The World's growing population and Our Eventual Demise

[Santalum]

I have no problem with harvesting human bones for phosphorus, you can have mine, it make no difference after i am dead, bury me head down with my butt up and park bicycles....

 

Well I suspect you would be feeling rather lonely out on that limb Moontama.

[jeskill]

It need not be human bones, and apparently, organic farmers already use it:http://www.quantumagriculture.com/blog/homemade-phosphorus-fertilizer

 

For vegetarian farmers, human urine is also a good source of phosphorus, especially when mixed with sea water: http://transitioneastoxford.blogspot.com/2009/09/blog-post.html

[Santalum]

It need not be human bones, and apparently, organic farmers already use it:http://www.quantumagriculture.com/blog/homemade-phosphorus-fertilizer

 

For vegetarian farmers, human urine is also a good source of phosphorus, especially when mixed with sea water: http://transitioneas.../blog-post.html

 

Jesskill do you see and end to population growth ever?

 

Or is your position that technology is infinite and will ALWAYS come to the rescue of humanity no matter how large our numbers become and no matter how fast we collectively consume things on this planet?

[jeskill]

Jesskill do you see and end to population growth ever?

 

Or is your position that technology is infinite and will ALWAYS come to the rescue of humanity no matter how large our numbers become and no matter how fast we collectively consume things on this planet?

 

To the first question: If you look at global population growth over the past 100 years or so, the trend suggests that global human populations are currently growing logistically, and if current trends continue as is, we will level off between 9 to 11 billion. I very much doubt the earth can sustain that many people over the long term, given current technologies and rates of extraction, but it might be possible to sustain that many people over the short term.

 

I do not believe that technology is infinite. However, I do believe that at this stage in human development, low-tech agricultural solutions, improving the efficiency and ecological integrity of our various industries, and focusing on developing a diverse set of renewable energies will benefit humankind far more than blaming developing countries for their population growth. Isn't the stat that one person in a developed country consumes on average, 17 times the amount of stuff a person in a developing country consumes?

 

I'm an in full support of the concept that contraceptives and sex education should be available to all persons. As a feminist, I actually believe that contraceptives should be a fundamental human right -- because access to contraceptives greatly improves the standard of living for many women. I just feel like the overpopulation crowd tends to have their blinders on with this issue -- they think that if we could somehow miraculously decrease global population by X amount (and X varies because the carrying capacity of the planet is highly dependent on technology) then everything would be hunky dory. They forget that the way countries develop now, increased access to contraceptives, education, and an overall better standard of living greatly increases the per capita environmental impact. If we are to truly sustain humankind over the long term, there needs to be a fundamental shift in the culture of development, and that starts with changing how we use technology.

Edited March 5, 2012 by jeskill

[Santalum]

far more than blaming developing countries for their population growth. Isn't the stat that one person in a developed country consumes on average, 17 times the amount of stuff a person in a developing country consumes?

 

Are you sure you don't have your own set of blinkers when it comes to the 'population crowd'?

 

No one is literally blaming the third world for their excessive fertility. They are merely pointing out that our mounting environmental and energy problems cannot be solved unless third world fertility is seriously addressed rather than in the half hearted manor to date.

 

If anything the west have a major share in the blame for excessive third world fertility by doing little or nothing to make them understand that it is a global problem and a barrier to lifting their people out of poverty. Apart from setting a bad consumption example both at home and exploiting their large population as growth markets for our over priced products.

 

What if you are wrong in that the earth will not sustain the expected 9-10 billion humans for any length of time and that a population crash ensues with untold human suffering?

 

Will you take personal responsibility for your part in such a scenario occuring?

[jeskill]

Are you sure you don't have your own set of blinkers when it comes to the 'population crowd'?

 

No one is literally blaming the third world for their excessive fertility. They are merely pointing out that our mounting environmental and energy problems cannot be solved unless third world fertility is seriously addressed rather than in the half hearted manor to date.

 

If anything the west have a major share in the blame for excessive third world fertility by doing little or nothing to make them understand that it is a global problem and a barrier to lifting their people out of poverty. Apart from setting a bad consumption example both at home and exploiting their large population as growth markets for our over priced products.

 

Often, "make them understand" turns into forced sterilization and other such human indignities. See India and China as prime examples of this. I would also like to remind you that world population growth rates are declining. I have hard time believing that there's an ethical way to speed up the decline of global population growth rates. If you have any specific ideas, I'd love to hear them.

