a sociologist, I volunteered for the Peace Corps. I came to Nmuurtlia in 1966, intending to "find myself" and then return home. Instead, I got caught up in local politics. And I suppose I was entranced by the sheer natural beauty of the island. In any case, one thing led to another, and now I am king of my own little fiefdom. I am a benevolent ruler, largely letting the people find their own way. Like you, I enjoy immense popularity. I think, however, this is more due to the revered status of my background than any ability of mine.
After seeing the devastating effect of overpopulation on my adopted homeland, I would now like to take a more active role in managing our growth. I hope to find a way to slow (and eventually stop or reverse) the trend of the past 32 years. I, too, am a keen observer of your country -- but as a former citizen, I view it differently than most of my countrymen. Like us, you have a population problem. It is not much publicized or spoken about, but it is there just the same. You are the fastest growing developed country in the world, with about half of this growth coming from immigrants and their descendants. Also like us, you are running out of resources. You import more and more goods every year, running up huge trade deficits in the process. At the same time, you export your manufacturing operations overseas, to take advantage of relatively cheaper labor and materials. And your citizens eagerly gobble up the largesse, consuming 56 times the resources of the average Nmuurtlian.
I predict that you will eventually get to the point where we are now. Not as fast as us, perhaps, but headed there all the same. We in Nmuurtlia are merely the extreme example of what is happening worldwide. As nations struggle with burgeoning populations, they reach out in new directions. Rich countries exploit poor countries, who are only too happy to be exploited in exchange for the income it provides. Like algae blooming on a pond, development spreads in all directions until all the resources are gone.
But there are signs of hope. Groups like Zero Population Growth and Population Communications International are getting out the message that unbridled growth is no longer necessarily desirable. They are preaching the gospel of education as the tool of choice: knowledge about contraception, family planning, and opportunities for women.
With this background, let me finally come to my point: as I said, we need your help. First, we are asking for assistance and training in all areas related to population. Your funding and expertise would be most appreciated. And secondly, please institute a strong U.S. population policy. You seem to think it is only third world countries who have population problems, and challenge us to contain ourselves. Well, we will not take you seriously until you get your own population under control. To do this, you will need to somehow address the immigration issue, since it is driving a large and increasing percentage of your growth.
President Clinton, the eyes of the world are on you. We watch and learn from you. America is the most powerful and influential nation in the world. Your actions, and those of your countrymen, have a powerful effect on people everywhere. Please let us know that you recognize the potentially disastrous consequences of overpopulation. Unless and until America takes a strong position of leadership on this crucial issue, the world is unlikely to follow.
Yours very sincerely,
King Qlon-tzetl
(formerly Henry M. Tucker, Ph.D.)
Nmuurtlia
The editor’s summary of a Werner Fornos address in the January/February edition of the newsletter reminded me of the big problem I’ve always had with the population stabilization “movement”. My problem is that we often seem more interested in platitudes and principles than in establishing a specific goal, accompanied by a realistic plan for achieving it.
If our goal is stabilization, when can we hope to achieve it, and at what level of population? 8 billion? 10 billion? 12 billion? In terms of environmental destruction and human misery, when will we reach the point of no return? Whatever the goal, is there a realistic plan to get there?
It may be true that achieving universal female literacy and full employment of adult females worldwide would make a meaningful dent in population growth. Even if so, however, is there any realistic hope of achieving this goal before the world’s population reaches disastrous levels? In fact, is there anything we can do to meaningfully slow world population growth, given the age structure (very young) of the third world? ZPG has invested a great amount of resources in successful battles to maintain U.S. funding of international family planning programs, yet world population continues to grow by close to 84 million a year. What can possibly be done to change the “dynamic” of world population growth?
I’ve been more interested in U.S. population issues than the world population problem. The primary reason for this is that there actually seems to be a realistic pathway that we can travel to population stabilization in this country in the foreseeable future. All that is needed is the political will to accomplish this goal. Our population is currently growing by about 1% a year, close to half of which is attributable to the excess of immigration over out-migration. This portion of the problem could easily be eliminated through governmental action. The remainder of our population growth problem could be eliminated through a combination of approaches. These would include: full funding of family planning programs, tax incentives for small families and disincentives for large families as well as a government-led program of “moral suasion” that includes appeals to patriotism. Political support for such a program is clearly lacking at the moment. Thus, perhaps it should be the job of our “movement” to develop a “game plan” for U.S. population stabilization, and work on building the needed political support for implementation of the plan.
