Posted on 08/22/2005 4:18:22 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
"I don't think most people understand where we're headed." - Gaylord Nelson in 1994, on the perils of overpopulation
That he was a man of exceptional wisdom and courage seems beyond dispute.
But while dozens of pundits and politicians paid tribute to Gaylord Nelson following his death on July 3 at age 89 and lauded him for his sterling environmental record, most made passing or no reference to the issue to which the father of Earth Day devoted the last decade of his life: overpopulation.
It is, Nelson had maintained, not only a critical issue for the future of mankind, but the most compelling issue of them all.
Bill Christofferson, his biographer, says that whenever Nelson gave talks on the issue - particularly if he happened to be in fast-growing Dane County - he'd always try to get people to understand what the local impacts would be if the U.S. population were to double by 2060.
"He'd say, 'Imagine what that will be like. We're not just talking about twice as many people, we're talking about twice as many everything. Twice as many highways and twice as many schools. Twice as many parking lots and twice as many hospitals.
"And then he'd ask, 'If that happens, what will the quality of life be like for the people living here?' "
Yes, it's a complex and explosive subject, the former Wisconsin governor and three-term U.S. senator acknowledged. At the very least, however, we need to have the debate - not only to provide a "road map for the future," he argued, but because the consequences of ignoring it are too grim to even imagine.
But while the world's population has grown by 11.2 million in the eight weeks since Nelson's death, there have been no calls to take up that debate, no signs that anyone in the media or Congress or the White House is interested in accepting Nelson's challenge.
"It's cowardice. What else can you call it?" says Elizabeth Bardwell, a longtime friend of Nelson's and a staunch anti-growth advocate in Madison.
"And you have to ask yourself, what is this sinister plot that keeps us from having the debate? What's going on?"
Christofferson says the answer is simple. People avoid the debate because to talk about overpopulation means confronting such hot-button issues as birth control and family planning - which conservatives and most religious groups adamantly oppose.
And if you talk about controlling the mushrooming U.S. population, he says, it means you must address the issue of immigration, which now accounts for about one-third of the 3.2 million people our country adds every year. Then you will be labeled a racist.
Nelson got away with it, of course, because he was Gaylord Nelson - a bona fide progressive and a man of impeccable credentials, Christofferson says. This was a guy, after all, who commanded an all-black company in the segregated Army in World War II and took immediate action to integrate the Wisconsin National Guard when he became governor.
But even Nelson endured some flak, Christofferson says, especially after he came out in favor of tightening immigration quotas, "which set off all kinds of alarms among a lot of his liberal and progressive friends."
But to Nelson, the issue had nothing to do with racism or "nativism," Christofferson notes. As Nelson himself explained in his 2002 book, "Beyond Earth Day," the "real issue" is numbers of people and the implications for freedom of choice and sustainability as our numbers continue to grow.
"Population will be a major determinant of our future, how we live and in what condition; talk of it should not be muzzled by McCarthyism or any other demagogic contrivance," he wrote. "Rather, the issue must be brought forth and explored in public hearings and discussions, precisely because it is a subject of great consequence."
Moreover, Nelson said was deeply troubled that "rhetoric of this sort has succeeded in silencing the environmental and academic communities and has tainted any discussion of population-immigration issues as 'politically incorrect.' "
But as frustrating as it was to see the president and members of Congress "running for cover on such a monumental issue," Nelson wrote, "it is nothing short of astonishing to see the great American free press, with its raft of syndicated columnists, frightened into silence by political correctness."
Nobody is more troubled by that silence than David Durham, chairman of the board of Carrying Capacity Network, a Washington D.C.-based population stabilization group, who maintains that any objective observer would find the world population statistics downright chilling. (Nelson was an adviser to the group.)
In 1960, for example, the global population was 3 billion. In 1999 - just 33 years later - it had doubled to 6 billion.
Although the rate has slowed in recent years - largely because Canada, Australia, Japan and Western Europe have stabilized their growth - world population is still expected to hit 9 billion by 2054, with 90 percent of the growth occurring in Africa, Asia and Latin America, he says.
That growth will cause enormous strains on our natural resources, particularly the world's fast-dwindling supply of fresh water. As it is, an estimated 800 million humans - more than double the U.S. population - are starving or seriously malnourished, says Durham, noting that Niger is the most recent African country facing massive starvation problems, after years of drought.
