Letters to the Editor
-
Dear anonymous above...
You win a free sterilization!
That was by far the stupidest thing I have ever read in the letters to the editor section of Salon.
-
Imagine the world without the Devil
From nonhuman animals' perspective, a world without human beings would be like ridding themselves of the Devil.
We conduct hideous and grotesque experiments on animals in laboratories. We keep them caged their entire lives. We keep them confined in filthy factories their entire lives before brutally killing them. We torture them for kicks. We kill them for kicks. We sacrifice them to our gods. We kill them for unnecessary trinkets made from their body parts, like ivory or fur, or alleged aphrodisiacs from their horns or organs. We poison them. We burn them. We drown them in cages or sacks. We fence off their water, we kill them to make room for cattle, which we then kill, and we deny them the habitat they need to live. We've been doing for thousands and thousands of years.
But we love our pets. Except for the excess ones who suffer and die in the streets and shelters because we neglected to spay or neuter them, or we simply got bored with them.
The world without us would be a pity for us, but a blessing for them.
-
Related Book
George Stewart's Earth Abides does a really good job at describing the earth after a flu has wiped out almost the entire population of the planet.
-
Destroy the Earth
Here you go. Some here were complaining that we're talking about humanity's destruction and that the Earth will go on happily without us. Here's 10 ways to destroy the Earth itself:
http://www.livescience.com/technology/destroy_earth_mp-1.html
-
Chernobyl - An Classic Example of the Author's Premise
SciFi or not, it's a fascinating idea to wonder how the world will look if humanity disappears suddenly. But we can see to a limited extent how it will look if we visit the area surrounding Chernobyl, site of the nuclear meltdown in 1986.
People had to suddenly evacuate the area, and we can see how things have changed since 1986. You can view pictures at http://www.kiddofspeed.com/. It's very spooky, and it could happen here.
-
boggled
I agree that the main solution to the world's woes is reducing the population curve. It is quite true that the higher the standard of living of a populace, the lower its birth rate, which creates the paradox of having to supply the ressources to meet said higher standard.
But even in the poorer countries of Africa the UN has clearly demonstrated there is a direct corelation between the education young women receive and the number of children they will have, economic backgrounds confounded.
Reading the later letters, I find it mind-boggling that we are, even subconsciously, trying to keep our nations' population high to be able to 'stand up' to our 'enemy nations'. Would there be a better proof of superiority than living well, with higher standards of living, longer healthier years, in fewer numbers?
Why is national identity so important to us? We like to stand up and jeer against globalisation, but as we keep specializing our careers, with their longer educations and increased dependancy on others, as worldwide ressources become more scarce we'll have to cooperate fully, open our borders to each other.
As a sidenote I am often perplexed by this fixation people have on national identity. To proudly identify with our family, neighbourhood, city I can see; to be flag waving, proudly patriotic to a nation of millions with its rich mix of religions, ethnicities, social backgrounds then call our neighbour a "f'ing X" and try to impress him with the bigger car says a lot more on human nature.
The pessimist in me believes it really would take oh, some alien threat looming over us to begin to consider ourselves as human first, before we went back to fighting amongst ourselves.
Increased urbanization is the key to decreased population and less imprint on the planet's ecosystems. How to reach that without the population explosion in China and India as they reach the critical 3000$/year salary where the sprawling middle-class appears is the real issue.
How do you tell a country 'you have to make less babies because you are poor'? You don't. you increase immigration instead and learn to share.
-
Re: boggled
Songes says:
I agree that the main solution to the world's woes is reducing the population curve.
Rather a prerequisite to solving anything else. Again reducing isn't sufficient - exponential growth is fatal unless the slope approximates zero closely.
It is quite true that the higher the standard of living of a populace, the lower its birth rate
Frequently asserted, seems logical, but where are the data?
which creates the paradox of having to supply the ressources to meet said higher standard.
No paradox. Technology vastly magnifies the capabilities of the individual. The free market is not tailored to deliver the right technology, however, just the popular technology.
Why is national identity so important to us?
An interesting question, but irrelevant to finding a solution to the population bomb. Today's global players are the ones who will have to learn to play well together.
it really would take oh, some alien threat looming over us to begin to consider ourselves as human first
Rather, one expects any alien who drops by would simply shake its cephalopod in dismay at our global neuroses.
Increased urbanization is the key to decreased population and less imprint on the planet's ecosystems.
Perhaps. But we should focus on reaching a consensus on the existence of a problem before speculating on solutions. It's a lot easier to implement a solution when half the world isn't aggressively acting counter to their own best interests.
How do you tell a country 'you have to make less babies because you are poor'? You don't. you increase immigration instead and learn to share.
Sharing is good, but immigration is beside the point (this point, anyway) since it just redistributes the hungry mouths. You don't have to tell poor countries they have too many mouths to feed because they already know it. The goal should be to start modifying government policy soon enough that individuals will in turn modify their own procreative behavior voluntarily. Otherwise we'll see the forced enforcement of - ahem - "harsh" policies when our backs are to the wall.
The alternative to such pan-governmental population policies, no matter how draconian, would be the unleashing of the Four Horseman beyond any scale of horror seen before.
Personally, I'd prefer some modest tax incentives, a brisk reining in of the growth lobbies, and some progressive treaties between the first and third world nations.