growth answers

7/29/2019 Growth Answers

1/10

[Title of BlockPage 1 of 10

A2 DE-DEV

Contents

A2 DE-DEV...............................................................................Collapse Inevitable- System Reform......................................................

A2 Interdependence......................................................................

AT- Collapse Inevitable: Peak Oil.......................................................

AT Collapse Inevitable- Resources.......................................................

Constant innovation ensures resources are infinite......................................

Collapse leads to the end...............................................................

Innovation Scenario.....................................................................

Innovation Continued....................................................................

Non-Unique.............................................................................


2/10


Collapse Inevitable- System Reform

Theres NOTHINGthat can stop the collapseTed Trainer, Visiting Fellow in the Faculty of Arts at the University of NSW, senior lecturer in sociology,

June 2010, The Problems of Climate Change Cannot BeSolved By Consumer Societies,http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange106.htmlTBThereductions required to prevent catastrophe are so big that they probably cannot be achieved within aconsumer-capitalist society the very foundations of which rest upon economic growth and the devouringof resources (Moriarty and Honnery 2010). As detailed in three major monographs published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS2010a,b,c),by the year 2050, the U.S. must cut carbon emissions by 50% to 80% from 1990 levels. However,even if these drastic cuts were immediately put into effect, the U.S., would still produce 200 billion tonsof greenhouse gases between the years 2010 and 2050.To survive, extremely radical change to oursystems and culture are necessary (Cairns 2010; Meinschausen et al., 2009; Moriarty and Honnery 2010). Here are three lines oargument leading to this conclusion. 1. Severalresources are already becoming alarmingly scarce, including petroleum,water, land, fish and food (Cairns 2010; Moriarty and Honnery 2010). If all the worlds people today were to consume resources at the per

capita rate we in rich countries do, the annual supply rate wouldhave to be more than 5 times as great as at present (Mason2003); and if the world's population were to increase to 9 billion it wouldhave to be about 8 times as great. Mason (2003) showshow these scarcities will probably come to a head in the 2030 Spike. 2. The per capita area of productive land needed to supply oneAustralian with food, water, settlements and energy, is 8 ha. The US figure is closer to 12 ha (reviewed by Moriarty and Honnery 2010). Butwhen world population reaches 9 billion the per capita area of productive land available in the world will be less than .8 ha (Mason 2003). Inother words the Australian footprint is already 10 times that which it will be possible for all to have. 3. An Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (NAS 2010a,b,c), have concluded that average global atmosphere temperatures were about 1.4 degrees warmer in the 2000-2010decade compared with a century ago and that future fossil-fuel emissions of greenhouse gases will increase temperatures by 4 degree in theyear 2015 and 11 degrees by 2100. In May of 2010, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration independently reportedthat 2010 has been the warmest year so far recorded worldwide. Increase temperatures result in glacial melt, and rising sea levels. Therefore,ocean levels could rise by 5 feet by the end of the century. As most large cities are located near the coast and inland water ways, rising sealevels would require the movement of infrastructure and hundreds of millions of city dwellers to higher ground. The only way to combat this isthrough drastic reductions in carbon emissions to nearly 1990 levels (Meinschausen et al., 2009; NAS 2010a,b,c) It has been estimated that

even ifaverage economic growth was limited to 3% between now and 2080 and, given the expected 9billion people who may populate the planet and all of whom would be expected to consume, then totalworld economic output each year would be 60 times as great as it is now (reviewed by Moriarty and Honnery2010). Such multiples rule out any chance that technical advance can solve the resource and

environmental problems while enabling us to go on pursuing ever-more affluent lifestyles and economic growth (Moriarty andHonnery 2010). The magnitude of the required reductionsin rich world per capita resource use and environmental impact istherefore enormous, andfar beyond those that any plausible technical advance might achieve.The main claimunderlying tech-fix optimism is that renewable energy can substitute for fossil fuel use and sustain growth and affluence societies (reviewed byMoriarty and Honnery 2010). This assumption is seriously mistaken(Moriarty and Honnery 2010; Trainer 2008, 2010a). The amount ofrenewable plant required to provide the quantity of energy that would be needed through a winter month in 2050 would require annualinvestment some 30 times the present proportion of world GDP (Trainer 2010a). This would leave untouched the most serious problem, which

