Published: Thursday, Feb. 6 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
As long as the living tell us that they will not be inconvenienced by having to
share the bounties and blessings of this world with others, their message will
amount to nothing but selfishness. Our Creator told us that there is enough,
and to spare, but they know more than our Creator, or at least they think they
"The business model requiring continued population growth is fatally
flawed."Actually, as a "business model" it is probably
spot on. However, logic and common senseshould tell us that an ever
increasing population will ultimately stretch our resources to the breaking
point. With clean water being the future bottleneck.The point will
fall on deaf ears, especially when religion comes into play.
Malthusians will always be among us, as evidenced by this letter. They, like
communists and other central planners, believe that we should turn all economic
decisions over to a few elite and oh-so-wise intellectuals who know better than
the rest of us how our time, effort and money should be spent in order to
"save the planet" as well as save us from ourselves. And they've
been wrong every time they predict that the sky is falling.
Right Joe Blow: let's not have any diversity of opinions by including
"And they've been wrong every time they predict that the sky is
falling." Unless you come to Salt Lake in the winter, and then
the sky is literally falling. In fact you can taste it.
"Right Joe Blow: let's not have any diversity of opinions by including
religious ones."Religion tells you that God will provide and
that we have enough resources to support whatever population we can produce.OK,Now, what does common sense tell you? Not even talking
about science. Just good old common sense.I am OK with a diversity
of opinion. But, not the opinion of a small group of people whose best
justification was "cause God told me"
Yes, building wealth is indeed a necessary and morally worthwhile goal. We
don't live in a utopian fantasy world, we live in the real world where
people have to make a living and a prosperous economy is essential. A wealthier
society is a cleaner society, per capita. Look at the improvements in air and
water quality in the U.S. over the past 50 years! They are a direct result of
prosperity and technological innovation. Poor countries (and companies and
people) cannot afford pollution control measures. Kill prosperity, and you kill
Richard,You complained, but what SOLUTION do you propose to control
population growth?One child limit (like China)? Forced
sterilization? Mass executions? What is your proposed solution? The ones
fascists and central-government extremists have employed in the past have been
very unsavory.And what does this have to do with moving the
prison?Do you think keeping the prison where it is will limit
population growth? I don't.===IMO the problem is
not the population itself. It's the location of the population (when it
gets crowded into one area that can't sustain that size population, like
LA, NYC, Chicago, etc, even SLC). When these big cities don't have enough
resources to sustain their population... they take resources (re-channel water,
fuel, air, etc) from the surrounding areas, even the surrounding States.Maybe we should spread out a bit. Leave the cities and make other
parts of the country bloom (instead of sucking their resources dry to serve the
people in the megatropolises).If more Americans lived like rural
mid-America (instead of living on top of each other like the megatropolises on
the coasts)... it would be more sustainable.
Mike R, I appreciate your reference to LDS scripture that there is enough and to
spare. I wish you had included the rest of the passage: "Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and
impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the
needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in
torment." (D&C 104:18)So there is enough and to spare only
if the wealthy share with the poor and needy, which the growing income gap
between rich and poor suggests is not happening.
When it comes to sustainability I'll trust a scientist more than religon.
The evidence is all around us. What has always happened to a species when it
overextends the carrying capacity of it's environment? To continue to
exploit our resources, with no regards to science, just because a religon tells
us God wants us to is foolish! That makes about as much sense as the Mayans
performing human sacrifices for centuries just because their religous leaders
told them it keeps God satisfied.
Excellent letter. The endless growth model based on turning earth's limited
resources into waste is certainly unsustainable. But the bigger question is
this: Which wall will we hit first — the resource/global warming wall or
the internal wall built by a system of funneling most of the wealth to the top,
thus creating increasingly stressed middle and lower classes, consequently
putting too much burden on government to make up the difference and resulting in
eventually overwhelming levels of debt? It might be a neck-and-neck race right
to the finish line, but do we really have to hold this race at all?
When our conservative friends come up with a way to create more water, please
let us know. In the meantime, we really ought to think twice about twice the
population in this thirsty little valley.
