| Al Bundy 2006-03-17, 1:21 am |
| "Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote in
news:1142535433.292057.116470@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
> Robotic, banal quotes like these make the news every day in America:
>
> "One of the fastest growing regions in the country..." "Unprecedented
> housing starts have boosted tax revenues..." "Immigration will assure a
> robust economy for the next fiscal year..." "Regional job-creation has
> remained strong with no end in sight..." "Sprawl has presented some
> problems but economic growth must be sustained..."
>
> Absent from those glowing reports are two fundamental facts in a finite
> world:
>
> A) Population growth depletes finite resources at a faster rate and
> makes it more difficult to sustain renewable ones. Read any
> (non-industry) article about water supplies, global fisheries or old
> growth timber if you doubt that second point.
>
> B) Population growth increasingly alters the landscape, making it less
> natural and more crowded. Because growth never ends, "balance" between
> Man and nature has yet to be achieved.
>
> Population growth is still framed in neutral to buoyant terms by most
> observers. Negative side-effects are brushed aside by mass marketers
> and land developers. After all, there's money to be made in any pyramid
> scheme until its final days. This one's just been going on for awhile,
> thanks to fossil fuels. Economic growth is treated like Popeye being
> fortified with spinach but it's really more like steroids.
>
> Here are some questions that growth-addicts can't or won't answer:
>
> 1) Which came first, more people or more jobs? Would the latter be
> necessary without the former? Would the GNP need to grow each year
> without more consumers? What about the quality and pay of newly created
> jobs? How secure is an outsourced service economy that makes less of
> its own stuff?
>
> 2) Is the world a better place with less wilderness acreage each day?
> Is an increasingly artificial planet a more pleasant one? How many
> city-dwellers would be content if they could never fully escape the
> suburbs?
>
> 3) Aren't open spaces fundamental to America's heritage as a new land
> with "unlimited" freedom? Other than accommodating more people (~3
> million per year), what purpose is served by filling up these lands and
> destroying their mystique?
>
> 4) Does it make sense to build homes on farmland which will inevitably
> be needed to feed more home-buying families? How many times have you
> heard people blame "agriculture" for growing water shortages? Do they
> plan to eat Soylent Green when the time comes?
>
> 5) Can traffic congestion EVER be reduced with more people driving more
> cars all the time? Please use common sense here.
>
> 6) RE so-called Smart Growth: if we do manage to build denser cities,
> will it do anything to reduce the crowds when all those people leave
> their driveways? Or will we force them to wait at home, metered by
> green lights like a freeway on-ramp? Even if we could do that, they'd
> all end up somewhere by Saturday. Metering a flow barely helps if its
> gross volume keeps rising.
>
> 7) Is the introduction of more congestion and noise in rural areas
> improving their quality of life? Don't people move or vacation there to
> escape such things? NIMBY would be a rare term without constant growth.
> A nice view could actually stay that way.
>
> 8) Don't you tire of things being more crowded all the time? Apply that
> generically to almost any public place. Instead of complaining about
> long lines for X or waiting forever for Y, ask yourself "Y" it keeps
> getting worse. Who taught you that it was inevitable?
>
> 9) Why are we so quick to control population spikes in other species
> (wildlife management) while ignoring limits to our own massive growth
> of 75 million annually worldwide? Birth control is easier to use than
> ever. What's our excuse, aside from willful ignorance of limits?
>
> 10) On a FINITE Earth (not some Cornucopian dreamland) how can there
> ever be more physical wealth PER person? Are rising debts mere
> abstractions? Money is an imperfect concept, but it's trying to warn us
> that we're living beyond our means. A sustainable economy would
> function much like nature and have almost zero long-term debt.
> Population growth keeps us constantly wanting, taking and borrowing
> more.
>
>
> E.A.
>
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
> If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.
>
See subject
|