Monday, January 18, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Dear Mrs. Senator..
Dear Senator Barbara Boxer:
I am writing to express my disturbance of the growing issue of human overpopulation not only facing our country, but also affecting the globe. It is clear that the United States doesn’t have a true understanding of the colossal impact our population has on the world. That is why I am asking you to the introduction of legislation to implement a policy to change the United States’ population. I support an in-depth investigation into the shock our country’s population has caused against the environment and the depletion of resources. By examining other countries’ policies to control the population, such as China with the One Child Policy or India with forced sterilization, it is feasible for the United States to create a solution for our problem. Under the One Child Policy, China prevented over 250 million births in their country allowing their government to focus on industrial and economic advances. The use of forced sterilization as governmental incentives prevented over 4 million births in India since 2001.
I also urge you to create an independent commission to investigate, on a deeper level, the dramatic impact the United State’s population has on the national and international spectrum. Currently, our country consumes 24% of the world’s energy while we are only 5% of the world’s population. If we continue at this rate, our population is set to increase by 44% in the next forty years. Previous correlations prove that in our country when our population increases so does our demand for natural resources. The amount of resources our population consumes is not only draining the planet of resources (readily available food, water, natural gases) but also jeopardizing the livelihood of future generations. The ability to create a commission that would conduct an in-depth analysis would provide the necessary information to combat our portion of this global crisis. Such a commission should have the power to hold hearings and issue subpoenas. This could be a revolutionary and humane approach to not only expanding our knowledge of our population but also understanding how necessary a solution is.
If America is to remain the global pioneer our reputation currently holds, we must show the world we are ready to take drastic steps to address one of the most important issues of our time. America is a role model in the international community. By taking advantage of this recognition, policy change can not only affect America’s impact on the world’s overpopulation crisis but also encourage other countries to do the same. Our changes could motivate countries to draft policies of the same measure, considering human overpopulation is of global concern, this is the most ideal situation.
Earth’s countries have been ignorant to the human overpopulation problem for to long. In order to avoid the inevitable, it is our responsibility to conduct radical measures to alleviate this problem.
I am writing to express my disturbance of the growing issue of human overpopulation not only facing our country, but also affecting the globe. It is clear that the United States doesn’t have a true understanding of the colossal impact our population has on the world. That is why I am asking you to the introduction of legislation to implement a policy to change the United States’ population. I support an in-depth investigation into the shock our country’s population has caused against the environment and the depletion of resources. By examining other countries’ policies to control the population, such as China with the One Child Policy or India with forced sterilization, it is feasible for the United States to create a solution for our problem. Under the One Child Policy, China prevented over 250 million births in their country allowing their government to focus on industrial and economic advances. The use of forced sterilization as governmental incentives prevented over 4 million births in India since 2001.
I also urge you to create an independent commission to investigate, on a deeper level, the dramatic impact the United State’s population has on the national and international spectrum. Currently, our country consumes 24% of the world’s energy while we are only 5% of the world’s population. If we continue at this rate, our population is set to increase by 44% in the next forty years. Previous correlations prove that in our country when our population increases so does our demand for natural resources. The amount of resources our population consumes is not only draining the planet of resources (readily available food, water, natural gases) but also jeopardizing the livelihood of future generations. The ability to create a commission that would conduct an in-depth analysis would provide the necessary information to combat our portion of this global crisis. Such a commission should have the power to hold hearings and issue subpoenas. This could be a revolutionary and humane approach to not only expanding our knowledge of our population but also understanding how necessary a solution is.
If America is to remain the global pioneer our reputation currently holds, we must show the world we are ready to take drastic steps to address one of the most important issues of our time. America is a role model in the international community. By taking advantage of this recognition, policy change can not only affect America’s impact on the world’s overpopulation crisis but also encourage other countries to do the same. Our changes could motivate countries to draft policies of the same measure, considering human overpopulation is of global concern, this is the most ideal situation.
Earth’s countries have been ignorant to the human overpopulation problem for to long. In order to avoid the inevitable, it is our responsibility to conduct radical measures to alleviate this problem.
