nice shoemoney site at shoemoney http://www.imyourhuckleberry.info/ 23

Fortunately, this is already taking place, and the population acceleration that has occurred over the past few centuries is at least slowing. Supposedly the world population will stabilize at 9 billion or so by the end of this century.

I like animals, and can certainly see how some could favor their innocence over humanity’s double-dealing, greed, insincerity, and often cruelty, but I am certainly no PETA extremist. I approve of (valid) medical testing on animals, I eat meat, and I think when pets get too old or too sick it’s ok to euthanize them.

However, I also think that if people get too old or too sick we should allow them to decide to euthanize themselves, or to allow their close relatives to make that decision for them (Schiavo).

I also think abortion (though a poor second choice to birth control) is a way to prevent unwanted kids from continuing to overburden our world beyond its capacity with even more humans.

Blame and a moralizing mentalityare a big part of the ineffectualness of these crusaders. They seem to care more about morality than about solutions. Apparently rich First Worlders like them can afford that kind of nonsense.

I am a Californian (ex-pat) and I put more value on redwood trees than on human beings, because very simply, a human being is a lot easier to replace. More fun, too. We joke that the national epic of California is “Dune” where people kill each other for their body water and that is all people are worth. Well, if I want to “save the redwoods” as we used to call it, I had better find a way that accomodates swarms of humans, because they aren’t going away and more arrive every day.

However, the the broader topic of environmentalism, I see the embrace of this topic by conservatives and moderates an extremely good thing.

This is not extrapolation on my part, but based on explicit statements, many of them, and over many, many years. The individual is also self-described as a strong environmentalist and a moderate liberal. The “moderate” modifier is, in this case, an affectation.

Of course, not all environmentalists fit that profile. I just wanted to say that some, for sure, do.

She hated it when I’d ask: “Why don’t environmentalists just do the studies to determine what level of human interference is acceptable, then decide what population levels would work given the acceptable interference? Then, we would know how many humans to kill off.”

Naturally, this was unacceptable logic to her. Nonetheless, it is logical.

I love nature and hate what we’re doing to it, but, we don’t seem to have arrived at way to balance the effect of humans on our earth.

I tend to subscribe to the belief that Earth will dictate the balance, either through catastrophic events or slow, painful re-education of the human species. We humans certainly aren’t bright enough to solve the problem.

that whole Bay thing was nice to read … Chesapeake is beautiful in it’s current incarnation.

I have a friend who belongs to PETA — she feeds wild cats in Golden Gate Park and is a rabit animal rights activist. Every painting and image hanging on the walls of her house is a depiction of some kind of animal — usually a cow, chicken, cat or dog, which interestingly are animals created by humans over generations. The art makes her house feel like going to a born-again Christian’s house filled with crucifixes and images of Jesus everywhere.

She’s a perfectly wonderful person and on some level I have to admire her conviction. A lot of her friends are quick to judge her convictions, but I don’t see them acting in a similar manner on their own convictions. So at least, here’s someone who sees pain and need in her eyes and is working to heal it.

But there is also the wide-eyed, holier-than-thou aspect of it all that bothers me. And like your brother, it’s all on one track. I truly think this woman believes the world would be better off with fewer people and more cats. It almost seems like some sort of post-humanist-secularlist-atheist animal worship cult or something. I’ve known her for years, and I avoid the topic of animals as much as I can. She generally obliges and is pretty good about not talking up her religion. But occasionally, she can’t resist the call to arms.

Somehow, although I might admire her steadfastness and conviction on some level, I think it’s missplaced. And I don’t think that she’s saving the world one bit. When history is truly ended, I don’t know that her contribution will have mattered.

And I think she has taken the view that people are the lowliest of creatures, which speaks more to pathology than anything else.

Her boyfriend tries his best to conform to her religion, and doesn’t eat meat in her presence. He belongs to PETA and has attended many functions, and gone to animal farms to heal chickens and cats.

“To be honest,” he told me, “the people that go to these things are boring. They’re really stern and single-minded.”

No doubt.