LETTERS: POPULATION ARGUMENT FALLS SHORT

To the editor:

It is surprising that there should still exist folks who would argue about global population as did Leonard Wille in his Sept. 3 letter. Of particular surprise was Mr. Wille's argument that the planet has no population problem because "It has been demonstrated mathematically that the entire population of Earth standing shoulder to shoulder would fit in an area the size of Jacksonville, Fla." Probably, if we stacked them side to side and end to end, they would all fit in the Grand Canyon as well -- though it would be a little uncomfortable for the folks at the bottom. To all of which, one can only respond: "So what?"Of course, debating equations dealing with the minimum amount of space required to hold the current global populations is pretty silly. As even Mr. Wille seems to acknowledge in a subsequent paragraph (maybe without realizing it), the global population packed into Jacksonville would still have to eat and drink and dispose of its waste. And it's not clear where in Jacksonville Mr. Wille would locate the 30 million or so farmers with their farms that he would need to feed this population. And this does not address the need his Jacksonville mega-population would have for land supplying the other natural resources from which its members might earn a living. Finally, what Mr. Wille further avoids mentioning is that current population trends would leave us with 270 billion humans on the planet by 2150. Surely he does not imagine we could pack these folks into Jacksonville with over a billion farmers, farms and the necessary sewage treatment plants as well? The question is not "Into how small an area can we physically fit everyone?" nor even "What is the maximum number of humans the earth and its resources could support?" If we are to approach this issue thoughtfully and rationally, we need to ask about how many humans the planet can support if those humans hope to enjoy both a quality of life and a standard of living that meet their aspirations. Folks who focus on the sheer number of individuals that the planet could maximally support, are arguing for a planet resource wars the like of which we have probably not witnessed, combined with billions of starving, disease-ridden humans. There seems to me no way that such a position could be defended as either reasonable or ethical. Mr. Wille might think that good debating tactics include concocting or spreading mythical stories about Paul Ehrlich losing a bet and then of accusing sensible concerned individuals of being "lunatic fringe environmentalists." However, a reasonable judge would probably evaluate his absurd position, his laughable evidence and his ridiculous argument as placing Mr. Wille more squarely in such a fringe. He'd just be the other end of the spectrum. ALAN R.P. JOURNET

Cape Girardeau