[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ population as an environmental issue

Enviro-Mich message from Gary Stock <gstock@net-link.net>

WovenWoman wrote:

> Why aren't we talking about Vreba Hoff, Nestle, Liberty 
> Renewable Fuels  etc,  and see what we can do about them?

A lot of us are -- in here, in E-M -- though less so around town.

> The endless blathering about illegal aliens, population 
> controls etc , does nothing but blow hot air and we sure 
> don't need more of that with global warming upon us :)
> If you want to see a change, then be the change.  How many
> kids does everyone have?  Grandkids?  

None -- an entirely conscious choice my wife and I made.  The primary
reason:  it was one of the most significant reductions in our collective
environmental impact that was _entirely_ under our control.

OK, wait.  No, I did not just start a thread about population.

That's not my point.  Knowing what I know, seeing what I see, I wouldn't
want a kid to have to grow up in this world, anyway!  Due respect to any
may feel differently, but unless a particular child will exhibit some
miraculous capability never before seen, I see them contributing to the
"problems" at least as much as to the "solutions."

Otherwise -- given ongoing efforts by quite a few people in this room --
the problems would be solved by now.

> Did anyone spay or neuter them to prevent further increases
> in population?  Probably not.

We went one better -- we give some of their college tuition to pet spay
and neuter programs...

> What did you do to help the environment today?  Go vegan, 
> there is a change you can do right this very instant.  If 
> everyone did, bam, no more Vreba Hoff, its just that easy.

Ask me some day at 05:30.  Since it's after noon, it would take just too
much time to document :-)

> The only thing I have read so far that pointed towards a 
> way to shift things was this comment by John Lowry,and it
> did not directly address population at all:
> > "I'm wondering if this desire can be used to save what's 
> > left, i.e., by making natural areas and ecosystems more 
> > of a status symbol if we can preserve more of our 
> > biodiversity.  Trying to "turn off" the perhaps genetic
> > desire to want something "better" for ourselves and kin
> > may be fruitless.  

True, given the lack of moral and intellectual capacity in the average
citizen.  JuJitsu for social change...

> > I'm guessing that the different value 
> > system of pre-European-invasion Americans ("native Americans")
> > placed a higher value on this - but the value was real 
> > and not driven by ascetisicm.  If a marauding tribe tried
> > to take away another tribe's access to high quality 
> > lands, the dispute would have been real.
> Getting the media to work towards that end would be great. 
> Imagine commercials/tv shows/magazines/news commentators/newspapers
> showing your favorite stars/high power persons/political figures/
> shunning dairy because of the lagoons of crap they create.

Recent emphasis on third-world adoptions recently may be an example. 
Any beneficial effect may get bollixed up by passing through the media
gut, but it's better than nothing.

America's typical conservation threshold:  "Better than nothing" :-)

Gary Stock                                        gstock@unblinking.com
UnBlinking                                   http://www.unblinking.com/
Googlewhack                                 http://www.googlewhack.com/

     The best proof for a claim that terrorists are crazy or evil
     would be to acknowledge that the White House is full of them

ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"