2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I agree completely. Remember stories of your parents about how nice things were when they grew up. No (or less) traffic, pollution, congestion, not so many houses, empty lots, places to play, less noise. Why did it all change? Because there are so many people. Schools are crowded. Highways clogged with trucks and cars. Lines to get to the DMV or post office or in the grocery stores. What a mess.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I am with you on this. In Russia the population is declining. This is because the average citizen realizes that there is a lack of jobs, they cannot afford more children, and that children are luxury. The people are ahead of the government on this one. The average person understands what level of population is affordable. Time for governments to understand that too!!!

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Right on! Just like using less electricity or gas is more effective in saving energy than building more efficient power plants.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Wanting to have children is not the problem. The problem is that we have children upon children. Do you need to reproduce without limit? Does your spouse want to bear 10 or 12 children? Will that satisfy your ego? I have two adopted children and they satisfy my need for family as well as biological children. There is a problem and either we control our population and its impacts or the physical and environmental constraints of the world will. We are NOT the world and soon we will learn that. When we have made it uninhabitable for us, life will still be here. But I doubt whether the cockroaches will be interested in going to theatre - unless of course there is something to eat there.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

When I was an undergraduate biology student of Michael Soule, a student of Paul Erhlich (The Population Bomb) we thought starvation would be the ultimate conclusion of uncontrolled population growth. We were wrong -- too many people will alter the environment and destroy our ability to exist. We must understand by not altering our behavior and continuing to  over populate the world; we will make it uninhabitable for any humans. So the choice is ours, do we want as many children as we choose and leave them a world in which they all die or do we have one or at most two children later in life so that our grandchildren may live? Climate change is one manifestation of our ego centric life styles. Trying to solve this or any environmental problem without addressing population growth is simply futile. Reducing carbon emissions may buy us time but does not solve the problem.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context