Environmental responsibility

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Nope, loving fellow man is one of the greatest commandments. 

Is it loving to destroy his environment? The streams and oceans which he fishes from? And pollute his air so that his children get autism, and cancers?

If your answer is no, then a call to be good stewards of the earth for the sake of our brethren is very consistent with loving our brethren and following the greatest commandments. God created the earth for our use, and so that we could learn to take care of it - not so that we can do  whatever we want, and abuse His creation. That is the point of this thread which you called "nonsense." Studying the earth, and learning how to take care of it, is not in any way equivalent to worshiping it and placing it above God. We are not teaching pantheism. However, I think we are coming to realize that we shall inherit the earth as Yeshua told us. That is more literal than I think you have realized. 

[snowflake]

31 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So nothing he said, just the fact that he believes we should take care of one of the gifts that God gave us.

 

As i read the article I was anxiously anticipating a comment on climate change or CO2.....

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, snowflake said:

As i read the article I was anxiously anticipating a comment on climate change or CO2.....

Please don't read into the article what you might think others might say, but deal with what it actually says.

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Thinking said:

Environmental responsibility has include population control IMO.

I'm curious as to what you mean by "population control."  Government-mandated?  Government-enforced?  Imprisonment?  Forced sterilization and abortions, like what we've seen in China?  Infanticide?  Euthenasia?  

Quote

The earth has finite resources and as one population grows, another has to decrease. If we humans don't control ourselves consciously, nature will take care of it eventually.

Cue the "the second coming will come first" faction.

So say Malthusian theorists.  And yet...

Quote

If by fiat I had to identify the most consequential ideas in the history of science, good and bad, in the top 10 would be the 1798 treatise An Essay on the Principle of Population, by English political economist Thomas Robert Malthus. On the positive side of the ledger, it inspired Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace to work out the mechanics of natural selection based on Malthus's observation that populations tend to increase geometrically (2, 4, 8, 16 …), whereas food reserves grow arithmetically (2, 3, 4, 5 …), leading to competition for scarce resources and differential reproductive success, the driver of evolution.

...

We think of eugenics and forced sterilization as a right-wing Nazi program implemented in 1930s Germany. Yet as Princeton University economist Thomas Leonard documents in his book Illiberal Reformers (Princeton University Press, 2016) and former New York Times editor Adam Cohen reminds us in his book Imbeciles (Penguin, 2016), eugenics fever swept America in the early 20th century, culminating in the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell, in which the justices legalized sterilization of “undesirable” citizens. The court included prominent progressives Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the latter of whom famously ruled, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The result: sterilization of some 70,000 Americans.

Science writer Ronald Bailey tracks neo-Malthusians in his book The End of Doom (St. Martin's Press, 2015), starting with Paul Ehrlich's 1968 best seller The Population Bomb, which proclaimed that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over.” Many doomsayers followed. Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown, for example, declared in 1995, “Humanity's greatest challenge may soon be just making it to the next harvest.” In a 2009 Scientific American article he affirmed his rhetorical question, “Could food shortages bring down civilization?” In a 2013 conference at the University of Vermont, Ehrlich assessed our chances of avoiding civilizational collapse at only 10 percent.

The problem with Malthusians, Bailey writes, is that they “cannot let go of the simple but clearly wrong idea that human beings are no different than a herd of deer when it comes to reproduction.” Humans are thinking animals. We find solutions—think Norman Borlaug and the green revolution. The result is the opposite of what Malthus predicted: the wealthiest nations with the greatest food security have the lowest fertility rates, whereas the most food-insecure countries have the highest fertility rates.

The solution to overpopulation is not to force people to have fewer children. China's one-child policy showed the futility of that experiment. It is to raise the poorest nations out of poverty through democratic governance, free trade, access to birth control, and the education and economic empowerment of women.

And here:

Quote

Remember when the world ended in 1985? Neither do I.

That was a prediction made by biologist Paul Ehrlich in 1970, who warned in a CBS interview that “[m]ost of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born. Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come.”

