Re: Optimal Population?

Mr. Groves makes the argument:
"Check out the Brazilian rainforest clearing. I know you will deny it,
but
that is a fairly clear case of overpop leading to environmental
degradation. And why shouldn't we weigh the value of humans versus other
species? Isn't that simply the moral point of view extended to all
species?
In fact, that is precisely what I am calling for. Is there a population
number that is more optimal/ethical considering the ecosystem as a
whole? I
think there is."

        Forest clearance in the Brazilian rainforest, and elsewhere, by
displaced peasant producers today IS a response to overpopulation, but
clearly an overpopulation produced by the deepening of capitalist
agrarian relations in zones of established settlement. This is whole
thrust of the modern history of town-country division of labor.
Capitalist transformation of the countryside produces a surplus
population which then finds its way to the cities and to new zones of
settlement, near or far according to conditions. 
        This is not a particularly new phenomenon. The history of world
capitalist expansion is of course replete with instances of forest
clearance -- 17th and 18th century New England, 15th century Madeira,
17th century Ireland, etc. -- few of which seem to be linked to be
linked to "overpopulation." 
        As for socialist "utopianism" and other such red-baiting language, 
this
seems misplaced and mis-used. This line of argument appears aimed at
generating more heat than light.
        Finally, who is the "we" of whom Mr. Groves speaks? I assume 
humanity
as a whole. But clearly, humanity as a whole does not constitute the
decision making apparatus of global society today.

