Music Banter - View Single Post

polyphonic · 05-18-2009, 03:10 PM

Between talks of C02 emissions and deforestation, saving the whales and dolphin safe tuna, finding the solution of how to literally save the world is an obviously difficult task. Especially when, according to what you see on television, there are such an overwhelming abundance of life threatening problems that we are making worse on a daily basis. We as Americans and as the human race are using up all of our natural resources at an alarming rate; the theories of how long we will be able to maintain life on this planet while keeping up with our current standard of living are alarming at best. There are dwindling amounts of usable ground and well water, certain areas around the world, at home and abroad, are over populated to the point that comfortable living space runs low, the need for foreign oil goes without saying unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past century or two, not to mention the effects and concerns of consumption of all other fossil fuels, further on into Global Warming, and the list goes on and on. If you would now consider that most of our planet is made of water, a large percentage of our planet is uninhabited, technological advances have brought us to the point where we could use renewable energy sources, and Global Warming may not even be a real concern at this point. Where along the line do these things go from manageable to life threatening?
Many people believe that the answers to some of the bigger problems in America lie within a form of population control, that our planet has become so unmanageable that we must stifle or even eliminate human life in order to preserve it. Much like some of China’s population control policies, it is often believed that by controlling birth rates that you can better the remaining lives within the current population. While these theories make sense from an often one sided perspective, what good is it to “sell the kids for food” or “sell the car for gas money”? Where do ideas such as this leave the prospect of the American dream? As seen with the classic American money shuffles like credit cards and bail outs, it is clear to me that there are resources at our apparent disposal. I suggest that there must be a more intelligent way to preserve life than just simply limiting it, or implementing fear into it and therefore, limiting the American Dream.

05-18-2009, 03:10 PM	#42 (permalink)
polyphonic Trigger Happy Catalyst Join Date: May 2009 Location: Springfield, Mo. Posts: 62	Between talks of C02 emissions and deforestation, saving the whales and dolphin safe tuna, finding the solution of how to literally save the world is an obviously difficult task. Especially when, according to what you see on television, there are such an overwhelming abundance of life threatening problems that we are making worse on a daily basis. We as Americans and as the human race are using up all of our natural resources at an alarming rate; the theories of how long we will be able to maintain life on this planet while keeping up with our current standard of living are alarming at best. There are dwindling amounts of usable ground and well water, certain areas around the world, at home and abroad, are over populated to the point that comfortable living space runs low, the need for foreign oil goes without saying unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past century or two, not to mention the effects and concerns of consumption of all other fossil fuels, further on into Global Warming, and the list goes on and on. If you would now consider that most of our planet is made of water, a large percentage of our planet is uninhabited, technological advances have brought us to the point where we could use renewable energy sources, and Global Warming may not even be a real concern at this point. Where along the line do these things go from manageable to life threatening? Many people believe that the answers to some of the bigger problems in America lie within a form of population control, that our planet has become so unmanageable that we must stifle or even eliminate human life in order to preserve it. Much like some of China’s population control policies, it is often believed that by controlling birth rates that you can better the remaining lives within the current population. While these theories make sense from an often one sided perspective, what good is it to “sell the kids for food” or “sell the car for gas money”? Where do ideas such as this leave the prospect of the American dream? As seen with the classic American money shuffles like credit cards and bail outs, it is clear to me that there are resources at our apparent disposal. I suggest that there must be a more intelligent way to preserve life than just simply limiting it, or implementing fear into it and therefore, limiting the American Dream. __________________ How quickly I forget that this is meaningless.