Overpopulation, Environment, Evolution

I'm not christian. I believe that overpopulation is the largest upcoming problem facing today's society. Perhaps famine in Ethiopia is caused by civil war. Maybe India's starvation is due to the country's inability to transport its food to the needy. However, no one can deny the fact that environmental destruction is directly effected by our world's population. I'm well aware of the fact that abortion and contraceptives offend many religions, especially the Catholic Church. There is no hate or anger in my voice when I say that I believe both of these things should remain options for everyone, and even encouraged. If this offends you or your religion, then abstinence is the best population control. Later in life, when people are interested in creating a family, have only one child. Raise them and love them the best you know how in the best environment possible. I'm only 15, but for the past few years my opinion on this subject has changed very little. I doubt it will, and hope that if it does, it will only be further to the left on this subject. Sorry if I affend, doesn't mean we can't be friends.
Sommers Cole

**********

Dear Sommers,

Thanks for taking the time to write. I always enjoy hearing from young people, even if they express an opposite opinion. I knew my viewpoint on population was not very popular so I've been used to contrary ones. You express yours more politely than most which is something I appreciate. And yes, I do hope we can be friends.

I take it from your address you are in Alaska. Am I correct? I can understand your concern to preserve the environment. Sometimes people can not only damage, but also reclaim. When I was your age (some 35 years ago) Lake Washington and other bodies of water here were pretty polluted. Now you can once again swim and fish in them. This happened along with a huge population increase in the Puget Sound area. Why?

I would have other questions: What are the top ten places most visited in the world? And why? Also what quantity of resources would each person receive if the earth were divided equally among all people?

Sincerely,

Fr. Phil Bloom

*********

Dear Phil,

Thanks for your reply. I thought that the message was automatically posted** on your page like in Brian Carnell's, but I guess not. I like his opinion section because it is so incredibly unbiased. Yes, I do believe that people can fix what they've broken, however the vast majority of the time places on the planet that humans have caused incredible damage to are not repaired. Of course, hardly anyone, including myself, truly has the right to complain about it. Everybody contributes to the massacre of this planet that we hold so dear. Of course around this part in a discussion a disagreement usually occurs. You see, I don't believe that this planet is "ours."

I believe that we are here to interact as equals with our environment, not own it. According to the Bible(and correct me if I'm wrong) God gave us the planet to use at our own disposal. This is one of my major arguments with the Christian religion. Since I don't believe in a god, I really have a hard time believing that all this is here for us. I believe in the theory of evolution which(again, correct me if I'm wrong) directly contradicts what is stated in the Bible. According to it, we were here last which makes us smartest, but also at the end of the line. How does this connect to overpopulation? Well, there's no denying that overpopulation is connected to environmental destruction, and as far as I'm concerned, preserving the planet that supports us should be our number one priority. I've got more to say of course, so write back and I'll tell you a lot more contradictory opinions. I love a good argument, especially when everyone comes out of it feeling good.

Sommers

**********

Dear Sommers,

Thanks for the e-mail. Good to hear your concerns and opinions (even if contradictory). I do have some articles on my website regarding evolution & Christianity. But rather that getting into that, could we focus the discussion? You state:

"as far as I'm concerned, preserving the planet that supports us should be our number one priority."

Why?

I mean the question seriously. I would like to know why you say that.

Sincerely,

Father Bloom

**Messages can be posted automatically in the guestbook.

**********

Phil,
Well, first things first; in order to understand my answer, you have to acknowledge that this planet DOES support us. If you believe this then the rest of my philosophy makes sense. We get our food, medicines, and pleasure from this planet. If we keep consuming and growing the way we are then, these things are no longer available for us. In the end, the destruction hurts us. Of course, one might say that modern science is now providing these things for us. That may be true, but that isn't true for at least one of those. Maybe a hundred years from now, the only way we'll get to see gorgeous wildlife is on a screen in some sort of high tech center. It just wouldn't be the same. My other reason is because I don't believe this planet is just ours it's here for everyone and everything. We were an addition near the end, yet we have changed it the most. If you don't agree with this, I'd be curious as to why not. Write back.

Sommers

**********

Dear Sommers,

You have a good instinct when you say this planet is not "ours." But before saying whether I agree or disagree with the rest, could I attempt to restate your position to be sure I understand it?

You believe that preserving this planet that supports us should be our number priority because it does support us. That is, it provides the material elements that human beings can transform into food, medicine,etc. Also it provides scenes of animals, mountains, rivers, etc. that we get pleasure from looking at. You are afraid that as the number of people increases, those scenes will change and will not be so pleasurable to observe. Your concern is not just for yourself but for people who might be here a hundred years from now. The scenes you enjoy looking at now might be available only on videos. I also surmise that you are concerned there might not be enough food, medicine, etc. to go around if the number of people were to double or triple.

Unless I grossly misunderstand you, Sommers, your concern is not really for the planet in itself, but for the human beings on it. Presumably the planet could care less what we do to it. Even the animals don't seem to have the appreciation for gorgeous scenery that we do. Our family dog can be fascinated by some garbage, but doesn't give a second glance to the Olympic Mountains.

Am I correct that your basic concern is with the people on the planet?

Fr. B.

Next