Skip to content

Sites I like

2 Comments leave one →
  1. May 2, 2010 3:50 pm

    I was introduced to you through Shawn Polen who ferried in South America with you. I am involved around Missoula Montana here in climate change communications, mostly using my photography and writing.
    You are probably not into hunting and fishing sorts of folks, but you might want to check out an organization that is trying to fire up sportsmen across the country. Its called, and it is doing good things that may be worth your recognition in the list above.
    Please keep up your important work.
    “Change is the process by which the future invades our lives.” Alvin Toffler
    Lance Schelvan

  2. Bruce permalink
    July 30, 2012 4:02 am

    Regarding your article on Population Overload: Do probable solutions shrink as the population continues to rise on this finite planet? It seems that it will be more difficult to educate, feed, house, placate, and navigate around 15 billion people than to do the same for 7 billion people. I don’t think Malthus was incorrect. We have only been living off of borrowed time. We are living off of stored solar energy (oil, coal, gas), which took hundreds of millions of years to emege in nature. Our cities vampirically consume and transform the surrounding land. China and India are just now getting on the consumer lifestyle bandwagon. A billion Chinese want the McMansion, three car garage and SUV. Your article expresses too much confidence and faith in some remote techno-fix. You miss the “quality of life” aspect of the problem. Slums are spreading along with the rise of population. Economic inequality is being celebrated by the political and cultural right. If you are one of the economic elite, then perhaps enormous wealth can make overpopulation seem tolerable. Like Bush you might fly over the disaster zones and comfortably look down on them from above. The rest of us down on the sidewalk level will likely continue to see our quality of life decrease. The question you miss is not can we live with 15 billion people, but would we really want to? The overpopulation problem cannot be adequately addressed when it is abstracted out of its larger ecological context. We can can debate decontextualized problems all we want, but in the meantime widespread extinction proceeds apace. World population has doubled in the last 50 years! Is there any worldwide problem that would be more difficult to solve with 4 billion fewer people than we have today? If we really care to solve the current trajectory to world ecocide, then we need to begin to reduce population as one part of the solution. I’m thinking of enforced birth control policies similar to China. A solution might not be possible now that we have switched from citizens to consumers and feel cheated if we don’t have the big yard, house, car, family, etc. I hope you are right and technology will turn finite resources into abundant resources, but even then we will eventually be standing shoulder to shoulder. I suppose technology will be able to shrink us to make more room?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: