On Jun 13, 3:28 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:> On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 11, 5:13 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>> On Jun 11, 4:27 pm, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:>
>>>> 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.
>
>> *** sigh *** I typed up a long reply to this yesterday and it did not
>> post for some reason. I'm not sure if I can replicate the wit and
>> insight of the moment from yesterday, but anyway . . . ;-)
>
>>> Ok I misunderstood what you were saying completely---I thought you
>>> were talking about 'how to empower women.'
>
>>> Right at the beginning he says that when women are empowered (that is,
>>> they have economic security, are educated, and they are not
>>> controlled through other means like violence), they tend to choose to
>>> have fewer children. I've mentioned this any number of times in our
>>> conversations and other posts---the data is pretty clear.
>
>> Right -- when they have economic security -- which is the crux of the
>> issue.
>
> Really I think there are two cruxes, and that makes for a long climb.
>
> In some cases, the economic situation---subsistence farming, very
> often---makes it attractive to the woman to have more children since
> they are cheap labor and will provide for the parents in old age. So
> they are equal with men in their interests.
Which is very much rooted in economic insecurity.
> On the other hand, there are plenty of places where the law and
> tradition disempower women who are financially secure---women in Saudi
> can't drive, for example. And then there are places where women may
> not be allowed to own property---I don't think that's true in Saudi
> but I'm not that sure. Anyway, in various places there is dominance by
> males, and one of the ways that dominance is maintained is by making
> the production of children a requirement. Or just having unprotected
> sex because the guy wants it. In some places, a woman could be a
> doctor or engineer, and make her own money, and still be killed by her
> male relatives if she were raped, because that 'dishonors' the family.
> And they wouldn't be punished.
Not to downplay this problem -- it's legit -- but I think these old
beliefs and traditions are gradually waning and do not constitute a
large part of the overall population problem. In Saudi Arabia, for
example, the population is actually declining.
In what do you suppose these outdated cultural traditions are rooted?
>> "Disempowered women" is a symptom; poverty and ignorance is the
>> disease. Now I'd just like to know how the WWI plans to eradicate
>> poverty and ignorance.
>
>> Where are the details of this "values-based strategy" to eliminate
>> poverty and ignorance, because you can't empower women until the
>> underlying root causes are addressed.
>
>> Why are there disempowered women to start with? If you don't answer
>> that question, then you are a symptom treater (which is good for
>> creating (and keeping) non-profit jobs and writing academic articles,
>> but not for solving root problems).
>
>>>> 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.
>
>>>> How so?
>
>>> You know this stuff pretty well ta, from what you've said over the
>>> years. The scarcity by itself only matters if you can control the
>>> resource, and if the resource isn't replaced. When scarcity gets
>>> beyond a certain point, either the resource is replaced, which
>>> devalues the resource and your derived power, or someone takes control
>>> of it from you. The oil business, obviously, is a careful balancing
>>> act to avoid either. Look at the last 35 years or so.
>
>>> -tg
>
>> I agree in the case of oil -- that is a dead-end game (and nobody owns
>> the sun and wind . . . . yet) -- but the oil cartel and oil companies
>> are going to stretch that game out as long as they possibly can. That
>> gig is not up, it will continue through our liftetimes, no doubt.
>
>> But what about things like water, land and food . . . even water is
>> heavily privatized in the current day, and there's no replacing it.
>> And Monsanto will continue to act in their own narrow self-interests
>> by encouraging the scarcity model, and General Dynamics and Lockheed
>> Martin will continue to supply weaponry and "defense" systems to the
>> "terrorists".
>
> But think about it---there are food riots happening even now, and at
> some point the powerful do lose control one way or the other. True,
> they may be replaced by other kinds of thugs, but still it isn't in
> their interest to push things too far. They will, as you say, try to
> string it out as long as they can, and that means some adaptations
> will be necessary.
Right. And the beat goes on . . . until . . .
> -tg> And the game will continue until . . . . ???
