I stated in this last blog post that I would not put up a link to all those lamentations that the world is overcrowded o account of unverified claim that the there are now 7 billion living souls. One must accept that in the same world where the costs of circulating ideas has fallen much more than the population has risen, people are bound to find all sorts of preposterous connections and cause alarm. Reading this piece in the NYT, I had to renege on my light promise not to link to these pieces.
Taking without question that the human population has reached a new record, a number of institutions are trying to tie their neo-Malthusian argument to environmental conservation. Among the arguments is that the levels of greenhouse gases being produced on a per person are so high that every new birth adds to the warming of the planet and therefore to almost certain environmental catastrophe.
Such campaigns may be well-timed but that does not imply that the claims are sensible. As contrarian voices quoted in the piece mention, family size reduction cannot be the solution to global warming and environmental conservation.fertility rates are higher among poorer populations in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa but it is these populations that also generate the lowest levels of carbon pollution per person.So yes, I want spotted owls and polar bears to survive but it makes no sense to me to claim that birthing families are responsible for my never seeing a live one. That is not the real trade-off.
No comments:
Post a Comment