Comment sent via email: "You really hit the nail on the head with this one. It's depressing, but too true. I wish your response to reach all those who read the other article, but it needs to go way beyond that. Major "conservation" organizations' silence on overpopulation is shocking. There is a ridiculous amount of greenwashing going on with almost every corporation. Yeah, some people are trying (including us), but this should be an all-out self-protection action by all of society. Keep up the good work. I don't know how we will ever convince the majority of the people to join us.
“The seventh dead whale in a little over a month washed up on the Jersey Shore this week, sparking a debate about the impact of off-shore activities on marine life.“
Thanks, Tony. Unfortunately the environmental movement has been politicized in the polarized world we live in. Both “sides” in my opinion are wrong in their own ways. The left seems to think we can have open borders with massive immigration, but if we ban gas stoves and build huge tracks of solar panels and wind farms we will be just fine. Meanwhile, merely building those huge towers in the ocean is causing whale deaths—six have washed up in a short time in NY and NJ where a large wind farm is being prepared. It’s completely shocking that USA can’t protect its own native species, like the North Atlantic Right Whale or the Pacific Salmon!! WTF!! Meanwhile, the right won’t acknowledge there’s a problem but at least is not in favor of mass immigration. I blame the left more bc they are the ones who claimed to be environmentalists. Personally, I think the human race is doomed. But the Earth will recover—but it will take 100 million years! the Earth has that kind of time—we don’t.
I was thinking about how right you are as I was reading your essay but also the need to make these arguments (or just realities) persuasive. It's the tough part of all of it. Your last paragraph of changing "biodiversity" to "life" hinted at it.
We need a paradigm shift the world over and that never goes down easy, even for intelligent people. It's too hard and too easy to believe (or convince yourself) the naysayers are just over the top doomsday prophets that need to settle down. Admittedly, the other side is persuasive. Very persuasive. "No way this world is going to crumble, they used to talk about that in the 70s and look, nothing happened!" I know it's not reality but I can fully and completely understand why others would want to make it theirs. And I know there may be comments about how flawed that thinking is, how wrong that statement is and how everyone needs to abandon it and get on a different page. "Get with reality. Think critically!". And they're right. But it still doesn't persuade. Especially if changing leads to discomfort. We know hope is a delusion. And false hope a potion for misery. But who cares? We should use it anyway. To our advantage (if we can). Maybe that's what this article tried to do.
The crux of our problem is: How do we make these issues more of an urgency for most people? Or even a major minority of people? (which they say is all it takes to get things done). I'm at peace with the fact that we're all right at Scale Down absent some glaring evidence to the contrary that we're wrong that all of us, if we're sane, is hoping for.
I took a trial practice class once and one of the professors gave a solid tip (I thought) in trying to teach us how to convince a jury of our arguments. Called it his number one rule...
I echo all of this essay, Tony. So well stated. I think it's so important to say that overpopulation requires overconsumption that can't be helped at its basic level. It is not overconsumption of the individual who needs water it is the multitude of the many needing water that over-consumes. Thanks for this important essay..
I am sure Benji is coached to skirt around the two big ones. Squarely addressing overpopulation and overconsumption could be perceived as threats to growth, the holy grails of capitalism.
clearly each American consumes more material goods than most anyone in a developing country. BUT if you live in a desert country and have more people than your water supply can handle you will suffer. THAT is the power of overpopulation. It doesn't matter that you live in a tent and not a mansion when you don' t have enough water.
Comment sent via email: "You really hit the nail on the head with this one. It's depressing, but too true. I wish your response to reach all those who read the other article, but it needs to go way beyond that. Major "conservation" organizations' silence on overpopulation is shocking. There is a ridiculous amount of greenwashing going on with almost every corporation. Yeah, some people are trying (including us), but this should be an all-out self-protection action by all of society. Keep up the good work. I don't know how we will ever convince the majority of the people to join us.
Walt Anderson
“The seventh dead whale in a little over a month washed up on the Jersey Shore this week, sparking a debate about the impact of off-shore activities on marine life.“
Thanks, Tony. Unfortunately the environmental movement has been politicized in the polarized world we live in. Both “sides” in my opinion are wrong in their own ways. The left seems to think we can have open borders with massive immigration, but if we ban gas stoves and build huge tracks of solar panels and wind farms we will be just fine. Meanwhile, merely building those huge towers in the ocean is causing whale deaths—six have washed up in a short time in NY and NJ where a large wind farm is being prepared. It’s completely shocking that USA can’t protect its own native species, like the North Atlantic Right Whale or the Pacific Salmon!! WTF!! Meanwhile, the right won’t acknowledge there’s a problem but at least is not in favor of mass immigration. I blame the left more bc they are the ones who claimed to be environmentalists. Personally, I think the human race is doomed. But the Earth will recover—but it will take 100 million years! the Earth has that kind of time—we don’t.
Hi Benji Jones. Please consider including the ability and hope that we have to check our population. Thanks.
I was thinking about how right you are as I was reading your essay but also the need to make these arguments (or just realities) persuasive. It's the tough part of all of it. Your last paragraph of changing "biodiversity" to "life" hinted at it.
We need a paradigm shift the world over and that never goes down easy, even for intelligent people. It's too hard and too easy to believe (or convince yourself) the naysayers are just over the top doomsday prophets that need to settle down. Admittedly, the other side is persuasive. Very persuasive. "No way this world is going to crumble, they used to talk about that in the 70s and look, nothing happened!" I know it's not reality but I can fully and completely understand why others would want to make it theirs. And I know there may be comments about how flawed that thinking is, how wrong that statement is and how everyone needs to abandon it and get on a different page. "Get with reality. Think critically!". And they're right. But it still doesn't persuade. Especially if changing leads to discomfort. We know hope is a delusion. And false hope a potion for misery. But who cares? We should use it anyway. To our advantage (if we can). Maybe that's what this article tried to do.
The crux of our problem is: How do we make these issues more of an urgency for most people? Or even a major minority of people? (which they say is all it takes to get things done). I'm at peace with the fact that we're all right at Scale Down absent some glaring evidence to the contrary that we're wrong that all of us, if we're sane, is hoping for.
I took a trial practice class once and one of the professors gave a solid tip (I thought) in trying to teach us how to convince a jury of our arguments. Called it his number one rule...
"Truth is relative. Just pick one that works."
Can we do that here?
I echo all of this essay, Tony. So well stated. I think it's so important to say that overpopulation requires overconsumption that can't be helped at its basic level. It is not overconsumption of the individual who needs water it is the multitude of the many needing water that over-consumes. Thanks for this important essay..
I am sure Benji is coached to skirt around the two big ones. Squarely addressing overpopulation and overconsumption could be perceived as threats to growth, the holy grails of capitalism.
Excellent....
clearly each American consumes more material goods than most anyone in a developing country. BUT if you live in a desert country and have more people than your water supply can handle you will suffer. THAT is the power of overpopulation. It doesn't matter that you live in a tent and not a mansion when you don' t have enough water.