(00:00:00) According to the United Nations. There are now five point seven billion people in the world and that statistic is growing by Leaps and Bounds each year. Apparently another 93 million people are added to the world's population. And if you think about it, that's roughly the equivalent of adding another United States every four years. This September. The United Nations is holding a world population conference in Cairo to try to settle on ways to slow that growth and one of the key us participants at that conference under Secretary of State and former Colorado Senator. Timothy worth is in the Twin Cities this week to participate in a town meeting on world population a meeting that's being held tomorrow at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Center. Secretary worth has also been good enough to stop by our Studios today to answer your questions and listen to your comments on the subject security were thanks for coming by. Yeah. I'm glad to be here and be back in Minneapolis. I used to come here great deal when I was in the Congress and then in the Senate and you're bringing warmer weather to us. Absolutely we are bringing a sunny disposition and Yeah, very optimistic approach toward this enormous problem that we're here to discuss how many people can the world support depends on what level you want to have people surviving mean if we want to have bare subsistence survival for people and bring everybody say down to the standard of living of those in Bangladesh. I suppose that you could say we could support in the world 15 to 18 billion people that means again that standards of living and expectations and quality of life would be similar to that of individuals and Bangladesh. We would then be living with enormous pressure on the land and enormous pressure on the environment on water systems and so on and I think we would probably also then be subject to the same kind of overwhelming natural disasters is faced by the people in Bangladesh and with Wetlands destroyed and biodiversity practically disappeared and diversity of Life pretty much gone. I don't think anybody wants to see that for the world the population figures that you mentioned of the rapidly growing world population is happening for the Most part in the developing World ninety-five percent of that population growth is is occurring in the less developed world and increasingly those countries are recognizing the fact that out of control population growth for them is a disaster that they will not be able to provide the economic wherewithal the educational opportunities Healthcare job opportunities, whatever it may be to their citizens, so they are scrambling a very very rapidly to try to stabilize their population. That's why this upcoming conference in Cairo the world United Nations conference on population and development is so important to put it in a little bit of context. Remember the 1992 Rio Summit on the environment and development unsaid you know, that was so enormously successful in bringing the world together and focusing on environmental issues. Well the Cairo conference this fall will be for population what Rio was in 1992 for the environment just to put it in that context. I think most people became aware of these global environment. Mental issues in part because of Rio and I think now because of Cairo and this great world emphasis on doing everything we can to stabilize world population and give women choices about their size of their family in the spacing of their children that these these issues are coming to the Forefront of Americans are deeply concerned about them. If the population stopped growing today is the economic pie in this world big enough to give everybody a decent life. Well, then I think that if that were to happen, I think that's not going to happen given the momentum of current population. We come back and talk about that. But say were we to to hold the world population at the current five and a half five point six billion a third of those people in the world today are living in an almost a close to starvation where they simply don't have enough to eat and another third of those individuals don't have the kind of opportunities that I think you and I would like to see for individuals to fulfill themselves. So we have a long way to go just to play Chubb with the current world population that it may in itself is an enormously complex problem to try to develop the kind of economic wherewithal in the economic opportunities for those in the developing World already much less two add them at the enormous rate of the numbers you reflected but all of this in context just in the size of the numbers and then they are so staggering. Let's think about Somalia Somalia was on everybody's television screens and has been for the last year and a half. We went to Somalia to stop the intent starvation that was going on there. That was the original reason for going 300,000 people have died of starvation in Somalia that 300,000 deficit from starvation was made up by world population growth in 29 hours. So, I mean just think about the context that we spent an enormous amount of world treasure and activity, you know to focus on the popular on the starvation of a relative, you know, 300,000 people is a lot of But in World terms are relatively handful of people imagine how much better off we would be if we placed a lot more resources at the start if we were investing in stabilizing population and investing so that our children in particular great grandchildren grandchildren great-grandchildren. Don't face these problems, which if we don't do something they're going to be faced with the greatest intensity we can imagine. What's your what's your reading on the population growth rate in the United States about where it should be too high not high enough. That's a very very interesting question. Is it like all of the other ones like this or sort of like an onion, you know, the more you take the layers off the more you cry the if you look at us population, which is growing at about 3 million a year about two-thirds of that from our indigenous population growth and about a million a third of a million people a year growing from various aspects of immigration. We can handle that kind of population growth given our economic base and given our geography for a while in its raw. But if we start to think about the impact that our population has on the rest of the globe we consume so much more than anybody else in the world the European countries, the United States and Japan are consumption levels are like 30 times higher than that of the average individual in