LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dear Editor,

After we finished reading "Book of the Month" in the August issue of your magazine (overseas edition) where the "China thumb" Steven Mosher and his book were introduced, we were very shocked at his negligence and misunderstanding about the global population issue. For the benefit of your magazine's staff and readers, we would like to draw attention to some important points:

Firstly, Mr. Mosher holds the view that "overpopulation" is only a concern of "undeveloped countries." This reveals an extreme prejudice. As long as the needs of the total population of any given place exceed what local resources can supply,an imbalance exists. To earn a living or to maintain a status quo in their living standard, the people of the given place will resort either to force (wars) or non-violent means (economic power) to plunder others' resources, or they may exhaust the resources of their offspring to make up for what they are short of, causing all sorts of environmental pollution through over-development.

In view of that, many developed countries are over-populated. They are precisely relying on the resources from other countries to maintain a high standard of consumption. Take America for example. The United States imports a large quantity of beef from Brazil. This has indirectly led to the disappearance of Central and South America's rainforests, thus causing disruption to the global climate.Another instance is the transforming of the western deserts into oases to accommodate the surplus population in the eastern US. The several dams built along the Colorado River have nourished such states as California, Arizona and Nevada. But because the river has been blocked halfway, downstream in Mexico only a dry riverbed is left, leaving the people of Mexico with no water to use. Furthermore, Americans only account for 5% of the global population, but they consume one fourth of the annual world output of petroleum. The conflicts of today's Middle East are more or less related to America's maneuvers to secure its petroleum reserves. Can we still falsely claim that population problems only exist in Africa, Latin America and the rest of the undeveloped countries?

Secondly, Mosher believes that once the economy of a nation begins to develop, population won't stand as a problem. He seems to think that population problems can be solved with simply feeding and clothing everyone. How about such problems as cramped space, acute competition, environmental pollution and social disorder, caused by population pressure? Can we create more room on the earth? Or is the day near when we can all emigrate to outer space?

Furthermore, his viewpoint operates under the premise that the human economy (using production as an indicator) can be limitlessly developed to support the ever-growing population; by the time every natural resource is used up, the human race will have effectively developed surrogate resources. We can draw on facts to verify that artificial resource development is not without restrictions. Take the most basic necessity of humanity -- food--for example. Over the past 40 years, the green revolution, in which large volumes of fertilizers and insecticide have been used, has allowed humankind to enjoy unprecedented affluence. Many people are gratified, thinking that human determination could supersede the will of heaven, that these good circumstances would last forever. But the two successive years of insufficient harvests worldwide in 1988 and 1989 forced people to the realization that the land on which we rely has been excessively exploited, and the pace at which it is becoming barren has quickened. According to a report from the Worldwatch Institute, in the next ten years crop yield is expected to grow at the rate of 0.9% each year. But world population will increase at the rate of 2% per year (100 million people every year!).There will be even more people starving, and blind optimism will not be able to solve this.

Thirdly, Mosher says that if only mainland China were to urbanize, industrialize and modernize, people would naturally choose to have fewer babies. They don't need to forcibly impose the one child policy. Is this reversing cause and effect? Isn't it true that only when the overall citizenry's education level is raised, the birth rate falls and the population burden is lessened, that a nation will have hope for modernization? Thirty years ago, the Latin American countries Brazil and Argentina were a lot more "modern" than Taiwan and Korea. But how about nowadays? They have been dragged down by nothing other than a huge population. (Catholics' opposition to contraception has greatly influenced Central and South America. Many European and North American Catholics feel averse to this trend and have even requested the Vatican to change its stance.)

Mainland China's one-child policy is a highly controversial topic. It is hard to discuss it in detail here. However, every controversial topic has at least two sides. We would like to suggest that your magazine cover literature from the opposing viewpoint when introducing books whose topics are of a more debatable nature, in order to convey a balanced report.

Tseng Yung-cheng and Chang Wen-hui, Cali fornia, USA