This word gets a lot of press lately. It’s become a political platform, a raison de’tere for books, magazines, television shows, etc. But what does it mean?
Generally it implies the idea of modifying our current culture in such a way that it might not depend on fast depleting natural resources, might not produce such gratuitous waste, and might not destroy the environment in ever increasing ways. But generally, it also means to modify our culture as little as possible to reach these goals, to keep the status quo as much as possible.
As of July 1, 2008 the world human population was 6,706,993,000, with every sign indicating its steady rise will continue.
Can this number of human beings be sustainable with the status quo that we currently live by? Under any circumstances, can this population, and its continued rise, be sustainable?
When we speak of building factories which produce one third the waste, or cars which produce one tenth the pollution, or products which last twice as long, are we not just indulging our own egos? Soothing our own consciences?
If we truly mean to embrace the idea of sustainability, we must recognize that its biggest stumbling block is our tremendous population. The only numbers, the only fractional decreases, we should be concerned with are those concerning the number of living, breathing, consuming, waste creating human beings.
Imagine a world with one tenth, one twentieth, one hundredth the current population, and imagine how easy it would be to sustain this current “standard of living,” and to increase it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"6,706,993,000" great gods. Enough breeding already!
ReplyDeleteSo this leads me to ask, should "we" limit/control the "reproductive rights" of our global population? How would we do that? Do we have the right as they do in China mandate "responsible reproduction?"
Humm, the government loves to regulate everything, perhaps some type of "stipend" for those who adhere to a ZERO population concept. Did that make sense?
Food for thought young Daniel!
Thanks!
I've actually given lots of thought to the "do we have the right?" question, and I've ultimately decided that no, we do not have the "right," but if it is necessary, it must be so. I admit, who am I to say it is necessary, but with an examination of the facts, I think that any rational person would agree.
ReplyDeleteI generally believe that no one should ever be prevented form any action, so long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others, but in this case, our over-reproduction DOES infringe on the freedoms of others. Very much so, and so actions must be taken.
Some suggestions would be, free abortions, free birth control, free vasectomies and tubal ligations, incentives for suicide, dis-incentives for multiple children (as opposed to the tax breaks that we currently give for over-reproduction in the U.S.), and possibly even forced sterility drugs.
Possibly a lottery where one our of every hundred people worldwide is chosen at random to remain fertile, while the others are made sterile. I believe that drastic measures are needed, but it would be incredibly difficult for people to accept.