I’m sorry; the mistake I made in my last post was including the Monty Python video, which detracted from my original question. Which is simply this: why do none of today's environmentalists deal with the question of human (over)population? You would think that this issue would be central to their argument that we are in such an environmental mess because of our inability to think long term about the impact our actions have on the planet.
While I’m not sure I buy into the “myth” of overpopulation, neither do I believe it takes a rocket scientist or a mathematical genius to see the potential for trouble if humans (or any creature for that matter) continue to expand their numbers within a limited space and with access to limited resources.
Aunty cited a Harvard study that postulates the ability of the earth to support 40 billion humans. Support, okay, maybe. But in what way? Supports, after all, is a very different word from thrives. And I can't help but wonder, with those kinds of numbers, if even more Draconian government controls would need to be in place to manage us all?
So again, why are the environmentalists mute on the issue of population “control” when they seek to control everything else we humans do in relation to Mother Earth? Why change a light bulb and drive a Prius but not use a condom or get a vasectomy?
Is it because human reproductive rights are too sacred a cow even for these busybodies? Is it because they cannot find a rational way to challenge the fundamentalists’ passion regarding this issue? Or could it just possibly be that they are silent because they are not really interested in preserving the earth for human use, but in eliminating our species entirely from the equation?