is what to do when there is no sun or wind for several days in a row. Now these points only make it clear that the present situation isgrossly unsustainable and will result in world wide catastrophe(Cairns 2010; Moriarty and Honnery 2010; NAS2010a,b,c Trainer 2008, 2010a). Capitalism thrives under almost every political system, and all developing societies consume. Indeed, it couldbe said that since growth and profit require consumers to consume, that there is an obsession with raising levels of production andconsumption all the time, as fast as possible, and without any limit. In other words the supreme, sacred, never-questioned goal of acapitalistic-consumer society is consumption which results in economic growth (Trainer 2010a,b); and with consumption there followsexcretion, and the growth of these waste products threatens the very foundations of civilization.
http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange106.htmlhttp://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange106.htmlhttp://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange106.html


3/10


A2 Interdependence

Interdependence increases war by increasing the risk of resource conquestsTan Tan Yee, Journal of the Singapore Armed Forces, Mar 1999,http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1999/Vol25_1/7.htmTB

highly interdependent states are more likely to go to war with each other.Ironically, like liberals, realists also accepthat economic interdependence is generally mutually beneficial to both parties. However, they argue thatthe security perspective ofa state is rarelyif everdefined solely in economic terms.In fact, states concerned with their security willwant to avoid becoming too dependent in the first place,as it could mean imported goods being cut off in acrisis.20 This is particularly so for crucial imports like oil or raw materials, without which most modern economies would collapse.Consequently, it is argued that themore militarily powerful states have an increased incentive to go to war inorder to assure themselves of continued access to vital goods. Such a course of action pre-supposes that there are noalternative supplies of the particular good from other sources or that the adjustment costs of doing so will be too high; otherwise, war may notbe the most viable option. Kenneth Waltz puts across the point succinctly: whilst in theory states have little reason to fear the dependence that

goes with specialisation and internationaltrade, the anarchic structure of international politics engendersin states aheightened sense ofvulnerability. This fosters the desire in states to constantly seek to increase the span of controland lessen the extent of their dependency.21 In fact, one can trace the roots of the modern realist's understanding of economic

interdependence and war to the advent of imperialism in the 18th century.Imperialistic expansion and the acquisition ofcolonies by major colonial powers can be traced to the states' desire to secure ever-greater control

over sources of supplyand markets for its goods. In other words, the colonial empires were striving to reduce their fears anddependence on external specialization by increasing internal specialization within a now larger political realm.22
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1999/Vol25_1/7.htmhttp://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1999/Vol25_1/7.htmhttp://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1999/Vol25_1/7.htm


4/10


AT- Collapse Inevitable: Peak Oil

No peak oil new discoveries and supply expansion from lagged price response

George Monbiot, staff writer for False Summit, July 2, 2012http://www.monbiot.com/2012/07/02/false-summit/TBFor the past ten yearsan unlikely coalition ofgeologists, oil drillers, bankers, military strategists andenvironmentalists has been warning that peak oil the decline of global supplies is just around thecorner.We had some strong reasons for doing so: production had slowed, the price had risen sharply, depletion was widespread andappeared to be escalating. The first of the great resource crunches seemed about to strike. Among environmentalists it was never clear, evento ourselves, whether or not we wanted it to happen. It had the potential both to shock the world into economic transformation, averting futurecatastrophes, and to generate catastrophes of its own, including a shift into even more damaging technologies, such as biofuels and petrol

made from coal. Even so, peak oil was a powerful lever. Governments, businesses and voters who seemedimpervious to the moral case for cutting the use of fossil fuels might, we hoped, respond to theeconomic case. Some of us made vague predictions, others were more specific. In all cases we werewrong.In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested thatglobal supplies could peak in 1995(1). In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010(2). In 2003the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes said he was 99 per cent confident that peak oil would occur in 2004(3). In 2004, the Texas tycoon T.Boone Pickens predicted that never again will we pump more than 82 mil lion barrels per day of liquid fuels(4). (Average daily supply in May