Admittedly, U.S. population stabilization unaccompanied by worldwide stabilization is a highly imperfect solution that will not solve many global problems, such as global warming. Nevertheless, other important problems here in the U.S. will be alleviated by population stabilization, such as loss of open space, overcrowding, degradation of croplands, air and water pollution, etc. Maybe we need to take a “glass is half full” view of the idea of U.S. population stabilization.
I recently had a disturbing correspondence with Rep. Barney Frank, a man that I’m sure is counted as a friend by ZPG and other members of the population community. In response to my letter to him concerning immigration, Rep. Frank made it quite clear that he views population growth as a problem in the third world, and not a problem here in the U.S. He said that he did not think that overpopulation is a substantial part of our environmental problem. He seemed to base this conclusion on the fact that our production processes “are among the cleanest in the world.” An additional letter from me pointing out the environmental problems that result from population growth in the U.S. resulted in a further letter from him reiterating his view.
When an intelligent, liberal Democrat like Barney Frank doesn’t see the population problem here in the U.S., we clearly have a lot of work to do. I would suggest that everyone in the Chapter write their congressman about the U.S. population problem. Then, let’s compare the responses. Keep in mind that you don’t have to be an advocate of immigration reduction to support U.S. population stabilization. I would suggest that we simply present the facts on U.S. population growth, including the role that immigration plays. People can then come to their own conclusions as to what, is anything, should be done about immigration.
One way to gain support for population initiatives is to identify groups who would make good allies. By educating and inspiring these groups, we can multiply our grassroots power many times. While there is a long list of candidates, for many of us, environmental organizations stand out. The effect of human proliferation on our surroundings and other species is usually quite obvious. In fact, some environmental groups already directly address population issues, while some others indirectly acknowledge the effects of expanding human numbers. Thus, it should not be hard for us to get our message across. What it will take is activism and dedication from each of us. Here are some ideas on how we might do this.
Numerous organizations already have population in their agenda. The Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Audubon Society, Wilderness Society, and Sierra Club all in some capacity address the issue in mission statements, educational materials, or grassroots initiatives. However, I would bet that many of their members do not know this because these efforts are of limited scope and relatively underemphasized compared to other programs. Look through an issue of Audubon Magazine, and you will be hard pressed to find any feature articles on population. Yet Audubon has a very active population committee. It is as if they know the importance of population, but are afraid to discuss it with their mainstream membership.
We can use the power of our pens and checkbooks to change this. We must let these organizations know that we support more exposure for their population initiatives. When you send donations, state that you hope it will go toward population programs. If they respond, send more next year and explain why. If they do not respond, try sending only a letter and explain why there is no check from you that year. Tell them how you are sending money to other organizations that ac-knowledge population.
Sometimes, such as the current situation in the Sierra Club, a unique opportunity presents itself. A group of Sierra population activists has introduced a referendum which would require that the Sierra Club reverse its earlier decision to take no position toward immigration. Furthermore, the referendum calls for a comprehensive policy advocating the end of U.S. population growth. Sierra Club members will decide this issue by ballot vote ending in April. More than any other recent event, this vote has brought population to the forefront of mainstream environmental groups. Whether the proposal passes or not, it will be good for population activists. But if it does pass, it would be fantastic. Now is the time to really make some noise, both with the Sierra Club, and also with other organizations who are no doubt following this issue with interest.
Even if it is not time for your annual contribution, write to environmental organizations and express your views while the population issue is big news. Every ZPG member has thoughts to share -- perhaps a letter pointing out myriad ways in which population growth makes their conservation efforts more difficult. Explain to them the need to address overarching issues and to have vision that extends beyond their immediate interest.
Letters should be sent not only to the membership department, but also to presidents, executive directors, and especially the editor of their respective publications. I have seen several letters on population published in major environmental magazines recently: Sierra, National Parks, Amicus Journal, Nature Conservancy to name a few. The more the better. Every letter or note you write, whether published or not, helps. Remember, if yours is not published, you are still helping someone else get theirs published. The leaders of these groups need to know what their members think. Our arguments make sense. They just need to be repeatedly driven home.
Also, keep in mind that the more active you are in these organizations, the more influence you will have. Therefore it pays to get involved. Once you are an established member, you will have a captive audience and your well-reasoned views on population will have a greater impact. This type of outreach and popularization of population issues is necessary for our long-term success.
Now is the time to be heard. Good luck in your activism.
The following letter was just printed in the Spring issue of The Amicus Journal, the quarterly magazine published by the Natural Resources Defense Council. Contact Howie if you would like to read his original, unabridged version.