Ehrlich evidenced his apocalyptic claims in his 1968 book, The Population Bomb, warning of imminent human starvation and ruination on a global scale. Famine would prevail, diseases would sweep whole continents, social upheaval would spread—that sort of thing.

It’s worth noting that the world population when Ehrlich made his claim was just under 3.7 billion people; by 1985 it had risen to 4.85 billion. Today it stands at around 7.4 billion people.

Ehrlich’s warnings about the Earth’s incapacity to provide ample resources to a growing human population was quietly refuted even as the world population doubled in less than five decades. World hunger has declined by 216 million people since 1992; world poverty has declined from roughly 60 percent of the Earth’s population to 9.6 percent in 2015; and the world average GDP per capita has doubled from $5,165 in 1970 to $10,418 in 2015.

The Population Bomb was doomsday-prophesying at its worst. Ehrlich himself was ridiculed as a “neo-Malthusian,” referring to the warnings of the 19^th century British scholar Thomas Malthus, who warned that population growth was outpacing growth in food production.

Yet the book spurred a wave of panicked hand-wringing in the social re-engineering world. As science journalist Charles C. Mann writes in Smithsonian,

The International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Population Council, the World Bank, the United Nations Population Fund, the Hugh Moore-backed Association for Voluntary Sterilization and other organizations promoted and funded programs to reduce fertility in poor places [read: the developing world].

That resulted in “horrific” population-control programs, Mann writes—mandating the use of contraceptives, sprinkling birth control pills across rural villages via helicopter, fixing healthcare workers’ salaries to the number of IUDs they inserted into women, and sterilizing millions of people (often forcibly).

That culminated, of course, in communist China’s infamous “one-child policy,” which involved forced abortion and contraception use. As it turns out, enforcing population stabilization is a brutal business—something American foundations that fund such activities are curiously loathe to admit.

...

In the August 2015 edition of Green Watch, CRC vice president and chief investigative officer Dr. Steven J. Allen identified The Population Bomb as one of “the books that begat ‘Big Green.’” And while Paul Ehrlich was one of the first to sensationalize overpopulation theories, Dr. Allen noted, they had their roots in an earlier pseudo-scientific theory: eugenics. According to Dr. Allen:

The eugenics movement—spearheaded by scientists, and widespread in America and Europe in the early decades of the twentieth century—called for selective breeding of humans and for the sterilization of “undesirables” such as habitual criminals, people with disabilities, and mountain folk (“hillbillies”).

If Ehrlich’s warning touched off any “bomb,” it seems, it was one of government-induced infanticide and sterilization on an unprecedented scale.

And here:

Quote

Something that happened to me a few years ago may throw light on the popular mindset regarding what’s called overpopulation.

I was standing in the middle of Ronald Reagan/National Airport in Washington, D.C. talking on my cell phone about demographic winter (the precipitous worldwide decline in birthrates). When the call was over, I was accosted by a middle-aged woman with a scowl on her face who told me emphatically: “Well, if families are having fewer children, that’s a good thing. There are too many people in the world.”

“If there are too many people,” I innocently inquired, “how many should there be? What’s the right number?”

The lady began sputtering: “I really don’t know. I just know there are too many?” To which I replied, “How can you know there are too many of anything if you’d don’t know what the right number is?” The concept “too many” presupposes a correct quantity or the right number. You see, that’s the thing: Almost no one who carries on about overpopulation has any idea of how many people there should be.

...

Speaking in New York recently, former Vice President and voodoo climatologist Al Gore warned of environmental Armageddon — a world drowning in pollution — unless we can stabilize population growth.

Gore says we can do this through what he calls “fertility management” and “educating and empowering women and girls” to make the right choices. When Al Gore says he wants women and girls to make the “right choices” he means those of which Al Gore approves – family limitation trough contraception and abortion.

The world now has seven times as many of us as when Malthus made his apocalyptic forecast. There are over twice as many as when Ehrlich looked into his crystal ball and saw mass worldwide starvation. Neither of those failed predictions has deterred the population mystics, who continue to concoct end-of-the-world scenarios based on “overpopulation.”

