On the proper way to limit overpopulation 2

Posted April 19th, 2011 by The Environment Site with No Comments

In a previous article of mine, I discussed how to limit overpopulation in the proper way if we speak about evolutionary time. My conclusion was something like the following: we should limit the number of the births, and we should do this by not allowing some people to reproduce – at least until they get richer – while encouraging others – the more useful for the community – to have as many children as they can. I based this position on the want of peace, and on the supposition that in these times biological evolution favors those who want children, and in a one-child-policy state those would multiply who beget triplets, which has to be avoided. But let’s refresh our thinking with new ideas, let everyone think on this important issue, and I give fuel to the thinking process by this new article.

I already got severe feedback and criticism for my previous article, and I think they liked the overpopulation topic but they didn’t like my actual solution. Someone thought it may be unjust to favor the rich or to determine the reproduction rights by human judgement, and someone thought my solution may be impossible to be realized in practice, at least in these times. I consider these criticism right, but I have to say that my solution would be better than nothing, and faith in the cause might make wonders. At the same time, I admit that a more realistic alternative should be given than my suggestion, moreover I criticize my previous suggestion further.

At first, we should examine the suppositions on which I based my suggestion. The first such is that biological evolution favours triplets. This isn’t necessarily true if biological mutations are not random and the world is governed by a good spirit. The works of such a spirit could drive evolution in an entirely different way than darwinian evolution predicts. Moreover, in our times even humans could intervene by technology to prevent the multiplication of triplet-begetters. (By the way, I don’t think that it would be beautiful.)

My second supposition was that begetting triplets and twins should not be common. Here comes the question: why? Is it not good to have brothers or sisters? The only drawback of begetting triplets or twins is that it is in conflict with the one-child-policy. But in these times the one-child-policy can be applied, and the triplet-begetters are not a huge obstacle to it. So my new suggestion is that in these times we should apply the one-child-policy, and allow begetting triplets and twins, but if the triplet-begetters proliferate in the uncertain future, the people should choose my original solution.

So my new conclusion is that we should apply the one-child-policy in these times in the countries which are overpopulated, but I have not yet discussed what is the proper way to apply that. My main argument is that the one-child-policy should be made more liberal, allowing the fortunate ones to have as many children as they can. This way everyone could hope that one day he or she will be allowed to have more children. Thus everyone should be allowed to have one child or to give one multiple birth, but everything beyond that should be governed by ever changing state laws, depending on the current population, which should make it possible for the very rich, and maybe for the generally rich to have as many children as they can, provided that they support the state with their money. This would be very similar to the one-child-policy laws already living in China.

Written by Arpad Fekete, this article is in the public domain just like the article it refers to.

Picture Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/arenamontanus/375127836

How to best use money in order to support green areas?

Posted March 22nd, 2011 by The Environment Site with No Comments

I believe that CO2 levels have increased in the atmosphere since the 19th century, and I believe that one of the noblest ways to counterweight mankind’s CO2 emissions is to support green areas: nature reserves, national parks, botanical gardens, urban parks and single trees. These may help the solution of other environmental problems as well, like land degradation. That’s why I have begun to think on how to make green areas more prevalent. No doubt that in our times, this needs money, and the money should come from the taxpayers as well as those altruistic people who voluntarily support environmentalism.

At the national level, a state can do at least two things from the taxpayers’ money. The first is to reclaim the ownership of the land by buying it from individuals. The second is to lease the land: pay its owners if they use the land as green area. We can see that the first solution would be nicer in the long run, because that way the state would have to pay less annually, as the market value of leasing land might be higher than the upkeep, and it may even go up in the future. By the way, the state could support the green areas of individuals with a very small amount of money, or at least it should not demand taxes for those lands. It is probable though that a state will not have enough money for financing green areas.

The help of altruistic people may save the situation. Their money should be used at least as fair as the money of the taxpayers. The land of Nature should be bought for Nature for ever instead of leasing from individuals or states again and again. It should be 100% guaranteed that the land which has been bought for Nature remains the property of the environmentalist causes and every people. For example, it could be given to an organization like the UNEP, just with 100% sure and just management of rights. That way, more people would feel like giving money for saving the environment, and in time, the areas of Nature would be larger and larger again.

At the international level, it would be the best if every country would have green areas in the same high proportion. Otherwise all the countries should pay a fund annually which would support green areas in countries which have more green areas, easing the sacrifices of greener countries this way. But then it would not be the direct monetary interest of the payer countries to preserve Nature in the countries with green areas, because if the natural reserves were destroyed, they wouldn’t have to pay. An international law which governs the minimal size of green areas in a country would be better.

There is a Hungarian proverb which is in connection with this problem, in English it says “The common horse has scars on his back”. It may even happen in the local scale, because it is not the interest of the local, unemployed people to preserve the nature reserves near them. That’s why I suggest letting local people benefit from the blessings of the green area, independently of their proprietary rights. There is another Hungarian proverb which is in connection with this, in English it says “The land is of those who maintain it”.
Written by Arpad Fekete, a member of TheEnvironmentSite.org. This article is in the public domain.

Picture Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christianrevivalnetwork/2724978790

  • Forums & Blog

    Join the environment forum now !

    Environment & Alternative Energy Forum

    The Environment and Alternate Energy Forum