2012 was 91 million(5)). In 2005, the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that Saudi Arabia cannot materially grow its oilproduction.(6) (Since then its output has risen from 9 million barrels a day to 10, and it has another 1.5 million in spare capacity(7,8)). Peakoil hasnt happened, and its unlikely to happen for a very long time. A reportby the oil executive LeonardoMaugeri,published by Harvard University, provides compelling evidence that a new oil boom hasbegun(9).The constraints on oil supply over the past ten years appear to have had more to do withmoney than geology. The low prices before 2003 had discouraged investors from developing difficultfields. The high prices of the past few years have changed that.Maugeris analysis of projects in 23 countriessuggests that global oilsupplies are likely to rise by a net 17m barrels per day (to 110m)by 2020. This, he says,isthe largest potential addition to the worlds oil supply capacity since the 1980s.The investments required tomake this boom happen depend on a long-term price of $70 a barrel. The current cost of Brent crude is $95(10). Money is nowflooding into new oil: a trillion dollars was spent over the past two years, a record $600bn is lined up for2012(11). The country in which production is likely to rise furthest is Iraq, into which multinational companies are now sinking their money,

and their claws. The bigger surprise is that the other great boom is likely to happen in the US. Hubberts Peak,the famous bell-shapedgraph depicting the rise and fall of US oil,is set to become Hubberts Rollercoaster. Investment there willconcentrate on unconventional oil,especially shale oil (which, confusingly, is not the same as oil shale). Shale oil is high-qualitycrude trapped in rocks through which it doesnt flow naturally.There are,we now know,monstrous deposits in the UnitedStates: one estimate suggests thatthe Bakken shales in North Dakota contain almost as much oil as Saudi

Arabia(though less of it is extractable)(12). And this is one of 20 such formations in the US. Extracting shale oil requires horizontal drillingand fracking: a combination of high prices and technological refinements has made them economically viable. Already production in NorthDakota has risen from 100,000 barrels a day in 2005 to 550,000 this January (13).
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/07/02/false-summit/http://www.monbiot.com/2012/07/02/false-summit/http://www.monbiot.com/2012/07/02/false-summit/http://www.monbiot.com/2012/07/02/false-summit/


5/10


AT Collapse Inevitable- Resources

No limits- substitution and pricing prevents scarcityBeth Haynes, Professor of Economics at Brigham Young University-Hawaii, August 19,2008, FiniteResources vs. Infinite Resourcefulness,http://wealthisnottheproblem.blogspot.com/2008/08/finite-resources-vs-infinite.htmlTB

All of economic history, up to and including today, demonstrates that the more we exploit our naturalresources, the more available they become. (3-7) How can this possibly be? If we use our limited, non-renewable resourceswe have to end up with less, right? Actually, no. And here is why. We dont simply use up existing resources; we constantly create them.

We continually invent new processes, discover new sources, improve the efficiency of both use andextraction, while at the same time we discover cheaper, better alternatives. The fact that a particularphysical substance is finite is irrelevant.What is relevant is the process of finding ways to meet human needs and desires. Thesolutions, and thus what we consider resources, are constantly changing. Oil was a nuisance, not a resource, untilhumans discovered a use for it. In order to survive and flourish, human beings must succeed at fulfilling certain needs and desires. This canbe accomplished in a multitude of ways using a multitude of materials. The requirements of life set the goals. How these goals are met doesnot depend on the existence or the availability of any particular material. Limits are placed not by the finiteness of a physical substance, but bythe extent of our knowledge, of our wealth, and of our freedom. Knowledge. Wealth. Freedom. These are the factors which are essential tosolving the problems we face. The Stone Age didnt end because we ran out of stones. (8) Think for a minute about how we have solved theproblem of meeting basic needs throughout history: Transportation: from walking to landing on the moon Communication: from face-to-face

