It may come to that. We, as a species, produce more carbon dioxide (CO2) by existing and exhaling than any other single source on the planet Earth, including automobiles and factories. (And we produce more methane than all the much maligned cows or cattle.) Do we truly need more human beings on this planet Earth? Or is it time, in a world of limited resources and growing need, to begin speaking openly of the Engine Fueling the World's Crisis -- Human Population Growth -- and what can be rationally done about it? The August 23, 2004 issue of The Christian Science Monitor newspaper ("NEWSInBrief") summed it up:
PREDICTING WORLD'S FUTURE;
PEOPLE, PEOPLE EVERYWHERE
World population is expected to rise
almost 50 percent by midcentury....
For up-to-the-minute world population statistics, clink on this link: from Spirit of Now, by Peter Russell
Throughout human history, the "fittest" of the species to have survived, in the most brutish interpretation of the word, have notably been such creatures as the rat, the cockroach, the oppossum and such. (2) It has even been suggested that Man occupies the top of the food chain because he is --- let's not be shy --- the meanest of all creatures on this Earth, and Women are the second meanest. Is this what being a "Survivor" will mean as a human-being at some point within this century? And will we be eating maggots by the Salt Sea?
Or will we -- or Someone Important -- dare to broach the "politically incorrect" and dare to speak publicly of voluntarily restraining our human numbers through means other than war, famine, disease or pestilence -- Nature's predictable restraints? -- or merely continue cruel and crude deprivations "for others"?
Perhaps we should stop breathing -- that would be Nature's true final solution to mankind's luckiest and blindest generation in History.
1. Source: Dr. DoLittle, Washington, D.C., 24/7.
2. Author's Note: Some would insert "lawyers" here, but that would be unfair. It depends upon what the definition of "such" is.