Responses

 

          The years 2002 and 2003 were eye openers for me. Early in 2002, I attended a lecture held by a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and learned that nearly 99% of the commercially important fish life in the oceans worldwide had been consumed or destroyed due to man's activities. Later, I learned that two-thirds of the world's coral reefs are dead or dying with only one-third still healthy. Since these reefs are the natural breeding grounds for numerous species of fish, it seemed clear that the oceans would not recover in the foreseeable future.

         When I subsequently learned that living species are going extinct at a rate approaching 50,000 per year, and that less than 0.1% of this number is due to natural causes, I became shockingly convinced that the human population is far in excess of a size that the Earth can accommodate without disastrous consequences. However, after recognizing these facts, I became convinced that global warming is likely to be the one most significant problem facing mankind. It may well cause extermination of the human species as well as all other mammals, possibly within a mere 200-300 years.

         The factual information that I'd assimilated led to the conviction that man is bringing upon himself his own destruction, and in the process, he'll inflict tremendous suffering. The only rational solution, I became convinced, involves preventative approaches requiring changing our lifestyles and reducing our population to a small fraction of the present value.

          In response to my growing concerns, I began devoting an increasing proportion of my time to environmental issues with a focus on human population reduction. I wrote several essays, each addressing a different aspect of the primary global problem. In December 2002, I compiled about a dozen of them into a small volume entitled "Our Precarious Earth and its Biosphere." This was reproduced and distributed to a few hundred friends, colleagues, relatives, and politicians. I had previously been hesitant to do so as my sensitivity to censure and negative feedback might easily upset my delicate sense of wellbeing. I imagined dozens of incensed, traditionally minded people condemning my efforts and the proposed solutions as unnatural, sacrilegious, fascist and/or impossible. Instead, virtually all of my colleagues were tremendously supportive. Indeed, a few responded negatively. One remarked: "Everyone knew of these problems decades ago, so why the big fuss now?" Another believed that no matter what the problem, mankind, through its ingenuity, would produce a solution once the problem became critical. My editorial assistant, steeped in traditional Christian beliefs, found the contents of some of the essays offensive and sacrilegious, and she refused to continue work on them.

         Undoubtedly, others who did not respond may have felt similarly. Only two out of many politicians (Gore and Lieberman) responded, possibly because the topic of population reduction could lose them votes. The vast majority of respondents, however, were highly sympathetic. Below I reproduce some of their statements:

1. Russ Doolittle, Professor of Biochemistry, UCSD:

     "Just received your little book. Terrific! We are all worried - even terrified - about the way things are going."

2. Joel Weiner, Associate Dean and Research Professor of Biochemistry, University of Alberta, Canada:

     "I just returned from a trip to Toronto where I spent the weekend arguing with my brother about the Kyoto Accord. He heads a large public relations effort funded by the oil industry to change Canadian public opinion on Kyoto. Our government has just passed the Accord, and it is backed by about 80% of the population. However, economic interests of the oil industry are expected to suffer, and consequently they have mounted a huge (unsuccessful) effort to change public opinion. On a similar vein I am sure you are aware that the cod industry in eastern Canada collapsed a decade ago due to over-fishing. The stocks were so depleted that they have not even begun to recover. The government would not act when scientists told them to block over-fishing and stop the European factory ships from harvesting cod. The fishermen then turned to shrimp. Now the shrimp industry is near collapse, but our government is afraid to call a moratorium for economic reasons. You would think they could learn."

3. Stanley Maloy, Professor of Microbiology, San Diego State University:

"I share your concern for the Earth. While in college I was a very active member of the organization ‘Zero Population Growth', and it left a permanent concern for many of the environmental issues you describe. I have not continued to actively voice these issues to the public at large, but I do describe them in Microbiology lectures because the analogy with bacterial growth is so striking. I have continued to contribute to organizations that promote these causes."

4. Hiroshi Nikaido, Professor of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of California, Berkeley:

"I feel sad that voices of reason (like yours and perhaps, mine) do not prevail in this world. If all of us drove cars with hybrid engines, then gasoline consumption would decrease to one-half, and we would be living happily with domestic and Canadian oils. We would not have to worry about all these Mid-eastern countries and our hegemony in that region. On the other hand, oil companies would suffer, and the first priority of our administration seems to be to serve these companies!"

5. Ethan Bier, Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology, UCSD:

"I agree with you completely about the problem being very simply: too many people. But as you say, politicians won't say so because of the intense response they would evoke from the religious right-wing. It is really frustrating to recognize the course that must be taken and know that it will not be taken."

6.  Peter Rowat, Research Scientist, UCSD:

"Thank you for the WONDERFUL Christmas gift. I have briefly browsed through it and am in complete agreement. I use the analogy with the Easter Island ecological disaster to tell people what I think the future of the Earth will be as a result of man's natural greed."

7.  Tony Romeo, Professor of Molecular Biology, University of North Texas Health Center at Ford Worth:

"I could not agree with you more about the problem of overpopulation and its consequences. It is something that became clear to me long ago, but other than directing some charitable contributions to environmental causes, I admit not having been very active. Your message and essays have resensitized me to this problem, and I will make an effort to keep such issues in mind in the coming year."

8.  Richard Novick, Professor of Biomolecular Medicine, New York University School of Medicine:

"I more than agree with your views; indeed, you are preaching to the choir here. As it happens I recently took my granddaughter to the Museum of Natural History, where they have a relatively new exhibition called "The Hall of Biodiversity". It illustrates rather graphically many of the points you are making. Perhaps others who have not yet come to this realization would find it more edifying. Unfortunately, given the forces that motivate our esteemed government, I find the whole situation overwhelmingly discouraging, and, in weak moments, feel less pain over the physical and medical catastrophes that bedevil our population than perhaps I should."

