|
BarkellWH -> RE: Keeping abreast of things? (Sep. 27 2015 2:00:14)
|
quote:
We need a minimum order-of-magnitude reduction in human numbers, and two and three order-of-magnitude reductions would ensure a viable long-term future, if tied to social mechanisms to ensure that the numbers stay low.... Arthur Koestler also prescribed the prophylactic use of a drug to reduce testosterone levels in young men as another way to curb many social and, by extension, environmental pathologies.
You are correct, of course, Runner. We have vastly overpopulated the planet, and, understandably, everyone wants to reach a station in life that provides the standard of living and level of comfort that you and I, and Miguel, and many others enjoy. That's what we have been witnessing in China over the past 35 years. With your solutions cited above, however, particularly, "...if tied to social mechanisms to ensure that the numbers stay low," and Arthur Koestler's prescription for "the prophylactic use of a drug to reduce testosterone levels in young men," you are treading dangerous ground and run the risk of being charged with advocating "genocide" for "people of color." I put both terms in quotes, as those who would make the charge lack an understanding of what genocide actually is, and the term "people of color" is just the latest fashionable term to draw a distinction between European stock and others--we are all pigmented and "people of color" when it comes down to it.
Here's why I think you are on dangerous ground. Europe, Russia, and Japan have had declining populations for some time now. The United States' European-based population has held steady. The increase in population growth is all taking place among the Latin American, Arab, African, certain Asian, and other populations that used to be termed the Third World. In the United States, our population growth mirrors those same groups who live in the U.S. For as far as one can see into the future, the worlds population growth is going to occur within those groups termed "people of color." If implemented, the solutions quoted above would draw not only strong resistance among those groups, it would open you up to charges (false though they would be) of advocating "genocide." A prime example of such a charge is the arch-conspiracy theorist the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who in his sermons accused the U.S. Government of "inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." Think how he would view the proposals cited above?!
Miguel, I do not have the faith in movements that you seem to have. My reading of history and experience to date suggests that most movements either accomplish little or nothing (reference "Occupy Wall Street"), or if they lead to a true revolution and upheaval in society, they do so with a strong leadership that ends up eating its own children and that becomes even more authoritarian than the Ancien Regime they replaced (witness the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions). In fact, some political leaders in the U.S. have implemented reforms in the face of opposition. Theodore Roosevelt is a good example. Roosevelt's trust-busting achieved tangible results despite being opposed by some powerful business interests.
In the United States, I have long advocated a less dramatic approach, both to repairing our deteriorating infrastructure and leading to a decrease in the use of fossil fuels. I would implement an immediate $1.00 per gallon increase in the gasoline tax, rising gradually to $3,00 per gallon in five years. Studies have shown that people begin driving less when the overall cost of gasoline, including the tax, reaches $4.00 per gallon. By increasing the gasoline tax, we would have plenty of funding to supplement the pitiful "highway trust fund" and could begin major repairs on highways and bridges. We would also see a decrease in driving and, thus, in the amount of gasoline consumption. And here's the great thing about it, all studies show that at that level of taxation, the amount of funds collected would not be greatly affected by the decrease in driving.
Of course, there would be a public outcry if such an increase in the gasoline tax were implemented. And you know who would be shouting the loudest? Middle class people not much different than you and me. I'll tell you a little story that took place in your neck of the woods and illustrates my point. I was sitting in the Starbucks on Mill Avenue in Tempe three or four years ago having my coffee and reading the Arizona Republic. Gasoline had not reached $4.00 per gallon in Tempe, but it was $3.50 or slightly above. At the table next to mine I overheard a conversation between two people who were complaining bitterly about the oil companies and the high cost of gasoline as they sipped on their $5.00 lattes! Think about that for a minute. They were complaining about $3.50 per gallon gasoline while sipping on $5.00 lattes. And I'm sure that there were hundreds, nay thousands, like them. I doubt they were among the wealthy, heavily invested in corporations. They probably would complain about most corporations just as they were complaining about the oil companies and the high cost of gasoline....while sipping $5.00 Starbucks lattes.
Bill
|
|
|
|