Instead of starvation, it’s now an environmental cataclysm – mountains of trash, seas of pollution and an ever-widening hole in the ozone layer. Each person is said to have a “carbon footprint,” which leaves an indelible mark on the planet.

And when the latest generation of population hysterics is proven wrong, once again, the next will cometh with their own forecasts of gloom and doom.  Thousands of years ago, when we were all living in caves or huts, the paleo-Malthusians probably thought the world was overcrowded then and confidently predicted decimation of the herds of woolly mammoths if population growth continued unabated.

The truth is: These are people who don’t like people.

They long for a pristine world where everyone has a few hundred acres of land, replete with all kinds of cute, cuddly animals, and they and their friends can have their solitude, while still enjoying the benefits of an advanced industrial civilization, including central air-conditioning, plasma TVs and cappuccino-makers.

Here’s another truth: You can’t have progress – progress of any kind – without population growth. In the past 200 years, the world’s population grew from around 970 million to 6.8 billion – almost a seven-fold increase. That population explosion fueled every human advance from the industrial revolution to the computer age. The same period saw a phenomenal growth of productivity, scientific achievement, health and material comfort.

More people equal a greater capacity for production, development of resources and innovation — which in turn leads to higher standards of living all around.

As the late economist Julian Simon noted, people are the ultimate resource. Growing wealth is always accompanied by robust population growth. By the way, it’s no coincidence that the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain, which had the highest population density in Europe in the early 19th century.

Overpopulation is a myth. Under-population could soon be a reality. When there aren’t enough of us to keep industries humming, to grow the food, develop the natural resources, manufacture the products and provide the services needed to keep society functioning – that’s under-population.

When there aren’t enough young workers to pay the pensions of the elderly, that’s under-population. When one child is asked to care for two retired parents and four elderly grandparents, that’s under-population.

When the housing market collapses because there aren’t enough buyers for existing (not to mention new) housing units, that’s under-population. When developing nations are drained of young men to meet the labor needs of developed nations which refuse to reproduce in adequate numbers, that’s under-population. When a nation’s one-child-per-family policy results in a situation in which millions of young men will never be able to find wives, that’s a consequence of under-population. When a nation with land-hungry neighbors doesn’t have the soldiers to protect its borders, that’s under-population.

One last truth: like Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore, most of us in this room won’t live long enough to experience the full impact of declining birthrates. Regrettably, our children and our grandchildren will. And that’s why what we’re doing here at the Moscow Demographic Summit is so vitally important.

Interesting stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 26, 2018 by smac97

[snowflake]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Is it loving to destroy his environment? The streams and oceans which he fishes from? And pollute his air so that his children get autism, and cancers?

If your answer is no, then a call to be good stewards of the earth for the sake of our brethren is very consistent with loving our brethren and following the greatest commandments. God created the earth for our use, and so that we could learn to take care of it - not so that we can do  whatever we want, and abuse His creation. That is the point of this thread which you called "nonsense." Studying the earth, and learning how to take care of it, is not in any way equivalent to worshiping it and placing it above God. We are not teaching pantheism. However, I think we are coming to realize that we shall inherit the earth as Yeshua told us. That is more literal than I think you have realized. 

Here in the USA we take care of our air and water, and I am glad we do that.  However, eventually the earth will be burned up.....scripture tells us so. If the church is worried about taking care of the earth they need to look to China, India and other true polluters.  

¹⁰ But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3

 

 

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Here in the USA we take care of our air and water, and I am glad we do that.  However, eventually the earth will be burned up.....scripture tells us so. If the church is worried about taking care of the earth they need to look to China, India and other true polluters.  

¹⁰ But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3

 

 

Yes, China and India are worse. If you go to India whatever you do do not bathe in or drink from or spend too much time near the holy river.

That is easy though. Saying we are doing okay because others are doing worse is a cop out. Yesterday I had to hear someone defend a US policy as more humanitarian and tolerant then what happens in North Korea. Really......have we sunk that low?

