Aug. 8, 2013
Dear Messrs Dietz and O'Neill:
Thank you for your fine book, “Enough is Enough.” With its compelling arguments for global sustainability and for a “Forever” economy, your fans will look forward to subsequent editions as this field rapidly evolves.
You propose that “...wealthy nations should... encourage nations abroad to retain their...workers.” (p. 83). Does “encourage” mean “require”? If not, how is this elusive goal, which has escaped policymakers so far, to be accomplished? How will “encouraging” workers to stay home significantly alleviate “...conditions that induce emigration...”? (p. 83). You decry the “brain drain” from developing countries. To what extent does “outsourcing” tend to balance this migration pressure?
You suggest that immigration can be controlled with compassion and noncoercion (p.83). Details of this improbable-sounding approach should be presented. Any poor family seeking to migrate might disagree with the assertion that immigration control can be achieved with ”...compassion and noncoercion.”
You claim that it is desirable to “..achieve (zero net) immigration...”(see also Population Matters vision statement), and to decrease “the number...admitted...”(p.82). To the extent that these arguments veer away from global concerns, they seem strangely out of place in this book, as they appear to embrace nativism and parochialism. As a result, thorny questions surrounding migration control then arise, including,
1.Is it necessary? Immigration limits do no more than attempt to manage the distribution of people. Such control is of no value in stabilizing global population, a stated goal of Chapter 6. Proven global population stabilizers include empowerment of women, international assistance, governmental promotion of small families, universal affordable education, and accessible family health clinics.
2. Is it relevant? If national and regional borders become our dikes against a rising global population, we will soon face the mathematical certainly that we cannot stem the flood. We are globally interdependent for natural resources, air, food, waste disposal, and water. “National sustainability” has become an oxymoron.
3. Is it feasible? Limiting migration of humans is as successful as limiting migration of Canada geese or butterflies. Even heavily guarded borders (e.g., Organ Pipe NP) remain porous against migrations driven by upward mobility. Proponents of immigration control(e.g., Herman Daly) should be invited to cite examples(with cost per thwarted migration) of successful control of inequity-driven, peacetime land/land migrations. Despite wringing our hands, people will migrate where inequity exists. Such migration is itself the best way to compassionately and noncoersively stem migration, just as a pond flows into a lake only until the levels equilibrate.
4. Is it equitable? Betty, having acquired her bit of heaven, is tempted to shut the door. Although such nativism is a seductive response to global overpopulation, it is inherently inequitable, and has become illusional as world population grows beyond sustainability. True, migration tends to redistribute wealth, and this in turn tends to discomfit the wealthy. But who among us is in a position to say that another family should not better its lot? During its historical “grab,” the US and the UK have accumulated a large fraction of the Earth's wealth, while many suffer. This wealth must now be shared.
5. Is it moral? Achieving national sustainability on the backs of those outside our national borders is neither moral nor possible. In opposing illegal immigration, Herman Daly states that “The US is a ...country of law.” However, anti-immigration laws assure the misery of families, and so are unjust and immoral laws. Ample precedents exist for overturning or even thwarting such unjust laws. Everyone should have a right to equity, fairness, and justice. Access to potable water, adequate shelter, proper diet, medical care, healthy air, livelihood, and education are dictated by The Golden Rule.
6. Is it consistent? Consistency requires that if we demand limits to international migration, we should just as aggressively demand limits to regional migration. Each can lead to increased unit consumption. In the same spirit as we accommodate migration between Denver and Austin, we should accommodate inequity-driven migration between all cities, regions, and countries. Consistency also requires that if we decry fecundity of immigrants, we should denounce policies of domestic governments, corporations, religions, and cultures which pressure for large families.
Conclusions: We must keep our eye on Earth's ability to support life. The path to sustainability lies not only in lowering world population, but in reducing individual impacts. Reduced individual impacts of migrants and natives will come through conservation, technology, energy tax policy, and education. We are globally interdependent for resources including air, food, and water. We live in an era of a global economy, World Bank, World Court, United Nations, EU, international trade pacts, global climate change, and global pollution. For the well-being of all in a crowded world, sovereign interests must increasingly yield priority to global interests.
Certainly, we must reduce the misery that migration generates, and the migration that misery generates. We can work across borders to reduce the inequity that drives most migrations. We have been the boss hog at the trough for too long...it is time to share.
Regards,
Evan Jones, Director
Whoa Nellie Foundation,
http://www.whoanellie.us
revwin at yahoo.com