Page 20 RAIN January 1980 Population cont. Sterilization campaigns we have urged onto underdeveloped countries have brought public outrage and reaction-including at least one case of the castration of Peace Corps volunteers in retribution. Do these all speak as much of oppressing the pooi: and "less desirable" parts of the population as they do of a humane concern for the rights and well-being of others? The global population uexplosion" occurred when we thought ourselves exempt from th_e laws of nature ... The suspicions these actions raise are furthered when we delve into the beginnings of our national population concern to find the Rockefellers, their foundations, and money from other wealthy, liberal Americans providing the dollars, voices, and influence that mage population control a major public concern. The impact of people on resources is far from equal-an American consumes as many resources as 25 Indians, and our 6 percent of the world's populc;ttion consumes more than 40 percent of the world's resources. Is it possible that lurking beneath our well-intended actions might be the unconscious self-interest of a wealthy society and its wealthiest citizens trying to eliminate competitors with stronger claims of need for the world's re~ources that we monopolize? I ~~ The research of Frances Moore Lappe and Joseph Collins at the Institute for Food Development Policy has clearly shown that overpopulation is not the real problem today in any country. The real problem is who controls the land and resources, preventing people from producing the food they need. The fact that many in Central America are forced to eke out a starvation living on precipitous mountainsides does not come from there being too many people. The reality is that almost all of the agricultural land of the country has been "expropriated" by U.S. corporations to grow bananas, coffee, and other luxury products for the American table inste.ad of food for the local people. Almost 55 percent of the world's farmable land is held out of production by large landowners and corporations. The government-forced growing of cash crops for export instead of food, the use of land for non-food luxury products and to feed lives~ock instead of people, and corporate control of the food processing system are the cause of people starving. Left alone, ·hungry people feed themselves. Is it possible that the greed of a few, not the n·eed of many, is the real root of the population problem? Our concern to keep our own populationlow in order to keep our per capita wealth high might be acting against our own self-interets in other ways. Would we be better off leaner and keener? Historically it is the individuals, institutions and societies that have had to keep their wits and "hunting skills" sharp that survive, not those who are overfed, overweight, sated and complacent. Is our unnecessary use of other people's·resourc.es worth that threat we feel of the possibility of their acting to get them back? How many of our personalpossessions are worth the hassle of r~pairing, hauling around and protecting from theft? Would we have better functioning, safer and more loved communities if the real need for sharing and work- •ing together wasn't eliminated by our wealthy "self-reliance"? To change our views on population probably means more people, at least in the short run. And more people means less for everyone, .or so the story goes. But less of what, and might that be better for ·us? To the poor, large numbers of children means more-more Overpopulation is not the real problem today'in- any country. The real problem is who controls the land and resources {_ _EN_E_RG_Y--.--_) Jobs and Energy: The Employment and Economic Impacts of Nuclear Power, Conservation, and Other Energy Options, by Steven Buchsbaum and James W. Benson, 1979, 300 pp., price on request from: Council on Economic Priorities 84 Fifth Ave. New York, NY 10011 212/691-8550 Finally, there exists a definitive study that counteracts all of the ''conservation means sacrifice" claptrap we hear so much of these days. Not only that, it clearly shows (as Amory Lovins has) that conservation and solar make far more economic sense than nuclear power. (New York), where the Long Island Lighting Company would like to build a two-unit nuclear generating plant, the study compares the costs of that construction, and the potential jobs created, against those of a ''Conservation/Solar Scenario" involving only residential energy use and readily available technology. The Conservation/ Solar scenario includes 20 conservation methods, 12 improved appliances, and two basic solar measures (solar domestic hot water systems and pas·sive solar design in new homes). Implementation of this sce_- nario does not require any consumer life-, style "sacrifices." In fact, homeowners • A national conservation/solar model • along the lines of the Long Island scenario could be expected to generate approximately one million jobs in the U.S. over the next 38 years. This is two and a half times the number of jobs that would be created by an equivalent supply of oil, natural gas and electricity. . ' • A typical household in the county of the proposed nuke could eliminate over 40 percent of its energy consumption by adopting the conservation/solar model. The initial expenditure' of approximately $2200 would pay for itself in eight years.· • Conservation/solar in the residential sector alone would save half the amount of energy that one unit of the nuclear facility could produce. If etectricity used applied to commercial and industrial sectors were improved to the same extent, total energy savings would total more than the output of this on~ nuclear unit. Furthermore, it Focussing on Jamespon, Long Islan_d who follow the scenario would find themselves with "increased discretionary income." The book is well-documented and rather technical-but ~hile it's not exactly entertaining reading, some of its findings are quite dramatic. Some highlights appear below. -MR
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz