I agree with the writer. The oncoming rapid decline in biodiversity is a
disaster. Here we are on this little planet, sharing our lives with other
species whose building blocks of life are IDENTICAL to our own. The plains
Indians said that the buffalo was their brother. It's literally true. All
of the other plants and animals are our relations. If we lose them we lose our
inheritance. What if we are all alone in the universe? It's
possible. It's possible the only other living things in the universe
besides ourselves are the plants and animals. It's a terrible thing to
snuff them out.
Am I reading this letter in the Deseret News?It makes one wonder why
the right-wingers aren't conservationists when the Bible explicitly tells
them they're stewards of the Earth (i.e. representatives of god, having
been given stewardship over GOD'S property). Some stewards humanity has
turned out to be.
The earth was made for humans we were not made for it. We keep many animals
alive that benefit us, cattle, sheep, swine and poultry. Our survival and
comfort is essential to what this writer criticizes what he uses. And the right
to decide how many children to have is the most fundamental right a couple has
no one has a right to tell us to curb the population to "save the
planet" or stop having kids.
Sounds like the Garden of Eden to me. Thanks for the letter.
@ Ranch hand, Again,... maybe you should question your own view of
this paper. Perhaps it's not as biased as you think it is. Of course all
human endeavors are biased, but DN I think does an admirable job publishing
stories from many different perspectives. Certainly not perfect. But I believe
much better than FoxNews and NBC which are almost painfully biased. That is why
I read it all the way here from Omaha.
Oh... and great letter. I agree. We could learn a lot from our Native
American's brothers and sister's views of the earth. We are certainly
stewards and an accounting will be asked for one day.
IF we are such parasites... intent on destroying our host...Why are
most rivers cleaner today than they were just 40 years ago?Why is the air
in SLC cleaner than it was at the turn of the century (when office workers had
to change their white shirts mid-day because they would be black from coal smoke
in the air and on everything)?If we are so intent no destroying our
host... why are so many people doing so many things to improve... the way we
farm food, the way we build, transportation, the way we provide the things
humans need to live?We are more efficient and cleaner in doing this
than we have ever been in human history.... and all you can do is complain.I know we have a long way to go, but at least we are improving. And we
do NOT want to destroy the planet... NOBODY wants to destroy the planet.Different people have different approaches... but we ALL want a planet
to live on.====I know we have a long way to go, but it
takes time and we ARE improving.
2 bits asked..."Why are most rivers cleaner today than they were just
40 years ago? Why is the air in SLC cleaner than it was at the turn of the
century (when office workers had to change their white shirts mid-day because
they would be black from coal smoke in the air and on everything)?"Regulations, that filthy word to most conservatives.We didn't bury
our heads in the sand and do nothing, like the conservatives motto
today...NO!Your right we have a long way to go, but we have to keep moving
or we will never get anywhere.Eventually someone will find a replacement
for whale blubber, but we shouldn't wait till there's no whales left.
This is the new voice of population reduction.How about finding
solutions that don't destroy economies?
James WestwaterFanstastic Letter!I'm completely shocked
and surprised the Deseret News had the courage to print it.Agreed....and 2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTwho says -- "Why are most rivers cleaner today than they were just
40 years ago?Why is the air in SLC cleaner than it was at the turn of the
century..." Umm, GOVERNMENT regulations, the EPA -- us liberal,
tree-Hugging Americans, who put Life ahead of money and profits -- that's
While I appreciate the intentions of the letter and understand where in the
education world that point of view comes from, I think it's important to
point out that it is not objectively true or accurate.For example,
over the past century advances in industry, science, engineering, and technology
have reduced the amount of per-person pollution generated. Imagine if we all
still had horses and burned coal or wood to heat our homes. Advances using
natural resources and industrial processes have made us all healthier.
Commercial and industrial practices have made all kinds of activities much
cleaner including oil drilling and production, metals mining, electricity
production, and so forth. Even though populations have grown, places like Salt
Lake City and Los Angeles have cleaner air today than in 1975.So the
trend in the world is not negative as the letter suggests, rather it is positive
-- we're getting better (not worse) at protecting the world around us.
@airnautSensible regulations are good. A self-motivated population
doing things for the right reason (not just because of government mandates) is
even better. Show me somebody who actually said they want ZERO
regulations in this world (not just you ASSUMING they want zero regulations).====My point wasn't who gets credit for not having to
change our shirts mid-day, or less rivers that actually catch fire today (EPA,
Obama, Al Gore, whatever). My point is that we are making
progress.... and yet the letter writer and his fans claim the opposite (kinda
points at their credibility).Despite the fact that air is actually
cleaner today, and most rivers are cleaner than they were before... we get
statements like this from the letter writer..."Humanity's
relentless pursuit of comfort, convenience, material possessions, profit and
money, plundering and polluting the environment. Exploiting fellow human beings
and destroying the habitat of species after species".... "We’re behaving like a cancer"....And statements
like these from Marxist and the like..."The oncoming rapid decline in
biodiversity is a disaster"..."Some stewards humanity has turned
out to be"...Are they reality... or rhetoric?
@2 bits "And statements like these from Marxist and the like...'The oncoming rapid decline in biodiversity is a disaster'...'Some stewards humanity has turned out to be'...Are they
reality... or rhetoric?""...according to a review published
on May 29 in the journal Science, current extinction rates are up to a thousand
times higher than they would be if people weren't in the picture." -
National Geographic Society.
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UT@airnautSensible
regulations are good. A self-motivated population doing things for the right
reason (not just because of government mandates) is even better. Show me somebody who actually said they want ZERO regulations in this world
(not just you ASSUMING they want zero regulations).======= Not until you show me somebody who actually said we want ZERO fossil fuels in
this world (not just you ASSUMING we want zero emissions).I'll
support your self-regulating population the very second I see people driving
like me at 65 mph when a Utah State Highway Patrol man isn't blocking their
lane.Not just because the Government mandates it...
I read here on the weekend there aren't enough of us. More of us will fix
the problem, won't it?
If we are individuals who are born, live and then die, we should make the most
of our lives for enjoyment. Judging by the world as it is, most if not all
people believe this way. If we are simply one of the many parts of a
bigger and more important plan, we should at least consider leaving some of the
good stuff for the next generation.