overpopulation
Overpopulation and the environment are the most pressing issues I can imagine. The link talks about the fact we have reached beyond our level of sustainability and in some of our lives will see the population drop. Starvation and lack of clean water will force us to be responsible to the earth. We don't need to worry about free speech if we do not have water..see the State of Tennessee and drought. Is homosexuality good for the environment? Are families bad for the environment? Why do educated and uneducated humans continue to produce too many humans? Or do they? Why do people produce more than their replacement on earth when they know our resources are limited? See the link for more information on the earth.
4 comments:
I was just reading a news story from 2007 when I was searching for something else. The story was about Rwanda's government trying to regulate growth by only allowing each family to have 3 children (the average family now has 6 kids). They figured they could control their population growth which is a serious problem -cut it in half - by having this policy. The problem (obviously) is how do you enforce this? It's really hard to take a side on this because I know that they are terrible over crowded and poor and lack necessities but on the other hand, I think about how I would have felt if someone had told me I could only have 1 child. Then I see families with 5 kids in the store and I always wonder if they really planned to have that many or if they don't believe in birth control or whatever. In this economy, I can't imagine being able to have another child and wonder how so many still manage to have large families but I also don't know how you could tell someone they've reached their limit. Does that fall under the constitutional right of freedom of expression?
Good Question! Perhaps we should have a financial obligation for htose who exceed 2 children. If you can afford the necessities for more than two than it shold not be a burden to contribute more to the society for hte extra resources, if available, they would need to survive. If they cannot provide the basic necessities then they would need others to provide for unnecessary humans to exist. I say unnecessary only in the sense that an overstressed Earth does not need more humans to rape it, kill off species at an unheard of rate, pollute our water and what are we to do with all the garbage and human waste we produce? We were very concerned with htis in the sixties, why are we being politically correct about overpopulation? Look at Easter Island for a look at man's greed and ultimate demise.
I have a friend who doesn't understand the popularity of helping people in third world countries. Our conversation arose from his belief that helping, for example, the medical clinics in Uganda become better equipped with medicine, will eventually lead to there industrialization. He feels that helping third world countries will inevitably bring them to a a state of ultimate waste and greed, such as the U.S. Helping others survive doesn't help the planet survive. I hadn't really thought about it that way, and it seems a little heartless still. The U.S. has so much, and wastes so much, and Uganda has so little. We discussed this for hours, but I kept arriving at the same idea. Can't it just be a little more equal?
This makes me think about Jonathan Swifts "A Modest Proposal" just start eating babies, it'll solve the problem.
Post a Comment