Maybe the problem could be described as (global destruction) = (global population) X (personal destruction).Where personal destruction includes each individual's acts of consumption and pollution as well as decisions that influence consumption and pollution on a larger scale. Just a thought.
Ehrlich: We're not changing the size of the world population, but we are changing the amount of consumption, and the U.S. is already consuming, in some sense, more than its fair share. Connelly: Then, Paul, why not export the most overconsuming Americans? Ehrlich: That would be a great idea. I think that's what we ought to do, just throw them the hell out.I find it difficult to disagree with this assessment.
I felt that that debate left population control squarely in the hands of women, but was debated only by men. (You will also note that no where in that debate did they mention vasectomies.) I think it's unfair to have a population control debate and not bring one woman to the table.I debate with myself often about whether or not I want to have children/a child. We are, when it comes down to it, animals, and we have basic carnal urges. In that respect those men are absolutely correct about education and birth control. I just don't know how you would ethically try to control the population. Do we ban in vitro fertilization? Do we tell women they can't have children before a certain age and after a certain age? This is such a complex and touchy subject.
If you are the least bit interested in this, check out Buckminster Fuller's inventory of world resources in relation to his dymaxion map. The paper I believe was from the early 1960s.He illustrated his map on a gym floor showing all the continents. Each person represented roughly 100 million people, each box represented resources (food, goods, natural resources etc.) America had 3 people standing with boxes stacked 12 high. Countries like India barely had room enough to stand people in with 1 box for all of them.
As always, education is the key. Education and full employment for both genders. Okay, "keys".
Well Bill Burr has a comedic but nonetheless painfully true take on overpopulation. When they say "its funny because its true..." that could be accurately applied here.http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=183714&title=bill-burr-animal-population
How about we just tell the full-quiver idiots and the rest of the professional breeders (5-baby Palin, I'm looking at you) that after two kids you got to start sacrificing limbs if you want to keep popping them out.
Post a Comment