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Here in the USA we take care of our air and water, and I am glad we do that.  However, eventually the earth will be burned up.....scripture tells us so. If the church is worried about taking care of the earth they need to look to China, India and other true polluters.  

The Church cannot force them to change. The Church is merely teaching that we each do our own little part. As the Church grows there, they will get taught the importance of being good stewards as well. 

As for the earth burning up - does that mean the end of the earth? Our sun has another several billion years left in its life. If the earth is cleansed from all wickedness, and burnt up as you point out, does that mean the meek can no longer inherit it? Or would it be cleansed from all sin, and ready for those of the celestial kingdom to inherit? It think the earth getting burnt up is equivalent to the end of the gospel, and cleansing of the earth. It doesn't necessarily imply at all that the planet earth will come to its end. What would resurrected persons do in some ethereal heaven?

[halconero]

I'm pretty sure I just read Elder Snow describe negative externalities and the social costs of pollution, and advocate a market-based response along with personal recognition of our own responsibilities.

So I'm happy.

[Thinking]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm curious as to what you mean by "population control."  Government-mandated?  Government-enforced?  Imprisonment?  Forced sterilization and abortions, like what we've seen in China?  Infanticide?  Euthenasia?

I don't think forced control is the answer.

 

[carbon dioxide]

On 10/26/2018 at 9:21 AM, pogi said:

One excellent way we can be better stewards is to actually follow the word of wisdom - "eat meat sparingly and only in times of famine."

http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whopper-environmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/

It would be a great way to lose weight because I would still not eat a lot of fruits and veggies.  I probably would be much more on edge without my meat.

[carbon dioxide]

On 10/26/2018 at 11:37 AM, pogi said:

That is really interesting.  Sounds like a much more humane and environmentally friendly way to produce meat.  Of course, there are other good health reasons to reduce consumption of red meat, so I don't know if that would affect how the word of wisdom is interpreted. 

What's another environmentally friendly and healthy alternative to beef?  "Bugs are the new beef"

https://foodandnutrition.org/september-october-2013/bugs-new-beef/

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-insects-as-food/

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/will-we-all-be-eating-insects-50-years/

Protein/gram 
cricket = 20.1
cow = 20.6

Greenhouse gases released per kg of live weight (g)
cricket = 2
cow = 2,850

Feed required per kg of live weight (kg)
cricket = 1.7
cow = 10

Land required per g of protein (square meter)
cricket = 18
cow = 254

water required per gram of protein (li)
cricket = 23
cow = 112
 

I think I would resort to eating rats over insects. 

[carbon dioxide]

On 10/26/2018 at 12:41 PM, snowflake said:

As i read the article I was anxiously anticipating a comment on climate change or CO2.....

I support climate change and CO2 emissions. 

[Calm]

Smac, it bugs me that you post the extreme population control positions as if this was typical of those who label themselves “environmentalists” and label it as “many environmentalists”.  I come from a family of environmentalists, all of whom have wanted to have large families as well  

 If someone did so for Latter-day Saints, posted comments from someone who stated polygamy would solve the world’s problems, that blood atonement should be practiced, Etc., would you be comfortable with someone claiming “many Saints believe” such things or would you find it to be misrepresenting the Church generally speaking?

The vast majority of people I know who have been supportive of population control over the last 4 decades or so were all concerned with the quality of life of the lower income populations.  Their reasoning may have been wrong (though most simple went to don’t have more kids than you can afford) as far as earth resources and that can be challenged as you did, but claiming motivation is misanthropy in any but a small percentage is a mistatement, imo, and draws the focus off what it should be.

It also seems very off topic in response to Elder Snow’s comments. 

Edited October 28, 2018 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Smac, it bugs me that you post the extreme population control positions as if this was typical of those who label themselves “environmentalists” and label it as “many environmentalists”.

 If someone did so for Latter-day Saints, posted comments from someone who stated polygamy would solve the world’s problems, that blood atonement should be practiced, Etc., would you be comfortable with someone claiming “many Saints believe” such things or would you find it to be misrepresenting the Church generally speaking?

