"With 60 million people already living in one of the most densely populated countries in the world, the journal said, British couples should aim to have no more than two children as part of their contribution to worldwide efforts to reduce carbon emissions, stem climate change and ease demands on the world's resources." (Read whole Chicago Tribune article here.)
I say, "Just kill some termites".
2 comments:
So are people just supposed to reproduce as much as possible? Is there any room for quality of life in the religious view or is it purely a quantity thing?
Global warming stuff aside, this island is prettey densely packed anyway. I don't think our infrastructure can sustain a a few more tens of millions of people.
I don't "hate humanity", i fear overpopulation is going to cause big problems *for* humanity.
Couples should not, I think, procreate as much as possible. Rather, I think, they should procreate as much as they desire, being cognizant of the responsibilities of parenthood.
Stoo, are you in Great Britain? I won't presume to tell you how your country should be run. But I know this is true in my country: There are vast unpopulated areas. Even our poplated areas resemble forests. A couple of days a go I ascended "the hill" which rises from the floor of Silicon Valley, in the middle of the city of San Jose (pop:974,000). Except for two areas of dense skyscrapers, all I saw around me were trees. The city sits under a foret of trees. The most remarkable thing about it is that 1n the late 18th Century, when the Spanish first arrived here, there were almost no trees in the valley, it was grass land. I have often been a critic of San Jose for its sprawling nature, but after having seen it from above I have to admire the way people have turned the valley floor into a forest. I can only presume this kind of populated forest is more common in the Eastern US, where there is much much much more fresh water.
As for quality of life, well, I think everyone has a right to whatever they can honestly come by. But as far a posessions, I think all anyone really has a right to is his own skin and its contents. Everything else is gained by work or boon, if gained honestly. I certainly don't think anyone has a right to any material goods. But that is John Locke, not Jesus. Jesus doesn't talk much about rights. Instead, he talks about the responsibility to love our neighbors and take care of them. So, while I don't think anyone has a right to food they didn't earn, I, as a follower of Jesus (I'm sorry, I know that sounds pretentious) am required by him to give food to the hungry.
I think ways of life change as populations change. I am not convinced that industrial age urban living is better or worse than iron age pastoral living. I suggest that those who want to live around fewer people move to Alaska, New Zeland, or Australia.
Post a Comment