        Best, Jason Moore
Jason W. Moore
Sociology, Johns Hopkins  



John_Groves@ferris.edu wrote:
> 
> Dear WSNers and Andrew: responding to my question "what kind of world do 
>we
> want to live in?", you answer,
> 
> "Certainly not in a world were human beings are treated as pests in need 
>of
> elimination."
> 
> This is, of course, a straw man. You do stack up the fallacies. I never
> said humans were pests in need of elimination. I argue that there might
> just be a more optimal trajectory in world population than the one we are
> on.
> 
> In response to my (rather generally accepted) view that overpop is 
>reducing
> species you say that it is social practices. Let's be a bit less
> ideological about this. We are never going to have a perfect system, so
> your dreams of a socialist paradise are merely avoiding action on
> environmental issues.
> 
> In response to my view that people prefer not to be crowded, you write:
> "What small area are people crowded into? The earth? The earth is a big
> place, John. I think we will be okay as far as space is concerned."
> 
> This is overly optimistic. People can't live just anywhere. This reminds 
>me
> of the calculations that we could fit everyone on earth in just a small
> area. The calculation doesn't follow through and tell us where the human
> waste will go. Or any number of other human by-products. My own view is
> that people need much more area than they presently have if they are to
> live a healthy life.
> 
> You ask: "Is it the numbers that make India and Mexico "stink"? Or is it
> the brutal
> conditions the numbers are forced to live in?"
> 
> Both, of course. But India, for example, isn't the most oppressive place 
>in
> the world by far. If there was an easy "social" solution, they would have
> jumped on it. Again, Indians find pop to be an important "lever" of social
> change. It is easy for utopian socialists in the U.S. to wave their hands
> and create a perfect world. People in India are faced with the grim 
>reality
> of overpop every day.
> 
> You then say: "This is why we oppose oppressive global capitalism instead
> of supporting oppressive population control."
> 
> Is pop control really so oppressive? What is so bad about having just two
> or even one child?
> 
> Even if pop control has been justified in the past for bad reasons and 
>with
> bad methods doesn't mean there aren't good reasons and methods now for it.
> If a racist built an affordable non-polluting car for racist reasons, I
> would still be inclined to buy it for my own reasons. This is a typical
> fallacy of many of my colleagues on the left. The same fallacy is 
>committed
> in the sociobiology arguments. "Some sociobiologists were racist, 
>therefore
> sociobiology is necessarily racist." I am not interested in taking up that
> argument again, I only want to point out a recurring fallacy.
> 
> Then you lay some cards on the table with the following scenario: "My
> scenario is a world socialist society in which human rights are observed
> and the dignity of every human being is recognized, where there are no
> national borders, where people are free to come and go as they please, and
> where production is based on need, not on greed, where people live in
> harmony with nature, not where they are posed against nature and either
> supported over nature or seen as an enemy of nature (we are, after all,
> part of nature)."
> 
> So my view that you are utopian is correct. It isn't going to happen. I
> give arguments for the world we live in, not the one I dream of. Further,
> there is a time constraint. Can we wait for the socialist revolution 
>before
> addressing these issues?
> 
> But the key point here is that you just assume that environmental/pop
> problems will just miraculously go away with the establishment of
> socialism.
> 
> You also write that: "I do not agree that the numbers contribute to 
>decline
> in the number of species, therefore that question is irrelevant. Yes, 
>every
> person is
> valuable, but the value of not a single one of them needs to be weighed
> against the value of any other species."
> 
> Check out the Brazilian rainforest clearing. I know you will deny it, but
> that is a fairly clear case of overpop leading to environmental
> degradation. And why shouldn't we weigh the value of humans versus other
> species? Isn't that simply the moral point of view extended to all 
>species?
> In fact, that is precisely what I am calling for. Is there a population
> number that is more optimal/ethical considering the ecosystem as a whole? 
>I
> think there is.
> 
> You do say that 'I have stated as clearly as I can the importance of
> population structure. Demography is an essential part of world-systems
> analysis. But it does not
> follow from this methodological concern that we are experiencing a
> population crisis and that we need to start "thinning the herds."'
> 
> Straw man again. I don't think of people as herds. That is just rhetorical
> posturing on your part, and not very scholarly. I am saying that an
> important question to consider is the optimal size of world pop. Note that
> when one does socialist planning, one might want to know how many people
> must be planned for. And if certain numbers raise problems, shouldn't pop
> be a variable open for discussion?
> 
> You then say that I am "using tired language."
> 
> Sorry if you don't like my words. As a person fairly conversant with the
> field of environmental ethics, these are still standard terms. I didn't
> realize "tiredness" was a logical fallacy.
> 
> Then you say that "The "biocentrism/ ecocentrism" versus
> "anthropocentrism" dichotomy is liberal academic silliness."
> 
> Let's see, you just wrote off hundreds of important articles with a wave 
>of
> your socialist hand. Is "silliness" supposed to be a criticism? My claim 
>is
> that your view is anthropocentric. You have done nothing to undermine my
> claim. You will let the non-human (as well as the human for that matter)
> world go to hell while you pine away for a socialist utopia that will 
>never
> happen. By the way, calling the distinction between ecocentric and
> anthropocentric a "liberal" one is another ad hominem, and has no logical
> force.
> 
> Then you say: "But if you are wanting me to stand up for my belief that it
> is wrong to impose fascist
> policies of population control on human beings, I have no problem telling
> you that I believe that it is."
> 
> More name calling. I am a fascist for wanting to limit population?
> Remember, all we are saying is that people might want to consider having
> fewer children. Again, is that really so oppressive? The gains of this
> minor change in behavior are quite great, so it certainly seems a great
> trade off (although I don't see that much is traded away in agreeing to
> have fewer children). I really don't think a family can raise more than 
>two
> responsibly anyway, so it looks like a gain for everyone.
> 
> By the way, do you think India's poor gain by having more than two
> children? Do you think it helps their ability to stand up to the West?
> 
> Then you really let fly with rhetoric: "With white eugenicists it is the
> threat to white people the hoards
> represent. For the "ecocentrist" it is the threat to other species the
> hoards represent. White purity has simply been replaced by eco-purity and
> the same outcome is advocated: reduce the numbers of the human contagion."
> 
> Did you see me espousing any eugenics arguments? Again, you turn to a 
>straw
> man.
> 
> For the record, I think there should be fewer white people too. I have no
> preference for any racial proportioning in world population.
> 
> Randy Groves