conversations to the World Wide Web. Food: from hunting and gathering to intravenous feeding and hydroponics. Shelter: from finding a caveto building skyscrapers Health care: from shamans to MRIs and neurosurgery. How does progress happen? A synopsis of the process isprovided by the main theme of Julian Simons book, The Ultimate Resource 2: More people, and increased income, cause resources to

become more scarce in the short run.Heightened scarcity causes prices to rise. The higher prices presentopportunity and prompt inventorsand entrepreneursto search for solutions.Many fail in the search, at cost tothemselves. But in a free society, solutions are eventually found.And in the long run,the new developments leave usbetter off than if the problems had not arisen, that is, prices eventually become lower than before thescarcity occurred.(9) This idea is not just theory.Economists and statisticians have long been analyzing themassive amounts of data collected on resource availability. The conclusion: our ability to solve theproblems of human existence is ever-expanding. Resources have become less scarce and the world isa better place to livefor more and more people. (3-7) Overall, we create more than we destroy as evidenced by the steady progress inhuman well being and there is no evidence for concluding that this trend can't and won't continue.Doomsday predictions have been with us since ancient times and they have consistently been proven

wrong. The science of economics has a crucial perspective to offer in the debates on resource scarcity and environmental policy. Aseconomics professor Steven Horowitz explains, The problem of scarcity and how to handle it- are at the center of the discipline. (10) Theclaim that resources are not finite goes against our common sense, but, thats when science has the most to offer: when the facts, and theircause and effect connections, are counter-intuitive. What seems obvious may in fact be wrong. Science is what allows us to discriminate.Economist Julian Simon refutes the environmentalist focus on "finite resources" with an extensive presentation of empirical evidence as wellas a theoretical explanation for the long-term decrease in resource scarcity. He also offers several possibilities as to how we could continue toincrease our supply of minerals, energy and food, while simultaneously improving the quality of our air and water. (3) Economist Dr. GeorgeReisman offers both an economic and philosophic analysis of functionally unlimited resource availability in Natural Resources and theEnvironment, the third chapter of his treatise on economics. (11) Indur Goklany provides updates to the evidence that economic growth andenvironmental improvement go hand-in-hand. Resource development, economic progress and environmental improvement do not take placein a political vacuum. The connections between freedom, wealth and human-well being are documented and analyzed in at least two projects,the Economic Freedom of the World and the Index of Economic Freedom. Economic liberty, in particular the right to property, is an essentialingredient for releasing the potential of technology and innovation to solve the challenges we face. Here too, economists have much to add to

our understanding on the mechanisms of resource (and wealth) creation. It is their stock and trade. The finiteness of any specificphysical resource is made irrelevant by the presence of the ultimate resource: human ingenuity

unleashed in a free society.
http://wealthisnottheproblem.blogspot.com/2008/08/finite-resources-vs-infinite.htmlhttp://wealthisnottheproblem.blogspot.com/2008/08/finite-resources-vs-infinite.htmlhttp://wealthisnottheproblem.blogspot.com/2008/08/finite-resources-vs-infinite.htmlhttp://wealthisnottheproblem.blogspot.com/2008/08/finite-resources-vs-infinite.html


6/10


Constant innovation ensures resources areinfinite

Marc Geddes, Writer and Libertarian Analyst, February 12, 2004, The monster non-socialist FAQ,

http://rebirthofreason.com/War/MonsterFAQ.shtmlTBA significant disruption to supplies of critical resources can cause temporary problems, but in a free market, ifresources start to become scarce, prices rise, leading to a search of substitutes and improved conservationefforts. The pool of resources is not fixed, because human ingenuity can find substitutes or new sources ofresources. Supplies of most raw materials have been increasing throughout the 20th century, and the cost hasbeen falling (See the entry on Natural resources). For instance, between 1950 and 1970, bauxite (aluminium source) reserves increased by 279 percent, copper by 179 per cent, chromite (chromium source) by 675 per cent, and tin reserves by 10 per cent. In 1973 experts predicted oil reserves stood