Nature's Model
Foreign Aid by definition means the voluntary transfer of resources from one country to another. The giving of lucrative assets to alleviate troubles facing the receiving country. Usually foreign aid is given to third world countries when their bleak reality has reached the point of no return and the industrialized world cannot remain ignorant to their problems any longer. Poverty, conflict and corruption are all some of the triggers for foreign aid because usually the population is cut off to necessary resources such as food, water, health care, when these events occur. Millions and millions of dollars are allocated to the budget to send to a particular country, we deliver the aid and go to bed at night feeling like good Samaritans. The United States has been giving aid for years. Helping Europe after the massive destruction brought about by World War II, giving assistance to Israel and Egypt to avoid political conflict, sending supplies to south Asia following the devastating tsunami and recently millions of dollars pledged to Afghanistan for humanitarian relief even though we are still occupying the country. But is foreign aid really good? Is supplying people, which without our help would most likely die, the right thing to do? Logically the answer is yes. If someone is in pain you take them to the hospital, if someone is on fire you pour water over them or if someone is drowning you pull them out of the water. These are reasonable conclusions to draw in situations that normally you wouldn’t consider the variety of options. Foreign aid given to other countries is not in the same category; it is not such a simple question.
Animals are a part of a natural cycle used to reduce their population. It is simple; the animal’s environment can only sustain a specific number. Once that number is exceeded, those that cannot survive die off, therefore returning the species back to a sustainable number. Nature understands the importance of keeping to a manageable population. It understands the importance of not depleting their environment for the purpose of their species expansion, and with this they also don’t give foreign aid. The last time I checked lions do not give aid to giraffes when they start running out of food. Maybe humans should consider emulated nature’s model of approach to overpopulation.
The international community has remained oblivious to the issue of human overpopulation for too long. A common misconception associated with overpopulation is its definition. Human overpopulation does not mean the number of humans on Earth; instead it is the amount of resources consumed by humans. Our species has drastically exceeded the sustainable number we need to be at. Valuable resources such as water, oil and food are being consumed at a faster rate than they can be replenished. At the rate we are going, the world’s population will increase by over three billion in the next fifty years, putting our final population at over 9.8 billion people. Can you imagine the resources that are going to be consumed then?
The elimination of foreign aid will decrease the world’s population. Is this a harsh solution? Yes! But before you think I am a heartless, cold bitch go a long with me for a second. Governments, specifically the United States, send millions of dollars worth of food and supplies to nations in need. But when they say send, they mean deliver these goods to the governments and hope they are distributed to those in need. We will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume all of the aid is delivered to their population. Once the aid is given to those usually suffering in poverty, what happens? They rely on the aid and have more children. This is not only breeding the cycle of poverty because more and more children are born into these environments but also increasing the world’s population. The world has exceeded the capacity we can sustain with the livelihood that is common today. The rate of consumption is not in balance with the rate the earth can replenish these resources. At this point our civilization is left with two options, reduce our population or face the consequences of our population.
The issue of human overpopulation is one of the most complex, complicated concerns in our civilization’s history. Unlike any other issue facing us, there is not a simple solution that can alleviate all of the effects of human overpopulation. Correlations can be drawn relating the issue to education, resources, conflict and corruption. The reformation of foreign aid is the only extreme way to reduce the Earth’s population. Maybe the population decrease will force those left to realize how destructive their excessive livelihood really is in the world.
Animals are a part of a natural cycle used to reduce their population. It is simple; the animal’s environment can only sustain a specific number. Once that number is exceeded, those that cannot survive die off, therefore returning the species back to a sustainable number. Nature understands the importance of keeping to a manageable population. It understands the importance of not depleting their environment for the purpose of their species expansion, and with this they also don’t give foreign aid. The last time I checked lions do not give aid to giraffes when they start running out of food. Maybe humans should consider emulated nature’s model of approach to overpopulation.
The international community has remained oblivious to the issue of human overpopulation for too long. A common misconception associated with overpopulation is its definition. Human overpopulation does not mean the number of humans on Earth; instead it is the amount of resources consumed by humans. Our species has drastically exceeded the sustainable number we need to be at. Valuable resources such as water, oil and food are being consumed at a faster rate than they can be replenished. At the rate we are going, the world’s population will increase by over three billion in the next fifty years, putting our final population at over 9.8 billion people. Can you imagine the resources that are going to be consumed then?
