X-Message-Number: 7285
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: re.Peter.Merel.comments
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:19:46 -0800 (PST)

Hi!

This note is for Peter Merel.

First of all, my observations about biotechnology were not about what will 
happen in the future but about what is happening RIGHT NOW. And I barely
touched on that subject... there are lots of things going on. NOW. The 
green revolution was caused by only one variety of modified plant; agronmists
are not simply lying back on their laurels, but working to do even better. 

Yes, there are places where poor politics is wrecking a country. No, that
is not universal and we have no reason to believe that it will become so. In
fact, the people of such countries are not happy with what is going on, and
their governments will (one way or another) have to deal with that.

You are also completely, flatly wrong about when infanticide has been used.
It's true that Western societies have not used it for hundreds of years, but
the Greeks did. Furthermore, even comparatively recently, the Polynesians did
also. They knew quite well that the islands they lived on could only support
so many; when an infant was born the village elders would get together and
decide whether it could usefully be raised to maturity or should be killed.
I will say that in most such instances, though the effect is infanticide, 
it isn't quite so direct. The infant was merely left out in the wild with
no protection, and was either eaten by predators or died of exposure. Try 
reading WE THE TIKOPIA by Raymond Firth (prominent anthropologist of early
this century). Such things as discovery of "the pill" and use of condoms only
provide a somewhat gentler form of birth control.

Another form of birth control practised by the Chimbus in the mountains of
New Guinea (whom I personally spent a month with in 1970, out of interest and
curiosity) didn't actually involve infanticide, no. The female friends of
a pregnant woman who did not want the child would all gather together, find
a large rock, place it on the woman's belly, and jump up and down on it.
Perhaps they would have used infanticide if the local missionaries had not
preached so much against it, but yes, that is a speculation. Were they
starving? Were the Polynesians starving? Not at all. They just had some
sense of how many people they could support. The main reason for the recent
upsurges in population in underdeveloped countries is that their people 
blindly reproduce, but that only a few years ago a man and woman would
have to have 10 children to be assured that one or two would grow to 
adulthood.

Frankly, anyone who wants to argue that growth of population will lead to
a catastrophe would have to argue very very hard to convince me. 

We do know, of course, of various countries in Africa and elsewhere with
governments similar to those of our early history, complete with total
despotism. I would not be surprised if they caused arbitrary devastation
to their country's land and everything else. Whether nuclear weapons, even
if they have them, would prove very useful is a separate question entirely.
One bomb, destroying one American city, though it would certainly be a 
tragedy for those involved, will not lead to a passive response by the
United States (or any other nuclear power, for that matter). Any country
which tried that would regret it. As for terrorists, they'd have a problem
too: if they openly admit that they are responsible, they can say goodby
to whatever cause they had used it for. If they do not, then they will 
find no where on Earth to hide themselves. Nuclear weapons have only one
use, and I think there are good reasons why that will remain true: you
keep them on hand to retaliate if some other party uses them on you.

Not only that, but a nuclear war over FOOD seems the most unlikely of
all. Say the US has lots of food, and others want it. For some reason
food doesn't keep very well after being subject to nuclear bombs.

And incidentally, if you are worried by African overpopulation, you might
consider that AIDS is now all over Africa, and a much higher proportion
of the population has it than in any developed country. NO, that's not
good. But any idea that Africa will become overpopulated right now
looks bizarre. The problem more likely may be underpopulation.

Sure, there will be places laid waste. That's not unusual in history.
But there will also be plenty of places NOT laid waste. And those are
the places where we hope to be. And also the places where technological
progress will continue.

			Long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7285