 

What if you are wrong in that the earth will not sustain the expected 9-10 billion humans for any length of time and that a population crash ensues with untold human suffering?

 

Will you take personal responsibility for your part in such a scenario occuring?

 

Ooooh what a guilt trip! Seriously? Do you seriously believe that white people flying over to African countries for the sole purpose of telling those uneducated breeders they should stop breeding right NOW will decrease the chances of human suffering moreso than, for example, financially and physically supporting sustainable agricultural initiatives? If you think the former, then you need to travel more. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that people do not like being told what to do, especially when said "advice" goes against their morals and ethics and is presented by a richer, smug person who has absolutely no understanding of the ins and outs of their daily life. If we want to make a change, we need to focus on participatory action research, eco-teams, and other efforts that change the communities from the inside out by presenting options, giving communities a chance to experiment with those options and letting them make their own decisions. For example, participatory action research has been very successful in Ethiopia, Malawi, and Eritrea, to name a few, in sustainably improving the lives of people living now. That's because their not "telling" people what to do, they're working with communities to figure out the most effective methods, providing support when needed, but allowing the farmers to ultimately make the decisions.

[Santalum]

Often, "make them understand" turns into forced sterilization and other such human indignities. See India and China as prime examples of this. I would also like to remind you that world population growth rates are declining. I have hard time believing that there's an ethical way to speed up the decline of global population growth rates. If you have any specific ideas, I'd love to hear them.

 

I reckon westerners like you, living your nice sheltered little life, I more concerned about third world rights to reproduce than they are themselves.

 

They are more concerned about getting enough food to eat each day than they are with their right to have 10 children. Many thrird world woman would not doubt prefer to spend less of their life times pregnant and have less children to provide for, by what ever means.

 

Ooooh what a guilt trip! Seriously? Do you seriously believe that white people flying over to African countries for the sole purpose of telling those uneducated breeders they should stop breeding right NOW will decrease the chances of human suffering moreso than, for example, financially and physically supporting sustainable agricultural initiatives?

Oh dear Jesskill, you do like flogging a dead horse don't you! We have been through this with Norman Borlaug's green revolution. Why don't you learn from history? That was supposed to eliminate third world hunger but all it succeeded in doing was causing the global population to tripple to 6 billion. Poverty is more widespread than it was before the green revolution.

 

There is no reason not to believe that further increases in agricultural productivity will not simply further exascerbate the problem.

 

If you think the former, then you need to travel more. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that people do not like being told what to do, especially when said "advice" goes against their morals and ethics and is presented by a richer, smug person who has absolutely no understanding of the ins and outs of their daily life. If we want to make a change, we need to focus on participatory action research, eco-teams, and other efforts that change the communities from the inside out by presenting options, giving communities a chance to experiment with those options and letting them make their own decisions. For example, participatory action research has been very successful in Ethiopia, Malawi, and Eritrea, to name a few, in sustainably improving the lives of people living now. That's because their not "telling" people what to do, they're working with communities to figure out the most effective methods, providing support when needed, but allowing the farmers to ultimately make the decisions.

You mean like rich smug westerners like you telling them they need to run their agriculture, governments and economies the superior western way to increase their food supply and maximise their consumption and economy more broadly.

 

As opposed to something more sensible and acheivable like working to reduce the number of mouths to feed and minimising the number of people entering poverty in future years!

Edited March 5, 2012 by Santalum

[jeskill]

I reckon westerners like you, living your nice sheltered little life, I more concerned about third world rights to reproduce than they are themselves.

 

They are more concerned about getting enough food to eat each day than they are with their right to have 10 children. Many thrird world woman would not doubt prefer to spend less of their life times pregnant and have less children to provide for, by what ever means.

 

Why is it that this topic always gets so heated? I asked you a valid question and you responded with an ad hominem attack. I will ask again: how would you ethically speed up the decline of global population growth rates? I'm going to add a caveat now: how would you do so without increasing environmental harm? Instead of getting all hypothetical in your head, can you be practical and think about what would actually happen on the ground?

 

Oh dear Jesskill, you do like flogging a dead horse don't you! We have been through this with Norman Borlaug's green revolution. Why don't you learn from history? That was supposed to eliminate third world hunger but all it succeeded in doing was causing the global population to tripple to 6 billion. Poverty is more widespread than it was before the green revolution.