India. So you can say to yourself if you use that formula, but if we're growing at 3 million people a year, but we consume more than 30 times more than somebody in India. And in fact, we're growing the equivalent of an India growing at 90 million a year that you know, those are not absolutely real parallels, but it's in a suggestive way of looking at the impact that you the United States and the developed world has on consumption patterns and therefore has on the environment and has on our dwindling resources in the world, which then leads us to say that if we are serious about what is called sustainable development. We have to begin to think about sustainability in our own backyard. The president has appointed a council on sustainable development. Altman which is a 25-person national panel to look at the long-term future of the United States and that group is right now struggling with how to look at this issue of population and consumption. It's a very very interesting and a very important question Americans often think we'll we don't have to worry about this. You know, we have we have plenty of land and plenty of wealth and so on to sustain this and from our own perspective, that's true, but from our role as a citizen of the world and our concern about what's going to happen, you know, 50 years out or a hundred years out. These are probably questions that we have to consider and begin to consider. Now, where would you put the price? I want to get to collect questions from listeners hear one more question on that line. Where would you put the priority in terms of maintaining our standard of living versus being a good Global citizen when those two conflict? Well, the two are not mutually exclusive and one of the keys to the campaign of Clinton and Gore in 1992 was to link the two together. Demonstrate that development and the environment are not mutually exclusive by any means and we've embarked upon a number of very ambitious programs related to Alternative Energy patterns related to variety of issues on biodiversity related to Global Climate Change relates to the energy patterns of use looking at series of water and wetlands and environmental issues to try to bring in to sync to synchronize our economic pressures along with our environmental concerns. You want to put the two together and that's what it means to focus on sustainable development coming out of Rio the where the world agreed that we all wanted to put ourselves on a sustainable path as rapidly as possible and sustainability means that we effectively meet the needs of today without robbing. The requirements of tomorrow's generations, and that's a difficult proposition, but we have to learn how to do it. Under Secretary of State Timothy worth is our guest today. And Terry worth is in the Twin Cities. There's a big town meeting being held at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Center tomorrow Preparatory to un Global conference on world population and sustainable development and say Gary if I can that tell me we open to the public and will be running from 8:30 until noon tomorrow at the at the Humphrey Center in the coals Auditorium. And I hope that as many people who are interested would like to come though. We have a number of experts talking about world population issues and their relevance United States and then a period of open from the floor for individual citizen input and response. Let's go to our first caller. Hello. Yes. Go ahead sir. (00:09:46) Hi. I was wondering perhaps. Mr. Wirth is already addressed the somewhat but wonder if he knows if the United States government has ever had at any time or perhaps the president's new Council on sustainable development. We'll have or will come up with some kind of a projection of what would constitute an optimal population for the United States and there ever been any calculations as to what the carrying capacity of our territory would be under different scenarios and I'll hang up and (00:10:15) listen. Well, it's an interesting question. The first question that that begs of course is at what level do you want to have people living? That's where we started in Gary's and my first discussion how many people can the globe carry if you mean that data how many people can the United States carry at? What level do you want to have it? Do you want to have it the current level of development? You want to have it in an increased level of development you want to have it at the level of development of Mexico or India or Bangladesh? I mean those are you have to ask that question first and foremost, but let's assume that you carried the level of development out as to where we are today in the United States and we're at a three million increase per year. We're at about 245 million people were increasing. Little more than one percent a year. How long is that sustainable? That means that our population will now double in about 70 years if we can continue on the current path and that's a pretty that's becomes a pretty rapid increase. So then you can extrapolate from there there has never been any kind of a government position or projection there a number of private groups that have done that the president's Council on sustainable development is now starting to grope around the corners of this issue. It is as you can imagine and is Gary and I were talking earlier and enormously complicated difficult and you can imagine very emotional issue among many people as well. And but you know, I think that we have to at least start to ask the questions about it. Is this an appropriate issue for discussion. And if so, you know, what are the what are the parameters around such a discussion? It's very preliminary. So all of that is by way of saying no there is there has never been as far as I know any kind of a government government position or projection on that. Do you see a debate lurking? Future Between birth rates in this country and immigration. Oh, absolutely. I think the immigration issue is emerging very rapidly in the United States is a very very powerful issue over the last decade. I think more immigrants came in in the United States than in any decade in our nation's history including the very large Decades of immigrants that we all think about in 1890 to 1910 you sort of think about that as the classic time of massive immigration. That's Ellis Island and so on well in this last year in absolute terms in the last decade in absolute terms more people came into the United States. Now, there are tremendous advantages to that coming into the United States where people have enormous energy and talent and vigor and bringing kind