Re: [asa] A Sustainable Future and Exponential growth

We residents are relieved whenever we see evidence that someone definitely won't become another immigrant! : )

There was no intent to "sway" anybody; on the contrary, for this purpose the only relevant people are the locals. The argument is that the people who live in a given region (LA basin, in this case) enjoy their situation despite their proximity to millions; so as far as they are concerned, things turned out well.

I appreciate the beauty of deserts as much as anyone, but you can't live in them--at least, not comfortably. To say we should preserve the whole area in pristine state would be truly selfish: a few people get to look at it, but no one can live there. That's the extremist's position. We're talking about how to accommodate large human populations, and the LA basin does that.

The way the basin was developed certainly has promoted waste--based as it was on assumptions of unlimited access to cheap energy. But (perhaps to a lesser degree) that's the way the rest of the US was developed as well. Circumstances may force wiser redevelopment in the future.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: philtill@aol.com<mailto:philtill@aol.com>
  To: dfwinterstein@msn.com<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com> ; asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ; christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com<mailto:christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
  Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 4:19 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] A Sustainable Future and Exponential growth

    The environment is vastly different than it was, but most homeowners would say it's vastly better (...if we could just do something about the traffic...!).
  This argument is so narrowly focused in its definition of "vastly better" that I doubt many will be swayed by it. Most visitors like me, since I visit the LA basin periodically on business, are horrified by the smog and can see only what a disaster the place has become. How beautiful, though dry, it must have been once upon a time! I would never want to live in such an ugly place as it is today. Why not just move into the bowels of a frightful industrial machine?

  Phil

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
  To: asa <asa@calvin.edu>; Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
  Sent: Mon, 26 May 2008 7:23 am
  Subject: Re: [asa] A Sustainable Future and Exponential growth

  CS: "...Open spaces are not merely 'open spaces'. They provide valuable ecological services to other forms of life as well as humanity."

  DW: Of course, but the question is how much is optimal. Extreme environmentalists believe humans are a contaminant that apparently should not be tolerated at any level. Who's going to decide what's best, and on what grounds? More people don't necessarily mean a worse environment. The LA basin where I live has millions more trees with its millions of humans than it ever had before Europeans arrived. (I've planted about a hundred myself on what used to be bare ground.) The environment is vastly different than it was, but most homeowners would say it's vastly better (...if we could just do something about the traffic...!). Furthermore, lots of local engineering has gone into building surface storage areas so that rainwater percolates into underground reservoirs instead of flowing wastefully into the ocean. Before Europeans arrived, the whole basin had a very low human population. To the east it was drier and the population was even lower. Without human effort and technology only a very small fraction of the millions of people now living here (and to the east) would have been able to live here. So the whole area accommodates vastly more people than it once did, and aside from the inevitable problems they mostly like it. A central planner looking at the area 150 years ago might have decided that the region was a desert unable to support a large population and in his "wisdom" might have capped population at, say, 500 000. He would have had perfectly good reasons, but he would have been WRONG.

  CS: "I question your assumption here...."

  DW: I recommend Fareed Zakaria's book, The Post-American World. He's an American who is native to India. His thesis is that the US role in the world is going to diminish not because the US is failing but because the rest of the world is making rapid strides. Apart from basket cases mostly in Africa, nations worldwide are advancing more rapidly than the US. Zakaria is very insightful IMO and I respect his command of the international scene.

  Of course material wellbeing is not the most important thing, but it would certainly be the primary consideration in any planning to restrict population growth. As for mental health--people have always had such problems, and they've not always been recognized. It would be very difficult to establish population pressures as a cause of mental illness. (Fact is, no one really knows what causes most mental illness; psychiatrists only know how to affect some of the symptoms once it shows up. Sometimes.)

  CS: "...[If] 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...."

  DW: My frame of reference is never just the USA. My wife is native Chinese, and I've traveled a fair amount. So my "average human" would never be the average American. But if life on average is getting materially better for people worldwide--and I believe that's well established, now might be one of the worst-ever times for central planners to step in and start trying to fit populations to their notions of what's best. You need some sort of objective criterion for determining when to make decisions of that magnitude; and general material wellbeing is the best I can think of off the top of my head.

  If we can't find suitable energy sources to replace diminishing hydrocarbons, general material wellbeing will probably start heading downward pretty rapidly, and this will probably become evident rapidly also.

  (One of the earliest indications for me that the poor of the world were moving up were all the air conditioners evident in Guangzhou tenement windows. When I asked our guide about it, she said most residents also had refrigerators and TV's. That was about 10 years ago. China in general has left me with much the same impression as Germany in 1960, before its economic miracle: in both cases the people seemed disciplined and driven to succeed, and construction cranes were everywhere.)

  Don

  ----- Original Message -----
    From: Christine Smith<>
    To: asa@calvin.edu<>
    Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 4:37 PM
    Subject: 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Stay informed, get connected and more with AOL on your phone<http://mobile.aol.com/productOverview.jsp?productOverview=aol-mobile-overview&?ncid=aolmbd00030000000139>.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 27 00:38:59 2008