Re: [asa] A Sustainable Future and Exponential growth

See responses below...

In Christ,
Christine (ASA member)

--- Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:

> Christine wrote: "... Use science to constrain, as
> well as possible, what that carrying capacity is
> given
> current and anticipated technology trends are, then
> to
> use government and other institutional systems to
> develop and implement a comprehensive program to
> help
> us achieve that population target...."
>
> The problem with this kind of thinking is that no
> one knows enough or is smart enough to do the job.
> History teaches that neither governments nor
> scientists could be trusted.

And who can be "trusted"? If we're talking absolute or
concentrated power, I think the answer is: no one.
That's why we have a democracy (in government) and we
operate in a transparent, open, and peer-reviewed
system as scientists. Does this mean that we can't, or
shouldn't, make decisions as a society on the basis of
the best information available, and then try to
implement them? I think not.

Consider that Earth's
> land areas are mostly open space, meaning that
> vastly larger populations could be accommodated if
> we could figure out how to do it wisely. No one
> predicted the technological advances of the past
> that have made life better for people, no one can
> foresee the technological advances of the future
> that may make life even better.

True on the last point, but I dispute the first point.
Those open spaces are not merely "open spaces". They
provide valuable ecological services to other forms of
life as well as humanity. Such services as groundwater
recharge, providing habitat, food, and water to other
life forms important in the food chain, and CO2/O2
exchange, are just a few examples. So it would be
wrong to think that we could accommodate "vastly
larger populations" (of humans, I assume you mean) in
these places.
>
> Vastly more people today are living better lives
> materially speaking than at any time in the past.
> Why try to shut this trend down, since you're not
> smart enough to know how to do it? Only the commies
> were smart enough, until they realized they weren't.
>

I question your assumption here...perhaps in this
country and many other nations this is true, but I
don't believe this is true for many others. Moreover,
as an aside, I note the words "materially speaking".
As Christians, we are to strive for more than just
improving the lives of people "materially", yes? In
fact, by doing so, we can sometimes inadvertently
reduce the quality of life for people spiritually.
Just look at the levels of depression, cynicism, etc.
that are rampant in our "better" society today.
>
> Only when things start getting noticeably worse for
> the average human than they were previously will we
> have an indication that we may be up against some
> kind of limit. Even then the deterioration could be
> only temporary.

Again, I think for the "average human", they may not
have as cheery a picture as you seem to assume. And
even if the "noticability" factor is what provides us
the indication that we are bumping up against a
carrying capacity, I doubt that we, the richest people
in the world, would be the first to notice it--I think
more likely we would be the last to notice, as we will
almost always have first dibs on whatever resources
are limited--say oil, for example.
>
> Don
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Christine
> Smith<mailto:christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
> To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 8:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] A Sustainable Future and
> Exponential growth
>
>
> My last post of the evening :)
>
> David -- I concur with your first
> point--population
> will likely not grow at the same rate in the
> future,
> for a multitude of reasons. However, I disagree
> with
> you that distribution of resources (and in your
> previous posts, technological solutions) will
> accommodate continued population growth.
> Fundamentally, every living thing requires at
> least 2
> inputs -- food & water...energy & matter, if you
> will...theoretically speaking, there is only so
> much
> energy & matter that exists on this planet...even
> if
> we could find technology solutions to convert all
> the
> available energy and matter into food & water
> sources
> for us, you would still only be able to sustain on
> that energy & matter a certain population level.
> The
> only other way to change the equation would be to
> reduce or eliminate our need for food & water, but
> other than for us to become something other than
> human, I don't see how this would happen.
>
> So, from my point of view, the question isn't "is
> there a carrying capacity for the existing
> ecosystem",
> the question is rather, "what is the carrying
> capacity", and then, how can we use technology and
> an
> equitable distribution system to maximize this
> carrying capacity--not just for humans, but for
> all of
> God's creatures. I'm not sure that anyone has the
> answer to this--certainly, technology and resource
> distribution will change just as population will
> in
> the future, so it's hard to predict. Nevertheless,
> a
> couple of observations...first, its clear from
> human
> poverty, environmental pollution, species
> extinction,
> and climate change, that we are not at that
> optimal
> point now. Second, we in the developed world are
> far
> more wasteful and careless with our resources than
> we
> ought to be, thus reducing the carrying capacity
> of
> the ecosystem. Third, if already we are surpassing
> the
> ecosystems' constraints, then certainly we will
> overwhelm the system if everyone were to live as
> we do
> now, which at present seems to be the goal for
> transforming nations from "developing" into
> "developed" (which, I might add, is a good goal,
> but
> only to a certain degree).
>
> So: how to achieve this sustainable population
> without
> resorting to a China-type control strategy is a
> tough
> question? Certainly, as Christians, we hear the
> command to "be fruitful and multiply" and we don't
> want the government to be telling us otherwise.
> Reproduction is, if you will, the first "right"
> ever
> given to God's creatures. Nevertheless, as with
> other
> "rights", perhaps this "right" is not absolute in
> the
> legal sense that we are free to reproduce as long
> as
> it does not infringe on someone else's right to
> reproduce. Perhaps this type of ethic, in which we
> weigh, in a voluntary manner, our right to
> reproduce
> versus the right of other's to reproduce and to
> have
> for their children what we would want for our own,
> is
> the key here. Do we consider that perhaps, as I
> believe Rich said?, humanity has already fulfilled
> God's command, and then some? Alas, voluntary
> assessments that sometimes call for self-sacrifice
> for
> the sake of others rarely work though. So, do we
> then
> resort to government intervention?...do we let the
> inevitable happen whenever resources become
> scare--conflict and disease--to "naturally" reduce
> and
> control our population size? Do we hope to avoid
> the
> question through God's return and judgment? Do we
> seek
> to postpone the question by colonizing space? I
> don't
> think any of those represent good answers to the
> question of population and sustainability.
>
> Perhaps a better? approach (at least an
> alternative
> approach) would be to use science to constrain, as
> well as possible, what that carrying capacity is
> given
> current and anticipated technology trends are,
> then to
> use government and other institutional systems to
> develop and implement a comprehensive program to
> help
> us achieve that population target through plans
> that
> could include the following components: 1)
> significant
> resources and outreach devoted to promoting
> adoption
> as an alternative to having children 2)
> significantly
> expand efforts to combat unwanted pregnancies
> (which,
> I'd concur with others, would exclude abortion) 3)
> more research and resources aimed at correcting
> resource distribution problems, market
> inefficiencies,
> waste, etc. and 4) more radically, providing
> incentives (financial or otherwise) to couples who
> choose not to have children.
>
> Gotta' go...will be interested in hearing what you
> think :)
>
> In Christ,
> Christine (ASA member)
>
>
> --- David Opderbeck
> <dopderbeck@gmail.com<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Dave W. said: Remember that in this thread I am
> not
> > postulating that we are
> > at that limit now, you get to choose how many
> more
>
=== message truncated ===

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 25 20:38:39 2008