Re: Haiti earthquake disaster
'The Empty Cradle" is a fictional notion based on the misguided mission of the New American Foundation. That mission is for each generation of Americans to live better than the last, by supposedly growing the population and the economy forever. That can't work because we can't grow the population forever. The only way for each generation to live better than the last is for the population to reach a steady state wherein the population does not continually accumulate degradation of the environment. Then we can live better by improving the resources of the last generation rather than growing them. Yes, it calls for a major change in economic and political strategy. It does not call for a continuing growth of the population. The idea that we may now be declining in numbers is absurd (though the author suggests it in the first chapter of his book, and I certainly wish it were so).
Craig, 'the last one won't care anyway since it won't matter at that point'? Why, because those hundreds or thousands of your descendants (assuming your children multiply and that pattern continues for a few iterations) will be enjoying the rapture? Or because after you die, you simply don't care about the suffering of future generations? Yes, it must be the latter.
Kaonohi, why look for a savior? We can each do our part, then we won't be relying on the Messiah to arrive. Also, you may not believe that introducing more food to a population results in an increase in that population when other factors are not limiting, but it is a widely accepted relationship, regardless of species.
'The Empty Cradle" is a fictional notion based on the misguided mission of the New American Foundation. That mission is for each generation of Americans to live better than the last, by supposedly growing the population and the economy forever. That can't work because we can't grow the population forever. The only way for each generation to live better than the last is for the population to reach a steady state wherein the population does not continually accumulate degradation of the environment. Then we can live better by improving the resources of the last generation rather than growing them. Yes, it calls for a major change in economic and political strategy. It does not call for a continuing growth of the population. The idea that we may now be declining in numbers is absurd (though the author suggests it in the first chapter of his book, and I certainly wish it were so).
Craig, 'the last one won't care anyway since it won't matter at that point'? Why, because those hundreds or thousands of your descendants (assuming your children multiply and that pattern continues for a few iterations) will be enjoying the rapture? Or because after you die, you simply don't care about the suffering of future generations? Yes, it must be the latter.
Kaonohi, why look for a savior? We can each do our part, then we won't be relying on the Messiah to arrive. Also, you may not believe that introducing more food to a population results in an increase in that population when other factors are not limiting, but it is a widely accepted relationship, regardless of species.
Comment