X-Message-Number: 28028
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:07:47 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #28017 - #28020
References: <>

> Message #28018
> References: <>

> From: David Stodolsky <> Over-population 
is dangerous nonsense that even the aid organizations
> dropped in the 90's.

There seems to be some concern generated by the UN predications for
the next 50 years.

I consider an area over-populated if the people living there cannot
live above subsistance, and if the animal populations nearby are being
heavily impacted because humans are desperate for resources.
Consequently, there are already areas of over-population, though this
is really a matter of resource-inequality and this is how I sohlud
have approached the issue.

> Using 1970's technology, we could support 60 billion people according
> to a Sci. Amer. article from that period (Revelle, 3 Sept. '76, The
> resources available for agriculture). Other estimates of the Earth's
> carrying capacity range from 3 to 120 billion.

This is reassuring. I expect that this could be achieved with better
management of resources.

To emphasise - I'm not saying that more people alive is a bad thing -
I'm happy to see humanity flourishing. Population growth is not the
problem, the distribution of wealth among those of us alive today is
the problem.

For example the "50 000 workers at the Yue Yen Nike Factory in China
would have to work for 19 years to earn what Nike spends on
advertising in one year. Wal-Mart's annual sales are worth more than
Haiti's entire annual budget; Disney CEO Michael Eisner earns $9,783
an hour while a Haitian worker earns 28 cents an hour; it would take a
Haitian worker 16.8 years to earn Eisner's hourly income; the $181
million in stock options eisner exercised in 1996 is enough to take
care of his 19,000 Haitian workers and their families for 14 years."
(Naomi Klein "No Logo" p352)

The idea of overpopulation is a way of blaming the poor for
environmental damage, instead of changing the lifestyles of the rich
who cause it and do not suffer the damage.

The inequalities in consumption between rich and poor are significant.
The richest 20% of the world's population accounts for 86% of private
consumption expenditures, while the poorest 20% account for only 1.3%.
The richest 10% consume 58% of total energy, 84% of all paper, 45% of
all meat and fish, and own 87% of all vehicles.

Although the rich are the world's main consumers, the environmental
damage that is caused by growing consumption has the heaviest impact
on the poor. On a local level, affluent groups can usually afford to
move away from problem areas, leaving the poor to bear out most of the
costs. Chemical plants, power stations, major roads, railways and
airports are often sited in low income areas. On a global level, we
can see a similar process at work: soil degradation, deforestation,
water shortages, lead emissions and air pollution are all concentrated
within the developing world. (Giddens, Sociology, p612)

Poor people must maximise the small resources they have, thus
exhausting them and leading to a vicious circle. With little resources
available, infant mortality is still high amongst the poor.

The enormous waste of resources has got to be stopped. Health,
education, and basic needs must be available to all; not to mention
avoiding wars and stopping the other destructions of humans. Escape
from our current condition of mass-death, mass-suicide, destruction
and rapine waste is imperative if we and our children are to survive.

Scarcity and exhaustion caused by too many people are not the
problems, rather the people in power who own or control resources are.
It is the poor management of populations by corrupt and inept
political systems that is causing serious damage to the eco-system.
The distribution of needs and wealth among are 6 billion people on
Earth are unfair and unsustainable. Waste and pollution must be
recycled or avoided, clean fuel and energies must be used. Other
animals must not be needlessly hunted, eaten or destroyed by the human
animal. The utter corruption and profound lack of vision in high
places must be cleaned away and it's waste recycled. Despite the
growing crisis, we do not seem to care.

Perhaps you find my "doom & gloom" Robin Hood scenario a little
unrealistic. But the main point of my posts is to encourage
cryonicists to consider more "solid" issues in their daily lives.

Anthony

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28028