Too many of us?

By Darren Weeks

I got an e-mail from Gary, who I assume read my last article on News With Views. He wrote,

Mr. Weeks, I've lived a good bit longer than you and maybe lived a little closer to the land. I've noticed a good many instances where the sheer numbers of humans are having a significant detrimental affect on our world. I don't want to be contentious but it's obvious that our land, air and water resources are negatively impacted by the human population. When I was a youngster the US population was about 130 million and looking back on it I believe it was about optimum
There has been some minimal recognition the human demand for resource exploitation results in irreparable harm. Most Americans seem to believe pollution has nothing to do with their cries for MORE...of everything! Maybe you fall into that category? There's just too damned many of us!

I responded to him thusly,

I'm not buying it, Gary.

First of all, the statistics for the world population come from who? The United Nations Population Fund? These people are socialists that hate people and want to implement Agenda 21 upon the population. Can we trust the UN to tell us the truth about how many people are here?

Secondly, much of the "science" that goes into the claims that we are destroying the environment is also funded by the UN through grants, and the results are questionable at best. There are many unfunded scientists who never are heard from because of the controlled media. They dispute many of the UN-funded scientists claims. Do a search for Agenda 21, chapter 35.

Third, the other side admits that population is going to peak and eventually fall on its own. People are having less children today, for various reasons. The population is getting older. In all actuality, we are not facing an overpopulation problem, but actually the exact reverse problem. We are headed toward a global population bust. If you are so trusting of what you're told by the socialists, then you'll be happy to know that info comes from the Council on Foreign Relations magazine, Foreign Affairs.

You said "it's obvious that our land, etc. is being negatively impacted by the human population". I say to you that more negative impacts have come from those who -- in the name of saving the environment have destroyed it. Case in point: The fact that our country is on fire in several states right now. If loggers were allowed to do what loggers are supposed to do, many of these burning forests wouldn't likely be ablaze right now. Assuming that CO2 really was a pollutant (it's not!), more CO2 has been put into the atmosphere by the burning of our forest lands due to poor management on the part of who? You guessed it: Environmentalists!

Then, we have the MTBE scenario and the pollution of our ground water, "energy efficient" light bulbs that are filling our landfills with toxic waste, etc.

The point is that I understand there are environmental issues that need to be addressed. But the environment is being done a disservice by those who only want to use it as an excuse to curtail all human development, redefine the way we live, and build their socialist utopian dream world-wide.

Saying that our environmental problems are due to the fact that we have too many people is overly simplistic, suggests that humans cannot be environmentally responsible on their own, and lubricates the slope toward mass genocide.

You, sir, are being conned.

By the way, I'll be 37 in a couple of months. I'm no spring chicken, either.

I think I'm going to have to author a piece on just how much damage these environmentalist extremists, that now occupy positions of prominence within the halls of power, have done to the environment. Many more examples could be cited than the ones I gave. Those ones were fresh in my mind and are fairly recent examples.

If the truth were known, if one were to provide a more comprehensive list, it would likely fill many pages.

Another such example is how the EPA, which is full of these radical enviro-extremists made the decision to spray pesticides over several western states a year or two ago. The purported reason for this was that they wanted to combat "invasive weeds".

What is an invasive weed, you might ask? It's simply a weed that grows where "they" decide it shouldn't be growing. In fact, any plant or animal that appears where "they" — in their infinite and "god-like" wisdom — decide it should not be, is considered an "invasive species" and must be targeted for removal.

Where do humans fit into all of this? More and more land is being put under federal "protection". Humans are being driven out of the forested areas, the coastal areas, and into the cities.

We are being driven to the cities because we are an "invasive species" and a wart on Gaia's butt, according to these people.

The ironic thing about these tree hugging dirt worshippers is the fact that most of them are so concerned about the preble jumping mouse, or the brush-tailed rat kangaroo, but they don't think twice of advocating the merciless slaughter of untold millions of unborn children.

These people are people-haters. If they really think the world is over-populated, they should not be hypocritical about it. They should do their part for the planet and jump off a building somewhere and quit lecturing the rest of us about our need to curtail our consumption patterns.