In addition, an estimated 700 species of plants and animals are endangered from destruction of habitat caused by population growth.
But while it's mainly a Third World problem now, that doesn't mean the United States can ignore its own burgeoning population, Durham says.
Yes, the birth rate in the United States is at replacement level, or about 2.1 children per woman on average, he says. But we're still the fastest growing developed country in the world. And if we don't act now to stabilize our population - currently about 292 million - we could reach 500 million by 2050 and 1 billion by 2100, he says.
And if that doesn't alarm you, Durham and other population experts say, consider this: If current trends continue, by the year 2020 - or just 15 years from now - the U.S. will add enough new people to create another New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Francisco, Indianapolis, San Jose, Memphis, Washington, Jacksonville, Milwaukee, Boston, Columbus, New Orleans, Cleveland, Denver, Seattle and El Paso.
Which is why, Durham says, CCN and some 50 other slow-growth organizations are pushing Congress to enact a five-year moratorium that would cap legal immigration - now at 1.2 million a year - at 100,000 annually and reduce illegal immigration to about 50,000 annually.
(In the last two sessions, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., has introduced a bill that would cap legal immigration at 300,000 annually. Durham says it's received lukewarm support.)
Continues at link posted in header...
"'Imagine what that will be like. We're not just talking about twice as many people, we're talking about twice as many everything. Twice as many highways and twice as many schools. Twice as many parking lots and twice as many hospitals.
"And then he'd ask, 'If that happens, what will the quality of life be like for the people living here?' "
It'd be THE SAME, moron...
"But to Nelson, the issue had nothing to do with racism or "nativism"..."
"...world population is still expected to hit 9 billion by 2054, with 90 percent of the growth occurring in Africa, Asia and Latin America..."
So, which is it? Can one be both FOR population control AND non-racist?
With a name like "Gaylord" I have a hunch that "overpopulation" was not a personal problem for him.
Acceptance of nuclear power, and more people contributing to the creation of wealth?
"...but the ideas about Zero-Population Growth are just plain fascist."
Agreed. How do Pro-Abortion and Zero-Population people justify their own births? You'd think if they were so concerned they'd off themselves as soon as they "saw the light" on how they're ruining life on this planet. *Rolleyes*
Who wants to volunteer to go to the Muslim countries and tell them not to breed so many future terrorists? I don't see any hands in the air.....
He has been discredited just like that other fool, Robert Erlich (I think I'm getting that name right. No time to google it.) They've been predicting doom and gloom since the words were invented.
I have not seen that the Los Angeles area is that much better off now that they are awash in immigrants. It really depends who the immigrants are; some populations do much better than others
The current method of "dealing" is to pave everything in sight and put up shopping malls. There are no small towns left in my area, and it used to be all farmland just 50 years ago.
It sickens me, literally.
I encourage all persons who truly fear overpopulation to do the right thing: suicide.
Actually, the opposition is from people who don't want government meddling in reproductive areas of our lives. There are an awful lot of "choice" advocates who don't believe in there should be a choice to have as many children as you want.
So the natural reply to this kind of Chicken Little alarum would be to let the Four Horsemen ride through Afria as they are doing now. Just let them all starve to death before they are old enough to breed, and when there aren't enough of them left to bury the bodies, disease will finsh the rest.
This is obviously nonsense. I don't think it's up to us to dictate how other people breed, but if you stop paying them to have babies, a lot of them would only have the number they could afford, and the problem would be over.
Of course Canada does reward women with a year off with pay if they get pregnant, and their population is still dropping, so maybe after a certain point they just don't care anymore.
Absolutely on the money…why it's the Galord Nelson's who've done so much to give Eugenics such a good image…like breeding good steaks. NO SOUP FOR EVERYONE UNTIL I GET MINE!
On the other hand, perhaps Muslims are doing their part by slaughtering each other.
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!
Whew, got it out of my system
Malthus was wrong.
He's always been wrong.
He'll always be wrong, as long as there is freedom and capitalism.
The only way malthus would be 'proved right' is if we listed to the socialists and environweenies.
Most of the western world is not having enough children to replace themselves and birth rates in much of the third world are falling sharply. The prospects of a very aged population are more fearsome than the prospects of over population.