at around 700 billion barrels, yet by 1988 total oil reserves had actually increased to 900 billion barrels. Production of certain kinds ofresources such as fossil fuels may finally be beginning to peak but there are renewable energy sources indevelopment which can serve as substitutes. Simplistic thermodynamic analysis of energy production is misleading, because it's not thequantities of energy used or produced that determine economic value, but the utility, or usefulness if that energy to humans. If energy is beingused more efficiently you don't need as much of it, and some forms of energy are more valuable than others- foinstance kinetic energy in the form of wind power is less valuable than the same quantity of latent energy in the form of oil.Solar power is avirtually inexhaustible supply of new energy for stationary sources and the hydrogen fuel cell can serve for transportation in place offossil fuels. Developing these technologies costs money, so to avoid resource shortages a good economy is essential. Libertarian capitalism is thesystem which generates wealth the fastest.
http://rebirthofreason.com/War/MonsterFAQ.shtmlhttp://rebirthofreason.com/War/MonsterFAQ.shtmlhttp://rebirthofreason.com/War/MonsterFAQ.shtml


7/10


Collapse leads to the end

Collapse of the economy risks end of the planet

T. E. Bearden, LTC, U.S. Army (Retired),CEO, CTEC Inc., Director, Association of Distinguished American

Scientists (ADAS), Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS) June 24, 2000(http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm) TB

As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. International StrategicThreat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economiccollapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to thepoint where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations,are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japanand South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China whose long-range nuclear

missiles (some) can reach the United States attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treatiesinvolved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly.Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a

few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch onperception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that isalmost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive

strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible.As the studies showed, rapid escalation tofull WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, arealready on site within the United States itself{[8]}.The resulting great Armageddon will destroycivilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.
http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htmhttp://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm


8/10


Innovation Scenario

Without competition innovation collapsesHarvard Business School 1993(G. Bennett Stewart III is Senior Partner, Stern Stewart & Co., New York, New York. Eileen

Appelbaum is Associate Research Director, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. Michael Beer is Professor of BusinessAdministration, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts. Andrew M. Lebby is Senior Partner, The Performance Group,Washington, D.C. Teresa M. Amabile is Professor ofhttp://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/1993/11/rethinking-rewards/ar/1) TB

A world withoutAs, praise, gold stars, orincentives? No thank you, Mr. Kohn. Communism was tried, and it didntwork. The Soviet and Chinese economies collapsedbecausepeople were not allowed to sharein thefruits oftheirindividualefforts. With gains from personal initiative harvested as a public good, innovation ceased,and productivity froze. They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work was the Russian workers lament for thesystem Kohn now proposes. But for pay to mean anything, it must be linked to performance. Without that link,pay becomes nothingmore than entitlement, a job nothing more than a sinecure. Kohn is unhappy that rewarding some people necessitates penalizingothers. Winston Churchills apt aphorism is the best response. He said, The virtue of communism is the equal sharing of its misery, and the

vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of its blessings. You cant have it both ways, Mr. Kohn. You simply cant have the equality

of outcome you desire with the robust, dynamic economy we all want. Contrary to the small-sample psychology tests Kohn cites, theresponsiveness ofordinary citizens to incentives is demonstrated daily in our economy. Consumers cutconsumption in reactionto the penalty ofa price increase and raise purchases in reaction tothe bribe ofa lowerprice. The price system efficiently allocates scarce resources precisely because it rewards people who conserve and penalizes those whofail to respond. Can it be true, as Kohn seems to think, that people respond to monetary incentives when they spend their income but notwhen they earn it?

