Here's a conservation tip: Stop population growth Other Topics, posted by Jackie Leonard-Dimmick, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on May 2, 2007 at 10:44 am
Yes, Charles Marsala is right. It is "time to get off the CO2 habit," as he expressed in last week's guest opinion.
We each express "conservation" in different ways. Even with "Earth Day" though, there still is one area of "conservation" and acting responsibly to the environment that receives little attention: over-population. Mr. Marsala stated, "The earth's population has grown from 1.8 billion in 1900 to 6.5 billion today." What uses natural resources? What pollutes? People!
Excessive reproduction is as harmful to our planet as excessive consumption. Even with wars, famine, disease and disasters the population continues to explode. It doesn't have to. There are as many ways to express the qualities of "motherhood" and "fatherhood" without having children, as there are children who are in need of these qualities.
Couples world-wide could consider having one child -- two at most -- then opening their arms to those who are starving for attention and love. It is just as important to address this issue for a healthy planet as it is to address those that are continually being addressed.
(The above was published as a letter to the editor in the Almanac's May 2 print edition.)
Posted by Sacred cow killer, a resident of another community, on May 2, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I'm doing my part! By taking some pets from the animal shelter instead of kids we're easily out-conserving anyone with even one child. Limiting your fertility is the greenest possible thing you can do by far. All the recycling and solar panels and hybrids and compact fluorescents and bicycling and telecommuting and vegan/vegetarianism and eating locally and whatever else humans might think to do to cut their CO2/warming/environmental impact on this earth cannot even come close to offsetting the impact of putting another human or two onto this earth. Think of it, each new human not only has a HUGE direct impact, but most of them wind up creating more humans. It's like cancerous cells throwing off toxins as they replicate unchecked and spread all over the face of the earth. Having big families is a far worse environmental tragedy than, say, those who choose to living wastefully and large in a big house with a fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs in the garage.
But this kind of talk is heresy. Almost no environmentalists or environmental groups dares focus on this. Look at the Sierra Club! They practically had an internal meltdown over fear/unwillingness to take a position on population & immigration. It's too politically hot! Political correctness, cowardice and religion may yet (or already) have doomed mankind.
Posted by SettingTheRecordStraight, a resident of another community, on May 2, 2007 at 11:30 pm
The Sierra Club "debate" was over US immigration policies, NOT global overpopulation. That's a crucial distinction.
And the "debate" itself came about because a bunch of outsiders saw a way that they thought they could exploit to essentially take over the org and focus it on the immigration issue. Didn't work, but it did take away from the Club's ability to work on the global warming issue as it had to spend a lot of energy fighting the takeover attempt. As such, some believe that the whole thing was a deliberate attempt by the right-wing to cripple the Club.