It was a touch over two years ago that I was in the shower (my meditative space), when my mind began reeling with thoughs, ideas, and devastation. The thoughts would not rest in the confines of my mind, so I attempted to explain them through writing- and it turned into a three+ page paper about the taboo overpopulation of the Earth. Some recent thoughts I want to write about urge me to reference this "essay", but it seems hardly fair to do so without posting the older verses first. The below passage has been edited slightly- and is definitally a little scatterbrained, but please follow along with patience.
__________________________________________________________________
Part One: The Standpoint
The definition of vegetarianism seems to vary from person to person. Some will not eat meat, but consume eggs and dairy products since their production is not generally detrimental to the animals. Veganism is the more extreme of this dietary lifestyle, completely eliminating the consumption of animal products.
Keeping that comparison in mind, I have found myself questioning the guidelines of the Christian lifestyle. As far as I am aware, Christians believe that God created this Earth and everything on it, including all forms of life; God loves his creations just the way they are. I have heard the cliche, "It's how God intended," many times, aimed at many different scenarios, and it all seems appropriated following the Christian beliefs I just mentioned.
Now, take that thought and visualize a mother with tears streaming down her face, in a hospital. She kneels beside a bed screaming, "God, please God, save my son! He has a brain tumor! Please, Doctor, please save my son. God, please watch after him and make sure he makes it through this." While it is an emotional moment for this woman as she expresses her devotion to Christianity, she doesn't even seem to realize that she has invalidated the basic principles of such beliefs. As a non-religious person, I'm attempting to look at this objectively. The way it seems to me, this woman would be the "vegetarian" of Christianity. She believes in God's creation and gifts, but resists accepting the facets of life that interfere with her happiness. If her son were to die, the woman would surely accuse God, o at least beg of him, "Why did you take my baby away?!" But the way I see it, God would have also created that tumor in her son's brain.
Some would argue that God also gave man the ability to learn, grow, interact, form society, and accuire knowlege. So if he gave us the means to create modern medicine, it would couteract everything I just mentioned, making the tumor a mere obstical, rather than morbid fate.
In accordance to the idea that God created humans as a species that could grow and change over the years, I would naturally assume that he would give the same rights to all his creations. There is proof everywhere that everything changes. Catfish can breathe above water if they are washed ashore. Plantlife can give off chemicals to naturally ward off impending insects. Viruses can mutate to spread by air rather than touch. The Earth is a living, breathing ecosystem- no exceptions.
Our human bodies need certain balances of nutrients and stimulants to be sustainable. We are naturally equipped with antibodies, white blood cells, and the capability of antioxidant retention. Wether the problem of a broken leg or the comon cold arrises, we are chock-full-o-ways to fix ourselves and survive.
So why not the Earth? The Earth thrives when its elements are working in harmony, the same way our bodies thrive with health and happiness.
Part Two: The View
When people get onto an elevator there is a safe funtioning capacity. If too many people get on to the elevator, or something else is loaded on to add excessive pounds, it can cause the elevator to not funtion properly. In the worst case scenario, the elevator could break, and possibly trap or crush all of those inside it. The implied question at hand reaches far beyond any religious claim, but a phyisical matter. What exactly is the Earth's mamimum capacity?
In the early days, I can assume humans functioned on a similar playing field with all of the other animals in the circle of life. The circle of life encompasses the idea that all creatures have a function on Earth- the life and death cycles. Weather and natural disasters would impact the cycles, but always predictably with the Earth's governing biorhythms- which are determined buy gravitation forces and position in orbit.
In modern times, humans as a while have complicated the Earth's functioning terms. Advances in technology and society have left a thumbprint of more than just pollution. Not only are there more humans than ever- but we also live longer lives. So is the problem that there are too many of us, or that we live longer than intended? Feel free to put it in this perspective:
You have a printer. To print things it needs sheets of 8.5" x 11" paper loaded into it. The printer can hold fifty sheets of paper at any given time. The problem is, you need to print a FIVE BILLION page assignment. The most effective way would be to let the printer print the fifty sheets at a time, refilling regularly with more paper and ink until the task was complete. The least managable method would be to try and load all FIVE BILLION pages into the printer at once... or concoct a Rube Goldberg apparatice to allow for extreme invasions of paper into the printer while it is trying to function, leaving it to run out of ink and burn out of excessive use- possibly exploding.
