My primary point in writing, however, is to second your comments about Margaret Carlson's mother, Kathryn Sughrue. I served in the Kansas Legislature with Representative Sughrue during the decade of the 80s. She was a tireless worker for education at all levels: K 12, community college, and the university system.

No doubt there are people of Kathryn Sughrue's quality sprinkled throughout your state. The key is to look for people regardless of party affiliation who are of high integrity, who are bright, and who believe in Minnesota. People think being a legislator is a glamorous occupation. The truth is, being a good legislator is a lot of hard work. Kathryn Sughrue was a Democrat in a Republican state. Her district was overwhelmingly Republican, but she was elected seven consecutive times because her constituents found her to be accessible and trustworthy.

I recently moved back to Kansas after living in Minnesota for three years. I was impressed by Minnesota's commitment to its education systems at all levels. It is, however, easy to become complacent with all we do have. I venture to say that no one in the Minnesota Legislature would admit to being unsupportive of higher education. Yet the legislative process is all about setting priorities. There are no doubt people like Kathryn Sughrue who understand that education is the state's number-one responsibility. I wish you success with your efforts to maintain a first-class higher education system.
Bill Brady
Lawrence, Kansas

Population Crash Course
You and I and all our friends are in a planetmobile merrily traveling along at 100 miles per hour, but heading for a cliff. The planetmobile is already exceeding its capabilities and its engine begins to fail. Now we're slowing to 90 miles per hour.

Judging from the magazine's portrayal of ecologist Carl Lehman's presentation ("Growing, but Slowing," November-December), the anxiety we all felt at 100 miles per hour is readily dismissed because we've slowed to 90! Party on!

The United Nations thinks we'll get to a population of only 9.6 billion by 2050; that's down from 10 billion plus or even 12 billion estimated a couple of years, and 150 million people, ago (we're now at a population of 6.1 billion). Consistent with the U.N., Lehman somehow thinks the planet will barely add 400 million people in the following 50 years, with an outside chance of 2 billion, and begin a decline 100 years from now. The presumption is that the planet can sustain its current level while adding at least 50 percent, possibly doubling it, and maintain it all until it reaches and remains at some lower level.

In sharp contrast to the pastel portrait painted by the article's writer, the absolutely staggering message was that the planet has already exceeded its limits not its speed limit but the ability of the planet to sustain human populations. Even if the rate of increase is slowing (there are reasonable explanations for the decline, most of which are being reversed at this time, e.g., in China), as the absolute numbers continue to increase the negative aspects are making their presence known at an even quicker rate. "Rates" are not the problem; it's the numbers. The Four Horsemen are in the saddle and riding!

Notwithstanding the sense of the article, Lehman was describing overshoot and collapse. Unfortunately, he said that the "negative feedback" was fundamentally due to "density," too many riders in the planetmobile rather than its speed and direction. He confused the distribution of populations while his examples involved the precarious sustainability of populations. An important distinction. "Negative feedback" is academic jargon for environmental (social, economic, ecological) forces exceeding the ability of humans to deal with them. That was the message.

Decreasing our rate of speed from 90 to 80 (or even to 50 or 40) miles per hour will slow the approach to the cliff. But unless the planetmobile's level is reduced to a leisurely 25 miles per hour, and its course turned onto a different road, we'll all enjoy the sudden conversion of our planetmobile into a flying machine. Hang on. It'll be a blast 'til it stops.
Dell Eriksson (B.S. 74)
Minneapolis

Protests, Punishment, and Broken Trust
I read with interest Tom Garrison's "In Focus" column in the March-April 2001 issue. I would suggest that the "R & R" ("retrenchment and reallocation") at the University in the 1970s was due not only to the recession in the first few years of the decade, but also to deliberate punitive action taken against the University by the Minnesota Legislature in response to the Morrill Hall takeover in January 1969 and the "student strike" of spring quarter 1970. I was finishing my undergrad career at the time and remember that legislative action against the U deliberately punitive, some legislators said so was fueled by anger from taxpayers at what they regarded as irresponsible, childish antics.

The bond of trust between University and community (or legislature) that was broken 30 years ago has never been fully repaired. The causes of the era have been proven worthy by history. The methods were seen to be questionable at best, and that was what broke the trust.
Robert G. Wirth (B.A. 70)
Minneapolis