Well, I can understand the justifications for lowering consumption levels and encouraging good stewardship but I have never been able to understand/confirm/accept any of the justifications for population control. In fact, when I studied the issue (which has been over 2 years ago now so I may have lost touch with Kyoto and etc. . .) population control seemed to be based on a survival of the fittest worldview or an accidental evolutionary theory. Some of my brothers and sisters in Christ were very disappointed with me for not outright rejecting any population control measures. I walked away from the debate confused but with the general belief that if the purpose of man is to glorify God and make His name known, I could not, without more understanding, support population control measures.
It is a difficult issue. All of my work is on the micro level of urban planning, land use, and natural resource control so I do not deal with this issue even though, as you rightly note, it always looms as the backdrop and affects the micro level. Very Very hard one to tackle.
Anyway, in the NY Times today is a good article about water issues in regards to irrigation. I was going to mention last week in our discussion that residential water use in the U.S. accounts for less than 10% of our annual consumption, so agricultural issues like this are really significant:
NATIONAL | November 11, 2002
Remedy Stirs Debate
By DOUGLASJEHL (NYT)
A plan to spend more than $200 million in federal money to provide irrigation water has prompted a debate on farm policy and water responsibilities.
dddroog
Nov 11 2002
05:28 am
Well, I can understand the justifications for lowering consumption levels and encouraging good stewardship but I have never been able to understand/confirm/accept any of the justifications for population control. In fact, when I studied the issue (which has been over 2 years ago now so I may have lost touch with Kyoto and etc. . .) population control seemed to be based on a survival of the fittest worldview or an accidental evolutionary theory. Some of my brothers and sisters in Christ were very disappointed with me for not outright rejecting any population control measures. I walked away from the debate confused but with the general belief that if the purpose of man is to glorify God and make His name known, I could not, without more understanding, support population control measures.
It is a difficult issue. All of my work is on the micro level of urban planning, land use, and natural resource control so I do not deal with this issue even though, as you rightly note, it always looms as the backdrop and affects the micro level. Very Very hard one to tackle.
Anyway, in the NY Times today is a good article about water issues in regards to irrigation. I was going to mention last week in our discussion that residential water use in the U.S. accounts for less than 10% of our annual consumption, so agricultural issues like this are really significant:
NATIONAL | November 11, 2002
Remedy Stirs Debate
By DOUGLAS JEHL (NYT)
A plan to spend more than $200 million in federal money to provide irrigation water has prompted a debate on farm policy and water responsibilities.