Well I guess we ought to thank him for doing his part to decrease the surplus population.
"There are an awful lot of "choice" advocates who don't believe in there should be a choice to have as many children as you want."
Not trying to knit-pick, Lorianne, but for the sake of argument can we agree to say, "as many children as you can AFFORD to raise yourself?"
My best friend's sister now has 16 kids and counting; they receive massive amounts of aid from their church, community and our state.
People on the opposite end of this argument are as troublesome to me as the Zero-Population bozos. ;)
Full disclosure: I have no birth-children of my own. I adopted my husband's son when he was three, and we also raised my two nephews as my SIL was too drugged up to be a mother to her boys. For me, I gotta put the kids (that are allowed to live) first. :)
Well, silly, they're the annointed ones, the one's with the answers, and as such, they must survive to guide the rest of us!
They would sacrifice so much, making the terrible decisions as to who would live, and who would die. That's the type of responsibility that no rational person would ever want for themselves. It's something that out of the goodness of their hearts, and their love of mankind, would be willing to make the sacrifice for the rest of us.
One of the best fictional examples of this is "This Perfect Day," by Ira Levin, author of "Rosemary's Baby." I think the book is out of print now, but it's a terrific read, and well worth getting. Another example would be Orwell's "Animal Farm, and Vonnegut's "Harrison Burgeron." In fact, there was a pretty good made-for-TV movie made of that short story, staring Sean Astin.
Mark
Nelson and his wife had three children. That's a bit excessive, isn't it???
He talks about a billion U.S. citizens in 2100 like it's a bad thing. The fact is, at a billion, we'll still have plenty of room in the U.S. to grow. In fact, we could probably easily sustain a half trillion people in this country. That's 500 billion. Though I'll be long gone before we ever get that crowded.
We don't have to worry about overpopulation, the third world nations immigrating here are taking care of the whole thing.
By the way, his name cracks me up.
I thought that there was a guy named Malthus who had a theory.
Thanks for the reading recommendations. I'd also add "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson, though in that one it may have appeared to be the general population deciding who lived and who died, but I've always had a feeling the decisions were somehow rigged. ;)
"Nelson and his wife had three children. That's a bit excessive, isn't it?"
As Dear Old Dad always said of my sister and myself, "Once the children start outnumbering the parents, you've got Big Trouble on your hands!" ;)
Los Angeles would not benefit by immigration, but there are less prosperous areas of the United States which could benefit by new people.
Paul Ehrlich---of "The Population Bomb" (and other eco-screeds).
"Robert Erlich (I think I'm getting that name right. No time to google it.)"
Paul Ehrlich---of "The Population Bomb" (and other eco-screeds).
My bad. Thanks for the correction.
Once the children outnumber the parents, you have to switch from man to man to a zone defense.
But as frustrating as it was to see the president and members of Congress "running for cover on such a monumental issue," Nelson wrote, "it is nothing short of astonishing to see the great American free press, with its raft of syndicated columnists, frightened into silence by political correctness." /quote
WRONG, it is the environmental, academic, and American free press communities that created political correctness in the first place to silence their own opposition and enforce their own idealogy, so they are only living by their own twisted creed.
It really depends on which new people. Relocating poor Somalians to rural Maine has not done much for the economy. Insisting on health, education and the ability to speak english of immigrant applicants should not be too much.
Oh yeah, overpopulation is really sccary. Not.
The way this planet is going in twenty years UNDERpopulation will be the worry.
It's pretty clear we are already in a mass die off. Just getting started and on the slope of a loooooooong upward curve.
So move.
Got more open land here in Texas than the mind can grasp.
"Got more open land here in Texas than the mind can grasp."
No kidding! The upper 2/3 of Wisconsin is hardly populated, either. Granted, the bears and wolves need somewhere to live, but they could be moved out if needed. ;)
It always amazes me that these "Earth First!" types have no concept of just how HUGE this Big Blue Marble truly is. Even just flying coast to coast...they never look out a window?
Oh, that's right...it's frivolous to fly because it uses up too much fuel and pollutes the atmosphere and ruins the Rain Forest...or something.
But then we have Algore using up hundreds of thousands of gallons of jet fuel to fly to Japan for an hour-long "Earth First!" meeting, then getting back on the airbus and coming home again.
Funny, that wasteful consumption never makes the headlines. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.