Letter: An alarmist article

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 22, 2017 5:41 p.m.

    Something to think about...

    You can't add or remove water from a closed system (like earth).

    You can't add it. You can't get shipments of water from another planet or outer space when the population grows and you need more fresh water.

    But there is a way to get more fresh water. Use water already here but unusable because it's sequestered for ions in ice layed down in past last ice-ages. Miles deep in some places.

    68.7 percent of earth's fresh water is currently locked up in ice (google it).

    More water than exists in all the lakes, the rivers, the air, the clouds, reservoirs, etc, combined) exists currently in solid form locked up waiting to be released.

    Could this be part of some plan? By someone who knew the population of earth was going to grow? And more water would be needed.

    I don't know. Just something to think about.

    It's kinda interesting that nature itself is kinda taking care of this problem we puny humans can't fix (the lack of water for our growing population).

    Maybe ice melting is not totally a bad thing.

    Not all of it, but maybe some of it?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 22, 2017 10:20 a.m.

    @Redshirt wrote,

    "Also, according to NASA, as the earth warms, we get even more farm land opened up."

    No, NASA did not say we would get even more farm land opened up.

    If you drive through southern Wyoming or southern Idaho, (away from the Snake River), you will find plenty of "warm farm land". But nothing, , aside from some very hardy sagebrush, will grow there, because there's one thing missing.

    Water.

    And scientists are predicting heavier rains (and more severe flooding) in the currently wet regions and even worse droughts in the drier ones.

    Perhaps it will take a hurricane wiping out Mar-a-Lago before our Tweeter in Chief pays attention.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 22, 2017 9:48 a.m.

    RedShirt, the idea that people will have fewer children if they can't afford to raise them is nonsense. People will have fewer children when they have the means to control their fertility--i.e. access to contraception--and when they are reasonably sure that their children won't die before they are five years told. Neither is the case in Sierra Leone or Malawi or Uganda.

    The only contraception available to most women in Mali is a condom. Tell me, seriously, if a woman already has six children under eight and her husband refuses to wear a condom---is she going to decline to have sex because she thinks she can't afford more kids? Particularly when she knows, from experience, that he'll beat her if she refuses?

  • Misty Mountain Kent, WA
    July 22, 2017 9:22 a.m.

    RedShirt wrote,

    "Why not let the market drive the birth rate? As food becomes more expensive, people will have fewer kids because they can't afford them."

    So you are saying that a now-pregnant 17 year old girl decided to have unprotected sex because she a) wanted to have a child, and b) knew she could afford to raise one. Right?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 21, 2017 2:16 p.m.

    To "The Real Maverick" you opinions are the same.

    According to actual scientists, using current technology, we have not yet reached the maximum population of the earth. Also, according to NASA, as the earth warms, we get even more farm land opened up.

    Why do we have to implement birth control measures. That sure sounds like the Eugenics program that Hitler wanted.

    Why not let the market drive the birth rate? As food becomes more expensive, people will have fewer kids because they can't afford them. Do you really think any government could reasonably control birth rates? Look at China, they force women to get abortions, and commit other atrocities. Is that what you want?

    To "Ranch" so you say you know more about what the earth can sustain than God?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 21, 2017 1:57 p.m.

    @a bit of reality "We need to reach an equilibrium with our environment, and that means achieving a steady state population--not an exponentially growing one. "

    I don't think capitalism in its present state of development can handle "steady state."

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 21, 2017 1:12 p.m.

    Re: "Nobody's trying to stop us all from having kids. They're just saying think about it first"...
    ---

    Anna,
    Who in the world doesn't think about it before having kids?

    I think most people think about it first.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 21, 2017 11:42 a.m.

    RedShirtHarvard says:

    "According to scripture, the earth contains sufficient resources for whatever population will be on the Earth."

    --- Okay, that one made me laugh!! As if "scripture" knew anything about anything at all. Hah!

  • Brer Rabbit Spanish Fork, UT
    July 21, 2017 11:34 a.m.

    The fertility rate in the United States has been at or below replacement since the early 1970s and so why has the U.S population exploded from 300 million in 2006 to over 320 million today? The reason is the flood of legal and illegal migrants, primarily the poor from Mexico, Central America, the Middle East, and Africa. Western Europe has about the same problem

    These migrants moving from poverty stricken regions often use more than 10 times the natural resources that were available to them in their country of origin than in the U.S. They get cars, and far larger homes, that require the resources. So, those that are in favor of flooding countries with a high standard of living with poor migrants, can't possibly be at the same time be worried about the environment. Either they are hypocrites or emotionally they can't understand the problem. Flooding the U.S with poor migrants will never reduce the environmental problems.

  • The Real Maverick Spanish Fork, UT
    July 21, 2017 11:33 a.m.

    @ Redshirt

    Your opinions, are not based on fact or evidence. Garbage in garbage out.

    Third world countries primarily located in north and central Africa are breeding out of control. With that breeding comes crime, malnutrition, and disease. We cannot maintain the same level of ignorance on sexual education and birth control. Here in the states, the states breeding out of control are those red states who refuse to implement comprehensive sex education and refuse to make birth control easily available.

    If we want to preserve the long-term well-being of our planet, we need to implement smart and evidence-based fact driven education (comprehensive sex education) and make birth control readily available.