The vast population is definitally an issue. The more people there are, the more physiolgical needs there are to be fullfilled at any given moment. While such an increase occurs amung the human poplis, food sources are expended among us and the surrounding wildlife. As though that isn't enough, the already extended population is living well beyond eighty years of life- sustainable life decreasing- forcing domains to suffer death of famine.
The Earth has even tried to control the human problem by mutating diseases, or seemingliy created new ones. We conquer allergies to pollon- BAM! allergies to fish. We conquer chlamydia, BAM! HIV and AIDS. We conquer something.. and a thousand variations of cancer sprout up like daisys.
Humans seem to have this idea that we have ascended from the generl circle of life. We want to be special. We want to survive on our own terms. We want control. From an objective, non-humanistic standpoint I can say that our modern society has been reckless and acted more like a paracite to the earth than a functioning creature "of God" (for all the Christians out there).
Part Three: The Vision
Amung all of the innovations science is makng, which I support and respect, I really think that the role we humans play as a part of the Earth should be evaluated and innovated as well. As sad as it is, the only positions left wafting in my mind are to exploit the positions of life and death. When is it acceptable? When is it intended? What effect does it have on the big and small picture? It is easy for small groups of people to covet those around them- but how many "exceptions" is acceptable.
A small start would be to allow safe abortions and discontinue the artificial insemination of women over thirty-five years of age (or in general, since artificial insemination has a high rate of resulting in multiple births *cough*Octo-mom*cough*). Unintended life could facilitate a small step in the direction of becoming a positive role in the ecosystem again. Maybe the next step would be to pull the plug sooner on vegetative life. The step after that could be an impliented maximum family size on a global level.
If the world is to get to the point where it becomes VITAL to basic human survival for there to be less of us, I'm hoping is could be satiated through means other than mindless slaughter, genocide, and war.
The Earth's atmosphere has already changed, It is obvious that it is trying to adapt to all of the damages we have caused. The Earth is trying to fix itself by fighting off its parasite.. Do we really need to fight each other too?
__________________________________________________________________
Maximum Capacity
Part One: The Standpoint
The definition of vegetarianism seems to vary from person to person. Some will not eat meat, but consume eggs and dairy products since their production is not generally detrimental to the animals. Veganism is the more extreme of this dietary lifestyle, completely eliminating the consumption of animal products.
Keeping that comparison in mind, I have found myself questioning the guidelines of the Christian lifestyle. As far as I am aware, Christians believe that God created this Earth and everything on it, including all forms of life; God loves his creations just the way they are. I have heard the cliche, "It's how God intended," many times, aimed at many different scenarios, and it all seems appropriated following the Christian beliefs I just mentioned.
Now, take that thought and visualize a mother with tears streaming down her face, in a hospital. She kneels beside a bed screaming, "God, please God, save my son! He has a brain tumor! Please, Doctor, please save my son. God, please watch after him and make sure he makes it through this." While it is an emotional moment for this woman as she expresses her devotion to Christianity, she doesn't even seem to realize that she has invalidated the basic principles of such beliefs. As a non-religious person, I'm attempting to look at this objectively. The way it seems to me, this woman would be the "vegetarian" of Christianity. She believes in God's creation and gifts, but resists accepting the facets of life that interfere with her happiness. If her son were to die, the woman would surely accuse God, o at least beg of him, "Why did you take my baby away?!" But the way I see it, God would have also created that tumor in her son's brain.
Some would argue that God also gave man the ability to learn, grow, interact, form society, and accuire knowlege. So if he gave us the means to create modern medicine, it would couteract everything I just mentioned, making the tumor a mere obstical, rather than morbid fate.
In accordance to the idea that God created humans as a species that could grow and change over the years, I would naturally assume that he would give the same rights to all his creations. There is proof everywhere that everything changes. Catfish can breathe above water if they are washed ashore. Plantlife can give off chemicals to naturally ward off impending insects. Viruses can mutate to spread by air rather than touch. The Earth is a living, breathing ecosystem- no exceptions.
