Nem tudom, ismeritek-e azt a viccet, hogy "Ket ugyved az ocean feneken. Mi
az? Valasz: Biztato kezdet" Na, ez jutott eszembe, amikor olvastam, Avet
tovabbitott hiret, miszerint egy jogaszbajnok Urbana-Champaign-bol ugrasra
keszen all, hogy barmelyik percben stratoljon Hagaba (szatyorban a perirat
tervezete, haromnapi fehernemu, fogkrem es egy nyakkendo, hatha
fenykepeszkedesre is sor kerul).  Az a barmelyik perc azert gyanus, mert
Urbana-Champaign-bol olyan ket ora mig Chicagoba kerul a paciens, Haga fele
meg csak onnan indulnak gepek.
  Kulonosen lenyugozo volt, ahogy a hirben ez az ur kifejtette a "veszelyt
ahogyan O latja" :
" A fo problema a Cassinivel, hogy 72 font plutonium 238-ast visz magaval.
Ez az izotop az egyik legforrob az ismertek kozul, ennek hojet fogja a
Cassini elektromossagga alakitani az utonn. Ez az izotop 272-szer forrobb
(aktivabb), mint a bombakban hasznalt plutonium."  Oszinten szolva en sem
vagyok egy reaktormernok, de ez mar kifejezetten alulinformaltsag. En ugy
gondolom, hogy ennel melyebb termeszettudomanyos ismeretekre van szukseg
ahhoz, hogy egy tarsadalmi mozgalom emberiseg elleni buntettet
emlegethessen, hogy azokat az embereket, akiknek ez a szakmajuk hulyenek,
gondatlannak nezhesse, hogy azt irhassa, mint amit a Stop Cassini nevu
hirujsagban olvastam: 'egyetlen szamadatukat nem hiszem el'.
  Meg kell engednem, hogy a jogasz ur nyilatkozata valojaban tokeletes volt,
csak a hirt fogalmazo, osszeallito ujsagirotanonc ferditette el ilyen
mertekben a mondanivalojat. Szerencsere en csak egy vegyesz vagyok, igy nem
donthetem el, vajjon egy zsenialis jogasz lehet-e egyforman jartas a
"Voltszovjetunio" haborus buneiben, a Palesztinok elidegenithetetlen (leirni
is alig birom!) jogaiban es a NASA emberiseg elleni szandekos buntetteiben.
  Talan Ti is olvastatok, hogy a hetfoi fellovest azert halasztottak el,
mert a kilovopad egyik programja rosszalkodott ES MERT kedvezotlen volt a
szelirany. Ez utobbi azert baj, nyilatkozta egy fo-biztonsagi szakember,
mert ha az egesz hobelebanc netalantan szetdurran, tele lesz a kornyek
sosavval meg nitrogentetroxiddal. Amit itt hangsulyoznek az az, hogy megcsak
nem is emlitette azt a "bombaminosegunel 272-szer forrobb" cuccot.
  Lehet, hogy tul eros a va'd, megis leirom: tenyleg nem jo, ha valaki(k) a
feltunesi viszketegseguket osszekeverik a kornyezetvedelemmel. Le merem
irni, mert hat a StopCassini hirlapban olvastam Dr Sternglass tollabol:
"...nem mintha egyetlen szamadatot is elhinnenk a NASA-tol..."