of new life and new thought we are a nation a nation of immigrants always have been and continue to welcome that the other side of the coin. Of course Gary is the fact that many people feel that our political and Economic Institutions are being taxed very severely, you know by the flow. Of immigrants that can't be handled anymore. And if you look at Southern California or look at some parts of Texas and some parts of Florida, you have institutions that are pressed Los Angeles is now teaching I think and fifty seven languages or something like that and then it's enormously expensive to do so and the people who were in Los Angeles many of them feeling that the opportunities that their kids have are being squeezed out by the tide of immigrants coming in. So I think that we are going to have to be very careful in this Administration is addressing a Janet Reno who's in a justice department is responsible for administration immigration laws, and she just very recently came out with a major statement in a set of proposals on how we reform and streamline our immigration laws so that they're more Equitable both to people who are legally entering the country and to people who are already here. But do you think at some point somebody is going to say look you can't have as many kids as you used to have because we have to allow so many people to immigrate or vice versa Sir, we have to cut our immigration substantially so that the people who are here already can continue to have two three kids. Well, I don't think anybody ever wants to get into position the government saying you can or you can't have so many kids. I think I'm more importantly we want to provide two women and two families the education and the ability to make those decisions for themselves. If we it's very well understood I think in most of the United States and in Europe and in Japan, for example of that as the status of women has gone up as women have more economic and social opportunities political opportunities that woman's status in the society increases and women will have as a prop as a general proposition will tend to have fewer children and that all comes along together with education and status and empowerment and health care and child survival all of those get hooked together. So I think that a sound policy related to population in the United States and around the world is certainly to focus very very Intensively on the status of women that that is directly related to the size of population growth and if women if with the status of women increases population tends to level off back to the phones and other callers on the line with a question for under Secretary of State Timothy worth. Hello. (00:15:17) Hi, my name is John. I'm calling from Minneapolis. I am glad to hear that you commented on this issue. I wanted to mention already, but I guess I wanted to underscore it seems like so often when population problems are discussed in the general public or even in the media. Sometimes the focus so often seems to be on economics, which most people I think read as as money as opposed to natural resources. And as you mentioned biodiversity degradation that sort of thing and I wonder if you could comment on how that that focus seems to be missed by so many people so often and you know, someone says as a large family, well gee I can afford it. You know, I have the money But as you mentioned that the amount of resource consumption in this country relative to people in third world countries and so on so forth. It makes an enormous (00:16:07) difference. That's interesting John do note the history of this development and as the world is thought about it. The United Nations has hosted a number of conferences and say 20 years ago in 1974 at the world population conference. The general conclusions of that conference was that the way to stabilize world population was Economic Development, and that was the sort of the formula that the world agreed agreed with what we now know that populations are growing much much faster than economies are growing and that if you just let those two curves go out the gap between the population growth curve and the economic growth curve are never going to meet unless you do some other things. So the world's learned a lot since then in 1984 the world population conference in Mexico City. The position of the United States of America was population was a neutral Factor. As it relates to all of our other concerns around the world. Well, I think that was done partly by you know, the then very conservative Administration for political purposes was to say it was a noodle factors that they didn't want to talk about it and you know, that was a choice that they made well and now we're in 1994 with the new Administration which is you know, very openly and honestly facing the fact that population has a direct relationship to the environment. It has a direct relationship to our ability to sustain life on the globe. It has a direct relationship to our aspirations for individuals and that if we are going to be serious about all those other goals, which are making sure we maintain wetlands and biodiversity and the Very base of Life, which we must do that if we're going to be serious about that. We have two very seriously address the issue of the stabilization world population. So the answer to your question, which really had the Assumption in it your question did is that of course the two are very very closely linked and Have to address all of these carefully together President Clinton has done. So he was the first president ever to address the world on the issue of population. When he did at the United Nations General Assembly last fall he talked about population and the importance of population and sustainable development the direction of this Administration and redoing our foreign assistance program. Our aid program is to focus on foreign assistance as sustainability democracy and economic growth. Those are the those are the goals of what we're trying to do now in this new foreign assistance program. And you know, of course the interest of Al Gore and the set of issues if you read his wonderful book Earth and balance, I mean in that is a very clear analysis of the relationships between population growth the growth of greenhouse forcing gases, the diminution of wetlands that diminution of Wildlife and a growing threat to biodiversity back to the phone's not a There's on the line with a question for Timothy worth. (00:19:02) Hello. Hello, mr. Worth I agree completely with you that the status of women is integral to the whole equation of getting a handle on population growth