Our human bodies need certain balances of nutrients and stimulants to be sustainable. We are naturally equipped with antibodies, white blood cells, and the capability of antioxidant retention. Wether the problem of a broken leg or the comon cold arrises, we are chock-full-o-ways to fix ourselves and survive.
So why not the Earth? The Earth thrives when its elements are working in harmony, the same way our bodies thrive with health and happiness.
Part Two: The View
When people get onto an elevator there is a safe funtioning capacity. If too many people get on to the elevator, or something else is loaded on to add excessive pounds, it can cause the elevator to not funtion properly. In the worst case scenario, the elevator could break, and possibly trap or crush all of those inside it. The implied question at hand reaches far beyond any religious claim, but a phyisical matter. What exactly is the Earth's mamimum capacity?
In the early days, I can assume humans functioned on a similar playing field with all of the other animals in the circle of life. The circle of life encompasses the idea that all creatures have a function on Earth- the life and death cycles. Weather and natural disasters would impact the cycles, but always predictably with the Earth's governing biorhythms- which are determined buy gravitation forces and position in orbit.
In modern times, humans as a while have complicated the Earth's functioning terms. Advances in technology and society have left a thumbprint of more than just pollution. Not only are there more humans than ever- but we also live longer lives. So is the problem that there are too many of us, or that we live longer than intended? Feel free to put it in this perspective:
You have a printer. To print things it needs sheets of 8.5" x 11" paper loaded into it. The printer can hold fifty sheets of paper at any given time. The problem is, you need to print a FIVE BILLION page assignment. The most effective way would be to let the printer print the fifty sheets at a time, refilling regularly with more paper and ink until the task was complete. The least managable method would be to try and load all FIVE BILLION pages into the printer at once... or concoct a Rube Goldberg apparatice to allow for extreme invasions of paper into the printer while it is trying to function, leaving it to run out of ink and burn out of excessive use- possibly exploding.
The vast population is definitally an issue. The more people there are, the more physiolgical needs there are to be fullfilled at any given moment. While such an increase occurs amung the human poplis, food sources are expended among us and the surrounding wildlife. As though that isn't enough, the already extended population is living well beyond eighty years of life- sustainable life decreasing- forcing domains to suffer death of famine.
The Earth has even tried to control the human problem by mutating diseases, or seemingliy created new ones. We conquer allergies to pollon- BAM! allergies to fish. We conquer chlamydia, BAM! HIV and AIDS. We conquer something.. and a thousand variations of cancer sprout up like daisys.
Humans seem to have this idea that we have ascended from the generl circle of life. We want to be special. We want to survive on our own terms. We want control. From an objective, non-humanistic standpoint I can say that our modern society has been reckless and acted more like a paracite to the earth than a functioning creature "of God" (for all the Christians out there).
Part Three: The Vision
Amung all of the innovations science is makng, which I support and respect, I really think that the role we humans play as a part of the Earth should be evaluated and innovated as well. As sad as it is, the only positions left wafting in my mind are to exploit the positions of life and death. When is it acceptable? When is it intended? What effect does it have on the big and small picture? It is easy for small groups of people to covet those around them- but how many "exceptions" is acceptable.
A small start would be to allow safe abortions and discontinue the artificial insemination of women over thirty-five years of age (or in general, since artificial insemination has a high rate of resulting in multiple births *cough*Octo-mom*cough*). Unintended life could facilitate a small step in the direction of becoming a positive role in the ecosystem again. Maybe the next step would be to pull the plug sooner on vegetative life. The step after that could be an impliented maximum family size on a global level.
If the world is to get to the point where it becomes VITAL to basic human survival for there to be less of us, I'm hoping is could be satiated through means other than mindless slaughter, genocide, and war.
The Earth's atmosphere has already changed, It is obvious that it is trying to adapt to all of the damages we have caused. The Earth is trying to fix itself by fighting off its parasite.. Do we really need to fight each other too?
No comments:
Post a Comment