  A masodik felvonasomat ismet egy viccel kezdem: 
Felirat egy iparosmuhely falan: Az alabbi tipusu szolgaltatasokat tudjuk
nyujtani: GYORS, OLCSO, JO. Tetszese szerint valasszon kettot a harombol!
A NASA uj szlogenje a _gyorsan, jobban olcsobban_.  Ennek szoges ellentete
volt a 3.3milliard dollaros Cassini, aminek elokeszitesen vagy ot evet
dolgoztak a fiuk, es egyszeruen tul sok kerult egy lora. Egy kudarcbafulladt
felloves utan a plutoniumteglakat ki lehet horgaszni az oceanbol, de a
remenyek veglegesen elusznak ilyenkor. Ugy mondjak itt, hogy a Cassini az
utolso regimodi NASA kuldetes volt.
Azt hiszem, nem en voltam az egyeduli, aki enyhe ketelkedessel fogadta  a
gyorsan, jobban olcsobban cimu uj rendet. Egy tarsalgas alkalmaval egy
hallgato meg is kerdezte a JPL uj asztrobiologus vezetojet: miert nem
kuldenek rogton egy urhajot ...idemegide a Marson..., hogy onnan mintakat
hozzon vissza. Ha valahol lehet eletjeleket talalni a Marson, hat az az a
hely. Az illeto egyutterzoen bolintott, szive szerint -otvenegynehany
evesen- o is ezt tenne. De! Mi van, ha elmegy a Marskomp, felmarkol tiz
kavicsot, hazahozza, megnezik es to:ku:res mindahany. Szoval sokkal jobb, ha
a dolgot tobb reszletre szedik szet, idoben elhuzva a reszeket, hogy az
elozo menet tapasztalatait fel lehessen hasznalni a kovetkezo tervezesehez.
Raadasul ez a "szetdarabolas" tobb tudomanyterulet kepviselojet is bevonja a
dologba, igy sokkal nagyobb esely van arra, hogy a project vegulis
kozmegelegedessel zarul. Mert lehet, hogy eletjeleket nem fognak talalni a
Marson, de kozben, mig odafele torekednek, valami hasznos dolog kiderul, ez
igy szokott lenni, ha eleg sok okos ember eleg szabadon torheti a fejet. Az
a vacsora Ken Nealsonnal megertette velem, mit jelent az "uj rend".

  Mi van meg? A kiloves elotti napokban itt megerositettek az intezet
orizetet, attol tartva, hogy szelsosegesek a vezerloterem elfoglalasaval
probaljak majd megakadalyozni a Cassini inditasat. Ma reggel pedig latom a
JPL belso ujsagjanak cimlapjan a fellovesrol keszult fenykepet. Gondoltam
hat irok egy-ket sort. 
  Egyszeruen nem birom elfelejteni azt a hordoszonokot a StopCassini
hirujsagbol, azt a tudatlanul ho"bo:rgo" magabiztossagot amivel hazugsagnak,
szandekos felrevezetesnek vagy ami meg rosszabb, szakmai hozzanemertesnek
titulalta azok velemenyet, akik mar tegnapelott is raketamernokok voltak.
(legalabbis mar jo regota...) Es megbocsathatatlannak tartom a hirek
olyasfajta manipulalasat hogy lam-lam ugye, az oroszok plutoniuma is elegett
tavaly Chile felett...

Nem tudom, ertitek, vagy csak tepem itt a szamat? Felelmetesen nagynak erzem
a szakadekot magam kozott, aki -mondjuk ugy, hogy tudomanyos kutatassal
foglalkozik, amikor nem firkal a KORNYESZbe, a szakadekot magam kozott, meg
egy ugyved kozott, aki ugy nyilatkozik, hogy "a NASA, az Elnok es a
tudomanyos tanacsadoi tokeletesen tudjak, hogy ennek (marmint a Cassininak)
nagyon nagy eselye van ra, hogy gyilkoljon". Az ezt megelozo mondatban
egyenesen tomeggyilkossagrol van szo! Ugyanakkor az altalam hozzaertonek
tartott emberek amiatt aggodnak, hogy ha eldurran a hajtoraketa, hat
Florida tele lesz sosavval! Es nem ertik, hogy mit nem ert a kozvelemeny,
nyugtatasul lepten-nyomon hangsulyoztak, hogy a plutonium nem hajtoanyagkent
szerepel. Pedig nyugodtan szavalhatnak azt is, hogy "Aludj el szepen kis
Balazs", 
ugysem figyel senki sem oda.
(emlekeztetoul: az egyik ellenvelemeny a kilovessel szemben az
volt, hogy mi van, ha felrobban a Titan IV/B? A StopCassini hirujsag szerint
repul a plutonium szejjelfele. A szakertok szerint meg repul a _raketa_
szejjelfele, de abban nincs plutonium! Es megy a "vita" vegnelkul, mert "a
NASA szakertoinek egy szavat sem hisszuk el")

Laszlo Barna

WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT POPULATION BY DOING SOMETHING ABOUT POVERTY

When you hear talk about what to do with all the garbage, what to do about
traffic, health care, urban sprawl, hunger -- almost any kind of people-related
problem -- sooner or later you hear someone say that the real trouble is
population growth.

Everyone sighs, agrees and changes the subject.  Nothing can be done about
population growth.

That helpless response has always bothered me.  People make populations grow. 
Surely people could make populations stop growing.  If we didn't shrug if off,
if we looked hard at the problem, if we really wanted to solve it, it seems to
me we should be able to do so.

Now a powerful little book has come along that confirms my hunch.  It's called
"Misplaced Blame, the Real Roots of Population Growth" by Alan Thein Durning
and Christopher D. Crowther of Northwest Environment Watch.  That organization
is a think-tank for a bioregion, the Pacific Northwest from northern California
to southern Alaska.  The statistics and examples in the book are taken from
that region.  But its message, I think, is valid for anywhere in the U.S. and
probably the world.

The United States has the highest fertility rate and the highest immigration
rate of any industrialized country.  We have 260 million people now.  At the
rate we're projected to grow, we will have 300 million 10 years from now, and
335 million by the year 2025.  A disproportionate amount of that increase ends
up in the Pacific Northwest, whose population growth rate is higher than that
of India.  Twelve percent of that growth comes from foreign immigrants.  The
rest comes roughly half from folks moving in from the rest of the U.S. and half
from the natural increase of the people already there.

Durning and Crowther list five reasons for these trends.  They are: misguided
immigration laws, subsidies to domestic migration (mainly tax breaks to
developers), inadequate family-planning services, sexual abuse, and child
poverty.

The last three are by far the most important, and they are interrelated.  The
poor are the ones who can't afford family planning.  They are the most likely
to be abused, which can lead to a lifetime of self-loathing and promiscuity. 
Kids who have grown up poor are likely to have kids very young, to have many of
them, and to raise them in poverty, continuing the cycle into the next
generation.

Durning and Crowther make this argument in words and anecdotes, but most
strikingly, they make it in statistics.

Of teen mothers in America, 83 percent come from poor families; 62 percent have
been raped or molested as children.

The father of a baby born to a teen-age girl is two and a half times more
likely to be a man in his twenties than a teen-age boy.

Only 45 percent of Oregon's single mothers get financial help from the fathers
of their children; in Washington only 34 percent, in California 25 percent. 
Absent dads are ten times as likely to be current on their car payments as on
their child support.

Colleges graduates in the U.S. typically have 1.6 to 2.0 children.  High school
graduates average 2.7 children.  High school dropouts average 3.2 children.

Children from poor families are 18 times more likely to be sexually abused as
children from middle-class families.  The assault is 200 times more likely to
come from someone in the home than from a stranger.

More than a third of babies born in the Northwest are conceived by accident.

It is possible to predict the teen birthrate in the United States with 90
percent accuracy from the previous decade's child poverty rate.  Every one
percent increase in the rate of child poverty leads to a 3.3 percent increase
in the teen birthrate.

The average American child receives public assistance worth about $5,000 per
year (mainly the cost of public education).  The average elderly person
receives about $15,000 per year (Social Security and Medicare).  The average
prisoner costs the public $25,000 per year.

One-third of births in Pacific Northwest would not occur if there were no
poverty, say Durning and Crowther.  Poor women have children not out of
ignorance, but out of a logic that would make sense to you and me, if we had
been raised in poverty.  "Their entire life experience confirms they will not
go far in the fiercely competitive global economy.  They do not actively seek
pregnancy, but they are less aggressive in attempting to prevent it.  At least,
they reason, they can be good mothers and fill their lives with the challenges
and rewards of having a family."

Durning and Crowther call their book "Misplaced Blame," because they see
population growth blamed on the Third World, on immigrants, teenagers, welfare
recipients and above all on unwed mothers.  They make a compelling case that
the blame should more logically be placed on adult men who love (or rape) and
leave, on moralists who cut family planning budgets, on developers and the city
officials who subsidize them, on liberals who think we help the poor by letting
them immigrate here, and above all on a public policy that increasingly turns
its back on the poor.

"Population," they point out, "is nothing but a four-syllable word for 'us.' 
When we take care of people, population growth will take care of itself."

(Alan Thein Durning and Christopher D. Crowther, "Misplaced Blame: The Real
Roots of Population Growth," Northwest Environment Watch, 1402 Third Avenue,
Suite 1127, Seattle WA 98101-2118, 206-447-1880, )

(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Dartmouth College.)