I agree completely with Tom.  Back in 1970 a couple of friends and I formed the
first Zero Population Growth group in Garland, Texas. (Interestingly, none of us
who were officers in that first group had any children.)  We had all read The
Population Bomb which had scared us to death!  But overpopulation is not something
that worries me anymore for the reasons Tom mentioned..

As far as wildlife goes, I have two homes and see lots of wildlife from both
properties.  One is out in the country only about 45 minutes away from Dallas.  We
have coyotes, cougars, bobcats, rabbits, turkeys, quail, deer, raccoons, possoms,
skunks, owls, hawks, roadrunners and lots of other critters.  We have even seen
bald eagles.  We feed the wild birds and an astonishing variety of wild birds
visit our feeders.  We had over 250 hummingbirds last summer.  We are constantly
surprised by the wildlife out here.  A bobcat strolled down our driveway around
noon just last week and came right up to our front porch.  And I saw a bird out by
our pond recently that was almost as tall as I am!  (It was a Great Blue Heron
which range in height from 39"-52".)

Our other home is an oceanfront coconut plantation on the Samana peninsula of the
Dominican Republic.  Over 85% of the world's humpback whales visit the clear,
turquoise waters off the coast of Samana each winter to have their babies and
breed.   Samana has miles and miles of deserted pristine white sand beaches,
coconut covered tropical mountains, waterfalls, and caverns with pictographs
dating back to before Columbus.  Some of the best beaches can only be reached by
four wheel drive vehicles or by boat.  When Christopher Columbus first saw Samana
he declared it "The fairest land eyes have ever seen."  It still is.  There are
many places like Samana left in the world.  They're just off the beaten path.

L'shalom,

Marishka

Tom Bridgeland wrote:

> Hello. Twenty years ago I would have been in complete agreement with
> your sentiments, but I no longer am.
>
> Tom Barber wrote:
>
> > control (other than imigration control) in my lifetime. The birth rate here,
> > by the way, has just recently gone back over the 2.0 level considered to be
> > "zero population growth."
>
> 2.0 is below bare replacement. Consider that many people die before
> having kids. Replacement is usually considered to be somewhat above 2.
> The United States population for native born is stable. Immigration is
> about a million a year so population is showing steady growth, but
> that is not from any lack of overt population control measures,
> religion, culture or whatever. Immigrants who stay in the US drop to
> US levels of childbirth within a generation.
>
> The situation in Europe and Japan is even more clear. Population is
> peaking now and will begin a long and sharp fall in a few decades at
> most. The average age is rising rapidly, which means a reversal of
> this trend is very unlikely.
>
> Longevity is not increasing much. We live about 14 months longer than
> people did a hundred years ago. The lower death rate for children
> makes it seem as if we have sharply improved longevity, but in fact
> there is little change. We can not expect hoards of old people to hang
> on increasing population in the long term.
>
> The situation in the third world is much the same. Africa is due for a
> major drop in population in the coming decades, though not by choice,
> AIDS will be the cause. India, China and other Asian countries are
> already sharply reducing the number of children per family. China is
> using the most brutal means, overt population control, but the same
> effect is being achieved peacefully in most other countries via
> personal choice. All over the world population is stabilizing. Check
> out the latest UN projections, they are lower than the lowest
> projections of just a few years ago. It is a fallacy to project any
> current trend into the future indefinitely.
>
> There is a lot of good news out there if you look for it. Remember
> that is it not in the interest of government, scientists, or the media
> to tell you anything good. All of those groups get more money the more
> they can scare people. Good news is buried.
>
> A personal example, when I was a kid, 30 years ago, it was rare to see
> deer or any other wild animals in the countryside where I grew up. The
> rivers and roadsides were filled with garbage and chemicals. The
> difference now is astounding. Deer, turkeys, coyotes, all kinds of
> animals are so common people hardly comment on them anymore. The
> roadsides and rivers are so clean it is hard to find a piece of trash.
> I came home to visit my folks, and spent a lot of time walking the
> countryside. My mother laughed at me when I told her about all the
> animals I had seen. She can see them every day, but they were not
> there 30 years ago.
>
> City people tend to see the whole world as a park. The reality in the
> countryside, at least in the US is that things are getting better and
> better. More animals, more trees, cleaner water and air. Just a
> hundred miles from my hometown bears are common enough to be
> considered a nuisance, and an elk was seen a few years ago, the first
> in a century. No one knows how it got there, but it did.
>
> The situation you see in Vermont is more due to people abandoning the
> big northeastern cities. New Yorks population is down a million from
> it's peak and still falling. Those people are moving to smaller cities
> and the country.
>
> One big problem for the environment is land taxes. On my fathers small
> farm, for example, land tax is several thousand dollars, a heavy
> burden for a small farm. Even if he wanted to reduce the intensity of
> his farming, he could not as the tax stays the same. He is forced to
> farm every inch to make enough to live on and pay the tax. If he
> wanted to plant trees, or just let the land rest a few years, there is
> no way he could do it. Landowners are forced to develop land or lose
> it. It is no choice. If you want to reduce land exploitation fight to
> eliminate land taxes.