More Pages: Grant Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100


If you're a fan of David Wood buy it, if not...
Theatre for Children
ABSOLUTELY WORTHWHILE

Superb bibliography, but not the ultimate EC art book
No Tales!
Only Need One Word

A Very Dangerous IdeaHowever, what has been decided for me is that, if Mr Grant is indicative of the arguments put forth for and methods of obtaining zero growth, then I want no part of it. He uses unfounded pseudoscience to claim that humans are basically destroying the world and that, as we add more people, we will destroy it even further. What Mr Grant fails to mention though is that the Earth is actually environmentally healthier now than it was 100 years ago. We now have six times as many people than we did then. His argument that more people necessarily leads to a deteriorating environment is simply false.
However, Mr Grant's notions aside, his assumed methods for obtaining zero growth are far worse. On page 88 he says, "Take a nation with a self-image of immense freedom; let it practice that freedom for two centuries; confront it with the dangers that our behavior poses to our own health and survival; and watch what happens... A nation of 75 million, in 1900, could tolerate a good deal of that sort of thinking. Our mega-nation of 275 million in 2000 cannot."
What Mr Grant is saying here is that the American ideal of freedom and liberty is not only a false notion we have about our country, but that that very notion is endangering our existence. Mr Grant says everything we need to know about his views when he states that our nation could 'tolerate' our 'self-image of freedom' in 1900 but not now. In other words, we the elite should now take over thinking for you reckless, freedom-loving know-nothings.
While Mr Grant leaves unanswered the question of how he would accomplish his zero-growth Eden, I have a feeling that it would involve large amounts of government intrusion into the very private lives of the American people. We should all be aware that the most successful population growth turn around this century was accomplished by the People's Republic of China. I doubt that this is what Mr Grant has in mind to get our population under control; but, meddlesome government bureaucrats, once they get hold of an idea, have a way of imposing their will on a population whether the people like it or not.
Clear and convincingProbably the two strongest arguments for reducing our population are those derived from pollution and from declining per capita food production. Up until recent years science and technology have always come up with innovations that increase food production so that it has kept up with our population growth. What Grant argues is that ability is now running up against some barriers that are not likely to be circumvented. We already see this in grain production with world per capita production peaking in 1984, as Grant shows in a chart on page 9. We are producing more grain in an absolute sense but the amount per person is falling. If this continues, first the eating habits of the richer countries will change from meat, fish and poultry to grains and beans; and after that the strong will take from the weak with of course horrific consequences. Furthermore all the best land for raising food has long been in production; indeed a lot of it is under concrete and asphalt for the mammoth numbers of humanity to live on in cities and towns. Add to this the fact that the effect of fertilizers and irrigation on much of our most productive cropland has run up against the law of diminishing returns; indeed some of the very best land is now of marginal value or worthless because of salinization and fertilizer burnout of the soil.
For those of us in the highly industrialized countries, the reduction in per capita food production is invisible. Because of our economic power we have no food shortage as a consequence of there being too many people in the world. But what we do feel is the crowding and the growing pollution of our environment. One answer to pollution is to spend the money to clean up the wastes. Corporations are reluctant to do this because that would adversely affect their bottom line. Indeed some companies, if they were made responsible for the costs of their pollution, would go out of business. So instead of recycling they continue to pump their wastes into the atmosphere, into rivers, into the oceans, into landfills, etc. Some just smear the stuff on the ground and hope it will blow away or leach out. Grant writes, "I would argue that the primary mission of technology today should be to undo the pollution and waste generated by earlier technologies." (p. 87)
The consequences of these short-sighted practices are leading not only to an impoverished environment but to further reductions in our ability to grow and produce food. So what is the answer? Grant's answer is to reduce our numbers. Sounds great, but just how do we do that? To this he has no real answer because the enemies of reduced population growth are many and powerful. It is not just the Catholic church and fundamentalist religions everywhere who are opposed to reductions in human populations, but just about everybody who benefits from economic growth. The feeling in some quarters is that if there is a decline in birth rates, demand would be adversely affected and labor itself would become expensive causing a reversal of the economic growth to which we have become addicted. What Grant asks is, is that a bad thing? He works hard to show that reducing our numbers would bring immeasurable benefits to both ourselves and the environment.
But there are other problems. For example, the end of population growth inevitably results in an older population (see page 76), a population that must be supported by a younger working population. The industrial nations of Europe and the US have solved this problem partly by allowing immigration so that there will be workers to support the retired. Grant shows that this "solution" if continued will result in places like Italy, for example, being populated mostly by people not of Italian descent. We already see this in the southwestern United States where the increase in the Spanish-speaking population is on target to surpass that of English-only speakers in the not too distant future. Is this a bad thing? It depends on your point of view. But even immigration will not solve the problem. It is only a stop gap (and of course there is all that crowding and all those mouths to feed and all of their wastes to dispose of).
Grant's convincing and readable book is a wake up call to humanity, and that is a step in the right direction. What we need now is a plan to reduce our numbers and means to implement it.
Essential reading for students of environmental issues

Average book
Change the Game book review
The Best Basketball Biography I've Read

moderately helpful
Extremely useful shelf-reference for fund-raisers
The most frequently borrowed fund raising book I own

a pleasant read
Funny, entertaining, a 'feel good' book.
Dont just sit there! print some more!If you've seen the film then you will want to read the book -- if you read the book you will want to see the film -- simple as that.
Christopher Monger was born in Ffynnon Taf, Wales, where my grandparents (mothers side) lived, and there is a "mountain" with a "tump" on the top, just as in the book, and yes, the Mongers were, and for all I know as an emigrant, are a well known family in this part of Wales.
Good one Christopher!
regards,
martyn_jones@iniciativas.com


Little new here
Dont take yourself so seriously.
Funny and touching

Writing a lesson plan is easy and so is this book
A classic grant writing book
One of the best grant books available

Readable, But Forgettable
Highly entertainingI have read Grant's actual memoirs and found them to be suprisingly good. His book however is a little dry. It gives detailed troop movements, supply counts, descriptions of terrain and of course he discusses many of his battle strategies that any historian would find fascinating. The non-historian however, would find the book tedious and probably not get further than the first chapter. In contrast, Richard Parry reveals the more human side of Grant in "That fateful lightning". Grant is pictured as a dying man that is racing against time to finish his memoirs. As he is writing, he reflects on his experiences in the Civil war. He reveals his opinions of many of the civil wars' great generals and talks about his feelings of guilt at sending so many men to their deaths. Grant describes his great love for his wife Julia and talks about his loneliness when he is away from her. He turns to drinking to deal with some of his insecurities but in the end his dignity and integrity overcome any shortcomings in his character. His experiences with Lincoln, Sherman, Meade and Robert E. Lee are shown from his own personal point of view. Even though this is a work of fiction, it is not hard to imagine that Grant might have had these exact feelings and opinions. If you are a historian that is only interested in factual history, you might want to stay away from this book and stick to the mundane, cold and lengthy texts. If you are the type of person that is interested in historical figures from a personal and human perspective then I highly recommend this entertaining work of narrative history.
Outstanding
If this book wasn't so darned expensive, I'd be tempted to let it slide. ...(!) I felt I had to give fair warning.