as a Peace Corps volunteer. I saw firsthand that as long as women are chattel treated as property that the chance of any kind of empowerment around issues of reproduction are slim and none. The question is though it seems to me how can the status of women which is largely a cultural and religious question be empowered by the North and in other words, how can we help orchestrate that that growth and equal rights that the state department just released was his so sadly missing. It's more of a cultural shift now which legs behind the demographic explosion that we're looking at and secondly, how is our current development assistance being targeted selectively to reach women's groups, which has been a problem. For a ID in the past and I'd like to hang on and hear your (00:20:04) response. Where were you a Peace Corps volunteer in Belize you were good for you good for you as it is now a popular program, as you know that has a tremendous Resurgence of Interest all across the United States of people wanting to Be Peace Corps volunteer is it's really terrific good for you on the clearly United States or the North or the donor groups are not going to be able to tell countries what to do, you know, they have to make that decision themselves and it's very interesting say to look at large Muslim countries. I think two of the three largest Muslim countries in the world are in Tunisia and Egypt in which you would not expect to have women-centered population programs being front and center given what we're are sort of our traditional thinking about what a Muslim culture is, but just contrary to that both of those governments have a worked very very carefully at the Village level at the Grassroots level. Attempting to do everything that they can to educate young women not only to enroll them in school, but to graduate them from school and finding out that if they do so the multiple benefits for them in that country are very significant. The child survival levels go up very sharply economic development in those communities goes up very sharply Environmental Protection increases very dramatically. The education of women is perhaps as important a variable is anything that we can do in the in the development process now you might have a lot of a ID experts sitting around Washington the state department saying that's true, but that doesn't mean anything unless those countries themselves want to implement programs like that and we are now finding great numbers of programs coming in and wanting to form Partnerships with the United States with the Japanese who are newly engaged in this in a very significant way the Europeans and so on and Bangladesh is another good example. We talked about Bangladesh earlier. A dreadful population problems there with that government is now committing very very significant resources to the education of women and to the the using women as the major Catalyst for economic development. So it's extraordinary encouraging so what our role in the United States and the role of the north and developing countries is not to tell people what to do but to say, you know, we think that we would be like to be in a partnership with you. This is our future in your future together and we will do everything we can to help if you decide, you know to undertake these projects and increasing numbers of countries are it's really a different world out there at another nice thing about this which you'll understand from your Peace Corps volunteer experience and you know, obviously you're thoughtful question is that we are moving slowly but surely away from sort of the stylus the stale old rhetoric of the of the 80s and 70s and 60s of the conflict between North and South Rich poor the new economic order and all of that sort of thing. To an understanding that we have a very desperate situation ahead of us all of us together on this small and fragile planet and these countries who are making these kinds of major efforts. We can help them with very small investments from the United States of America. But which Investments are going to pay off very handsomely for our children grandchildren and great-grandchildren in terms of the economic development of the world, which is very much in our own backyard relationship to trade and the growing importance of our involvement economically around the world to a Salvation of a planet ecologically and to political stability and look at the Roaring numbers of people in the Middle East saying very unstable situations Algeria being the most recent example of great numbers of young people with no hope whatsoever. That's a recipe for political instability and that in turn is a recipe for I think a diminution are a challenge to all of the values that I think most of us would like to share an answer your question. (00:23:59) Foreign assistance as we speak. There's an effort in the Congress to cut a hundred and sixty million dollars from development assistance from the DEA account partly to finance the Quake relief in California, but also partly to shift some monies to the military account. How do we get foreign assistance that really works a priority in the Public's (00:24:17) mind we have presented to the Clinton Administration is presented to the Congress a significant rewrite of the traditional foreign assistance legislation to move us away from its old sort of Cold War model, you know used to be during the Cold War that you know, we call it foreign assistance, but effectively if you were a good guy and you were siding with us, you know, we gave you foreign assistance and you based our f-16s there or we could use your ports or whatever. I mean, it was a very close relationship between close correlation between a foreign assistance and where various countries were on the Cold War Spectrum. That's all over now and we're redoing foreign assistance to focus on these new priorities we were talking about Earlier which population stabilization sustainable development democracy Economic Development and trade. These are the new priorities of foreign assistance. We will be working to get that legislation through the Congress. We've had a very good response from the Congress. There are still those who you know don't recognize the fact that we are a global partner and that much of our future is going to be dependent upon our ability to trade around the world and that Investments that we make are going to pay off for us in the long run. There's still some who don't see that but you know, most people know that the Cold War is Over and that these new kinds of global Partnerships have to be developed by the United States and will be how