When agenda overcomes science

I'm not too worried about whether or not global warming climate change is "true" or "false". I think the worst thing that could come from paying attention to environmental impact and striving for maximum efficiency is a cleaner and more efficient world to live in.

But then there are those who step beyond the pale of rationality. For example, Diane Francis, who suggests that the only way to save the earth is to impose a global one-child policy (following China's example) and to enforce it as ruthlessly as China has.

Or the Optimum Population Trust, which wants to sell contraception in developing nations as a carbon offset.

World population is estimated to reach 7 billion by the end of 2011, having increased by 1 billion in just 12 years - all but 4% percent of this increase will be in the less developed countries (LDCs). [... snip...] In short, one less birth into poverty is not only one less person to suffer poverty and the expected severe impacts of climate change, but also one less to produce more greenhouse gases in (hopefully) escaping poverty. (from OPT's FAQ page)

Or the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) which, in this year's "State of World Population" report, links population growth to climate change in ways that even they themselves admit are less than direct or immediate.

Although population data are generally regarded as among the success stories of social science, their integration with the developing science of climate change and its human dimensions remains poor. This applies ... to the influence of population growth on greenhouse-gas emissions and climate change adaptation....

In other words, the disastrous "influence of population growth on ... climate change" is an assumption for which they have no solid evidence. But they're certain enough to push population control measures on the non-pink and non-rich peoples of the world.

The real solution to our environmental problems - to say nothing of our economic and political problems - is to recognize that we Americans, along with much of the "developed" world, have been taking much more than is just or fair in an insatiable quest for greater comfort and convenience.

We need to curb our "standard of living". Landfills will not grow so fast if we are not basing our egos and economics and desires on the newest or latest or most disposable items. CO2 will not build up so quickly if we don't insist on the cheapest gas and food and electricity on the planet so that we can use it as much as we like without realizing the full cost.

To claim that reducing the population is the solution to our woes is simply to place the blame and burden on those not yet conceived. As a good friend of mine says, "Just enough of me, way too many of you."
Rabbert blathers on....

Getting organized

At the advice of several of my friends, I'm taking two new steps to add a little order to my life: making a to-do list, and using a timer.

The to-do list is, of course, an ancient concept which I have resisted mainly because of my laziness. After all, making a to-do list is a thing that one has to do. So I'm going to put "make tomorrow's to-do list" as the last item on today's to-do list. Let's hope this will elongate, if not perpetuate, the habit.

The timer I purchased is a mid-level kitchen timer. It has buttons for the numbers zero through nine, so that I can input the exact minutes and seconds I wish to time. It counts up as well as counting down. I'll use it to make sure I'm spending a certain amount of time on each form of writing I have to do.

Tools are only as good as the person using them, so please pray for me that I'll use them well!
Rabbert blathers on....

Real threats of socialism - UPDATED

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with government running a health care program; it's a practical matter of whether this is the best way to provide health care to all.

On the other hand, there is a very real problem with government preventing parents from educating their children. The right to an education means that government must guarantee access to education for all, not that government has the right to indoctrinate kids against the will of competent and caring parents.

UPDATE: Amy points out that, since this case involves a divorced couple in dispute, it probably is not the best example. However, I stand by the principle that education is first and foremost the right and responsibility of parents, not government.
Rabbert blathers on....