@SEY – “And they've been wrong every time they predict that the
sky is falling.”So let me make sure I understand –
Malthus makes a prediction that, so far, has not come to pass so his ideas have
no merit whatsoever (even though many economists think he just did not
adequately account for technology)?Can we assume you apply this some
logic in all areas of your life… like religion? If so then please google
“religious predictions that have not come true” and then explain why
you (or any logical person) would take any of it seriously. And just
so we’re clear – I’m not saying you’re wrong… just
following the implications of your logic.@JoeBlowSpot on
Richard, you sound dangerously like the new Pope. And he's been branded a
Again DeForrest, if the "growth model" is unsustainable... what
alternative model do YOU propose?Any model requires growth. A
stagnant system is not a healthy system. And when it gets sick... it eventually
crashes. Is THAT what you want??===Without growth
(growth in population, growth in the economy) the system regardless of it's
politics will collapse. What model are you talking about that doesn't use
the Earth's limited resources?We can use them slower. But all
systems use them.===Get on the Space Station, or watch
some video from orbit, you usually you can't even see any signs of human
infestation.There is plenty of space on this earth for humans to
live. And plenty of resources if we use them wisely and develop new more
advanced alternatives as technology advances. We no longer use whale blubber...
we don't use coal in our homes like we use to... right? We change and
adapt (switching to cleaner options).I've heard the
overpopulation scare tactics since I was a child in the 60's... and all the
things they predicted back then never happened. And they hadn't even
thought of Global Warming yet!
@CurmudgeonSalt Lake City, UTMike R, I appreciate your reference to
LDS scripture that there is enough and to spare. I wish you had included the
rest of the passage: "Therefore, if any man shall take of the
abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of
my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his
eyes in hell, being in torment." (D&C 104:18)========= My seniments exactly -- Guys like this like to take scriptures
completely out of context simply to fit their agenda.The blessing of
"enough and to spare" only applies IF we are good stewards, use our
resourse wisely, do the very best that we can with what we have, not be selfish
and greedy, share and share alike, --- otherwise, it will be our own cursing --
just as the Lord promised in the very next line of scripture!
Irony Guy,Again... what solution do you propose?Just
complaining doesn't help. What's your solution?I see no
reason why all the growth needs to be in this tiny valley. Why can't it
be in other parts of the State that are less overpopulated?===Have you talked to Mayor Becker about your solution?The last
two DEMOCRAT Mayors we have had in SLC have both proposed more low-income
high-density housing developments for SLC. Does high-density housing make the
problem of more people living in one area than it can sustain WORSE? Or
BETTER?I think it makes it worse. Have you said anything to the
Mayor or his people planning a more sustainable future for SLC?Maybe
we need to encourage people and businesses to move to other areas... instead of
trying to attract them to move to Utah (mostly SLC is the problem). There are
plenty of areas in Utah that could sustain more growth. SLC is the main
problem (in our area).
Curmudgeon makes a good point that a good editor can prove anything.
"Get on the Space Station, or watch some video from orbit, you usually you
can't even see any signs of human infestation"...Actually, you can. The
smoke and declining amazon forests are visible, as is the smoke from their
burning. As is the bathtub ring around lake mead. Intensive agriculture is
clearly visible. I imagine our inversion is clearly visible from space, as is
pollution downstream from most large urban areas. As for there being enough
space and resources for us...space maybe. Resources, no. And any premise that
touts there being enough if we would only share is nothing short of socialism on
these pages. Wealth Redistribution of the worst kind. We will never let that
happen. The problem is not just that populations are increasing, and they are,
but that billions already here are gaining spending and consumer power.
We're not adding people, we're adding consumers. A billion cars in
China and India are pulling up to the same gas pump you are. Guess what's
going to happen to supply, and price?
Repubs pleading for diversity of opinion? Huh? This coming from the same group
who shut down SB 100 behind closed doors? I thought repubs hated closed door
meetings where the other political party isn't even allowed to come in?
Apparently not!I would love to see more diversity of opinion. But
the folks claiming that religion is being quieted are the first to quiet other
points of view with their religion.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments