acceptance and overpopulation

ACCEPTANCE AND OVERPOPULATION
By "FullMoonBlueWater", Gaia member.

"I have to be careful to not try to impose my values on other people."

Response: Are you sure that your approach is that hands-off?

Let's say that you believe that mass murder is wrong.
Do you think you have the right to impose that value on others, or do you think that others should have the right to decide for themselves? Let's say that you know that a mass murderer is intent on killing you, your family, and your friends, and you don't have the strength or weapons to fight back. Should that person be allowed by law to do his own thing, or should you step in and request a bit of protection by the law from such persons? By standing up for such a law would you be violating your belief that it is wrong to impose your values on other people?
. . I believe that laws are necessary to keep a society from complete chaos, and laws are invented by people. I also believe that people can go way too far in making decisions for others, so there must be a balance between protecting people from the greed and violence of others and preserving individual freedoms. We help determine the laws of the land, so we are responsible for helping to decide which ones are good and which are bad or go too far.
. . Short of creating new laws, we can stand up for what we believe by voicing our opinions.
. . In my opinion, the world is getting too overpopulated, which is leading to it's destruction. Thus, I believe that overpopulation must be curbed in order to save the planet. Should I simply stand by, watching the world be destroyed (as I believe it might be) or should I take a stand in favor of the most humane methods of controlling population growth?
. . I am against using war, famine, disease, and genocide as methods of population control. I am also opposed to the idea of immature and irresponsible people becoming parents and adding to the overpopulation. Thus, I don't believe youngsters should be having children. Whether they abstain from sex, get sterilized, use effective birth control, or have abortions when birth control fails, I believe that they should not add children to the world. The younger a mother is, the greater the chance that the child will be born with birth defects, and the greater the likelihood that the mother and child won't be supported by a financially responsible husband, or that the mother will have the funds or be mature and responsible enough to properly care for a child and to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical needs, etc. I also feel that parents of pregnant children shouldn't just take over the parenting responsibilities, letting their foolish child off the hook for creating life.
. . Parenting is taken much too lightly in our current world, and it is important that those who embark upon parenthood are ready to take full responsibility. (But that's another rant.)
. . Yes, puberty begins usually between 10-14 years. Yes, many cultures have accepted the idea of marriage at puberty. Such a system might have worked well when, in general, people were uneducated and the population controlled itself through death caused by disease, injury, failed childbirth, etc. (This still happens in some underdeveloped countries, but often the populations continue to grow because outside assistance prevents the deaths that would otherwise naturally occur.) In today's world, education and understanding are not only a good idea, they are necessary for survival. It takes years to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for sustaining our own lives, nevermind the lives of our children. Though 10-14-years-old is old enough for pregnancy, it is definitely not old enough to survive one one's own and provide a home for children.
. . Those of you in sparsely populated states might not think that the world is overpopulated, but that might be because you haven't experienced the discomforts of overpopulation. I've never been to the nastiest overpopulated parts of our planet, so I can't talk about the conditions in China, India, or parts of Africa, but in our country I've seen firsthand how healthy rural communities become eaten up by buildings and parking lots, turned into suburbs and then into urban sprawl and then into innercity ghettos. I grew up in a rural area that became a suburb, then part of urban sprawl, and now is just another concrete, asphalt, littered, traffic-crowded, strip- mall-filled, fast-food-flooded, air-polluted, unhealthy disaster area. My family homestead is now an office building and the field behind my old home is a huge parking lot. All the towns around here are going that way, and very quickly, too. The once beautiful, healthy, small city nearby is now a dangerous ghetto. We used to do our shopping, visit doctors, and do most of our business in that city, but today I'm afraid to drive through it.
. . I keep moving further into the country, but the urban sprawl follows at a fast pace. Even when I escape to places like Vermont and New Hampshire, I see it happening there, too. Whenever I see a couple of acres of woodlands or meadows, I wonder how long it will be before some sleazy "developer" will make a strip mall or a subdivision-- and it always happens!
. . Where I live, the tap water is foul and undrinkable, and we have expensive sewer requirements because our earth is too full of sewerage, so now our sewers are being built above-ground, and yet, the subdivisions are still moving in like locusts. All the wetlands laws are practically ignored, so buildings are popping up in wetlands everywhere. One way around the wetlands laws is by creating little puddles between the buildings and surrounding them with fences. This is supposed to help aquatic life and birds. However, these little puddles are surrounded by lawns that are filled with pesticides and herbicides that destroy wetlands life forms.
. . Just a few years ago, my town was considered rural and it contained many farms. We still have a few, tiny farms, but they are tightly packed between other buildings and asphalt. We own just under an acre and a half, including a small wooded area. We have an organic garden, but we wonder how many chemicals in our air and water are affecting our garden. Our town is now considered suburban, but urban sprawl is closing in at a fast pace. Just a couple of years ago, the eighty-something acres of woods, fields, frog ponds and streams behind our home were taken over by "developers", and now hundreds of homes have filled the space, some of which is being "protected" by fences and is considered "natural." Well, it won't be "natural" for long.
. . If we want to sell our home, we will be required by law to spend $20- 50,000 to have an above-ground sewer put in, before we can sell the house. Yet, the town still allows hundreds of new homes with new sewers to be built. Go figure! We have water bans in the summer, but more houses are built, allowing more people to consume the already limited water supply. The whole thing is idiotic, in my opinion.
. . If this situation isn't happening in your area right now, it will be.
. . In answer to those who oppose birth control on religious grounds, let's say that we believe in a God that created human beings and gave us intelligence. If this God gave us the intelligence to create medicine that helps us to live longer, heal illnesses and injuries, increase the ability for mothers and infants to live after childbirth, prevent epidemics, etc. (all of which dramatically increase population), then he/she also gave us the intelligence to create birth control methods. Some people say that keeping people alive is God's will, but that preventing them from being born is against God's will. Selective reasoning, if you ask me. Birth control is as Godlike as healing. When population rates get out of control, they need to be controlled. If individuals fail to control their own reproduction, then they sometimes should be restrained-- against their will. If someone wishes to believe that the only way to prevent birth is through abstention, then so be it, but they should prevent it when needed. If the world suddenly finds itself with a terrible shortage of human beings, then birth control will cease to be a necessity, and it might be important for people to do what they can to increase the population.
. . Back to the original point. I believe it is best to live and let live. However, when too much freedom causes trouble for societies, then it is necessary to limit those freedoms to the point that the problems decrease or even cease. It is important for us to avoid criticizing others, but it is also wrong for us to be so wishy-washy that we don't stand up for what we believe in. We need to balance our openness with our sense of responsibility.
. . I get just as frustrated by the frequent attitude that we should avoid being judgmental about anything, as I do by the religiously extreme attitude that everything should be judged by one's particular religious dogma, all spelled out in black and white. It is important that we be as accepting as possible of others without bending over backwards and allowing others to threaten our own world.
. . No, I don't think I'm perfect, by any means, but I don't think that I should stand idly by, watching others behave destructively toward the world in which I live, and just be accepting of their views. I have a view, too, and so do other UU's. Acceptance cannot be a completely unconditional term without becoming apathy.
. . FMBW

I'm not saying that cities are inferior to the wild. I'm saying that I don't like to see the countryside disappearing --and at such a fast pace.
. . My mother is from Brooklyn, and I loved going there from childhood through my early twenties. After that, I stopped enjoying the city because it seemed to get dirtier and more dangerous. I enjoy going to Boston, which is the "big city" in my area, and where I worked for six years and attended college, but I wouldn't want to live there. I personally felt that college in the city was more beneficial to me than suburban college. (It's a long story, but it has to do with a more cosmopolitan outlook in the city and the availability of more cultural and educational resources.)
. . One thing I think is wrong with the city is that people living there don't often understand the importance of natural resources and the importance of open land. Food and water are imported from outside the city, so city dwellers don't concern themselves with what's happening where their food is grown. Waste disappears underground, so nobody gets directly involved with its buildup, except those specifically working with it. City people aren't used to observing the migration of wildlife, the effects of the environment on crops, changes in the outdoors, etc. They aren't concerned about urban sprawl because they don't see it happening. They are surrounded by tall buildings, concrete and asphalt all the time, so when that stuff spreads out to other areas, they don't notice the difference.
. . I don't mean to say that all city people don't have a clue or don't care about the environment. I'm just saying that if you don't observe the natural environment regularly, feeling close to it, and noticing its changes, you are less likely to be concerned with its loss.
. . When I consider how much land it takes to feed and provide water, shelter, clothing, clean air, and energy for one person, and how much land is required for one person's waste, I find myself amazed that thousands of people can live in one city building, all piled on top of each other, floor upon floor. I start gasping for air because of the claustrophobic feeling I get. How many people live in your building, and how much land does it occupy? Would all those people survive on the same size piece of land in the country? Would they find enough water, food, etc. for themselves?
. . To be honest, the times I really appreciate the importance of something like water, for instance, are those times when I am rough-camping and have to be careful with every drop of water I use. If we all had to walk a mile to fetch our own water and carry it back on foot, we might appreciate it and protect it more than we do. As long as gallons pour easily out of a showerhead or faucet, it doesn't seem like a difficult commodity to come by. As long as we are convinced that water can be recycled and returned to us clean and sparkling, we don't care. Unfortunately, I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that water comes back clean. As I mentioned before, our tap water is disgusting, but our town water department says it is perfectly wonderful. Uh-huh!
. . My original point was not that the city is inferior to the country. You and I have different tastes regarding where to live, and your choice is as valid as mine. However, city folk don't have to fear having their lifestyle changed because the countryside is taking over their homes; whereas, country folk DO have to worry about their homes being destroyed and made into cities.
. . FMBW

If you got here from the HOME PAGE, click on
"minimize" or "eXit". (upper right browser buttons)
If you didn't: the site.)