And, innovation is key to new drugsRonald Bailey Science Correspondent and Fellow at the International policy Network September 12,2003-, Reason (Ronald, Biopiracy and Other Myths, September 12,http://www.reason.com/rb/rb091203.shtml) TB

If researchers can't recover their costs, they will stop doing research and we will all be worse off as the

pipeline for powerful new medicines goes dry. During the last half century the vast majority of newdrugs which have greatly improved the health of millions in both the developed and developingcountries were produced by for-profit pharmaceutical companies. Without the discoveries ofpharmaceutical companies, scores of millions of people across the world would have died before theirtime or lived diminished lives wracked with painful and crippling diseases. Nevertheless, it is a tragedy thathundreds intellectual property rights that has made miracle medicines possible in the f irst place? WTO negotiators reached a compromise justbefore coming to Cancun which allows poor countries to import of millions of poor people in the developing world cannot afford moderntreatments. How can their needs for medicines be met without destroying the system ofinexpensive generic versions of medicines that are still under patent in the developed world. It is not a perfect solutionit will require extrapolicing to make sure that generic versions don't undercut the patented versions being sold in developed countries. And even moreproblematically, this compromise will probably discourage pharmaceutical companies from investing in future research on diseases thatdisproportionately afflict poor people in the developing world. Why? Because the companies know that whatever they develop wi ll be copied

and sold cheaply before they can recoup their costs. So the poor may benefit from this compromise in the short run,but suffer in the long run as the development of new and better drugs aimed at diseases in the

developing world slows. To answer Shiva's question: More of the poor may suffer and die because newand better drugs will not be available in the future.
http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/1993/11/rethinking-rewards/ar/1http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/1993/11/rethinking-rewards/ar/1http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/1993/11/rethinking-rewards/ar/1http://www.reason.com/rb/rb091203.shtmlhttp://www.reason.com/rb/rb091203.shtmlhttp://www.reason.com/rb/rb091203.shtmlhttp://www.reason.com/rb/rb091203.shtmlhttp://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/1993/11/rethinking-rewards/ar/1


9/10


Innovation Continued

New drugs are key to prevent drug resistanceAvery Camarow Buffalo News February 28, 2006Buffalo News (New York) (Avery, Bad Bugs, No Drugs,February 28, L/N)The larger the quantity of antibiotics prescribed, the greater the opportunity for bacteria to form resistant

mutations. Yet in an analysis in JAMA published in November 2005, more than half of children who came to a doctor's office, a hospitaloutpatient department, or an emergency room between 1995 and 2003 because of a sore throat left with an antibiotic.

The solution to larger issues of antibiotic resistance is more and better drugs. If that doesn't happen,warns "Bad Bugs, No Drugs," a report issued in 2004 by a task force of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, whose 8,000 members

are mostly physicians and scientists, the country -- and the world -- face a brewing crisis in which millions ofpeople could die. "The shelf is very sparse," says John Bartlett, a physician who chaired the task force and is founding directorof the Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. "When we go onrounds every day, we are continually reminded that we're running out of drugs."


10/10


Non-Unique

Economic growth only helps the economy a collapse world revert back to thesame conditions anywaysMartin Lewis. Lecturer in history and director of the International Relations program at Stanford, 1994(Martin, Green Delusions, p. 8, Google Books)

Whole adherents argue powerfully that the reduction of human numbers is necessary for ecologicalhealth, all indicators are that their envisaged social program would only lead to further growth.Reverting to small, self-sustaining rural communities would only recreate the conditions that havehistorically lead, in most cases, to steady population gains.Precluding industrialization in the Third World is also likely toensure that high fertility rates remain the global norm. Radical environmentalism presents yet another threat to the earth in its unyielding

opposition to the human management of nature. The notion that nature knows best is meaningless in a worldalready remade to anthropogenic contours.Pristine nature is nonexistent-and has been, except perhaps in a few remoteislands, for thousands of years (Goudie 1981; Simmons 1989).Only thoroughing human intervention can preserveremaining biological diversity until the time comes when a more advanced human society can begin to

let nature reclaim more of the earth (see, for example, Janzen 1988). In particular, while some ecoradicals evidently believe thatliberating zoos will help save the earth (G. Smith 1990), responsible environmentalists fully realize such actionswould, at present, only ensure the extinction of numerous endangered species currently being bred inzoological gardens (Conway 1988).

growth answers

Documents