As I recall, about 20 years ago Sierra Club decided not to take a stand
against over population because the leadership then didn't want to be
perceived as anti immigration. Many of us on the Cascade Chapter were
very upset about this SC stance at the time. Guess I don't even know the
present SC policy on over population. I wonder if killer storms,
droughts and drastic climate changes affecting agriculture from global
warming, wars, assault weapons, death from diseases caused by pollution
of every kind, destruction of global habitats, is even putting a dent in
human over population? A bumper sticker on a vehicle at an animal
shelter where I volunteered said it best: "The Dark Ages were when
Religion ruled the World" Certainly those few that control all the
wealth use religion to control the masses. So many of us Sierrans waste
nothing, conserve and take as little from the environment as we can, but
that is not the American way. I love this quote from a fellow Sierran:
"When a Sierra Club member comes to town with one pair of sox and $10, he
leaves with one pair of sox and $10"
Well I'm leaving with 5 weeks of food I dehydrated myself for 5 weeks of
trekking in the Arctic at Lake Galbraith and Denali NP. Mostly dirt
cheap angel hair pasta with home made spaghetti sauce--it weighs next to
nothing in my backpack! How lucky we still have a tiny bit of pristine
wilderness in the Arctic to renew our souls. Phyllis
The list should include the desire of everyone to live at the same
standard of living as US citizens, which would require the resources of 4
planet Earths, mass migrations and refugees due to climate change, the
challenges of dealing with shortages as the population balloons to 8, 9,
or 10 billion people, and global pandemics that result as populations
become more crowded and disease control becomes more challenging.
pam
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicole Cook <[log in to unmask]>
To: IOWA-TOPICS <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 10:21 am
Subject: Re: population
World-wide population control absolutely needs to be a part of every
discussion concerning keeping the planet healthy enough to continue to
support human beings. Poverty, religion, women's (and men's) literacy
and education, violence against women and children and human trafficking,
increased levels of hormones in the environment which are triggering
earlier puberty in children, as well as lower mortality rates and
increases in food production as a result of the "green revolution," are
some of the factors that impact population. It's a challenging
conversation to have, but, like many challenges we are now facing, it
will only get more difficult to discuss and, ultimately, will be out of
our control if we continue to avoid the topic.
If you haven't already checked it out, one resource for information about
population across the globe is the United Nations' Population Division.
Information is at
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/index.shtml
Nicole
--- On Fri, 5/31/13, Donna Buell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Donna Buell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: population
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, May 31, 2013, 9:11 AM
What problems do we have at the Mexican border -- other than Republicans
afraid that new immigrants will be more likely vote for Democrats?
Women have been second class citizens (and less) for centuries. That's
the real issue, I think. Women will limit children if they have choices
and options. Educate women -- jail men who abuse them -- and we will go
a long way towards affecting population.
Donna
On May 31, 2013, at 4:01 AM, gerald neff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thomas is right on population. In the US and other developed countries
there is no reason why couples should NOT limit their families to two
children. Religion must take a big part of the blame for the predicament
the world is in. Look at Mexico and South America where Catholicism and
poverty go hand in hand. With all the discussion about immigration to the
US most of our problems start at the border of Mexico. Why don't we have
any problems along the Canadian border? Population and Climate Change
are so connected and no one wants to discuss either topic. Jerry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Thomas Mathews, CIG <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Fri, 31 May 2013 00:02:34 -0500 (CDT)
> Subject: population
>
> What to do about global warming? A good place to start is
> population--reduce the number of humans born each year. People should
be screaming their
> lungs out about the damage that over-population is doing to the
planet, but
> mostly we hear nothing. So I'm talking about it now.
>
> When my father was born, in 1911, global population was about 1.7
billion.
> Now it's 7 billion, and growing. Think about those numbers. Problems
like
> global warming are much less serious if there are not so many people
in the
> world.
>
> The Catholic church should promote the use of artificial methods of
birth
> control, and the church should encourage couples to stop at two
children.
> I'm an ardent defender of Nature, but natural birth control--the
rhythm
> method, endorsed by the Vatican--isn't very effective.
>
> Barry and Paul discuss population on a Sierra Club list, below.
>
> While population control is a good place to start, we of course have to
> work on other issues as well, like stopping the Keystone pipeline. But
the
> fact remains irreducible that a finite planet cannot support infinite
growth.
>
> Tom
> [Acronym translations: EV=electric vehicle; RE=renewable energy;
> TOD=transit oriented development, i.e., housing and businesses built
near mass
> transit, usually rail; ICE=internal combustion engine; VMT=vehicle
miles
> traveled; TGV=French very high-speed train; SNCF=the French state-owned
railroad
> company]
>
========================================================================
===
> =
> Barry,
>
> I started to get frustrated at your dissing of efficient EVs and
RE, and
> was saying to myself that this is actually population you're talking
about.
> Then you made that very point.
>
> Thank you. I felt better immediately.
>
> I endowed three vasectomy funds through Planned Parenthood offices in
> Eugene, OR, Pasadena and Los Angeles. I encourage those with money to
> contribute to do so. If you have the means, endow your own vasectomy
fund with your
> local PP office. Tell them to call the LA or Lane County OR offices for
how
> to structure it. It's money well spent since about $200-$400 will
prevent
> potentially several unwanted pregnancies. So much of our problems would
be
> easier to manage if there were fewer of us.
>
> Paul
>
> On May 30, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Schiller, Barry wrote:
>
>> Thanks to all who contributed to this interesting thread.
>>
>> I commend Alan for presenting a vision of how emphasizing energy
> efficient walkable transit rich communities can contribute to carbon
emission
> reduction. As I see it, he is not suggesting mass transit only or not
to work
> on renewables or better vehicles, but prioritizing the TOD concept as
the
> best way to go to get meaningful results.
>>
>> What I think we should also like about Alan's vision is that it also
> better serves other environmental interests besides carbon reduction.
For
> example, super efficient/clean personal vehicles encourage sprawl and
the need
> to pave over green space for roads and parking, contribute to
roadkill,
> wildlife habitat loss, accidents, make it harder to walk or bicycle on
the
> roads about as much as ICE vehicles. And "renewable" energy has many
> problematic elements including placement in natural areas, transmission
line
> issues, birdkill, neighborhood nuisances, aesthetic issues, and more.
TOD
> intends to reduce energy and VMT demand which renewables/EVs do not do
as much
> if at all. That is why I have also have advocated working on
population
> growth reduction strategies too.
>>
>> As for our differences with France, I think they have going for their
> CO2 reduction strategy their use of nuclear power and lack of oil
which
> incentivizes electric transport such as the trams, TGV, the power of
the small
> farmers and their supporters who resist sprawl into farmland, a
centralized
> government that can make and implement policy of their party has a
majority
> in Parliament (except perhaps on the rare interludes of
"cohabitation"
> when the President is of another party) including legislating very
high fuel
> taxes, and the strong SNCF unions which were able to get subsidies and
> preserve a lot of services even in the lowest point of rail travel.
Vive la
> SNCF!
>>
>> Barry Schiller, RI
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Join the conversation on 21st Century Transportation which provides
the
> infrastructure so you can walk, bike or take transit instead of having
to
> drive for every trip, and have low carbon cars and fuels when you do
drive, at
> http://connect.sierraclub.org/Groups/Green_Transportation
>
> To unsubscribe from the CONS-TRANS-CHAIRS-FORUM list, send any message
to:
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
> http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
>
> Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
> e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
> latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
> editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/
|
