Save the world!!!!!

Ok, so I just finished this book, "saving the world at work: What Companies and Individuals Can Do to Go Beyond Making a Profit to Making a Difference" by Tim Sanders. I would highly recommend this book to anyone that gets off on buzz words about saving the environment.

Don't get me wrong, his stories were all great, it really does remind you of some of the very simple ways we can all make a difference with out going out of our way. But his writing style tends to be a little dry.

And I found it very disturbing that in a book, printed on paper with oil based ink, he discussing paper reduction and never once mentioned any efforts the book's publisher has made to reduce their carbon footprint or increase their use of recycled paper. Now I won't mention their name here until I have done a little research (to date I have seen no positive or negative information regarding said publishers environmental record), maybe they are taking the proper steps and I just haven't heard. But I got the book at a meet and greet with the author and I'll tell you what, he gave out probably 100 copies, all printed on paper with oil based inks...now would it have not made more ecological sense to have given out digital copies of the book? Or gone with an environmentally friendly publisher? The one positive thing I can say is that the book was printed in the US.

Now on to the meat...I have the solution to our consistently increasing carbon emissions, land fill growth, pillaging of our natural resources and general destruction of our planet. You won't like it, in fact I have not heard one environmentalist discuss it. Ask yourself this one question and you might just figure out the answer too...

What is the single most contributor to the destruction of our environment?

Nope not carbon emissions.

Not unregulated usage of non-renewable resources.

Sure isn't non-recyclable waste.

Give up yet? It's people. Us. We are the main cause of all of the environmental challenges facing us today. It is our own arrogance that has brought us to this point. And how exactly do I propose correcting this? Very simply put, population control.

Before you get all pissy let me explain. Take a look at the Census Bureau's Population Clock. At the time I wrote this sentence the estimated world population was 6,767,773,587. Now if this planet were designed to support that many people, would there be excessive famine or drought or carbon emissions deteriorating our ozone layer? Would we be running out of the very things that keep us alive? Survival techniques teach us to huddle in a group when stranded, the shard body heat of multiple people will help delay hypothermia and warm the air temp around us. Could it be that having 6.77 billion people has assisted in increasing the atmospheric temperature? Now I am not a scientist, and have no data to back this, but if we want to reduce our carbon footprint as a species maybe we should slow our growth?

When the grey wolf population had subsided in Michigan and the whitetail deer had lost their primary natural predator the Department of Natural Resources had to think fast to control the population of deer. The idea was the natural habitat could not support unbridled population growth. Are we too damn arrogant to see that maybe our natural habitat is trying to tell us something? When deer population gets too big diseases transfer more rapidly, tuberculosis kills many deer, hoof and mouth, starvation etc...sound familiar, wide spread disease (Cholera and AIDS epidemics), sever droughts (American southwest), flooding, temperature increases, do I really need to continue?

Now I am not suggesting killing off millions of people. But I am suggesting that we begin implementing a control mechanism for future population growth. Based on the current average birth rate for the globe of 20.3 births per 1000 people annually (which is down), over the course of one month there are 11,447,508 people born into this world. Regulate the population by limiting the number of kids a family can have. Instead of giving families tax deductions for each child, give them a tax deduction for the first and tax penalties for any after. Make them pay into the system like we are proposing to tax corporate carbon emissions. So a "family" like the Duggars would get one tax deduction and then pay some sort of luxury tax on the other 17 children they have. What gives them the right to have 17 kids when there are children around the corner from their home that need a safe, supportive family. Have one of your own to satisfy the "desire" or "instinct" to be a parent and then if you really really really want another we can give tax credits for adoption. But irresponsible parents that have children they can't afford, instead of buying a $7 box of condoms should not be rewarded for having kids. Their kids should be given to someone that can't have kids and they should be sterilized. The average cost in the US of a child's first year is $10,000. I'm not exactly sure, but I believe tying the tubes costs the same...and it's a one time out lay. So stop having unprotected sex for one year, and every dollar you would spend on a child should go in to a pot and when you have money for the surgery, GET IT! Or maybe in extreme cases the Department of Population could just pay for it.

This is a sure fire way to reduce the human impact on climate change, decrease unemployment and help create safe homes for children in bad situations (look at the Jolie adoptions, those kids won the lottery). And we need the world to stand behind this, it won't work if it's just us.

By the way the population of the world increased by 4,547 people since I put the link to the population clock in.

Good night.