Sharon Astyk and hard times

She's also a regular contributor to The Energy Bulletin (energybulletin.net)

The USA has more natural resources (eg. cultivable land) per capita than just about any other country. For example, the only countries in Europe with approximately US-level population densities are in Scandinavia, which is marginal for farming. Where is there that ranks with the USA? New Zealand? Argentina? Perhaps, but I can't think of any others.

OK, so, the USA is not in Kenya's situation. Does that mean you would like it to be, though?

Sorry, why exactly do we have to reproduce massively, so the world is full of poor people living miserable lives? Why can't we just control our reproduction and live happy, rich and comfortable lives? Why is this selfish. This POV really makes me conclude that religion, in all its manifestations, is evil (in itself, not the poor people who belive they have a god-given mission to reproduce).

We have a chance to lift humanity out of the slime in which has existed from its first evolution. And religious people want to stop that happening - force us to reproduce so much that there aren't enough natural resources to go round... It is good that we live as Americans, or Europeans or Japanese - productive members of advanced economies, not worrying about where the next meal is coming from like the poor Kenyans - who would stop reproducing so fast if they got some decent education and women's lib...

Relax, Ollie, women have as many children as they want to have, no more, just as soon as they get control over that. What religious people think makes no difference.

Rod and Ms. Astyk sound positively delighted over the idea that Americans are going to live in "poverty" starting sometime next week. I'd get more upset over this prospect if I thought that it was at all likely to happen.

Nice posts from Leo and Charles.

I'm not sure what the best way of making money off the current situation is - there are so many good deals around, but some of them look "too" good. Maybe shorting gold?

I really liked this excerpt, about people learning to act like unselfish grown adults and setting their wills to doing the work required. I do like the Jewish concept of Tikuun Olam. (Doubly so as it sounds and looks almost the same in Arabic, but that's neither here nor there.)

Military service is a little like she describes parenthood here. No, you don't feel unselfish or brave or anything like that. And a lot of the work you are set to, frankly, sucks. Whether it's shoveling mountains of snow in garrison, guarding a rainy ditch in the field for no good reason, or just going about daily life here in the desert, with the background threat of incoming. But when you make the commitment to serve, at the very beginning, you promise to do as you are told and go where they send you. You gave your word, and you are held to it. Whether you feel like it is entirely irrelevant. That's ironically quite freeing sometimes. Not to say I won't be glad to be a free civilian. (I'll certainly appreciate it more than anyone else in this forum, unless they've served too.)

Being mature and prudent, living within your means, acting selflessly whether you want to or not, holding true to what you commit to - these things used to be the mark of an adult citizen. As a society, we have forgotten this, and have forgotten to pass it on to our junior generations. We are more than consumers. It is high time we remembered that.

Europe has about the same number of square miles as the United States, and about twice the population.

From where I'm sitting, there are beginning to be rather too many people in the US, let alone in Europe. I'm old enough to remember when we here had half the population we do now. Let me assure you that the air was cleaner, there was a lot more open space, and the rivers and the oceans were healthy and full of fish. Finding clean water for our cities was not a problem. Food was not the product of factory farms, and food-borne diseases were a lot rarer. My mother never heard of salmonella. No one bleached their cutting boards.

If Europe lost half its population it would be where we are now, which is less than optimal, to say the least.

Laura, what you're pointing out is that we've all been running our economies on a giant Ponzi scheme, wherein everything is dependent on "growth." More and more young workers to support the elderly and so forth. A giant pyramid.

Do you think we can just sort of do this forever? There are no limits?

From where I'm sitting, there are beginning to be rather too many people in the US, let alone in Europe. I'm old enough to remember when we here had half the population we do now. Let me assure you that the air was cleaner, there was a lot more open space, and the rivers and the oceans were healthy and full of fish.

Really? I'm sitting in Pittsburgh, which in 1950 (back when the US had half the population it does today) was so smoky that the streetlights were on at noon. Its three rivers were dead to fish and most other living things. Cleveland, a few hours away, had a river catch on fire in 1970 or so. Stuff like that - smack dab in the middle of the Edenic days of your youth - was what gave rise to the environmental movement.

Today's Pittsburgh region has more people than it did in 1950, spread out over more land. But there's still plenty of open space if you are looking for it, and the air and water are cleaner than they've been in decades.

I do think that there are limits to how we can and should live. But treating fertility as a disease is not the answer to anything.

OtherJim said:
"When people talk about a drop in the standard of living, they're talking to those who eat out once or twice a week, buy all the latest tech gadgets, McMansions, SUVs and 40" flat screen TVs. When costs rise and their income slides, they will have to adjust down. Those who are already living modestly, however, won't have to change much."

I would have to disagree with you there. People at the lower end of the wage scale spend their money on food from the grocery store, gas to get to work and other necessities of life with just a little left over to enjoy. Food and gas are going up outrageously and these people are suffering. How do you figure that there lives are not being affected. Remember only some of us are lucky enough to be in the position of being able to CHOOSE to live modestly.

Leo, you must be kidding. A few facts:

There are more trees in the North East (the most densely populated part of the country) today than when America was founded.

Forests increased 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000.

Wetlands have increased about 26000 net each of the last five years.

The number of ozone alert days in LA has dropped from about 200 in the 70s to 27 in 2004.

Our air has far fewer particulates in it than anytime since the late 1800s. On and on and on.

Now, all of these improvements came from concerted effort to reduce our negative impact on the environment, of course. But at this point, you're just spouting nonsense when you talk about a deteriorating environment and an increasing population. Just aint so!

Little RH: as long as they limit their children without murdering them in utero, that's fine, but the converse is also fine: having the children that occur to you in the course of your fertile life. The way the "greeners" of today think, more than a 1.2 children is the bad action of a stupid person.

I don't see harping in these comments, I see defense of families that were created the regular way and weren't mandated by chemical or surgical fiat.

Therese Z: S'okay. I agree with your comments as well. While it would be great if everyone agree with Catholic teaching--obviously most don't. I'd be content if those who don't want children would simply refrain from the act that typically generates them. I'm a mom of four kids myself, ages 2 to 11.

The point wasn't fertility. The point was living reasonably, in moderation. Deliberately consuming, while meditating on the worth of what you consume. Whether it is a hand knit sweater, a well-built house, a row of squash warmed by the sun. Understanding its impact, YOUR impact on a real scale. Because all of us have impact, and I mean this in more than an economic sense, because we are more than mere consumers. We are human beings. We produce, we consume, but we also THINK, and I believe we have a spiritual dimension as well.

And if you can see the worth in it, you should start to return a way of life that reflects this deliberate-ness. One thing to keep in mind is that you can live well even without a lot of what you have. Once have a certain measure of comfort, and a basic sense of security that you can probably keep it, then happiness relies less on possessions and more on your choices and on your interior state. You still live well. But you will be supporting a way of life that does not demand inordinate resources and then discard them. This is good for your mental health, and the health of your world. A way of life in solidarity with the way most human beings live - you will appreciate that you have that choice, and you could even spend resources helping them achieve basic standards of health care and nutrition, if you so chose.

This doesn't mean you need to live in a hovel under a bridge. It does mean that how you choose to spend your money and your time can be dictated by what brings you joy, instead of a sense of insecurity or emptiness that is not even physical in origin, or the latest commercial campaign, or random chance.

To quote the Beatles, "All the world is birthday cake, so take a piece, but not too much."

Or, if you prefer,
"Why do you spend money for what is not bread, and your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen diligently to Me, and eat what is good, and let your soul delight itself in abundance." (Isaiah 55:2).