A Simple Framing of the Situation.
One thing I've identified as my own intellectual flaw is a tendency to be a bit reductionist. Having made that disclosure beforehand, I feel comfortable about proceeding with the following argument. Many folks today have come to believe that we (as a society and as a species) have created a mass of problems for ourselves likely to require large amounts of effort, creativity and resources to resolve. Some have even become so overwhelmed that they are ready to give up and let fate take its course. Part of the difficulty in confronting the mess we are in is an inability to imagine where to start. But I believe that throwing our hands up in hopelessness is no longer a viable option. There seems to me to be an increasing imminence in the nature of our condition.
I'm not going to try to construct an exhaustive list of the challenges facing us. For illustrative purposes I'll simply mention a few- global climate change, diminishing resources, and a growing resentment between the franchised and the powerless. These are indeed multi-faceted problems for which there really is no single solution. However, I'd like to suggest a starting point. I believe we need to face the very real fact of the overpopulation of humans on our planet. Indeed there are some that will flatly refuse to concede this reality. They will point out that with new technology, and more efficient distribution, we can easily sustain an even greater amount of humans. I would respond with a simple question- Toward what end? Is it to the greater benefit of society, non-human life forms, and/or the biosystem? I don't think so. If you do, you might want to skip the rest of this post, because there is nothing here for you.
Is it not self-evident that a radical decrease in the number of our species would make things generally better for the remaining cretaures on Earth? Consulting estimates of the biophysical carrying capacity of the planet can be informative, if not conclusive. Regardless there is no compelling reason we should strive to attain the maximum number possible. From my perspective, resource management on Earth is indeed a zero-sum game. That means that we have a finite amount of the necessities for existence. There is only so much water, oxygen, topsoil, arable land, and fossil fuels available. While many of these resources are recyclable, we cannot expect additional amounts to arrive from without the biosystem. The only life-sustaining force we have a steady supply of outside the system is sunlight. And of the resources mentioned above, fossil fuels are unique in that once they are consumed they are gone forever (or at least within the scope of time meaningful to the human species).
The problem that we should all be aware of is that for more than a century we have been relying on that dwindling store of fossil fuels to produce food surpluses to sustain populations that otherwise would not be perpetuated in their regions of habitation. As these fuels become more scarce, there will be increasing levels of famine in those areas. Starvation will lead to mass civil unrest and regional conflicts. The gap between the haves and the have-nots will be a question of survival, rather than prosperity. What is happening within the political sphere to confront this impending situation? It is simply not part of the mainstream media dialogue. We ignore the issue at our own peril.
Many scientists who have been paying attention to fossil fuel depletion and global climate change predict a mass die-off in the coming century. They believe that a significant population decrease is inevitable. The question is- How will it occur? Will it be a process determined by the chaos of neglect? What amount of suffering will result if we don't take available steps to minimize it? Does it have to happen through national disaster, war, and disease? Or is there another possibility available? Have we developed technology that would allow us to ameliorate the disaster, or allow a rational and proactive approach to the problem? What does the word humane imply? These are questions I hope to explore in future posts.
I'm not going to try to construct an exhaustive list of the challenges facing us. For illustrative purposes I'll simply mention a few- global climate change, diminishing resources, and a growing resentment between the franchised and the powerless. These are indeed multi-faceted problems for which there really is no single solution. However, I'd like to suggest a starting point. I believe we need to face the very real fact of the overpopulation of humans on our planet. Indeed there are some that will flatly refuse to concede this reality. They will point out that with new technology, and more efficient distribution, we can easily sustain an even greater amount of humans. I would respond with a simple question- Toward what end? Is it to the greater benefit of society, non-human life forms, and/or the biosystem? I don't think so. If you do, you might want to skip the rest of this post, because there is nothing here for you.
Is it not self-evident that a radical decrease in the number of our species would make things generally better for the remaining cretaures on Earth? Consulting estimates of the biophysical carrying capacity of the planet can be informative, if not conclusive. Regardless there is no compelling reason we should strive to attain the maximum number possible. From my perspective, resource management on Earth is indeed a zero-sum game. That means that we have a finite amount of the necessities for existence. There is only so much water, oxygen, topsoil, arable land, and fossil fuels available. While many of these resources are recyclable, we cannot expect additional amounts to arrive from without the biosystem. The only life-sustaining force we have a steady supply of outside the system is sunlight. And of the resources mentioned above, fossil fuels are unique in that once they are consumed they are gone forever (or at least within the scope of time meaningful to the human species).
The problem that we should all be aware of is that for more than a century we have been relying on that dwindling store of fossil fuels to produce food surpluses to sustain populations that otherwise would not be perpetuated in their regions of habitation. As these fuels become more scarce, there will be increasing levels of famine in those areas. Starvation will lead to mass civil unrest and regional conflicts. The gap between the haves and the have-nots will be a question of survival, rather than prosperity. What is happening within the political sphere to confront this impending situation? It is simply not part of the mainstream media dialogue. We ignore the issue at our own peril.
Many scientists who have been paying attention to fossil fuel depletion and global climate change predict a mass die-off in the coming century. They believe that a significant population decrease is inevitable. The question is- How will it occur? Will it be a process determined by the chaos of neglect? What amount of suffering will result if we don't take available steps to minimize it? Does it have to happen through national disaster, war, and disease? Or is there another possibility available? Have we developed technology that would allow us to ameliorate the disaster, or allow a rational and proactive approach to the problem? What does the word humane imply? These are questions I hope to explore in future posts.
Labels: Apocalypse, Environmentalism, Overpopulation, Political Rant
posted by Merge Divide at 9:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home