Population and equity
In their replies to Peter Boyle's article on population and the environment, Mark O'Connor and Graham Caldersmith (January 20) respectively argue that dealing with issues of equity and wealth distribution are not enough to arrest our deepening ecological crises, and that population growth must also be tackled as a problem in itself. They treat population growth as if it were somehow completely separate from questions of wealth distribution and social justice.
But the two cannot be separated, as Peter Boyle pointed out, and as has been argued for decades now, by authors such as Susan George (How the Other Half Dies). Countries that have attempted to reduce population growth rates by handing out contraceptives, and not also addressing social justice issues, have by and large failed to achieve significant reductions. It is those Third World countries or regions which have achieved a more equitable distribution of wealth, and higher levels of food and income security, that have had the greatest success, such as China, and the state Kerala in India.
Rather than projecting our understanding of the role of the family and children in our society onto all other societies, we need to recognise the different forms the family takes for people living a different way of life and in different social systems to our own. For peasant families or subsistence farmers, children are a "resource" and of net benefit to the family, rather than a "burden". Many children are needed to work the land; they produce food and wealth; they provide for parents in their old age; and they insure against the likely death of some of the children from hunger-related or sanitation-related diseases.
However, by providing greater food and income security, access to clean water, old-age pensions, and removing the threat of absolute poverty, large families become less of a necessity. The shift from peasant to waged-labour types of work also makes smaller families a more desirable option. It is crucial to understand the quite sensible reasons why people choose to have large families, rather than assuming that "they" are ignorant and irresponsible, and need to be "managed" by us.
To continue to argue that population growth is a major issue in itself that needs to be tackled, just reinforces the notion that "they " are to blame for an ecological crisis that remains largely our own doing. Achieving greater social justice and equity around the world is the only short and long term solution to both high population growth rates and our growing environmental crises.
Gyorgy Scrinis
Brunswick Vic
Violence
Violence is not solving any of the problems of the Middle East. When the allied guns fell silent in Iraq two years ago, the major political problems were no closer to resolution. Now there is the added danger that the current US action is putting at risk respect for the rule of international law. The consensus of world opinion on the war against Iraq is collapsing. Russia is disturbed by the direction of allied policy, the coalition of Arab States which supported the action against Iraq two years ago is breaking up, and even the continuing allies, Britain and France, have voiced concern.
This loss of support for the allied action has occurred because the strikes against Iraq have lost whatever legitimacy they seemed to have two years ago.
For any law to be respected, it must fulfil two criteria: it must be (i) legitimate, and (ii) consistently applied. The current action in Iraq by the US and its allies meets neither of these criteria.
(i) Legitimacy — Unlike the No Fly Zone in Bosnia, the Zone in the south of Iraq was not created by resolution of the UN Security Council. It was created and is being enforced by the three Western Powers.
(ii) Consistency — International law is not applied consistently around the world, particularly as far as the Muslims are concerned.
For example: Why is the No Fly Zone Iraq enforced, while the UN imposed Zone in Bosnia remains unpoliced? Why can Israel defy UN resolutions by deporting 400 Palestinians from their homeland? Why are Kurds protected by a No Fly Zone from Iraqi attacks but not Turkish attacks?
Because there are no satisfactory answers to these questions, the authority of the allies to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq is increasingly called in question.
Every attack increases Saddam's stature in the Arab world. He is being seen as a leader who is standing up to western imperialism.
The continued perception of inconsistency and illegitimacy of international law is fuelling the fires of Islamic fundamentalism.
The US and its allies must take seriously their responsibility to uphold and enhance the rule of law at international level.
All breaches of Security Council resolutions must be dealt with equally, and the flow of arms into the Middle East must be stopped.
There can be no real peace in any region until the rights of self-determination for all people are respected.
Finally, all nations must realise that military force cannot solve the political problems caused by racism, totalitarianism and economic imperialism.
Janet Powell
Independent Senator for Victoria
I=PAT
As Allen Myers stated in his article (GL 84), the variables in the I=PAT formula do not correspond to specific events in reality, but rather to indefinite concepts. And this can lead us in some interesting directions.
Suppose we take the A variable — average impact/consumption per individual. In a society which met its energy needs wholly from renewable sources, such as the sun, it would make no difference to the environment how much energy was consumed. Similarly, a society which used permacultural methods could potentially grow more food per hectare than "modern" chemical technology is capable of, and with a positive impact on the environment.
