Comments on: Letter to the Chapel Hill News, July, 2008 http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/2008/07/31/letter-to-the-chapel-hill-news-july-2008/ toward a sustainable human culture Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:13:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Sustainability Southeast » Tapestry beautiful but resources finite http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/2008/07/31/letter-to-the-chapel-hill-news-july-2008/#comment-51 Sustainability Southeast » Tapestry beautiful but resources finite Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:58:47 +0000 http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/2008/07/31/letter-to-the-chapel-hill-news-july-2008/#comment-51 [...] Sustainability Southeast toward a sustainable human culture « Letter to the Chapel Hill News, July, 2008 [...] […] Sustainability Southeast toward a sustainable human culture « Letter to the Chapel Hill News, July, 2008 […]

]]> By: nadine sellers http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/2008/07/31/letter-to-the-chapel-hill-news-july-2008/#comment-50 nadine sellers Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:27:34 +0000 http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/2008/07/31/letter-to-the-chapel-hill-news-july-2008/#comment-50 Juggle numbers as you may, Malthusian revenge peers from the brink. One grain of wheat, two, four, eight, and we are expounding on the food rhetoric, man grows and man ravages. Through the observation of social patterns, i have seen the trajectory of the mindset which opens the fallopians to the next generation of users and abusers of existing resources. How can a society so ill informed find clear judgment and keep on multiplying beyond the capacity to support its progeny? Access to clean water and air. clean energy and natural living must not be the privilege of the affluent, but rather the inherent right of all creatures. Juggle numbers as you may, Malthusian revenge peers from the brink.
One grain of wheat, two, four, eight, and we are expounding on the food rhetoric, man grows and man ravages.
Through the observation of social patterns, i have seen the trajectory of the mindset which opens the fallopians to the next generation of users and abusers of existing resources.

How can a society so ill informed find clear judgment and keep on multiplying beyond the capacity to support its progeny?

Access to clean water and air.
clean energy and natural living must not be the privilege of the affluent, but rather the inherent right of all creatures.

]]> By: Sam Wilson http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/2008/07/31/letter-to-the-chapel-hill-news-july-2008/#comment-47 Sam Wilson Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:15:08 +0000 http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/2008/07/31/letter-to-the-chapel-hill-news-july-2008/#comment-47 Mr. Salmony, On the one hand, as a depopulation advocate I am very sympathetic to your intentions with sustainability southeast. I agree that agricultural expansion is the number one threat to life on the planet all things considered. However, there were a couple of things at this site that did not sit well with me. First, although I am skeptical about about the conclusions that demographic fertility trends will lead to a stabilization of population some time in the 21st century, I think the point has been well argued by demographers and deserves a much more serious rebuttal on this site. While this site's arguements regarding food supply may well apply to certain high-growth often rural countries, I don't see how it applies to countries such as Italy, Japan, etcetera which have gone negative-growth. Are we to believe that individuals in these countries have inadequate access to food? I do not think that your arguements will be taken seriously unless you rebut mainstream contemporary demographic scholarship in a much deeper way. In particular, what about Brazil, which is currently experiencing an explosion in food production? Shouldn't we see a corresponding fertility explosion? It seems like your arguements ignore all scholarship after the wide-scale introduction of birth control, essentially. Lastly, I think also when you make use of highly specious rhetoric such as the comparison of the total numbers of current annual US births to the total births in 1957, instead of a measure like births per capita or a fertility index, you alienate more thoughtful readers than you could win over. People who don't care to think don't think to care. On a certain level I want you to be right, because it would mean a reconsideration of the moral commandment of "thou must plow". On the other hand, from what I have read here, I'm not convinced that you are right. Mr. Salmony,

On the one hand, as a depopulation advocate I am very sympathetic to your intentions with sustainability southeast.

I agree that agricultural expansion is the number one threat to life on the planet all things considered.

However, there were a couple of things at this site that did not sit well with me. First, although I am skeptical about about the conclusions that demographic fertility trends will lead to a stabilization of population some time in the 21st century, I think the point has been well argued by demographers and deserves a much more serious rebuttal on this site. While this site’s arguements regarding food supply may well apply to certain high-growth often rural countries, I don’t see how it applies to countries such as Italy, Japan, etcetera which have gone negative-growth. Are we to believe that individuals in these countries have inadequate access to food?

I do not think that your arguements will be taken seriously unless you rebut mainstream contemporary demographic scholarship in a much deeper way. In particular, what about Brazil, which is currently experiencing an explosion in food production? Shouldn’t we see a corresponding fertility explosion? It seems like your arguements ignore all scholarship after the wide-scale introduction of birth control, essentially.

Lastly, I think also when you make use of highly specious rhetoric such as the comparison of the total numbers of current annual US births to the total births in 1957, instead of a measure like births per capita or a fertility index, you alienate more thoughtful readers than you could win over.

People who don’t care to think don’t think to care.

On a certain level I want you to be right, because it would mean a reconsideration of the moral commandment of “thou must plow”. On the other hand, from what I have read here, I’m not convinced that you are right.

]]>