 

 

I agree that the green revolution was a disaster. And I'm not meaning to be rude, but you suggesting that sustainable agricultural initiatives are akin to the green revolution suggests to me that you might want to read up on what the food sovereignty movement, which is what I'm alluding to in my previous post:

 

Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems

 

 

There is no reason not to believe that further increases in agricultural productivity will not simply further exascerbate the problem.

 

Sustainable food initiatives, especially those concerned with food sovereignty, are focused on changing the distribution of food rather than increasing the production of food. We already grow enough food to hypothetically feed everyone on the planet. The problem is that the distribution is highly unequal, partially because poor farmers in developing countries can't afford green revolution technologies, and/or they lack the know-how, land, seed stock, or all three to grow their own food sustainably.

 

 

You mean like rich smug westerners like you telling them they need to run their agriculture, governments and economies the superior western way to increase their food supply and maximise their consumption and economy more broadly.

 

 

If you actually read my previous post, you'd realize that this sentence is not what I said at all. Please re-read.

 

As opposed to something more sensible and acheivable like working to reduce the number of mouths to feed and minimising the number of people entering poverty in future years!

 

Thus far, you haven't provided any evidence that a) it is more sensible and achievable to speed up the decline in the global rate of population growth and b) this would decrease poverty moreso than enabling people to be self-sufficient in growing their own sustainable food. Again, I'd love to learn about your practical solutions. And recognize that again, population growth is declining, and I'm in complete favour of the notion that everyone should have access to contraceptives. (I just don't want you to take me out of context again.)

Edited March 6, 2012 by jeskill

[imatfaal]

I reckon westerners like you, living your nice sheltered little life, I more concerned about third world rights to reproduce than they are themselves.

 

They are more concerned about getting enough food to eat each day than they are with their right to have 10 children. Many thrird world woman would not doubt prefer to spend less of their life times pregnant and have less children to provide for, by what ever means.

Hey, this manages to be both a straw man and ad hom at the same time!

 

 

 

Oh dear Jesskill, you do like flogging a dead horse don't you! We have been through this with Norman Borlaug's green revolution. Why don't you learn from history? That was supposed to eliminate third world hunger but all it succeeded in doing was causing the global population to tripple to 6 billion. Poverty is more widespread than it was before the green revolution.

 

There is no reason not to believe that further increases in agricultural productivity will not simply further exascerbate the problem.

 

 

You mean like rich smug westerners like you telling them they need to run their agriculture, governments and economies the superior western way to increase their food supply and maximise their consumption and economy more broadly.

 

As opposed to something more sensible and acheivable like working to reduce the number of mouths to feed and minimising the number of people entering poverty in future years!

You don't half sound and read like Greg Boyles who was either suspended or kicked out a few months ago - you're not Greg Boyles alter ego/sock-puppet are you?

[Santalum]

Hey, this manages to be both a straw man and ad hom at the same time!

 

 

 

You don't half sound and read like Greg Boyles who was either suspended or kicked out a few months ago - you're not Greg Boyles alter ego/sock-puppet are you?

 

No!

[jeskill]

I never even noticed that! It must be a coincidence, then that Santalum joined the last day Boyles was active, and both seem to be from Australia ....

[Santalum]

I never even noticed that! It must be a coincidence, then that Santalum joined the last day Boyles was active, and both seem to be from Australia ....

May be I have seen some of his posts in various places and happen to believe he has a point. Never the less you are evading the question.

 

Increasing food production through the green revolution failed to solve world poverty 20-30 years ago.

 

What evidence do you present to indicate that increasing food production yet again will solve world poverty any more than last time?

 

What evidecne do you present to indicate that it will not make the poverty more wide spread, by allowing the number of mouths to feed expand further, again as it did last time it was tried?

[jeskill]

You didn't ask a question previously, yet I asked a very specific, important, question and you evaded answering. How come?

 

And again, you didn't read what I wrote. I didn't say that sustainable food initiatives increase food production. I said they change the distribution of food in the world.

 

Many of the questions you've asked in this post, I've already answered multiple times in this thread and others. But, I'll regurgitate if you answer the one simple question I asked.

Edited March 8, 2012 by jeskill

[Santalum]

You didn't ask a question previously, yet I asked a very specific, important, question and you evaded answering. How come?

 

And again, you didn't read what I wrote. I didn't say that sustainable food initiatives increase food production. I said they change the distribution of food in the world.

 

Many of the questions you've asked in this post, I've already answered multiple times in this thread and others. But, I'll regurgitate if you answer the one simple question I asked.

 

Whether the extra food comes from increased agricultural output or from re-distribution of existing food production is IRRELEVANT.

 

Providing more food will relax the downward pressure on population sizes thus allowing those populations to expand at a faster rate.

 

That will require people like you to find yet more extra food a few decades down the track.

 

It is a zero sum game you are playing.

 

Providing ever more food is alone an insufficient response to the problem of poverty.

[jeskill]

You're making an assumption that food limitation decreases fecundity in humans. I do believe you've made this assumption before. So I ask you again, if this were the case, then how come countries with excess food have lower fecundities than countries that are food insecure?

 

So how come you're not answering my question? This is getting tiring and circular.

[Santalum]

You're making an assumption that food limitation decreases fecundity in humans. I do believe you've made this assumption before. So I ask you again, if this were the case, then how come countries with excess food have lower fecundities than countries that are food insecure?

 

So how come you're not answering my question? This is getting tiring and circular.

 

Food limitation reduces the infant survival rate so it is undeniable that it puts downward pressure on population growth.

And again my evidence is our collective experience with the green revolution - increase the food supply and the population sky rockets as with mice and rabbits.

 

So once again supplying more food alone does not solve poverty in the long run and in fact increases human suffering by increasing the number of mouths to feed so that everyone must get less each.

 

You're making an assumption that food limitation decreases fecundity in humans. I do believe you've made this assumption before. So I ask you again, if this were the case, then how come countries with excess food have lower fecundities than countries that are food insecure?

 

So how come you're not answering my question? This is getting tiring and circular.

 

Food limitation reduces the infant survival rate so it is undeniable that it puts downward pressure on population growth.

And again my evidence is our collective experience with the green revolution - increase the food supply and the population sky rockets as with mice and rabbits.

 

So once again supplying more food alone does not solve poverty in the long run and in fact increases human suffering by increasing the number of mouths to feed so that everyone must get less each.

[imatfaal]

I will try asking the question to Santalum.

 

How do you propose to ethically and practically accelerate the decline in global reproduction rates?

[jeskill]

If food limitation is the main factor affecting HUMAN fecundity rates, then how come developed countries have lower fecundities than countries that are food insecure? I have a huge amount of food available to me. How come I don't have 10 kids yet? How many kids do you have?

Canada, Australia, the US, and most European countries have very low fecundity rates. That's because of a host of factors: many women work outside the home, decent health care reduces infant and child mortality rates, thus decreasing the fear that a child will be killed, enough food, which again, decreases infant and child mortality rates, and good education. It's hard to have any of these things if you're starving.

The onus is on you to provide hard evidence (data) that improving the ability of farmers to grow their own nutritious food increases human suffering in the long run. It seems a no brainer to me that starving Africans to keep infant mortality high causes more human suffering. It's also quite racist to assume that Africans would breed like bunnies if only they had enough food.

[Santalum]

I will try asking the question to Santalum.

 

How do you propose to ethically and practically accelerate the decline in global reproduction rates?

 

I am not suggesting it will be easy or that morally troubling decisions will not have to be made.

 

For some countries, including some developed ones possibly, reproductive regulation as in China may be necessary if all other measures fail.

 

Certainly the focus will have to come off development in the third world and placed on provision of free contraception. That will require global defial of the Catholic Church particularly in those developing countries where it has a strong influence.

 

Western governments will have to start saying something about fertility rates in developing countries regardless of the fact that they will cop some considerable flack for a time. They will also have to set a global example by puting welfare polcies in place that are not seen to encurage higher fertility in their own countries, to generally set immigration intakes to zero net population growth and to discourage profligate consumption.......regardless of big business interests.

 

If food limitation is the main factor affecting HUMAN fecundity rates, then how come developed countries have lower fecundities than countries that are food insecure? I have a huge amount of food available to me. How come I don't have 10 kids yet? How many kids do you have?

Canada, Australia, the US, and most European countries have very low fecundity rates. That's because of a host of factors: many women work outside the home, decent health care reduces infant and child mortality rates, thus decreasing the fear that a child will be killed, enough food, which again, decreases infant and child mortality rates, and good education. It's hard to have any of these things if you're starving.

The onus is on you to provide hard evidence (data) that improving the ability of farmers to grow their own nutritious food increases human suffering in the long run. It seems a no brainer to me that starving Africans to keep infant mortality high causes more human suffering. It's also quite racist to assume that Africans would breed like bunnies if only they had enough food.

 

Food aid, band aid and countless other efforts by various western identities and governments have utterly failed to eliminate famine and human suffering in Africa. At best they acheive temporary and small scale reduction of suffering until the next drought or next war causes yet another famine.

 

As with so many other aspects of human thinking, yours is very short term on this jesskill. You see a problem and immediately throw money and resources at it in the belief that you will solve the problem permanently, when in fact you must undertake the much harder task of fixing the underlying structural problems if you are likely to have any real long term success.

 

When western countries were undergoing development and increasing their agricultural output and food supplies they DID undergo population expansion. For example, how many large waves of immigrants flooded out of Britain to establish colonies around the globe and the resulting British empire?

 

Fortunately the global population was further away from global ecological capacity back then which allowed education standards and cultural attitudes around reproduction to change, particularly with woman wanting careers rather than endless babies.

 

We no longer have the luxury of allowing this process to occur in modern developing countries. The population expansion that will occur will almost certainly break the global ecological bank and drag the entire human race and western civilisation into the mire.

 

Regardless of whether it is fair or equitable, reduction of third world fertility and populations will have to come before development to western levels.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Santalum

[jeskill]

I am not suggesting it will be easy or that morally troubling decisions will not have to be made.

 

So you're saying that it is not possible to accelerate the decline in population growth rates unless we use unethical means? Hmm. There are a number of estimates for how many people the Earth can support. How many people need to disappear, and how much time do you think a drastic population reduction should take?

 

 

Food aid, band aid and countless other efforts by various western identities and governments have utterly failed to eliminate famine and human suffering in Africa. At best they acheive temporary and small scale reduction of suffering until the next drought or next war causes yet another famine.

 

As with so many other aspects of human thinking, yours is very short term on this jesskill. You see a problem and immediately throw money and resources at it in the belief that you will solve the problem permanently, when in fact you must undertake the much harder task of fixing the underlying structural problems if you are likely to have any real long term success.

 

You really don't bother to read anything I post, do you? Why bother discussing something if you aren't willing to listen? That's very frustrating, Santalum. I would really appreciate it if you read the following paragraph and clicked on at least some of the links I present. It'll save so much time and hassle because you won't be making erroneous assumptions.

 

I agree, food aid does not eliminate famine and human suffering. That's because the model is this: 1) grow too much staple foods in the USA at a subsidized rate; 2) ship it over to developing countries as "aid", thus further subsidizing the unsustainable industrial agriculture model in the US; 3) neglect to notice when it completely destroys local economies in developing countries, including Somalia and Haiti, to name a few. (See the links? Click'em! It's an awesome way to learn more.)

 

Again, I AGREE that the real task is to fix underlying structural problems. IMO, the old aid model doesn't work. That's why I support the work of La via Campesina(click it!), Tiller's International (click it!), Soils, Foods and Healthy Communities(click it!) and other such organizations or research groups that focus on the long term project of increasing food sovereignty. (SFHC also has a health component to their project). If you review what I wrote about the model in a previous post, I talked about "participatory action research". These aren't just random words strung together, they are a completely different way to do research and development. I suggest you click the link and read before making assumptions.

 

Now, once again, I've provided evidence. Once again, you've provided faulty assumptions, along with a lack of evidence for your assumptions ...

Edited March 9, 2012 by jeskill

[Realitycheck]

One factor you have in the third world are the long arms of the church preaching against birth control and the countries with the highest birth rates are the countries least able to deal with it. You will find that the countries with the highest birth rates (around the Sahara) also tend to have the highest mortality rates, as well. I'm not sure about India, but China has incorporated a one child rule which essentially solves their problem.

[Santalum]

So you're saying that it is not possible to accelerate the decline in population growth rates unless we use unethical means? Hmm. There are a number of estimates for how many people the Earth can support. How many people need to disappear, and how much time do you think a drastic population reduction should take?

 

Clearly we do not want a repeat of hitler's efforts but that is what will ultimately happen if people like you do not do something to short circuit this before it gets to this unpalletable stage. The recent Rwandan genocide is a glimpse of what is likely to come to pass on a wide scale if you are not prepared to act.

I am refering to prevention of births by possibly coerced means such as china's one child policy AND not to 'culling' of humans.

 

 

You really don't bother to read anything I post, do you? Why bother discussing something if you aren't willing to listen? That's very frustrating, Santalum. I would really appreciate it if you read the following paragraph and clicked on at least some of the links I present. It'll save so much time and hassle because you won't be making erroneous assumptions.

I could argue that you are just as unwilling to listen to our side and are intent on continuing on your human rights band wagon until it all turns to $hit and human rights no longer exist any where on the planet.

 

I agree, food aid does not eliminate famine and human suffering. That's because the model is this: 1) grow too much staple foods in the USA at a subsidized rate; 2) ship it over to developing countries as "aid", thus further subsidizing the unsustainable industrial agriculture model in the US; 3) neglect to notice when it completely destroys local economies in developing countries, including Somalia and Haiti, to name a few. (See the links? Click'em! It's an awesome way to learn more.)

Well at least we agree on something!

 

Again, I AGREE that the real task is to fix underlying structural problems. IMO, the old aid model doesn't work. That's why I support the work of La via Campesina(click it!), Tiller's International (click it!), Soils, Foods and Healthy Communities(click it!) and other such organizations or research groups that focus on the long term project of increasing food sovereignty. (SFHC also has a health component to their project). If you review what I wrote about the model in a previous post, I talked about "participatory action research". These aren't just random words strung together, they are a completely different way to do research and development. I suggest you click the link and read before making assumptions.

I agree that all this is part of the equation. But it all means nothing and will acheive nothing in the long term if fertility is not substantially reduced and quickly.

 

Now, once again, I've provided evidence. Once again, you've provided faulty assumptions, along with a lack of evidence for your assumptions ...

I would like to see your evidence that any of the above acheives anything in the long term as long as impoverished populations continue to climb.

[jeskill]

For all those who fear the demise of humans caused by what they perceive is exponential population growth, a recent opinion article in the New York Times argues that the economic outlook will be bleak due to an aging population and lack of baby-making. The statistics he throws out are interesting. However, I'm starting to get annoyed by opinion articles that argue from only one perspective. This article is arguing purely from an economic perspective, and so doesn't take into consideration the practical effect on the environment of a "long term growing work force". Likewise, I've find arguments focusing on solely the environmental effects of population sizes to be equally reductive.

 

It would be great if we, as a general populace, were able to think about these issues in a holistic manner that took into consideration the economic, environmental, and social effects of trends, actions, and policies.

[imatfaal]

For all those who fear the demise of humans caused by what they perceive is exponential population growth, a recent opinion article in the New York Times argues that the economic outlook will be bleak due to an aging population and lack of baby-making. The statistics he throws out are interesting.

will read it.

 

However, I'm starting to get annoyed by opinion articles that argue from only one perspective. This article is arguing purely from an economic perspective, and so doesn't take into consideration the practical effect on the environment of a "long term growing work force". Likewise, I've find arguments focusing on solely the environmental effects of population sizes to be equally reductive.

 

It would be great if we, as a general populace, were able to think about these issues in a holistic manner that took into consideration the economic, environmental, and social effects of trends, actions, and policies.

I think the reason we tend towards narrow and reductive pieces is the difficulty in making any form of comparison between the varying perspectives that could/should apply. From an ethical perspective much of the economic writing seems to boil down to two equally odious options "you should stop having children as I believe that your country's growth threatens my country's standard of living" or "you should increase the rate of birth as I want a guaranteed long-term supply of off-shore workers cheaper than my domestic labour-pool" . For so much of this subject the perspectives (and the arguments they entail) seem incommensurable and lack any way of comparison other than purely personal moral judgments. This is not to say that they are orthogonal (using the word quite wrongly but meaning social objectives and policies that are independent, on a different axis, whose crossover point is negligible etc); they have massive impacts on each other and must be taken as a whole, but with no method of cross-measurement it is a decidedly difficult task. This is where opinion pieces should come into their own, by their very nature they are personal - but as you point out - too many of even those articles are afraid to make the value judgment necessary in order to be holistic.

 

\edit grammatical howler

Edited March 14, 2012 by imatfaal