Letters to the Editor
-
A Problem Poorly Defined is a Problem Poorly Solved
I'm no Newt fan and find him a pernicious influence in politics. However, I can't blame him any more for the earth's environmental tailspin than most well meaning liberals.
Both sides are trying to solve environmental problems with environmental solutions like recycling or using bio-fuels (both good ideas.) But we're killing biodiversity and raising global temperatures because we're overpopulated with humans and American style consumerism is spreading around the world. We aren't willing to drive less, we just want cheaper, non-polluting fuels! Since American-style conspicuous consumerism, and the wealthy class it generates, rely on increasing populations I don't see these problems getting solved at all, but rather exacerbated.
How we are living is not sustainable. While the reasonable, conserving and "green" lifestyle habits are things we need to do to make it sustainable, they won't make enough difference if there are too many of us, as I think there already are.
The Republicans and Democrats both want lots of money, Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, with Liberty and Justice for All their friends. This makes them both loath to rock the economic boat they and their friends are in, even though it will eventually sink because there are too many in it.
We can never get a real handle on environmental or social problems when we are always off balance trying to accommodate increasing numbers of us. Catch 22: Keeping things off balance with more and more people is where the big money is and that gets votes by promising a cut of the riches to the rest of us.
Bad deal and dumb deal.
Hermit