Thoughts...

Here's a response I posted to an article on Dot Earth. Rush Limbaugh called on Dot Earth author Andrew Revkin to 'kill himself' to save the planet, referring to the attention that has been given to how many resources we use just by living in America. It's available here. In my response, I consider population control measures such as one child limits and monetary incentives, as well as reflecting on the role of environmentalists in general. Here is my response:

This is my first comment and I just wanted to say I love your blog Mr. Revkin. I was turned on to it through my Environmental Policy course at American University.

Of course it goes without saying that Limbaugh is a babbling idiot and once again amazes me with his despicable ignorance when it comes to environmental issues. But Limbaugh's comments do reflect a broader question that probably puzzles/offends not only his avid listeners but also the wider American public: where do we draw the line in how adamantly we functionally exercise our environmental concerns in our daily lives? I'm sure many readers of this blog have read Bill McKibben's Maybe One: A Personal and Environmental Argument for Single Child Families, in which he considers the environmentalists responsibility when it comes to raising a child. He cites the exorbitant amount of money it takes to raise a child in the United States and responds to similar accusations that environmentalists should refrain from having children if they are really so concerned about rampant population growth. After debating with his wife over having a child, he ultimately concludes that the paternal and human instinct won out and they decided to have only one. This brings up interesting concepts of human instinct when considering population control measures. I believe that you made a great point in your discussion of crediting people's choice to have one child. In America, the people respond best to incentives. McKibben echoes your thoughts in pointing out the fallacy of offering tax exemptions for having more children. Shouldn't the system reflect the opposite? These are questions that I suppose are better left to those with a greater knowledge of economics and such. But the question I find myself asking is, "are we really embedded with a desire, or need, to have child? My immediate answer is yes. As animals, is it not our basic function to, as my high school biology teacher callously put it, "make babies and then make room?" Should we, as environmentalists, try to transcend this "instinct?" If there really is the paternal/maternal instinct and child-rearing experience we crave, why not adopt? Are we really so tied to the fact that our child, in order to be 'ours,' must share our genes? I'm young and optimistic and years down the road, I fear that these very instincts I discuss will win me over.

Admittedly I have digressed from the original topic, but I think the overall point I was getting at is that environmentalists should not be faulted for not strictly adhering to the principles of living sustainably. For obviously there is a line that must be drawn. I am a vegetarian, but I guess what I really should be doing is not eating at all, huh, Rush?

Lastly, I think there's a bit of an overarching 'meaning of life' issue at hand here. Without acknowledging any God or spiritual elements, each of us have been graced with the greatest gift of all: life. We were given a brain, we can think critically and we are self-aware. We were given a body, so we can execute whatever our brains decide our purpose is. Because so much has been invested us, it would be even more harmful to the environment to kill ourselves. I feel that because I have been given this gift, it is my duty (again, forgoing any spiritual aspects) to use my relatively short time on this planet working to save the environment and educating others about how they can too. If we succeed in doing this, we outweigh the statistical price tags associated with our ecological footprint with the abstract but invaluable gifts of education and work.

Keep up the great work.