Will babies, old men, and women become a thing of the past? Crazy idea? Think again. If some overpopulation advocates are to have their way, lots of young babies, old men and old women will soon become a threat to society and therefore must be eliminated. And more, much more.
 |
| Love letters to black brothers |
It has been proposed that elimination of the elderly should occur, and actually be required, upon completion of their 70th year. The unborn have vitality, energy, and imagination obviously no longer exhibited by the elderly.
If, as I would suggest, the age of elimination was 65, the entire Social Security Administration would be eliminated, along with its prohibitive costs. Likewise, Medicare and its unbelievable expenses would be eliminated, along with most of the medical establishment: medical procedures, equipment, practitioners, personnel, etc.
It is unfortunate the elderly can, and do, overwhelm logic by voting. I am distressed that enthusiastic population-control advocates do not provide us, by their examples, their own eliminations. These would be fine examples for the rest of us.
I would caution Mr. Duerig to ensure, to the extent possible his “green” disposal to illustrate his final commitment to ensuring his most considered and efficient use of the world’s resources.
This writer has recently completed the excess of having existed for 90 years, of which at least 30 have been shamefully wasted expenditures of the world’s precious resources and continue to be embarrassingly so.
Excerpts from: Letter to the editor: Let’s eliminate unproductives
By one: George Wandell of Hempfield
Here’s the source of this my story
By: George Wandell of Hempfield, to which they were responding.
Regarding Rudolph Puchan’s letter “Democrats & abortion” (Feb. 12, TribLIVE): I agree that abortion is an ugly business and certainly birth control should obviate the need for it, but I would challenge Puchan to show me any world problem that is not attributable to overpopulation, directly or indirectly. Too many people driving too many ever -bigger cars and heating ever-bigger houses will eventually make our earth uninhabitable by man or beast (It’s not a hoax.). So Puchan should ask himself which is better: That a few children are not born, or that all life on earth ceases to exist?
Puchan states that there have been 60 million babies killed since 1973. If during that time, each of them had had three kids, and each of those had three more, that would more than double the population of this country alone. If we don’t do something to control our population, nature will do it for us, by wars, starvation, and disease. So where better to start than parents not having children they don’t want and/or cannot afford to raise?
Puchan seems to think that God has told us that all lives must be preserved. This is written, supposedly, in texts created thousands of years ago by men who thought the earth was flat. Puchan would not have had to wander far to find verses advocating genocide.
If there is a God, he is indeed a very cruel one, who takes many babies by disease yet insists that we preserve every life — but provides such a small home for them.
Al Duerig, of Salem
My concerns here are: even though one or both of these arguments may have been hypothetical and/or cynical in nature, the fact is, those sorts of thinking are floating around somewhere out there, and if they weren’t before, they certainly are now. Knowing the way people are, someone, somewhere with an ax to grind may even this minute sitting there saying: hmm, that’s an idea! And it such a one so happens to be one with the wherewithal to make things happen, then you know that somebody is in trouble. I wonder, who might that somebody be? Hmm.
Here is George’s letter in its entirety.
I most enthusiastically applaud Al Duerig’s acknowledgment of the problem of overpopulation (“Overpopulation will destroy the earth,” Feb. 27, TribLIVE). I do think he is proposing a solution at the wrong end of the problem. Eliminating the unborn or newly born is not really most efficient. The ultimate approach is to eliminate the unproductive, i.e., primarily the elderly, but also other unproductives.
It has been proposed that elimination of the elderly should occur, and actually be required, upon completion of their 70th year. The unborn have vitality, energy, and imagination obviously no longer exhibited by the elderly.
If, as I would suggest, the age of elimination was 65, the entire Social Security Administration would be eliminated, along with its prohibitive costs. Likewise, Medicare and its unbelievable expenses would be eliminated, along with most of the medical establishment: medical procedures, equipment, practitioners, personnel, etc.
It is unfortunate the elderly can, and do, overwhelm logic by voting. I am distressed that enthusiastic population-control advocates do not provide us, by their examples, their own eliminations. These would be fine examples for the rest of us.
I would caution Mr. Duerig to ensure, to the extent possible his “green” disposal to illustrate his final commitment to ensuring his most considered and efficient use of the world’s resources.
This writer has recently completed the excess of having existed for 90 years, of which at least 30 have been shamefully wasted expenditures of the world’s precious resources and continue to be embarrassingly so.
George Wandell
Hempfield
Previous post Next post
This is a love letter to black brothers everywhere. #LLBB #LB2
We do this because we do believe that, a smaller human population is essential in creating a future worth inheriting – for us humans and all other species!
Greetings,
Thank you for all you have done to advocate for nature, up until now. I have something further to ask of you further though. I have not seen any mention of the core cause of the problems threatening creatures living on this planet: Overpopulation. Perhaps the reason it is missing is: a) you are not aware of our current overpopulation and its impact on your efforts; b) you are somewhat aware of our current overpopulation but as yet do not comprehend its vital role; or c) you are afraid to bring overpopulation into your organization's conversation.
You have a responsibility to tell the truth.
The oceans are overfished because of it. The amount of atmospheric carbon is increasing because of it. The habitat of countless creatures is destroyed because of it and we are facing the greatest species extinction rate since the ice age because of it. ‘It’ is this: the earth is overpopulated. Ecosystems all over the world are ravaged by the enormous consumption of our massive and ever-growing human numbers. In the last 80 years, the Earth added five billion passengers. Globally, the Earth continues to add 9,000 human passengers each HOUR, net gain, each and every day to an already overpopulated planet.
Don’t take my word for it. Look at the evidence. For starters, check out the websites of three respected population organizations: World Population Balance, Population Matters and the Center for Biological Diversity. I believe you will begin to see that everything from biodiversity loss, aquifer depletion, ocean acidification and overfishing, topsoil loss, deforestation, to climate change can be traced to the fact that the number of people living on our planet is unsustainable.
We cannot protect nature and preserve life until we address our overpopulation crisis. Please include overpopulation in your literature to help well-meaning supporters understand the tremendous positive impact that smaller families can have in creating a healthier planet. When people choose small families everyone wins - humans, plants, animals, and the future of all life on the planet.
If every environmental group plants the seed of overpopulation awareness, people can begin making the connection between nature’s degradation and overpopulation. And they can begin choosing to have small families. Freely chosen one-child families will lighten the load on Nature and give future generations a healthy planet worth inheriting. I ask you to please do your part as an advocate and steward of the planet’s future to address overpopulation and make a better future possible for everyone.
Sincerely,
The writingelk.
(This letter is adapted from Karen I. Shragg's "Sample Letter to Journalists" adopted for use here by permission.)
Comments
Post a Comment