Sometimes, when trying to stimulate thought which is not conventional, what is said is interpreted as what the author really believes and is actually advocating. Fear of being misrepresented often stifles frank conversation about difficult subjects. So that there can be no misunderstanding this post advocates nothing but is conjecture about a POSSIBILITY.
One of the truths our founders declared were "self evident", was our right to life. That is, no one has the right to deprive you of life by unnatural means, not that we would never die. I am a great believer in "nature" or whatever is responsible for nature. It appears to have systems in place which are designed to "naturally" regulate, balance and heal itself unless we interfere with them.
Environmentalist tell us that we, people, are responsible for unspeakable crimes against nature and that if we don't clean up our act, we all could perish. But if humans are responsible for these deteriorating conditions, then it follows that the more of us there are, the worse the damage and the fewer there are, the less damage. This sounds like one of nature's safety valves. A case could be made for allowing nature to dictate our life spans. We kill germs whose purpose seems to be to control population. With medical interventions our population has aged beyond a point that nature intended and the
difficult consequences create enormous health and social problems.
Under natural circumstances the population would always be relatively young. The diseases of aging would not exist which means that prolonging life is responsible for many of the conditions which afflict man. In every area which sustains human life, large, aging populations require the expenditure of many kinds and large quantities of resources which in turn pollute and deplete the environment.
The question of whether or not our planet can survive a never ending, exponential growth of populations and the aging of populations becomes one which can be solved only by limiting this growth. Whether this is done by limiting reproduction or limiting the preservation of life is a choice that must be made sooner or later. This conclusion, at this time, seems inevitable. Unless we can find alternatives, someone in the future will have to make this choice. We are safe for the time being but what about the future?
One of the truths our founders declared were "self evident", was our right to life. That is, no one has the right to deprive you of life by unnatural means, not that we would never die. I am a great believer in "nature" or whatever is responsible for nature. It appears to have systems in place which are designed to "naturally" regulate, balance and heal itself unless we interfere with them.
Environmentalist tell us that we, people, are responsible for unspeakable crimes against nature and that if we don't clean up our act, we all could perish. But if humans are responsible for these deteriorating conditions, then it follows that the more of us there are, the worse the damage and the fewer there are, the less damage. This sounds like one of nature's safety valves. A case could be made for allowing nature to dictate our life spans. We kill germs whose purpose seems to be to control population. With medical interventions our population has aged beyond a point that nature intended and the
difficult consequences create enormous health and social problems.
Under natural circumstances the population would always be relatively young. The diseases of aging would not exist which means that prolonging life is responsible for many of the conditions which afflict man. In every area which sustains human life, large, aging populations require the expenditure of many kinds and large quantities of resources which in turn pollute and deplete the environment.
The question of whether or not our planet can survive a never ending, exponential growth of populations and the aging of populations becomes one which can be solved only by limiting this growth. Whether this is done by limiting reproduction or limiting the preservation of life is a choice that must be made sooner or later. This conclusion, at this time, seems inevitable. Unless we can find alternatives, someone in the future will have to make this choice. We are safe for the time being but what about the future?
No comments:
Post a Comment