Re: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by Molly Williams

18 December 2000 14:36 UTC

David,

But isn't that where we are headed, GMOs or no? The earth's population
is not decreasing and the strain on the earth is increasing.


David A wrote:
> 
> Betsy Barnum wrote:
> >> There's no end to the separations...and doing so over time
> >> would mean that we would have production levels akin to 1900
> >> instead of the enhanced levels we have today. Which means we >> couldn't
> >> feed the population levels we have today.
> >
> > Maybe this wouldn't have been such a bad idea! As Daniel Quinn says, >
> > the more food we produce, the more the population grows. Slowing
> > down food production (not now, so people starve, but earlier) might >
> > have staved off the overpopulation we now have on Earth.
> 
> But Betsy, pursueing such a course would have meant that many of us may
> well not have been born, and some of us would certainly not have been
> born. Is that something you'd choose/would have chosen?Or, are you
> willing to end your life today for the sake of reducing the world's
> population and our impact on the environment?
> 
> I know that none of us have had a choice about being born, but it was a
> choice made by our parents, and on back, just as it was your choice to
> have children. Since you made that choice (for which, don't get me
> wrong, I certainly don't blame you), I think to be intellectually honest
> you have to admit that it would have been impossible to slow down food
> production in response to population pressures. No one else wants to see
> their children starve any more than you do, or choose not to have
> children any more than you didn't.
> 
> David