38 years ago today, was the first Earth day. The original intent behind earth day was to bring awareness to the fact that we humans are a part of our environment. This is a healthy and important message. When people, in pursuit of prosperity and cool gadgets, pour yucky stuff into the ground or pump it into the air, it will come back to haunt us. We need to minimize pollution because of how this affects human beings.
Somehow this message has been perverted. The message has changed to reflect the concept that our actions are not a part of nature, but a threat too nature. This is an important distinction, and one that I believe does a disservice to the environmental movement. When people are given a choice, most will act in favor of their own self interest. The current message seems to be: The planets welfare and all its creatures are in peril except us, and it’s our fault. This is a message of guilt and shame, not one of hope and motivation.
From what I here from the media, and the message I get from environmentalists, there is little hope for the future and no past successes. No matter what is done to help Mother Nature she never seems to get any better, there is always another ailment that pops up as a threat to the planet and it’s always our fault. This gets tedious and frustrating. I don’t blame some people from becoming so skeptical they lump all environmental pleas and bitches into one bucket and tossing it into a land fill.
Many environmentalists seem to portray human beings as parasites feeding on the health of this planet, they expound that resources are dwindling and nature can’t cope with our growing population. Then they offer solutions that are un-reasonable, silly, or un-enforceable. Why is population control off the table as far as a solution? No matter how much we recycle, how many compact florescent light bulbs we buy, how many miles we ride on public transportation, or how much we care, we humans may eventually over populate our resources. Yet the answer to environmental concerns always seems to involve sacrifice, guilt, and maybe a bumper sticker if you’re real serious.
There are only finite resources, and we enjoy a given standard of living. We are being told that to achieve a more harmony with nature we must lower our standard of living*. (Drive smaller cars, use public transportation, bike to work, consume less, etc) Logically to reach a balance with nature we must continually lower our standard of living in direct proportion to our population increase. Historically, as we enjoy an increase in standard of living, life expectancy increases. Logically, as our standard of living decreases, wouldn’t our life expectancy likewise decrease? So the future seems to be, more people, shorter lives and a lower standard of living. I don’t know if this will ever balance out but it doesn’t sound like a nice future to me.
Shouldn’t the message from environmentalists be to strive for a population balance where human beings can achieve the highest standard of living possible while causing the least ammount of damage to the environment? Wouldn’t this be in everyone’s best interest? Where is the cry for population control along with recycling and hybrid cars?
How about nuclear power?
More nukes, less babies.
I may have to make that a bumper sticker.