- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
To you, the amount of consumption is a confounding variable that I've introduced as a rhetorical slight of hand. But, to me, I don't think the environment cares whether three billion humans burn X amount of fuel or if two billion humans burn the same X amount of fuel.
The only confounding thing about your argument is how you continue to abuse elementary arithmetic to support the preposterous notion that numbers don't matter. Hey I know, let's double the world's population, because according to you, it won't make a rat's ass bit of difference. And you have the temerity to call me anthropocentric!
What happens if you decrease the world's population and per capita consumption stays the same?! Gee whiz Beaver, total consumption goes down! See, we're both trying to get to the same place, but you would prefer to either use (1) magic or (2) poverty to get there. You claim to speak for the world's poor, but you forbid they elevate themselves. I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with someone who can't comprehend simple math. Enjoy your dharmic asceticsm and your empty cupboard, but don't begrudge the rest of the world their hope of advancement.
The problem is overpopulation. The best answer is education. The alternative answers are scarcity, death, war, and pestilence. Oh yes, and magical thinking.
