Ricardo Villarreal

Think, Therefore Think Again

Overpopulation: The Biggest Threat

by

OverpopulationWhy is overpopulation the biggest threat humanity faces today?

The world has 7.5 billion people and estimates show population growth will reach 11.2 billion by the year 2100. The most alarming issue accompanying these numbers is the fact that our planet’s resources are simply not enough to sustain the entire population.

In her eye-opening book “Move Upstream, A Call to Solve Overpopulation,” Karen Shragg delivers a powerful message on the gravity of overpopulation, its devastating effects, and the actions needed to solve this critical issue.

While it is true there is a lot of activism around the world on many important topics, unfortunately most of these efforts are conducted downstream focusing on the symptoms, rather than the root causes of the problems.

Shragg stresses the urgency to shift focus and move upstream “to get humans to live within our planet’s ecological limits.”

One of the most revealing pieces of information in the book comes from the shocking discrepancy between the number of people and the Earth’s resources we use for food, water, shelter, and energy.

According to Global Footprint Network, a sustainable population for our planet is between 1.5 and 3 billion people. This means the world population is exceeding the Earth’s capacity by at least 4.5 billion people!

In different words, humanity today consumes in one year the amount of resources that it takes our planet 1.5 years to regenerate! Reducing consumption or trying to increase the planet’s resources is no longer enough; sustainable balance can only be achieved with a reduction in human numbers.

More specifically to the United States, the country’s resources can adequately sustain a population of 150 million people. And yet, we are 320 million.

Many people don’t think a country like the United States is overpopulated because there is plenty of empty land. But as Shragg explains, open space is not the issue; the United States has suffered from shortages of water and other resources in recent years.

While climate change is a big concern around the world, and many efforts are made to limit our consumption and be more environmentally conscious, the truth is climate change is a symptom of overpopulation.

The scientific consensus on climate change is conclusive the warming of the planet is related to human activity, and there is an insurmountable amount of activism to fight global warming.

But as Karen Shragg reiterates, the problem with this activism lies in its failure to showcase the undeniable link between climate change and overpopulation.

If we think that just by driving electric vehicles, recycling, switching to solar energy, and becoming vegetarians, we are going to overturn climate change, we are in total denial. If anything, we are just helping slow down the imminent collapse of our natural resources.

Population reduction is an upstream solution that urgently needs to be incorporated by influencing activists as part of their global campaigns, and needs to be a higher priority than the aforementioned downstream efforts.

What are other solutions to fight overpopulation?

Feminism

We all need to get on-board the feminist ship as women’s empowerment is key in the reduction of family sizes. Additionally, we need to bring birth control out of obscurity and make it more easily accessible in the most adverse regions in the world.

Religions

Religions can be part of the solution, but they need a serious update that incorporates true openness and reason. They must act smart and accept the science-based evidence on climate change and our resources.

Christianity, the world’s top religion, has over 2 billion followers who base their spiritual teachings on an ancient book written back when our planet was significantly less populated. But today, the “be fruitful and multiply” edict (Genesis 1:28) is not only obsolete, but dangerous to keep promoting as our planet’s resources continue to diminish.

Religions also need to acknowledge birth control as an effective weapon against the threat of overpopulation. If they don’t get behind this, religions will be part of the problem.

World Leaders

Politicians don’t like to publicly speak about overpopulation because, as the author accurately points out, it puts them at a risky political spotlight, as it brings out two highly debatable topics: immigration and abortion.

Perhaps we need to stop seeing immigration as a political or human rights issue, and see it as an ethical issue. Does it make sense to bring in more people when we are already over-pumping our aquifers, ferociously devouring our forests, and obscenely extracting more oil from the ground because of a never-ending demand?

World leaders and decision makers need to stop fearing and ignoring the subject, and make it a vital topic of discussion for the sake of humanity.

Today, the world is adding 9,000 people every hour; 200,000 people every day; 1 million people every 4.5 days; and 80 million people every year!

Overpopulation can be solved, but the time to act is now.

I highly recommend “Move Upstream, A Call to Solve Overpopulation” by Karen Shragg. It triggered in me a profound reflection on how our actions today are extremely crucial to the future of humanity in a world were population and resources can secure sustainable balance.

Our planet has been generous to us, saving it is the least we can do in return.

 

What are religions good for if God doesn’t exist?

by

Darwin EvolutionIf you were to ask hardcore atheists like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins if they think there could be anything useful in religions, you would most likely get a firm “no” for an answer.

But perhaps, if we make it clear that the usefulness of religion we are seeking has nothing to do with dogmatic applicability, but rather with its successful model as an institution that attracts people with common interests, then we would probably have a different response.

So, what comes next once we have agreed God doesn’t exist and have become part of the fast growing number of atheists in the world?

In his book “Religion for Atheists,” Alain de Botton shares with us thought-provoking points of view regarding how a secular society could benefit from strategies used by religions.

I know in principle it may sound a bit conflicting for committed atheists to even consider adopting religious practices, but if we look at some of the real needs of community and the protection of secular ideas and values, it could be worth reviewing them.

Moreover, it is also important to notice that many of the religious practices and rituals were originally pagan, so atheists shouldn’t be too worried about adopting ideas that actually belong to the public domain.

Let’s begin with the concept of community, a major item of which there really isn’t a genuine socializing structure for the non-believers. In fact, many people today who do not believe in God continue going to religious temples simply to satisfy the need of belonging to a community.

Atheists haven’t figured out a place where solitary non-believers can gather to meet strangers and talk about general human concerns that don’t involve professional life.

Alain de Botton is accurate when describing how modern society access to community is one “centered around the worship of professional success.” I can tell you, from anecdotal experience, that oftentimes I get asked the question “what do you do?” when meeting people at a non-business event.

Let me be clear that I have no problem answering that, but I’d rather know the person better through a substantial conversation and develop a friendship first, rather than a business connection.

When people prefer to focus on other people’s business titles, rather than their personal value, we take away the potential of creating a community by segregating people based on professional success.

And this is one thing religions manage well. People that go to church listen to religious leaders talk about happiness, family, overcoming difficulties, and other topics that touch on human conditions and emotions, not issues related to business.

When it comes to formal education, there are contrasting differences in its approach between religions and secularism. The author points out how “secular education delivers information, while religious education delivers sermons.”

By doing this, a church is engaging more with its followers as its objective is to impact and influence their lives. Atheists, on the other hand, are missing an opportunity to provide non-believers with a similar guidance in educational settings.

Alain de Botton covers other important areas where secularism could take advantage of religious practices. But one that I have personally seen imperative for a while, comes when he shows a conclusive comparative between books vs institutions.

If there is one thing atheists do have plenty of access to is books. There are many exceptionally enriching secular books and best-selling authors that have influenced millions of people not only in their way of thinking, but also in giving them the courage to publicly come out as atheists without feeling guilty or ashamed about it.

But relying only on books is not enough if a secular society wants to achieve a wider impact. Local groups and meetups are good efforts, but nonetheless their influence is still minor in scale and lack the structure to encourage formal discipline.

The formation of well-organized supportive secular institutions is the answer to further protect and continuously promote the shared ideas and feelings expressed in those books.

But to form an institution, secular leaders must first acknowledge the needs atheists have of an established setting, where universal human concepts such as altruism, compassion, kindness, friendship, and gratitude, to name a few, can be examined regularly.

As the advancement of science continues spreading worldwide, and as more and more people leave their religions behind, the need for a secular institution will become even more crucial.