On Jun 11, 3:32 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:> On Jun 11, 2:48 pm, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Jun 11, 1:21 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>> On Jun 11, 11:41 am, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Jun 11, 10:05 am, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>
>>>>> -tg
>
>>>> Like most academic/social science writing, this article seems long on
>>>> the problem and short on the solutions. I patiently read through this
>>>> lengthy article to get to the punch line, which seems to be this:
>
>>>> "The challenge is to maintain these convictions and yet objectively
>>>> face the root causes of problems, striving to imagine ways to resolve
>>>> them that are consistent with our values.
>>>> referring to?> Population is one realm where this is not only
>>>> possible, but powerfully appealing-the success of a values-based
>>>> strategy is already evident. Leave to women, more than to anyone else,
>>>> the decision about when and how often to bear children."
>
>>>> That's it??? Maybe I've missed the details, but that seems a bit vague
>>>> and overly simplistic to me.
>
>>> Well, the exposition of the problem is the first step---and it has to
>>> get published and talked about more mainstream (than this). When's the
>>> last time you heard it on the evening news? Ever?
>
>> Oh sure, I agree about the exposure issue . . . alternet certainly
>> isn't the CBS Evening News. ;-) But my quibble is with the proportion
>> of time spent on problem vs. solution. I'm probably a harsher critic
>> than most because it's an issue I'm somewhat familiar with (and
>> interested in), but it's the same with every other issue -- it becomes
>> an exercise in intellectual masturbation.
>
>> Generally those on the left are outstanding at writing dissertations
>> and giving lectures and publishing articles, and we can all attend the
>> lectures and read the articles and nod our heads in agreement to show
>> how intellectually and morally superior we are and we can curse out
>> our enemies. But just once I'd like to see some concrete solutions
>> offered that amount to more than just slogans and vague
>> generalizations and cozy intellectual concepts that have no bone
>> behind them.
>
>> The Al Gore movie is a good example -- we have 2 hours of exposition
>> on global warming -- ok, tell us about the problem, we need to know --
>> but the punch line is: "buy a prius and some CFLs." Huh???
>
>> And so we leave the cinema and pat ourselves on the back for being so
>> "right" and "just" and oh so intellectually superior and
>> then . . . . ???
>
>>> But why do you say *overly* simplistic as if simplicity is a Bad
>>> Thing?
>
>> No, it's not a bad thing. But where's the beef? Where is the concrete
>> plan to address the problem? The devil is in the details, as they say.
>
>> Wait, don't tell me!!!! Send your contributions to the Worldwatch
>> Institute so a) you can feel good about yourself for "doing" something
>> and b) the intellectual masturbators can keep their jobs so they can
>> publish more lengthy articles that say the same thing as all the
>> others but with maybe a new term or two (that aren't *really* new, but
>> give the appearance of being new).
>
>>> Sure, I don't know exactly how to get Saudi women empowered,
>>> or Afghan or African or .....; but I do know that the current
>>> administration has been obstructing such efforts. And there was just
>>> an article about Muslim women in Europe paying USD 3K to surgically
>>> get their virginity back, so it is one of those things that will
>>> happen through many paths and influences, and with setbacks. That
>>> doesn't mean the concept is wrong.
>
>>> -tg
>
>> I totally agree with the concept . . . totally. So here's to
>> empowering women!! Now what do we do? I'm just asking for the details
>> of the author's "values-based strategy". Or do I have to buy his book
>> to find that out? ;-)
>
> Well, strategies have details called tactics. That varies from
> battlefield to battlefield, and it isn't up to the CIC to tell you
> what that is---consider how well that worked for Hitler. The point is
> that there are people in all these countries (the women, at least) who
> would like to see women empowered for lots of reasons having nothing
> to do with population control.
But the whole point of the article was how to address population
control:
"Population: What to Do When There Are Too Many of Us
By Robert Engelman, Island Press. Posted June 10, 2008.
The author of "More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want" writes
that we can tackle a population-induced environmental crisis by
empowering women."
I simply want to know the details of how empowering women will solve
the overpopulation issue. The author wrote five long pages of
information but never answered the "how" question in any meaningful
way. Where's the "what to do" part??? Perhaps the article is just PR
for his new book. ;-)
> So there's really no mystery to it; get
> experts in each culture to identify the places you can best leverage
> whatever funds you can spend---education, clinics, small business
> loans, and so on.
Why do you suppose those women aren't empowered to begin with?
>> Also, he doesn't really get at the root issue, imo. Scarcity is
>> profitable, isn't it? Isn't that the real problem?
>
> I think that your paranoia, justified as it may be ;-), is making you
> be imprecise on this. It might be possible to argue that you can't
> strictly have profit at all without scarcity, but what you are saying
> does sound like an oversimplification (heh heh).
Oh, you want the details? Mr. Yale professor/executive director at
Worldwatch Institute gets a free pass on his 5-page article, but you
want lil ole ta from alt.philosophy to just *give* them away?
Well it's all forthcoming in my new book, which you will be able to
purchase on
Amazon.com for a mere $49.95 (sorry, hardcover only) if
you enter "ta" in the promotional code section. In the meantime,
please send a donation to my non-profit, PEEP (People for the Eventual
Elimination of People).
Seriously though, I thought this was all old news.
Scarcity creates a virtually unending stream of problems to fix (which
means big profit opportunities for the few in power at the expense of
the many who aren't) . . . See Monsanto, for example. See General
Dynamics, for example. See Exxon Mobil, for example. There's no
conspiracy -- just a small minority blindly pursuing their own
perceived self-interest and the rest of us going along because we
don't know any better.
> There could well come
> a point where scarcity doesn't benefit the powerful but destroys their
> power.
>
> -tg
How so?
