If you believe in global warming, stop making people

I hope Susan Andrew was aiming for irony in her Green Scene article criticizing Blue Ridge Paper [“Pulp Nonfiction,” Dec. 8 Xpress]. She is aware of the medium she's employing to send her message, isn't she? I mean, she's writing for a company that sells advertising to polluters on paper that was processed by a polluter, and then the printed paper itself eventually gets thrown into the back of a fossil-fuel-burning truck and carried to a landfill where it becomes pollution.

This is classic “cast the first stone at a glass house full of black pots and kettles” bigotry.

When “environmentalists” no longer use any of earth's resources for their own sustenance, transportation, shelter, education and entertainment, then they can point the finger at other polluters.

When will humanity learn that it is our own overpopulation of this world that is the problem?

Here's a green idea for the softhearted tree huggers: Stop making people!

— Norman Plombe

About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster Follow me @MXWebTeam

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

15 thoughts on “If you believe in global warming, stop making people

  1. Daniel G

    Actually, Mr Plombe, it is hardly as simplistic as you are attempting to characterize it. For one, merely ‘not using resources’ means little on the individual level when the mechanisms of our entire culture are so incredibly wasteful.

    It isn’t about not driving or turning off the water when you brush your teeth. These are miniscule in comparison to the way our goods are transported, our energy is produced, etc. Your premise seems to be that one should have to live in a cave in order to be able to mention these issues. That is quite the straw man.

    As for calling anyone who points out these realities “treehuggers’, well, that only highlights your prejudices and preconceived notions.

    Lastly, merely ‘not having children’ will do little to stop problems of pollution if we still continue to manage our resources unwisely. Perhaps you missed the very recent headlines showing that US population growth has slowed considerably, and yet our use of the planet’s resources continues to increase exponentially.

    Everyone could stop having kids tomorrow, it wouldn’t end mountain top removal, or bring about a more localized system of food distribution not so reliant on government-subsidized gasoline.

    When we can get beyond the straw men, hubris, and outright hysteria, we can have adult conversations about our societies level of consumption.

    And understand that no one is proposing you eschew shoes and electricity and live in a cave just because they point out the realities of, say, paper production.

  2. R James

    I’ve been screaming this for the past decade, but few seem to want to listen. I believe the biggest threat to our planet and us is continues population growth.

    It has to stop sometime. Either we do it, or Mother Nature will, and she can be very cruel. We might as well do it now.

    I see three major steps. Firstly global recognition and acknowledgment of the problem. Secondly, clamp down on immigration if it contributes to population growth. Thirdly, ongoing education, and easily available contraception in all countries.

  3. BigAl

    Advancing this logic in true holiday spirit, should environmentalists also work to “reduce the surplus population”?

    Ebeneezer Scrooge, meet Tom Clancy.

  4. BigAl

    “Secondly, clamp down on immigration if it contributes to population growth.”

    I doubt non-U.S. citizens will have fewer children just because we will not let them in.

    “Thirdly, ongoing education, and easily available contraception in all countries.”

    Isn’t this just another, albeit more subtle, form of arrogant Imperialism?

  5. Michael ivanov

    the Government should fun and mandate abortion. This will control the population, one child rule. And you shouldn’t be able to sell your one child ability, either havei t or do not have it.

  6. BigAl

    “the Government should fun and mandate abortion. This will control the population, one child rule.”

    Michael, I hope you are being sarcastic. People’s Republic of China did (does?) abort unauthorized babies AS THEY WERE BEING BORN to enforce their one child rule.

    Do you have any siblings (and if so, who was born first, you or them?) If so, imagine how you would feel if your fellow Americans murdered your brother or sister (or you) as they were emerging from the womb, with the justification that they were doing so to save the planet/environment.

  7. normanplombe

    Daniel G: you’re right…tomorrow, not having children will do nothing to help the environment, but after 72 years of human non-procreation, EVERY PLANETARY PROBLEM will have been solved…or at least there will be no one to complain about them!!! every species but caucasoid homo sapien has a concept of natural equilibrium. see my nutty blog on myspace.

    Big Al: every human birth is, by definition, a death sentence. blink twice, and we’ll all be in the grave.

  8. normanplombe

    Thad: i hope you’re joking…unions (and i’ve worked both union and scab) are every bit the problem that government/management/religion are. do you really think that your personal skills are so unemployable that you need a mobbed-up steward to protect your job?…while taking tithe from your paycheck?

  9. normanplombe

    R James: thanks for the attempted support, but stay off my side..you can’t speak globally and then argue reduction of immigration. every immigrant came from somewhere and relocated to pollute elsewhere…controlling the redistribution of population does not inheirently reduce the population…like the bankers of the past decades, you’re debating the interest while the priciple eats us alive.
    only aboriginal peoples can live in harmony with nature…at least until they’re infected with the white man’s need to change and attempt to control his environment and his fellow citizens.

  10. bill smith

    “only aboriginal peoples can live in harmony with nature…”

    Hmmmm. Can you define ‘harmony’? And ‘aboriginal’?

    Because I’m almost positive that ‘aboriginal’ people had/have children, too.

    The ‘developed world’ who has consumed the VAST amount of resources over the past 4 decades aren’t actually expanding their birth rate much at all. World-wide birth rates are increasing, mainly due to increases in developing countries, or third world continents like Africa.

    The problem isn’t too many people. The problem is too many wasteful people. We could stop having babies TODAY, and our level of consumption would still cause our society to collapse in a few decades.


  11. bobdurivage

    Inevitably, population will have to be addressed. So will immigration. So will the subject of what country does the Southwest really belong to.
    Snip snip.

  12. normanplombe

    bobdurivage: i’ve often thought about the origins of the state lines and international borders around the southwest….we stole much of it from the mexicans…who stole it back from the spanish and let us have it via annexation, then again, the spanish kinda stole it from the mayans or aztecs…so we probably owe it all back to the british…or…maybe the confederacy. we should do a title search on that place.

  13. normanplombe

    and one last thing, i do wonder why there is so very little public outcry (from above or below) to control our population…or even consider it as it relates to pollution and resource consumption. it seems so very obvious to me. it is also obvious that our economy is a pyramid scheme…we need more and more little mary kay salespersons at the bottom to keep the aristocracy in pink cadillacs. i only use that as a metaphor…of course mary kay really does enrich women’s lives. (that’s actually MK’s official slogan).

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.