Jim (and a few others), Thanks for the further thoughts on this. My biggest issue is that we are talking about reducing consumption in dozens of areas in our lives (which I agree with!). But I can't ignore that all of those are fractions that do not bring our impact anywhere near to zero. I understand that the most wealthy countries tend to have low growth rates, some are even below replacement. But one person in a wealthy country consumes many times the resources of a person in a poor country (1 American = 2 Japanese = 13 Chinese = 128 Bangladeshis = 370 Ethiopians [from mindfully.org]). I make real efforts to reduce my impact but I do not believe that it is 1/13th of the average American's rate, much less 1/370th. Then I think "Wow. And the poor want to be like the wealthy." And who can blame them with those conversions?! Reproduction is the only thing mentioned that isn't fractional change but binary. I think that it is obvious, too, but that has not been my experience with the issue. I brought it up in a graduate conservation biology class co-taught by two reasonable professors. It was received with denial - one said it wasn't an issue - and hostility - the second said that he didn't see me "giving up my spot". And that was it for the discussion of the human population growth in that group. We moved right along to recycling and buying locally-grown produce.
I'm a 42 year old returning student who has worked professionally as a biologist for a number of Federal agencies all over the country. My experience is that those professors are not anomalies among the environmentally educated. So...obvious as it is, I see it as the elephant in the room. That is my two cents (which is normally discounted to of 1.5 cents among those who know me well). ;-) Sincerely, Chris