    Sticking our heads in the sand and refusing to do anything productive, is the conservative way. Ignoring problems don't make problems go away.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    July 21, 2017 10:48 a.m.

    John Charity Springs, you completely missed her point.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 21, 2017 10:19 a.m.

    There is no population explosion in the developed world. It's third world countries where the population is exploding. But there are signs of hope. For one example, fifty years ago Mexico had a third world birth rate, today there birth rate is not much higher than ours. Giving women education, opportunity, and access to birth control seems to be the solution.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    July 21, 2017 10:03 a.m.

    The single biggest factor, world wide, in slowing down population growth has been empowering women to have a voice in their lives. Careers, education, leadership all have had a positive impact. As far as I remember we have yet to have a female despot anywhere.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    July 21, 2017 9:36 a.m.

    To "Ranch" the only people I see using resources with reckless abandon are the liberal elites.

    The commoners don't have the financial resources to over-consume or waste resources.

    Tell us, what do you see out there that you consider reckless abandon?

    According to scripture, the earth contains sufficient resources for whatever population will be on the Earth.

    However, when you have people like Al Gore with his multiple mansions and fuel guzzling aircraft, I have to wonder about the people you choose to follow.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 21, 2017 9:16 a.m.

    RedShirtHarvard says:

    "To "Ranch" actually, the Bible does tell us to have children and to use the earth and its resources. It doesn't say to use them reckless abandon, but it does say to use them."

    -- The problem is that most people (especially religious people) can't distinguish the difference between "use resources" and "use resources with reckless abandon", the latter being their preferred method.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 21, 2017 9:04 a.m.

    @JCS
    "The one child policy has done nothing to spare the environment, and has frankly made it worse."

    The reason China is the largest carbon emitter is because they have over a billion people and industrialized. If they didn't have the one child policy their population would be even larger and more polluted because of the increase in population.

    "The world's problems are caused far more by substance abuse, immorality, and the glorification of violence"

    Some other problems are more caused by that sure, but not climate problems. These three things (arguments about whether pollution regulations being lax is immoral aside) have nothing to do with pollution problems. I don't think family size is ever accused of being a violence or substance abuse cause.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 21, 2017 8:57 a.m.

    Well it varies around the world. Like birth rates in Japan are really, really low, and in Western Europe they're pretty low, and as the population ages that causes problems with the payer:payee structure of healthcare systems for the elderly. But globally population is still going up.

    Of course studies do show that the most effective thing one can do to reduce their climate impact is to have fewer children but no law is needed for that, people are already choosing that as a general population since birth rates have been declining for decades. It'll be a while before some other countries drop to low enough birth rates that the global population stabilizes but that tends to be 3rd world countries which have much lower carbon emissions.

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    July 21, 2017 8:52 a.m.

    @ John Charity Spring

    China has an environmental problem because they have about 1.4 billion people that are quickly climbing out of poverty and thereby consuming more natural resources. If they didn't have the 1-child policy, either by government mandate or the personal choices of the people, the population there would be closer to 2.8 billion. Doubling the number of people means doubling the amount of smog pumped into the air and doubling the amount of trash being produced.

    Fortunately, because of access to birth control it looks like our species is willing to limit its own population by the voluntary choices of individuals. If this weren't the case and if the government didn't enforce population control, then the doomsday scenario described by Ehrlich would necessarily happen.

    We need to reach an equilibrium with our environment, and that means achieving a steady state population--not an exponentially growing one. If a couple has the means and desire to be great parents, they should have as many kids as they want. However, that only works if there are enough others who choose to have zero or one child so that in aggregate, the population remains stable.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    July 21, 2017 7:35 a.m.

    To "liberal larry" that is wrong. The earth does not have a limit for the number of roads, or houses.

    We may have to change materials or building methods, but the earth has sufficient resources for our needs for a good long time.

    To "Ranch" actually, the Bible does tell us to have children and to use the earth and its resources. It doesn't say to use them reckless abandon, but it does say to use them.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    July 21, 2017 7:33 a.m.

    The left-wing environmental extremists would lock up every vacant field and stream from the use of man. Indeed, they would go one step further and remove man from the equation altogether by imposing strict restrictions on child bearing.

    Anyone who thinks that restrictions on family size are the answer to any perceived problem need look only to China. The irrefutable fact is that China has become an environmental disaster, with the world's highest rates of pollution. The one child policy has done nothing to spare the environment, and has frankly made it worse.

    The world's problems are caused far more by substance abuse, immorality, and the glorification of violence than they are caused by family size. Society must stop chasing the chimera of family size and must address the true causes of the problem.

  • liberal larry Salt Lake City, UT
    July 21, 2017 6:44 a.m.

    We the earth is definitely overpopulated! The problem is not space, or food, or even water, the issue is quality of life. Traffic, pollution, and habitat destruction are all related to the increase in population.

    For every human that lives we replace other species. It looks like our grand children will live in a world without any large animal species. Its a zero sum game, the earth can support only so many living organisms.

    We can keep increasing world population, but no matter how you slice it everyone gets a smaller piece of the pie!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 21, 2017 6:35 a.m.

    But God commanded us to Multiply and CONSUME all the resources on the planet. At least that's what most Christians think the bible says.