much effort are we prepared to make how much pressure are we prepared to bring to bear on countries that don't see this issue our way in terms of trade in terms of foreign aid and so on. Well, our number of Lee's on him pretty hard there a number of examples now, we're in the midst of a very very testy period with the Japanese who are Partners in so many ways, but who on trade Of really been enormously selfish about the way in which they were Partners to the World on trade running up these enormous data surpluses in Japan at the expense of everybody else in the world. Well, that's not the way in which you can be a partner to everybody else. The Prime Minister of Japan is coming to Washington late this week and he and the president will have I suspect some very very blunt and honest sessions one to the other about this trade relationship. So that's one example another example sort of at the other end of the spectrum but right across the water is the China example in which the United States is embarked upon very significant trade relationships with China, but we have told the Chinese that we're not going to continue these unless they dramatically reform their perform their performance in the human rights area the abuses of human rights in China have been Legion and we have made it very clear to them through the Congress in particular who has been even more out front on this issue over the years than have the Thracians although the Congress and the white house now are in sync that if the Chinese do not dramatically increase their performance on human rights and the you no respect for individuals and so on that the United States will withdraw most favored nation status, which gives the Chinese very the same trading benefits that other nations in the world have so those are sort of two extremes on the one hand working very hard with the Chinese on human rights working very hard with the Japanese on trade trade is we're engaged in trade all over the world and it's becoming a centerpiece of our foreign policy many ways one can say that say the Cold War drove our foreign policy for 40 years and you might say over the next 40 years that trade the environment will drive our foreign policy now the callers on the line with a question for under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Timothy worth this in preparation for a town meeting at the Humphrey Center at the University of Minnesota tomorrow. All tomorrow morning and you're welcome to stop by 8:30 to noon tomorrow. And of course in September, there's a big Global conference in Cairo. And all of this information gathering is directed toward that conference when new population policies will be worked out callers on the line with a question for secretary worth. Hi. (00:28:20) Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Howard. I'm from Rochester calling. I don't think that your guest is quite accurate in his opening remarks dealing with Somalia. If you read if people had done some homework prior to Somalia prior to what was happening that we saw these Dreadful pictures on our television screens each night in the newspaper about the starvation of death. You will realize that that war had nothing to do with population. It was a war in which a Government tried to wage war against their own people over religious matters Muslim versus Muslim Clan also Muslim versus Christians. And they use starvation as a weapon and unfortunately environmentalists around the world sometimes grab onto these Dreadful picture Dreadful themes of individuals dying like this and say look what overpopulation is doing. Look what environmental degradation is doing when really it's not popular overpopulation and environmental degradation has nothing to do with it. It has a lot to do with governments oppressing in Peru and Waging War against their own people. I think two books that people should read and try to get a clear understanding of some of the manipulation that goes on in the environmental movement was written by the former governor of the state of Washington Dixie Lee Ray who unfortunately just passed away. She wrote a book in the 1990 dealing with trashing the planet and also in 1993 with environmental Overkill in dealing with the manipulation of facts and figures and projections concerning the environmental movement in the world today. And I I'm listening to your guess how eloquent he is. But again it just if you take away the snake oil, he's a government bureaucrat coming to say I'm here to help you solve your problems. If I think the government keep their nose out of Family Planning let people free enterprise rise to the level it can in any country around the world people will make their own decisions on what's best for them and their families secretary work. (00:30:25) Well, I think Howard would probably not listening very carefully at the start. I never suggested that Somalia is problems were a function of population and environment. We had none of that discussion. I only thing I was using was the numbers point out that 300,000 people died in Somalia of starvation and that that was made up by the world of growth in population in 25-hour 29 hours. The purpose of that was only to give a sense of the magnitude of population growth around the world. There's no question about the fact that they this extraordinary set of Problems in Somalia as a result in very large part of very very bad governments and individuals going after each other, you know some of that a creature of the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union, you know fighting in the Horn of Africa and having client states there the spread of weapons there the degradation of that very very rapidly in the loss of the basic culture hours exactly right about that. It also has to do with Wallace was all going on. A lot of traditional agricultural practices were lost people were driven off the land and there was a a then a resultant major environmental problem that occurred related to individuals being able to feed themselves and the loss of prime agricultural lands the degradation of water resources and so on so these things all do fit together for anybody to assume that politics alone drives all of these issues I think is very naive any politics is wound up with results. They have impacts what we do how we organize ourselves. Politically how governments organize themselves how governments behave have an enormous amount to do with what happens to people and so I think that much of what Howard has to say is correct about that I would go on and say that I think that governments do have a very significant obligation to educate people Howard might not agree with that but I think that you know, we have a responsibility to make sure that people are educated that's a commitment that we've had in the United States as other countries in the world recognize that commitment and need you know there and that is very important to our future and to the stability of the world long-term. So we want to help in that very process of the education of women, isn't there isn't there a very fine line though between education and coercion of koreas lapses and and if not official government coercion, then the creation of a kind of social atmosphere where for example in this country or somewhere else somebody chooses to have three children. And their neighbors come down on him because you can't have more than two. You shouldn't have more than two. That's irresponsible. And it seems to me there's a there's a real potential here for coercion. And of course there is in the United States is position is very clearly Gary that we are very critical. Of course, he family practices wherever Family Planning practices wherever they exist around the world and it is our belief that Family Planning programs work when women are educated and when women have the are able to make the choices for themselves. I think the fellow was the Peace Corps volunteer from Belize talked about that and talked about, you know, women having the ability to make those choices, you know, if women can do that and have an impact on the choices of the number of children that they have and the size of their families that as that happens women will tend to have fewer children if they believe that their children are going to survive if they believe that you know, they have six kids and five aren't going to die. You know if they have a sense that their children are going to live they're going to have fewer children, you know, if you look ahead down the line that's a very natural human instinct and to have children is also one of the most wonderful things that anybody can do so, you know to move away from course of practices We Believe very strongly we ought to be doing we don't support any of those around the world and what we do believe is in the choice of giving women and families choices. Let's take another caller with a question. Hello. Go (00:34:25) ahead. Yes. I'd like to address the coercion from the other side. How do you plan to counteract these Messianic religions who teach against contraceptives such as a Roman Catholic church. So as we eventually convert themselves from a into a majority political majority status. (00:34:43) Well, I don't think that I don't know of any of any major Church groups around the world who are advocating that kind of propagation for the purposes of turning themselves into majority that certainly is not the root of the Catholic religion nor has it ever been the Catholic church has you know, as is moving I think in a very subtle but real Direction and understanding that there are long term, you know, 2,000 year-old commitment to individual rights and 2000 year old commitment to the poor and opportunities for individuals. I mean the route the humanitarian idealism of the Catholic church is very very deeply rooted and very much. Part of our civilization and now that comes into conflict and I think that that's coming to be recognized now as numbers of people are growing so rapidly that the goals and the fundamentals of the Catholic Church those very rich and real ideals cannot be met with this overwhelming numbers of people and you know children growing up with no opportunities whatsoever. The reconciliation of those two are is now going we're beginning to see that happening. It is has happened in many Muslim religions Muslim countries around the world among many major Muslim groups around the country have come to that understanding and awareness and that's a wonderful thing. I think that you know, those those religious groups so much a part of the fabric of those societies reconciling their historic positions with sort of the idealism and the humanity that is at the root of so much of what they believe in other callers on the line with a question for under Secretary of State to Timothy worth. Hello. (00:36:23) Hi, I have a question about population vis-à-vis standard of living. I understand that the United States as a standard of living which is lower than Scandinavian countries and I'm wondering how standard of living and population growth rate in Iceland Norway and Sweden Compares with that of our own. Thank you. (00:36:47) I don't know. I haven't seen recent figures and I don't know if the standard of living of the Scandinavian countries is higher than that of the average individual in the United States. I think the on some measurements the Germans were at some point higher and on some measurements the Japanese were higher but I think there are other measures which is access to education as well as housing. Their quality of life is their quality of life measures in the United States, which are you know, significantly better than other countries, but leaving that aside, you know Waller is a high standard of living. I think one of the models of the The Navy ins is that they have there is a lower impact Society than ours is the United States for example uses twice as much energy for a unit of gross national product as does do the Germans or the Japanese. In other words. We are very wasteful of energy and you know, we can and know we can do a much better job of that to move ourselves toward a sustainable pattern. The United States has been in the past wasteful of water and land resources and we see ourselves now transforming that with a major commitment of the preservation of wetlands and a major understanding that our water practices have to change we saw that the middle west is last summer, you know, a lot of the practices used in terms of the control of rivers and various farming practices and so on were were were the wrong thing to do we recognizing that and changing our way. So what we're doing I think is why we have a very high standard of living in the United States, you know, we are learning from other countries and learning from mistakes that we've made. How to alter that and to reach toward again the goal we were talking about earlier which is the goal of sustainable development. How can we meet the needs of today without taking away from the needs of future Generations back to the phone other callers on the line? (00:38:39) Hello. Yes Ambassador worth. Yes. Thank you very much for coming to Minnesota and helping us to raise awareness about this critical issue. My name is David