It also seems very off topic in response to Elder Snow’s comments. 

Thank you. I was about to point out the "straw man" in smac's comments. You saved me the effort  

[pogi]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

It would be a great way to lose weight because I would still not eat a lot of fruits and veggies.  I probably would be much more on edge without my meat.

Well, you could always do the beans and rice diet.  That's a full protein combo.  Save you crap loads of money too.  

[pogi]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I think I would resort to eating rats over insects. 

You're no John the Baptist!

I hate to break it to you, but you already eat bugs.

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/will-we-all-be-eating-insects-50-years/

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Well, you could always do the beans and rice diet.  That's a full protein combo.  Save you crap loads of money too.  

And old school, too. Leads to songs like, "they feed me on cornbread and beans, lord lord"

Sometimes goin' down that road of environmental responsibility leaves you feelin' bad but making some good music  

 

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

And old school, too. Leads to songs like, "they feed me on cornbread and beans, lord lord"

Sometimes goin' down that road of environmental responsibility leaves you feelin' bad but making some good music  

It is a "long lonesome road" but I try to walk it for our mama earth.   Because I hear her banjo a-pluckin' as she cries in her waste-lands,  "well I aint-a-gonna-be-treated-this-a-way"

[snowflake]

On 10/27/2018 at 6:32 PM, carbon dioxide said:

I support climate change and CO2 emissions. 

I support CO2 as well, i breathe it out all day! And the climate has always changed. 

[Tacenda]

On 10/26/2018 at 12:54 PM, snowflake said:

Here in the USA we take care of our air and water, and I am glad we do that.  However, eventually the earth will be burned up.....scripture tells us so. If the church is worried about taking care of the earth they need to look to China, India and other true polluters.  

¹⁰ But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3

 

 

My son gave me crap today for wanting him to rinse out the carton of juice before putting it in a recyle sack I have separate from regular trash, which the carton would have been thrown in had I not asked him to do what I just mentioned. Which started a huge argument about not needing to worry about the planet and how it's going to burn up and we'll already be figuring out ways to go live on another planet. Some guy he's been listening to on a podcast or something. I was so frustrated at his lack of care for those that come after him.

So frustrated. It seems like I should just give up. Then I called my city and asked if they knew of a recycle container for glass because roadside doesn't pick up glass. The city told me that only SLC has them. Well I researched further and called around and found out that we had one just down the block in Layton at a nearby park area. So many are probably not feeling much on traveling to SLC and throwing their glass in the trash because the city told them we didn't have a bin for that.

Frustrated to my limit here. Also, saw on the news today a snippet about a certain coat that thousands are on the waitlist to buy, guess why? It's because it was made with recycled plastic soda bottles! So there is a desire out there. Maybe not from you or my son, but glad it's still there. Because if I were God and saw people treat my creation like that and think it no big deal the world is going to end anyhow, I'd be pretty ticked.

But maybe I've painted you wrong here, if so please correct me. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

My son gave me crap today for wanting him to rinse out the carton of juice before putting it in a recyle sack I have separate from regular trash, which the carton would have been thrown in had I not asked him to do what I just mentioned. Which started a huge argument about not needing to worry about the planet and how it's going to burn up and we'll already be figuring out ways to go live on another planet. Some guy he's been listening to on a podcast or something. I was so frustrated at his lack of care for those that come after him.

So frustrated. It seems like I should just give up. Then I called my city and asked if they knew of a recycle container for glass because roadside doesn't pick up glass. The city told me that only SLC has them. Well I researched further and called around and found out that we had one just down the block in Layton at a nearby park area. So many are probably not feeling much on traveling to SLC and throwing their glass in the trash because the city told them we didn't have a bin for that.

Frustrated to my limit here. Also, saw on the news today a snippet about a certain coat that thousands are on the waitlist to buy, guess why? It's because it was made with recycled plastic soda bottles! So there is a desire out there. Maybe not from you or my son, but glad it's still there. Because if I were God and saw people treat my creation like that and think it no big deal the world is going to end anyhow, I'd be pretty ticked.

But maybe I've painted you wrong here, if so please correct me. 

😋I have learned not to talk about things like this and politics with my son....he doesn't say anything...just clenches his fists and turns purple..scary enuf!!

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Jeanne said:

😋I have learned not to talk about things like this and politics with my son....he doesn't say anything...just clenches his fists and turns purple..scary enuf!!

I'm going to have to just shut my mouth as well, he is such a know it all, can't wait to see him grow up and have some respect. 

[snowflake]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My son gave me crap today for wanting him to rinse out the carton of juice before putting it in a recyle sack I have separate from regular trash, which the carton would have been thrown in had I not asked him to do what I just mentioned. Which started a huge argument about not needing to worry about the planet and how it's going to burn up and we'll already be figuring out ways to go live on another planet. Some guy he's been listening to on a podcast or something. I was so frustrated at his lack of care for those that come after him.

So frustrated. It seems like I should just give up. Then I called my city and asked if they knew of a recycle container for glass because roadside doesn't pick up glass. The city told me that only SLC has them. Well I researched further and called around and found out that we had one just down the block in Layton at a nearby park area. So many are probably not feeling much on traveling to SLC and throwing their glass in the trash because the city told them we didn't have a bin for that.

Frustrated to my limit here. Also, saw on the news today a snippet about a certain coat that thousands are on the waitlist to buy, guess why? It's because it was made with recycled plastic soda bottles! So there is a desire out there. Maybe not from you or my son, but glad it's still there. Because if I were God and saw people treat my creation like that and think it no big deal the world is going to end anyhow, I'd be pretty ticked.

But maybe I've painted you wrong here, if so please correct me. 

Why would it matter if you toss your carbon based carton of OJ into the recycling bin or into the trash heap? Which is truly "better" for the environment? I'm not saying i know the answer here but think about this. Where I live we have two different fleets of "trash trucks", one for trash and one for recycling. So in the wisdom of going green, my city has purchased an extra fleet of trucks running the exact same trash route to pick up the recyclables. How green is buying an extra fleet of trucks? Running that evil diesel fuel through them to pick up your OJ container? Also, if we are looking for a way to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, why not bury all the carbon based debris which takes about 100 years to biodegrade instead of wasting energy on buying trucks and fuel for recycling?  Atmospheric CO2 is plant food, so burying paper products is a great way to "dump" carbon or trap carbon out of the atmosphere. Thoughts?  

[Tacenda]

54 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Why would it matter if you toss your carbon based carton of OJ into the recycling bin or into the trash heap? Which is truly "better" for the environment? I'm not saying i know the answer here but think about this. Where I live we have two different fleets of "trash trucks", one for trash and one for recycling. So in the wisdom of going green, my city has purchased an extra fleet of trucks running the exact same trash route to pick up the recyclables. How green is buying an extra fleet of trucks? Running that evil diesel fuel through them to pick up your OJ container? Also, if we are looking for a way to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, why not bury all the carbon based debris which takes about 100 years to biodegrade instead of wasting energy on buying trucks and fuel for recycling?  Atmospheric CO2 is plant food, so burying paper products is a great way to "dump" carbon or trap carbon out of the atmosphere. Thoughts?  

Well, if you recycle paper products, less trees cut down? If something can be reused vs. go to the trash heap, why wouldn't we? Aren't we running out of room for dumps? If not, maybe show me the errors in my thinking. I really would like to read your opinion. Because if I'm wrong I'll admit it. I have to head to work, look forward to doing more digging on this. Have a good day!

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/25/2018 at 11:49 PM, Thinking said:

Environmental responsibility has to include population control IMO. The earth has finite resources and as one population grows, another has to decrease. If we humans don't control ourselves consciously, nature will take care of it eventually.

 

Cue the "the second coming will come first" faction.

This Paul Ehrlich, sky-is-falling, zero-population-growth dogma was rampant nearly two generations ago. None of his doomsday prophecies were fulfilled.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd