IRA
In response to Norman Taylor's letter (GLW Feb 24), I find it incomprehensible that someone could say National Action and the IRA are similar with their "policy of unending violence".
It is obvious that Mr. Taylor has no knowledge of Irish history. For hundreds of years the Irish people have been oppressed, their freedom taken from them by imperialist Britain. The Irish Republican Army is a reactionary force to British violence and furthermore their brave soldiers offer some hope for the community in occupied Ireland, that some day they will be free.
In no way are the IRA fascists, they do not use violence for the sake of it, as in the case of National Action. They are fighting for a cause, the liberation of their country.
Julian Madsen
Sunbury Vic
Feminists and ALP
I couldn't agree more with Susan Barley's assertion, in her article "Child-care and promises" (GLW #91), that people should be judged on what they do and not on what they wear. This view is entirely consistent with the article to which Susan's reply is directed ("Empty promises: pursuing women's votes, GLW #89).
In that article Anne Casey and I set out the strategy of the ALP in this year's federal election for closing the "gender gap" established in Australian voting patterns. Our research revealed a central role in this project being played by Anne Summers, a self-identified feminist and a bureaucrat in the federal Office of the Status of Women.
Whether Summers wears an Armani suit or a boiler suit is irrelevant. Whether she is a "feminist" or a "femocrat" is a matter of semantics. What is crucial is that she has designed and implemented a strategy which has successfully tapped into popular sentiment for women's rights whilst calculatedly assisting the ALP to commit itself to virtually nothing of real benefit to women. Without her involvement, the real position of Keating and the ALP on women would not have been so camouflaged.
Keating's ALP knew they needed someone with the credibility of Anne Summers to do the job they had in mind. An investigation of her role was, we think, a crucial part of any analysis of the election campaign as it related to the rights of women.
Karen Fredericks
Chippendale NSW
Population and maths
I disagree with the idea that the Erlich formula's independence from reality is a virtue.
What is the value of the undoubtedly true mathematical statement that given (by definition) AT=I/P, then I=PAT?
Not much, I think, because the only possible application of real world is its effect over time — as the factors in the equation change their magnitude. eg I1=P1A1 one year and I2=P2A2 the next year — the (abstract) idea being that if P2 is greater than P1 then I2 will be greater than I1. Obviously, this is necessarily true only if A1 and A2 are equal or similar.
David Kault says that if "average affluence" stays the same, then I is proportional to P. But he seems to have forgotten that he just sucked "A" (not affluence) out of his thumb. He is merely restating his own initial assumptions — betraying his illusions in capitalism in the process. Why should it be "A" which is constant, why not "I" — as in Alex Aitkin's solar powered society (if we say the particular impact we speak of is carbon fuel burning)?
Humanity's part in the ecological "equation" does not consist solely of individual consumptions. Bombing of FMLN positions was a major cause of forest destruction in El Salvador a few years ago — I don't think this really fits well with real "affluence" or "technology", as opposed to the invented categories of "A" and "T". Certainly it is absolutely false to say that this particular form of "consumption" is beneficial or necessary.
It's a giant leap in any case from I=PA to advocating increased immigration restrictions for one country.
Ambrose Andrews
Aranda ACT
Environmental impact
The formula I=PAT (Environmental Impact = Population x Affluence x Destructiveness of Technology) is not as mathematically precise as it may appear. Nevertheless, it is useful as a rough guide.
The real question is not the validity of the formula, but what conclusions are drawn from it.
The formula implies that we could reduce environmental destruction by one or more of the following methods:
1) reducing the world's population.
2) reducing the average level of affluence of the world's people.
3) reducing the destructiveness of our technology.
1) How do we reduce the world's population? By draconian laws limiting people's right to have children? This would imply the creation of a global police state that was both efficiently repressive and committed to environmental protection — an unlikely combination.
Rather than repressive measures, we should encourage social changes that lead to people choosing to have fewer children — better education, equality for women, etc.
2) We can and should try to reduce the affluence of the rich. But most of the world's people are poor. The goal should not be to reduce their level of "affluence", but to meet their needs in a way that causes less damage to the environment.
There are many ways of doing this. One example is improving public transport and reducing the use of private cars. Another is the use of more efficient stoves to reduce the cutting down of trees for firewood, which is a problem in many third world countries.
3) Using less destructive forms of technology seems the most promising option. We can actually improve the living standards of most people, both in the advanced countries and in the third world, while reducing the impact on the environment. For example we should push for much more research into and application of renewable energy sources — solar, biomass, etc.
This seems a more useful approach than telling the world's poor that they should have less children.
Chris Slee
Melbourne