packs and I'm president of world population balance, which is a population-based population Ed organization based here in the Twin Cities. One of the newest members of our Advisory Board is dr. Tom Hale. He's an Evangelical medical missionary in Nepal since 1970 and although he's totally opposed to things like forced sterilization abortion. He strongly in favor of family planning in population balance and here are some of the things that he shared with with us over the last few months. He says that the greatest secular problem in the developing world is too many people for example in Nepal. They've completely run out of land there their farming land. It's only three feet. I'd on mountainsides with a 10 foot cliff to the next three foot Terrace. It's landed is eroding tremendously fast. So that the ability to continue to grow food is decreasing at the very same time that their population is right now doubling every 25 years. He says people in Nepal are fleeing to places like Calcutta in order to find a try to find a better life. My question is what can be done in the United States to raise greater awareness among a broader spectrum of the public about these kinds of realities of the population (00:39:56) issue. I think it's a good question David. This is happening a lot of ways. For example a public hearing we're having a mile is one of a series that are sponsored by the US Network for Cairo, which is a group of citizen groups who are holding hearings all across the country of asked me to come and be part of this tomorrow and they're having a number of these there are increasing efforts in the media to look at this. If you have looked at the most recent issue of the Atlantic Monthly. The cover Story the Atlantic Monthly on the 21st century is something that all of your listeners Gary ought to read. I mean, it's a really stunning and quite telling analysis as to what the 21st century is going to look like with all of the new issues of population growth and environmental degradation terrorism and narcotics linked together and what that could mean for us in the 21st century and suggest what we ought to be doing now is David's question points out other efforts being made David the Turner Broadcasting Ted Turner, you know runs that enormous Empire is deeply committed to these issues and you know has for a number of years been running specials and programs on it. And I think that you know, he's always been a Visionary in that world and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the other new networks starting to do that as well or hoping to see ABC NBC CBS, you know start to focus on this some more the example of Kyra of Rio was very helpful. I think it alerted Americans to the Global Environmental crisis. This takes time, but I think increasing numbers of Americans are very concerned about it and they reflected that in the 1992 election. There's does a final word. If I might on that Gary, you know that I think most political observers going into 1992 would have suggested that Desert Storm and the success the United States and in Saudi Arabia Kuwait Iraq would have been a major determinant of the 1992 election. It turned out that Desert Storm didn't change anybody's mind. You know other people were going to vote for George Bush voted for George Bush and people were going to vote for the Democrats voted for the Democrats of the undecided left in that race. The two largest groups that were determinants of that undecided group were so-called environmentalists and young people environmentalist, excuse me are not just Sierra clubbers environmentalists are for the most part very middle-class very Suburban their Garden Club of America League of Women Voters kinds of people for the most part. They voted overwhelmingly. Ming Lee for Clinton and Gore and base that on their perception is to who would best address the set of issues particularly coming out of Rio and the second with young people in 1992 voted overwhelmingly for the clinton-gore ticket and analyses afterwards pointed out that Rio was the event that kind of catalyzed their thinking so it's interesting to look at you know, how is the American people? How are the American people moving and changing just that analysis of what were the events in 1992 which people can point to which were real determinants and changing Behavior or suggesting to people how they should vote in 1992 and Rio the conference in Rio the Earth Summit the perceived inability of the Bush Administration to deal with those issues to face them directly the problems that George Bush had reconciling his early position on population with the right wing of the Republican party all of these tangled up that part of the election and we're very important. The determination of that later on is not a political commercial but rather just to say that the American public is thinking about these things in a different way and more broadly than it ever has before I think I was going to say not to belabor this but you're not suggesting that the environmental considerations played a bigger part than the economy in the election. No, no, no. No it seemed but among the determining for yes, but among the end among the undecided voters to among that group of 20% to very crucial groups pointed to Rio and the environmental issues as a very major determinant in the way in which they voted and nobody mentioned Desert Storm didn't make any difference. But of course the economy was important and of course Desert Storm was important to some people already but in terms of the group is who made a difference in how was the election eventually came out, you know, this is a change in the way Americans looked at looked at the choices. They had to make in that election snack another caller with a question for chemically worth. (00:44:22) Hello. Yes. Hello. I understand you're here to get some ideas on how to go to a conference in (00:44:30) kayaks. (00:44:32) I have some ideas on the causes of population and perhaps the curbing of some of these causes could bring population down. And these there are three events and practices. That one is the Industrial Revolution which encouraged the use of coal and oil and one another is Green Revolution, which also include include included intensive monoculture farming with for chemical fertilizers hybrids and over-watering and the other is Corporate greed that wants to increase and expand consumption globally and I get your comments on that. (00:45:26) Well, I'm not I'm not sure I really understand the relationship between all of these but let me try sort of extrapolate on that first on the Industrial Revolution. It's