The elimination of foreign aid will decrease the world’s population. Is this a harsh solution? Yes! But before you think I am a heartless, cold bitch go a long with me for a second. Governments, specifically the United States, send millions of dollars worth of food and supplies to nations in need. But when they say send, they mean deliver these goods to the governments and hope they are distributed to those in need. We will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume all of the aid is delivered to their population. Once the aid is given to those usually suffering in poverty, what happens? They rely on the aid and have more children. This is not only breeding the cycle of poverty because more and more children are born into these environments but also increasing the world’s population. The world has exceeded the capacity we can sustain with the livelihood that is common today. The rate of consumption is not in balance with the rate the earth can replenish these resources. At this point our civilization is left with two options, reduce our population or face the consequences of our population.
The issue of human overpopulation is one of the most complex, complicated concerns in our civilization’s history. Unlike any other issue facing us, there is not a simple solution that can alleviate all of the effects of human overpopulation. Correlations can be drawn relating the issue to education, resources, conflict and corruption. The reformation of foreign aid is the only extreme way to reduce the Earth’s population. Maybe the population decrease will force those left to realize how destructive their excessive livelihood really is in the world.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Abstract Letter
This specific resource management project is studying the issue of human overpopulation. It is a growing controversy that is affecting the global community. The official definition is often mistaken to be the amount of people on Earth, but in fact it is the amount of resources consumed by the increasing number of people. With the human population growing, the amount of resources necessary for life grows as well. An imbalance has been created because the Earth cannot replenish the resources at an equal or higher rate than its use.
The anarchy system in the global community makes it impossible to implement an international policy of population control, which leads countries to address the issue within their own borders. China created the One Child Policy to reduce the growth rate the country was experiencing. The policy stated that married, urban couples were restricted to have one child. Since the One Child Policy was enacted in 1979, more than 250 million births have been prevented. India passed legislation requiring poor citizens (determined by job, financial aid and governmental loans) to have involuntary sterilization surgery. After the backlash of the coercion used to force citizens to undergo surgery, India has resorted to softer methods to control its population.
Through research, the project started to focus on three countries handling the issue of human overpopulation: China, India and The Philippines. By examining the policies used to support or devastate each country’s population it was easy to form a holistic view of this prevalent issue. China implemented the One-Child Policy in 1979 to control its growing population. The policy states that married urban couples are only legally allowed to have one child. China created this policy to mitigate social, economic and environmental problems facing the country. The Chinese government supports the policy change by reporting that the implementation of the One-Child Policy has prevented more than 250 million births since 2000. With a quarter of a billion people less in China’s population, the country has had the opportunity to focus on addressing the original problems. The One Child Policy is considered to be successful because 76% of citizens support it and the policy allows for China believes the One Child Policy is still effective in controlling their population and won’t consider changing the policy for at least another decade. India has also taken measures to address the country’s growing overpopulation problem. The first initiative began between 1975 and 1977 when the country forced thousands of poor men and women to undergo sterilization procedures. When citizens applied for government loans, jobs or aid they were required to consent to sterilization procedures. The negative backlash convinced the government to talk a softer approach to tackling the problem. As a result, by 2050 India will become the most populated country with over 1.8 billion people. The Philippines have outlawed any type of abortions and made contraceptives virtually unavailable. Fueled by traditional religious values the Philippine’s government is forcing women to take alternative measures of abortions such as falling down stairs and taking dangerous concoctions of drugs just to terminate pregnancies. Families are unable to provide for multiple children causing women to have unpredictable actions to end their baby’s life. Legislation has been presented numerous times to legalize abortions and increase the availability of birth control, but each attempt has been denied.
There are two possible solutions to take away from each of these countries: one emulating successful policies, such as the One Child Policy, as a way to address overpopulation in our respective country and putting pressure on the government to see the consequences of their behavior. The only way to accomplish either one of these goals, is writing a letter to support the passing of legislation related to human overpopulation. By using your voice, governments will see the importance of the issue, understand that it is even important on the “main street” level and maybe learn more about a predominantly unknown issue.
The anarchy system in the global community makes it impossible to implement an international policy of population control, which leads countries to address the issue within their own borders. China created the One Child Policy to reduce the growth rate the country was experiencing. The policy stated that married, urban couples were restricted to have one child. Since the One Child Policy was enacted in 1979, more than 250 million births have been prevented. India passed legislation requiring poor citizens (determined by job, financial aid and governmental loans) to have involuntary sterilization surgery. After the backlash of the coercion used to force citizens to undergo surgery, India has resorted to softer methods to control its population.
