Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bellcore!whuxcc!lcuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Population control & Freedom
Message-ID: <572@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Oct-86 12:21:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.572
Posted: Thu Oct  2 12:21:08 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 09:40:12 EDT
References: <564@gargoyle.UUCP> <26500114@inmet> <1168@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 25

>In article <26500114@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
>> First, a global totalitarian conquest is very likely  to  be  ir-
>> reversible, except through total extinction of humanity, for rea-
>> sons I can give separately. If so, it cannot be repaired  "within
>> a few generations". Wilson goes wrong here.
>
>Reversability is not the sole possible criterion of "worse".  Still,
>I think it funny that here you want to predict that global
>totalitarianism would be effectively permanenty, and a couple of
>paragraphs later you write "we are not *that* predictable."  Trying
>to have your cake and eat it too, Jan?  [Mike Huybensz]

At least Jan is consistent in his style of argument.  Earlier he
argued that demographic projections based on current theories are
worthless or nearly worthless.  Then he argued that we know for a
fact (by demographic transition theory) that economic development
will slow or stop population increase, so that a "Free Society"
(which supposedly promotes economic development) will not have to
have a population policy or worry about population at all.  The
lesson is clear:  If a theory supports your side of the debate, base
your argument on the theory.  If the theory contradicts your
arguments about the future, become a hard-headed empiricist and claim
that the future is too uncertain to predict.

Richard Carnes