9.  Wil N. Konings, Professor of Microbiology, University of Groningen, The Netherlands:

"I have read with great interest your essays professing population reduction for earth preservation. I admire your effort to convince society that urgent steps are required. I agree with many of your proposals but think that considerable change in people's attitudes and practices might allow a population larger than one billion to exist without loss of Earth's viability. There is no question that the alarm bell is ringing loud and clear, and that certainly politicians hardly notice."

10. Bill Cuevas, Research Scientist, Genecor International, Palo Alto, California:

"Judging from your writings, you and I are very like-minded when it comes to our experiences and views on life. It tortures me to see the way mankind treats the Earth and its native species. This was one of the reasons I fled my home in Tucson; I couldn't bear seeing the ‘sky island' mountains and deserts that I considered my only true refuge being constantly handed to rich developers on a silver platter. Alas, escaping isn't a solution, I know. The current administration and the Dept. of the Interior are worse than anything I could've ever dreaded or conjured. Worse even than when James Watt/Reagan were in office (hard to believe). Seems like man always learns his lessons the hardest ways."

11.      Jeff Stock, Professor of Molecular Biology, Princeton University:

"The essay about your childhood experiences in the Monterey Bay Area reminded me of similar experiences in Acadia National Park in Maine. When I was 18 we camped there for about a week, and the fish were as plentiful as you described. Deep-sea cod were being thrown away since fishing boats were bringing in more than they could sell. Sea bass and sea trout were so plentiful you didn't even need to bait a hook! To get flounder, you just had to drop a line off the peer. Less than 20 years later it was almost all gone. I went out in a boat and caught one mackerel. The most striking wildlife to be seen was the flocks of truly obese Americans."

12. Elio Schechter, Professor Emeritus of Molecular Biology, Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston:

"Your essays elicited a mixture of pleasure for the lucid and witty writing, and dismay for the way we are torturing this planet and its passengers. I feel like you that future generations are going to look back at ours as a bunch of witless brigands, solely intent on self-gratification without any sense of responsibility. I wish I could say that the future looms brighter, but, although an optimist by nature, I cannot see that we are learning much, if anything."

 

          I found the universal theme of these responses reassuring. Many intellectual rationalists of high stature obviously recognize the serious nature of the environmental crisis our human population is producing. In fact, the responses cited above represent only the tip of the iceberg. Many others verbally conveyed the same or similar messages. Interestingly, however, it was by no means a cross section of the population that provided me with positive feedback; people most aware of the severity of the pending crisis were extensively trained in logical scientific thought. In fact, many respondents are among the leading scientists of our day. Of course some members of my family as well as relatives and friends not trained scientifically, also expressed agreement and concern. However, percentage-wise, these sympathetic lay rationalists were in the minority, and virtually no self-declared Christian seemed to agree that a serious problem exists.

         This last fact puzzled me. Why should Christians not be concerned about the future conditions their offspring will be forced to cope with? Maybe their faith in a mystical God is sufficient to alleviate their fears, or maybe their religious training had emphasized a simple belief system while neglecting training in logical thought and deductive reasoning. I didn't have a clear answer.

         Then I received a phone call from my nephew Kevin. He explained to me that many devout Christians are convinced that Christ will return, and that his return portends the end of the world. "Christ has died and will come again." The judgment day, the apocalypse, the end of the world, will accompany his return when he will judge the living and the dead. Kevin noted that as a child, he would sometimes accompany his parents on shopping trips and observe a disheveled man on a corner who would loudly proclaim: "the end is near." Kevin wondered what the motivation had been for making such a dreadful prophecy. He was also curious about the source of his information. He did note that the prophecies were never fulfilled.

         Then he got to know a devout follower of The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. He learned that Mormons have the largest genealogical database in the world. It's supposed to facilitate post human baptism, assuring the souls of deceased family members access to heaven. Moreover, Mormons also have a massive recruitment program for the living! Nearly all Mormon children are expected to devote 1-3 years to religious missions, recruiting people into their church. The goal is to get as many of the living baptized so they too can gain access to heaven. Apparently, only by being baptized a Mormon can you achieve heaven. People belonging to the other professed Christian denominations don't have a chance.

        Thus, it seems many Christians believe that our time is limited, that the end is inevitable and predetermined. We need not to worry about how we treat the Earth and its inhabitants because its destruction by overpopulation and pollution is inconsequential. These Christians are thus immune to their own carelessness because Christ will return to save them, apparently, they believe, before life on Earth becomes impossible. Entry into the kingdom of heaven is all that matters.

         Given such a belief system, and recognizing that a vast number of voting Americans follow this or a similar dogma, there seems little hope that a democratic government can impose responsible social regulations. The Christian belief system relies on a dogma that flies in the face of scientific facts and logic. I've been told that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in a second coming for the chosen few, not in heaven, but here on Earth! If so, they certainly have a vested interest in the conditions of our planet and its environment. Isn't the diversity of Christian beliefs amazing?

         What will it take to convince religious people that they must assume a position of social responsibility? Maybe we should show them that their belief system is nothing more than a facade; that they're living fairytale lives, that they are illogical irrationalists, bordering on the delusional. A more realistic solution might be to try to convince them that the man-promoted end of the world could come before the return of Christ, preventing salvation to all. Alternatively, one might suggest that we should preserve the Earth so there will be more time to save souls. It is amazing that so much time and effort is devoted to saving an entity, the human soul, the existence of which is not supported by one iota of scientific evidence.

         I don't know what it will take. I don't know what approaches will prove most effective. But we must teach the many ignorant Americans and other equally foolish world citizens to treat the Earth with the respect it deserves. Any approach that achieves this desired goal would be welcome.