Display:
also believe in growth. Check your average 5-year plan for details. And, many people somewhere in between also believe in growth...if for no other reason that there are, every year, more and more people to feed, clothe and house via that growth, and the health and vitality of a society is and has always been inextricably tied to the vitality of its demography and its socio-economic progress, and this for many reasons not limited to defence of the homeland, cultural achievement, and social and material well-being of its people whose reach is extended (in global influence, prosperity, territory and so forth) in direct proportion to the success of all of the above.

As long as human history has been recorded this has been so.  

Square the circle of population growth and you can perhaps square the circle of sustainable growth but, and I overgeneralise of course, oddly enough, those most likely to expound upon the virtues of sustainability, even negative growth, are also those who will, in my part of the world, be those most likely to push the sort of multiculturalism of the sort that accepts, in an otherwise purely secular society founded on equality, women wearing a burkha in a public square or otherwise treated as second class citizens. And we all know that one of the most likely precursors to sustainable populations (short of PRC-style force, which of course these people also tend to eschew) is women's equality, particularly (but not exclusively) via education.


Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant

by redstar on Tue Apr 20th, 2010 at 05:07:19 PM EST
It is quite a "spiritual" failure of the Soviet experiment that they did not come up with other aspirations. The egalitarianism was decent, though apparently not valued by the citizen - consumer materialism was somehow the highest value there as well.

But overpopulation problems could be overrated - and women emancipation is indeed a good factor. The West was never (objectively) close to overpopulation drama. Growing cities and population density only meant higher production and generally better life quality. People were suffering not because of lack of potatoes or something.

by das monde on Wed Apr 21st, 2010 at 07:20:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The question isn't so much how many people we can fit on the planet as it is how comfortable they will be.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Apr 21st, 2010 at 12:05:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The comfort is arguably still increasing. When do you want to short the comfort growth? :-)
by das monde on Wed Apr 21st, 2010 at 10:34:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Alive and healthy CAN BE comfortable.

We haven't been trained to it yet.

Women don't naturally want unlimited children.

ACCESS to children, maybe. The village provides.

Hilary Clinton was right.

Align culture with our nature.

by ormondotvos (ormond no spam lmi net no spam) on Thu Apr 22nd, 2010 at 06:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series