interesting to note that those countries that are the most industrialized or the most advanced in terms of their economies also, And have the lowest birth rates, you know, and then if you add to that also some of the religious over looking at say Spain and Italy the most Catholic countries in the world also have two of the lowest birth rates in the world and these are countries with a very high standard of living. So, you know, the Industrial Revolution bought a norm is fruits and it also brought the ability of these countries to educate, you know, their populations to educate the women in those populations. You are very high correlation between development and the education of women and that also as we were talking earlier relates to population, so there's a thing there's a very positive correlation of that problem. Of course is that development is not a news not occurring around the world as fast as population growth and that's the rub is we were talking earlier. Those curves are departing rather than coming together. The Green Revolution was a wonderful thing in the 60s and 70s and allowing the world to feed the last great huge bear. Soldier population and now that the Green Revolution is over. We're not going to have more Green Revolution by most analyses. We've reached the saturation point we're going to have a devilishly difficult time of feeding this burgeoning population on the globe a very very we're going to have to move I believe very rapidly toward much greater biotechnology. And you know, that's going to be the great hope if we are going to feed not only the people in the world today who go to bed hungry every night or starving to death and that's a third of the world's population approximately but all the new mouse coming into the world. So for the Green Revolution will be followed by biotechnology Revolution. Some will be critical of that some already are but it's absolutely imperative when you look at how we're going to feed the world. So these things have cut both ways and long-term. I think our responsibility again continues to develop a program around the world where we can respond to countries who want to focus On the population question who would come and ask for our help in the education of women and the development of Family Planning services so that everybody in the world has access to them we have time for at least one more caller. Maybe you're too (00:47:56) high. Yes. This is less. I've worked over a decade in Africa and I was happy to hear that. We're going to see a refocusing of foreign assistance towards sustainable development population control, but I'm concerned that maybe those aren't really the priorities total foreign assistance budget has gone down or stayed steady and within that budget we've seen a major reallocation to Eastern Europe and a protection of all funds going to the Middle East. So I'm wondering what does that really leave for a third world development relative to the priorities that were stating and sustainable development. How can we do that on a greatly reduced budget? (00:48:39) It's very difficult. You're absolutely correct that we are sustaining an effort to Central and Eastern Europe and Russia and we are maintaining our commitments and the Middle East to Egypt and Israel and that long-term peace process there which has been one of the you know, the great successes of modern diplomacy and continues that to this day. The president has been very determined in making sure that we are developing the resources in the area of population to reach this goal at most people in the world talk about of making sure that all women have access to family planning services and so the budgets for for population have in fact gone up and have been one of the few winners overall in the budget as this is the most important long-term investment that we can make the rest of the a ID budget is troubled and it's difficult. We're trying to move funds as you know from the traditional AI. Approaches of the old Economic Development kind of major infrastructure projects and from its relationship to the Cold War and rewarding our friends so that those resources are now more carefully targeted to sustainable development to the building of democratic institutions and to population stabilization. So we think we can do a lot better with the existing money's clearly budgets are going down. We've had a terrible terrible time with the enormous deficit run up over the last 12 years and you know, there are competing and competing goals of Bringing Down the deficit and the current Administration. The President Clinton has been very Fierce on that subject. We've got to prove that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can put pressure on these budgets and bring them down and at the same time keep the very highest priority programs in the lights and profiled so that we're paying attention to them and one of those is clearly population stabilization. We are just about out of time. I I (00:50:39) have to ask you though before (00:50:40) you go here secretary worth. This is the going to be the third un conference when actually I think it's the fourth there was one there were some tentative efforts on this front the Rockefeller Foundation really started all of these population efforts are most of them in the 50s and there was a population there were some preliminary population discussions in the 50s and then a but then there's been one I think every ten years since there were 64 7480 for a now 94. Are you confident to very briefly are you confident that that this conference in Cairo is going to result in some meaningful or we have tangible actions of our also gobbledygook that nobody there is always a lot of diplomatic gobbledygook sessions. I know I'm learning all about I'm new to this a department is wonderful in it, but there will be some very tangible efforts. I think the two things that are most important are one the development of this new partnership between north and south and which they developing countries the ones who want population or coming in asking for help. Second this broad definition of Family Planning that it includes very much the empowerment of women. Thanks so much for coming by a nice to be here. Thanks. Josh are appreciated under Secretary of State for Global Affairs. Timothy worth now secretary worth will be at the town meeting tomorrow 8:00 to noon tomorrow at the Humphrey Center at the University of Minnesota to discuss world population issues sustainable development, and you're invited to attend that's eight noon tomorrow at the Humphrey Center at the University of Minnesota.