Through research, the project started to focus on three countries handling the issue of human overpopulation: China, India and The Philippines. By examining the policies used to support or devastate each country’s population it was easy to form a holistic view of this prevalent issue. China implemented the One-Child Policy in 1979 to control its growing population. The policy states that married urban couples are only legally allowed to have one child. China created this policy to mitigate social, economic and environmental problems facing the country. The Chinese government supports the policy change by reporting that the implementation of the One-Child Policy has prevented more than 250 million births since 2000. With a quarter of a billion people less in China’s population, the country has had the opportunity to focus on addressing the original problems. The One Child Policy is considered to be successful because 76% of citizens support it and the policy allows for China believes the One Child Policy is still effective in controlling their population and won’t consider changing the policy for at least another decade. India has also taken measures to address the country’s growing overpopulation problem. The first initiative began between 1975 and 1977 when the country forced thousands of poor men and women to undergo sterilization procedures. When citizens applied for government loans, jobs or aid they were required to consent to sterilization procedures. The negative backlash convinced the government to talk a softer approach to tackling the problem. As a result, by 2050 India will become the most populated country with over 1.8 billion people. The Philippines have outlawed any type of abortions and made contraceptives virtually unavailable. Fueled by traditional religious values the Philippine’s government is forcing women to take alternative measures of abortions such as falling down stairs and taking dangerous concoctions of drugs just to terminate pregnancies. Families are unable to provide for multiple children causing women to have unpredictable actions to end their baby’s life. Legislation has been presented numerous times to legalize abortions and increase the availability of birth control, but each attempt has been denied.
There are two possible solutions to take away from each of these countries: one emulating successful policies, such as the One Child Policy, as a way to address overpopulation in our respective country and putting pressure on the government to see the consequences of their behavior. The only way to accomplish either one of these goals, is writing a letter to support the passing of legislation related to human overpopulation. By using your voice, governments will see the importance of the issue, understand that it is even important on the “main street” level and maybe learn more about a predominantly unknown issue.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Government's Role in Food Justice
Questions I responded to in a discussion related to the government's role in food justice after reading "In Defense of Food" (H.R 1523)...
1. Why do people choose to eat products that are unhealthy for them?
I think people choose to eat foods that are unhealthy because these foods are usually readily available and pretty cheap. Also the food is manufactured with ingredients such as high fructose corn syrup that makes the taste better and more addictive.
2. What roles and responsibilities does the government play in framing your choices?
In framing our choices the government should not have any control as long as the consequences of those choices do not have a direct effect on others. The government should be responsible for providing unbiased, informative facts about food. They should also ensure that a monopoly is not created so the people have an equal opportunity to have access to the food that they choose to eat.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Mexico's drug laws, America's future legislation
Since the inception of our country, America more notable its government, has possessed an elitist, arrogant attitude when the topic of international policy is addressed. Consider the American revolution, while it luckily ended quite nicely on our behalf, troops were going against a force to be reckoned where conceivable we should have lost. Fortunately, the arrogance paid off and with a little help from our allies, we won. Consider instances where America intervened in Iranian or Cuban affairs based on our beliefs that "we knew better" & "we want to save the world," America caused conflict and major violence that could have easily been avoided had our desire been suppressed. I can not recall one instance where we have humbled ourselves to look at another nation to emulate their policies to help solve our own problems. Maybe following Mexico's and many other Latin American country's ideas will be the place to start. It is fact that the "war on drugs" on our continent, and I will even take it as far as to say our world, sees no borders. It doesn't see race, gender, sexual orientation let alone specific government. So why, when there are close bordering nations that are addressing the same if not worse drug problem we are, is America not looking for a new solution? Why do we view ourselves as better than to look at other country's changes and see if they can help us? Obviously the current plan isn't working because drugs are increasing everyday in our country. This might be the time to prove our humility and look to Mexico and other Latin American countries as they decriminalize drug possession and ask ourselves if this might be the best solution for us. Who knows it might let other countries know that when the last administration left, they took their arrogance with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)