I am grateful for the two letters on population and the article on population issues in Eritrea in your Fall 1997 issue. However, I would like to see more detailed discussion about population in Amicus to help members become as active in population issues as they are in clean-air and wilderness-preservation efforts. It should be shocking to everyone who reads Amicus that the United States is in the minority of countries without a population policy. Should we not address this need while we still have ample resources for all citizens? We need every citizen to realize the connection between population stabilization and preservation of our quality of life.
Howie Breinan
Chair, Zero Population Growth of Greater Boston
Cambridge, MA
April 3 - 5 "The Fight for Abortion Rights and Reproductive Freedom: A conference for student and community activists." Hampshire College, Amherst, MA. Free and open to the public. For more information contact Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA 1002-5001, phone 413-582-5645, e-mail clpp@hamp.hampshire.edu and fax 413-582-5620. The conference schedule, speaker list, and registration form are also available on the web at http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~clpp.
May 16 New England Coalition for Sustainable Population meeting, Greater Boston area.
While attendance was light, as it usually is at this time of year, it was a delight to see Walter Branson. Although Walter has stepped down as vice-chair, he remains available as the contact person on publicity when needed.
This is a quiet period of the year, with a meeting of the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population (NESCP) being the only prominent event. Annie Faulkner, who has moved from the Boston area to New Hampshire, is the Coordinator. Mike Hanauer is now Co-Chair with Barbara Duncan, Executive Director of Vermont Population Alliance. So our chapter is well represented! Howie Breinan did attend this meeting and was impressed by the range of ideas presented and the variety of projects under way. One of the key responsibilities of NECSP will be to keep a master calendar of population events and to distribute it to all members of the coalition. In addition, the calendar will be used as an outreach tool and will be mailed to other organizations as well in order to expand the network. The plan is to get all the groups in New England and upstate New York talking to each other about population! NECSP will also reach out to individuals and would like to have at least one meeting a year open to the public.
Concerning misplaced priorities, Massachusetts has a law mandating insurance coverage for fertility treatments, but not contraception. A proposed new law would cover most forms of the latter, but not sterilization.
We again focused our attention on immigration. The Sierra Club will be sending all of their members a ballot this month which includes a question on whether they should take a specific position on the issue. Currently The Sierra Club's executive board has taken the same basic position as ZPG's, i.e. "no position." They did this because they feel that there are serious human rights issues that need to be addressed, and the reality is that a less neutral position could jeopardize support now received from other groups. One person voiced his opinion that it seemed like a political cop-out because the US must address our own population problems as well as the world's.
Chris Conty, as a congressional liaison for ZPG, reported that he had to agree NOT to discuss this issue to be accepted for the job. Mike feels that ZPG's policy even soft-pedals the notion that the US has a problem and that perhaps ZPG should have a vote of its membership as well? Dan Bloom stated that this is at least the second or third time that the core activists of the chapter have discussed their desire to see National take a stronger stance on domestic population issues. The question was asked if chapter members should write individual letters or should we write one letter as a group and/or adopt a policy position as a chapter? Howie agreed to create a model for a possible chapter policy to be discussed at the next meeting. Despite our disagreements, it was agreed that for most of us, ZPG is the best forum for our activism on an issue we regard as the most important one for the nation and the world.
For ZPG’s policy on immigration see their website at www.zpg.org and/or the February issue of The Reporter, page two.
I would like to remind you of the option to receive our newsletter electronically. We are encouraging our members to sign up for this option to reduce the cost and volunteer efforts associated with production of the newsletter. Thanks to Barbara and our cyberspace coordinator, Greg Wilcox, an excellent version of the newsletter is posted promptly to our website. This version often includes added benefits such as links to other sites, other documents in our site, and more complete directions to meetings. Normally, before the actual hard copy newsletter is mailed, I send out an email which 1) alerts you that the newsletter is posted to the web site, and 2) the unformatted text from the newsletter, for those who want to read it in its simplest form. If you have no particular need for the hard copy newsletter and are interested in the e-newsletter, please contact me by email: breinan@alumni.stanford.org. If you would like to see how the newsletter looks on the web, please visit our site at: http://www.populationconnection.org/chapters/boston/.
Also, please note that while Barbara will continue to edit and produce the newsletter, we are looking for help in the actual mailing (making copies, adding address labels, and stamping) of the newsletter. If you might be able to help with certain mailings or would like to help by taking over as coordinator, please call our current mailing coordinator, Frances Cameron, at 781-646-3672
As reported in previous minutes, the chapter has endorsed the National Optimum Population Commission (NOPC). The NOPC is a project designed to explore the concept of an optimum level of U.S. population and to engage a broad range of interested parties in discussion of the topic. NOPC is looking for volunteers who can help promote these ideas by:
