Categories
Population

Examine Our Addiction to Growth

Is it legal to distribute condoms on the streets of Colorado Springs? Is it wise to question growth as the basis of the US economy? A recent visitor to Durango has done both.
Dave Gardner grew up in Colorado Springs, but went to college in Dallas. He built a reputation producing videos, including the PBS show “Here’s To Your Health.” After twenty years in Dallas he longed for the simple life of a smaller town and moved his family back to Colorado Springs.
Gradually Dave became aware that his hometown was changing—it was growing larger. Then he had an epiphany—people were giving up quality of life because of the assumption that growth is necessary for a healthy economy. He found that this assumption was false. Indeed, the community-wide benefits of growth were not materializing, thus there was no reason to give up quality of life for growth. This realization turned Dave from being an accepting citizen into an activist.
What happens when a videographer turns activist? He makes videos, of course! Dave made a short showing him passing out Endangered Species condoms on the streets of conservative Colorado Springs. You can see it and several others on YouTube by searching “GrowthBusters”.
This coming spring Dave will finish his full-length film “GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth”. It will be more serious than his condom short, but (if I know Dave) it will still have lots of humor. Dave has been traveling the country filming experts on growth and especially on human population growth.
Earlier this month Dave was here in Durango. He spoke to a large, attentive audience at a Life-Long Learning lecture series at Fort Lewis College. A few days later he addressed the FLC class “People and the Planet”. The students had already learned that humans are using fifty percent more of the planet’s resources than would be sustainable. Dave helped them understand why we have overshot our planet’s resources so significantly but are not changing our ways.
Dave also has a serious side. His website, growthbusters.org, presents a wealth of information on the pros and cons of growth. He divides the subject into four areas—population, urban and economic growth, and overconsumption. In the eight years since he first recognized the problem of growth, he has become a scholar in the field, as is reflected in the website.
Another Coloradan is also a scholar on growth. “GrowthBusters” the video is dedicated to Al Bartlett, a retired professor at CU in Boulder. Al has given his talk on growth over 1600 times! He was in Durango recently, again haranguing us to understand that growth cannot go on without end. He claims “the greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function”. Compound interest is a good example of an exponential function. With this, interest is calculated on both the principal and the accrued interest so growth is much faster than if it were just calculated on the principal. Growth can be very rapid with compound interest. Al’s famous talk can be viewed on YouTube.
What both Dave and Al are trying to tell us is that population growth cannot go on forever. Even a seemingly low rate of growth, say 2 %, will add up rapidly. Indeed, all it takes is 35 years for a population to double if the growth rate is 2 %. At that rate in just a century the population will have increased almost eight times!
People point out that there are problems when growth slows or stops. That is obvious with our current economic decline. But the alternative, continued growth, will use up irreplaceable resources, leaving our progeny a deeply scarred planet.
Are we addicted to growth? I think so, because we depend on growth for economic wellbeing. We assume that the faster growth is, the better, and when growth slows (as in our current recession) we suffer withdrawal. To see what the alternative might look like go to steadystate.org.
Back to the beginning. Yes, it is legal to pass out condoms, even in Colorado Springs—but it wasn’t in 1967. Another activist, Bill Baird, was arrested when he gave a condom to an unmarried 19-year-old woman. He challenged the “Crimes against Chastity” law, which he finally overthrew with a Supreme Court decision in 1972.
I am happy that there are still crusaders striving to help us understand the perils of growth. Dave Gardner and Al Bartlett are two. I look forward to more adventures of GrowthBusters!

© Richard Grossman MD, 2010
This article may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.

Categories
Action Contraception Population Reproductive Health Women's Issues

Smash Amendment 62

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States

Imagine this scenario. Anne, a young mother of three small children, recently noted low abdominal discomfort and bloating. She is horrified to learn that she may have ovarian cancer—but even more horrified to learn that the necessary surgery cannot be performed in Colorado.
If Amendment 62 passes it would make removing a diseased ovary illegal. Worse, a doctor who performs such a lifesaving surgery would be punished for murder!
Here is what the proposed Amendment 62 says: “Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term “person” shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”
Anyone who graduated from an eighth grade health class knows that the start of the biological development is the human egg, and that girls are born with all the eggs that their ovaries will ever contain. So removing an ovary (even if diseased) would mean the removal of thousands of “persons”.
A woman whose doctorate is in biochemistry and is loosely associated with Georgetown University wrote this wording. An ethicist against abortion, what she has framed is so poorly defined that the above scenario is possible. A lawyer—or even a physician—could have done better!
This proposed amendment is laughable. It is unclear, it is unsupportable, it is misogyninistic and it would cost the state of Colorado millions of dollars to implement. Only the lawyers would profit if it is passed.
Let’s look at the problem of implementation. The word “person” appears in over 20,000 laws in our state. One current legal definition of “person” is “an autonomous being”. This foolish proposed amendment would certainly change that, since a fetus, embryo or egg are anything but autonomous! Passing the amendment would make major changes in the legal world, and would keep Colorado’s lawyers employed for years trying to figure out the ramifications.
You will remember that just two years ago a similar amendment was put forward. Proposed amendment 48 was a real loser! It lost in all Colorado counties. It lost by a huge margin—73 percent of voters were against it. Why did the Colorado Right to Life people do this again? Apparently they have received a message from God that this is their calling. This is clearly a case of infringement of our constitutional rights when one person’s religion interferes with the ability of another person to seek medical care. The proposed amendment would establish one set of religious beliefs as the law of the state. Doesn’t our Constitution’s Bill of Rights prohibit this?
The supporters of this proposed amendment don’t stop with facts. View their incredible misrepresentation of truth at: youtube.com/user/PersonhoodUSA.
Many of the same people who are against abortion are also against any contraception. They claim, against the judgment of most reputable scientists, that IUDs, emergency contraception and even “the pill” work by causing an abortion. If this crazy amendment were passed, all of these birth control methods might become unavailable in Colorado. Furthermore, miscarriages would have to be investigated (to be sure that the woman hadn’t caused the pregnancy loss intentionally), adding to the parents’ emotional pain.
Oh, what about abortion? There is no provision for cases of rape, incest or when a pregnancy endangers the mother’s life. This proposed amendment would make interrupting a pregnancy illegal—including saving the life of the mother! Even the strict “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” allows interrupting an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, because the pregnancy threatens a woman’s life. This would not be possible under Colorado’s proposed Amendment 62. Aborting a pregnancy for a woman who had been a victim of rape or of incest would also be punished as first-degree murder.
Proposed Amendment 62 is stupid. It is poorly written and therefore would tie up lawyers and the court system. If passed, 62 would endanger women’s health care. It would make it difficult for couples to plan their families, and the already high undesired pregnancy rate would skyrocket.
Please vote in this midterm election. And please vote NO on proposed Amendment 62. To do anything else would be irresponsible!

© Richard Grossman MD, 2010

This article may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.