Masanobu Fukuoka, in his book The One Straw Revolution, details how he was able to obtain a higher yield from his organic rice fields than did large agribusiness giants with competing chemically fertilized fields. And this did not include the crops he grew on the same fields in the off season.
As these examples show, the way we produce what we consume can be even more important than how much we consume, or the number of consumers that there are.
Currently, those multinational corporations that control the supply of energy and food to the world produce in an unsustainable fashion (ie using finite resources like oil, and destructive "Green Revolution" technology) because this creates the most profit for them. And it will continue to be the case that people in the third world will be denied adequate food and energy resources because they are unable to pay the going rate charged by these corporations. When people have an assured future free from fear of hunger and poverty they do not need to have large families to support them, yet under the current system they can look forward to no such future.
So, what does I=PAT really tell us? By my way of thinking it says that we could solve the problems of poverty, over population, over use of finite resources and environmental destruction in one fell swoop, if we could solve the problem of why important decisions regarding how people are fed, clothed and sheltered are made by undemocratic and hostile organisations, and the system that fosters and protects them, ie capitalism.
Alex Aitkin
Sydney
SAS training
On a visit to Phnom Penh last year I noticed many beggars on crutches with no legs as well as numerous one legged people. These deformities were caused, I was shocked to learn, by mines laid by the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge were trained in mine laying by the British SAS (Secret Air Service). Britain was also helpful in providing the mines.
J.E. Downie
Erskineville NSW
Blaming victims
I am sick and tired of hearing arrogant people in 1st world countries blame all environmental/hunger problems on there being too many people — particularly in the 3rd world.
Blaming the famine in Somalia on a rapidly expanding population is a bit far fetched when you consider that the most densely populated countries in the world — Holland and Japan — do not suffer from the problem of providing sufficient food for their entire populace.
As for rapid deforestation and other environmental destruction, occurring most markedly in the 3rd world countries, one can hardly blame it on the majority of people living there, as most of their resources do not end up in their hands but in ours via giant multinationals.
The vast majority of land in 3rd world countries is owned by a tiny rich minority within those countries or by 1st world investors who use it for their own profit, for instance in growing cash crops for sale to us in the 1st World. One only has to look at the annual reports of various giant agribusinesses to find these facts. If the majority of people in the 3rd world were given control over their own land and hence allowed to cultivate it for their needs the problems of starvation and environmental destruction would decline rapidly as no-one is going to destroy the land that feeds them.
In addition to this have any of the "cull the population" brigade ever stopped to wonder why people in the poorest countries have a large number of children? For people with no social security, pensions, or free health to fall back on in old age, children are the only means of security.
We have children out of choice only, most people in the third world have them out of necessity as well as choice. It does not matter how many contraceptives you benevolently hand out to 3rd world families, or how much you arrogantly preach population control to what you believe are the inferior masses, the population will continue to grow rapidly until there is a dramatic redistribution of resources, particularly between the 1st and 3rd worlds.
Frances Kelly
Katoomba
Judges
The sad facts of rape, murder, psychological terror and other forms of harassment against women and the pathetic forms of discrimination against homosexuals in this country of the "fair go" are scandalous enough. However if we still have judges who perpetuate the view that husbands are allowed to beat their wives and then proceed to rape them it indicates large parts of the ruling classes refuse to leave the dark ages. Those reactionary judges in their ridiculous outfits, befitting their social and political attitudes, are more than ready for the scrap heap of Victorian history.
Michael Rose-Schwab
Rapid Creek NT
Singapore
The British Commander who signed the surrender on Singapore was General Arthur Ernest Percival. Percival's previous command-in-action was the Essex Regiment fighting Tom Barry's West Cork IRA Flying Column, and the people of West 1.
Barry, a former member of the British Army, conclusively but narrowly defeated the Essex and Percival in the guerrilla campaign. Percival, then Captain Percival, captured Tom Barry disguised as a medical student. To illustrate Percival's perceptivity, it is recorded that he questioned Barry himself, in person, for about twenty minutes, and then let him go, saying, "This could not be Tom Barry".
Barry, of course, had a huge price in pounds sterling on his head. Captain Percival's men, if you can believe Barry's book Guerrilla Days in Ireland, were uncommonly cruel to Irish prisoners.
This Irish command was Percival's last command-in-action before he "fell into" the supreme command of allied forces on the Malaysian Peninsula.
Denis Kevans
Wentworth Falls NSW