[this got marooned in my out queue on Friday; I hope it's still timely enough]
Anne V Stuecker <avs5@JUNO.COM> asked:
>(I'm not trying to be needlessly argumentative, I just want to understand
>your point and why you support it.) Now that I've posted a disclaimer,
>here are my comments:
>
>Neil Rest <NeilRest@TEZCAT.COM> replied to me:
>>Anne V Stuecker <avs5@JUNO.COM> replied to me:
>>>Wouldn't a more sound plan be to see that everyone has what they need
>and that the world has no use for terms like "rich" and "poor"?
>
>>"rich", "poor", "affluent" are to a great degree subjective.
>
>I understand this, but I want to know what _you_ mean to say when you use
>the word "affluence" to describe the solution to overpopulation.
Hmmm . . . No worries about material necessities, and some steady level of
luxury.
>>In my opinion, the overall evidence is completely convincing: Within
>>two generations of universal material security, population growth would
>>not only stop, but slight shrinkage would be likely.
>
>"Universal material security" does not, to me, imply affluence. It means
>that, as I said, everyone has what they need. Please define your terms
>for me. Also, what is your source for this datum?
Over the past couple of hundred years, there has been a fairly rigorous
relation between rising levels of affluence and declining birthrates. (I
repeat the subsidiary point that this fairly simple, straightforward gross
effect in all liklihood has complex causes!) Much of Europe has negative
population growth, and in Japan the average age has just passed 40.
There are significant local variations in birthrate vs. "absolute"
affluence, but the overall pattern is one of the clearest and most
universal in sociology.
Your comments seem to distinguish "absolute" affluence of a society from
"relative" affluence of groups within the society. Here in the United
States, there are clearly wide differences between the affluence of
different classes, but still, the overall birthrate is in the neighborhood
of the "replacement level" (I don't have numbers at hand, though I'm sure
I've bookmarked the Bureau of the Census. If [relatively] hard precision
is necessary, it's doable.). It is my impression that other industrial
countries have less of an income disparity, and overall, they seem to have
somewhat lower birthrates, so your point is well taken, but it seems to be
somewhat secondary.
(Geez, when I try to be clear and precise, both, it seems to come out stiff
& pedantic. *sigh*)
Does any of this clarify any of your problems with the initial assertions?
Neil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:31 PDT