= too many PEOPLE
OVERpopulation = TOO MANY people
OVERPOPULATION = TOO
MANY PEOPLE ALREADY
CAN'T be clearer, but since I can find no evidence in the media
that very many editors, politicians, or people the establishment
considers smart understand it, I'll make what can't be clearer
even clearer. 1. Overpopulation is NOT a state of becoming; it's
a state of being. 2. An overpopulated world is not GETTING overpopulated;
it's ALREADY overpopulated. 3. The
solution IS NOT slower growth, or even no growth. 4. The solution
IS to reduce the human population of the world, i.e. (squint,
wrinkle your forehead, clinch your teeth, TRY to get it) to REDUCE
THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE UNTIL THERE ARE NO LONGER TOO MANY PEOPLE.
Got it? OK. Then your only remaining defense is to ask, as if
you were perplexed, "But how many people are too many?" and, "What
is meant by the word world?"
Definition of the word world:
The word world, in the context
of a discussion of overpopulation. means NOT the planet, OR the globe
(which I seriously doubt is warming), but, in definitions 1 and 2 below,
the eco-system, i.e. the eco-world or the
eco-sphere or bio-sphere (which I think is what IS warming - among other
things that are going wrong with it that Al Gore finds it inconvenient
to mention), and in definition 3 below, it refers to the same place
but from the perspective of an intelligent, civilized person with good
taste - like me.
Definition of the word overpopulation, with emphasis on
the phrase, too many people:
(1) TOO MANY PEOPLE to balance and interact
harmoniously with the other species and elements in an eco-system
which, to remain healthy and viable, requires all the elements in its
make-up to balance and interact with all the other elements harmoniously;
(2) TOO MANY PEOPLE to provide each and
every one of them the best life practically possible in a less populated
world, just in case we ever have a one-world Civilized
State that actually tries to do that.
(3) SO MANY PEOPLE, whether or not more
can be crowded in (which is definitely NOT cosmically necessary or unavoidable),
that our eco-space is ALREADY too crowded
with people and their noisy, tasteless, poisonous encampment to be as
comfortable as it once was and still could be - or as beautiful as it
once was and still could be - or to leave room outside their way-overgrown
encampment for the luxuriously spacious natural world of clean air and
soil and water and mountains and vast empty plains and forests and streams
and seas teaming with abundant wild life that I WANT IN MY WORLD.
Right now, all of those definitions are
academic, since, to anybody but an insensitive entrepreneur with a vested
interest in growth, a politician trying to be all things to all and
especially all rich constituents, a pseudo progressive trying to be
politically correct, a dolt suckered by the insiders' media, or a religious
person in rigid denial of a real world with actual spacial size and
limitations, all three of those lines have
obviously ALREADY been crossed. The first two lines
were crossed hundreds or even thousands of years ago, for sure before
Columbus was pushed west by population pressure but probably way before
that. The third line was crossed over 100 years ago and too obviously
not to notice it in the last 50 years - so that, right now, overpopulation
clearly enough means:
(4) OVER 7 BILLION PEOPLE in a world
just right for a fraction of that number.
Incidentally, understanding of all four
definitions above needs to include an understanding - a realization
(how can you avoid it?) - that the human presence is accompanied by
the presence of a HUMAN ENCAMPMENT that is far bigger and weighs
far more heavily on the eco-system than do its billions of tenants.
Of course, there are other definitions not
(0) MORE THAN THE OPTIMUM population.
This definition (to which, as a double entendre, I'm assigning a zero
- 0) was adopted by pseudo progressives in the early 90's and apparently
meant either: all we can get in, as if a not quite critical mass would
be ideal, OR: as many as we can stand before everyone finally realizes
the world is overpopulated and is democratically willing to finally
do something about it.
Of all the politically correct garbage smothering
us since 1990, that has to be the closest to actually insane. It has
to be technically mad to WANT to live in a world any MORE crowded than
this - or to suppose that any crazy cosmic ethic requires that we go
for the most the world can stand or the most it is politically correct
to stand. The optimum population idea was and is nothing more
respectable than a politically correct concession made by pseudo progressives
to minorities they fear offending, who are hypocritically presumed to
be culturally incapable of growing past their tradition of proliferating
A realistic optimum population would
be a number comfortably and safely BELOW definitions #1 and #2 above
- a ceiling that would provide a comfortable buffer zone obviously.
But the optimum population concept is fundamentally flaky since,
in fact, while there clearly can be and are too many people, there's
no sensible reason to strive for as many people as we can supposedly
accomodate, and there is no such thing as too few people. If
the human population were to die out, so what?
I won't waste space on any of the loony-tunes
population theories of religious lumpen resisting science.
NEWS FLASH: Our eco-system is NOW no longer
healthy and viable (see definition #1). That's why it's NOW visibly
falling apart. And the best life practically possible (see definition
#2) has to include a VIEW down any street of open green hills; an over
ABUNDANCE of nearby wilderness full of unstressed wildlife; crystal
clear air and water and unpolluted soil; AND a main street in everybody's
hometown that not only ISN'T a strip mall but would look good on a Christmas
card (see definition #3).
If I just lost you, you deserve to be lost.
Go to another website and look at real estate and super-spa ads or play
video games full of freeways and crashing car images.