My wife and I are extremely interested in sustainable agriculture and living closer to nature. Right now I am 27 years old and going to college studying physical education/exercise science while my wife is 31 years old and planning on going to massage therapy school. We are wondering what steps we should take now toward our ideal of living in an earth-friendly manner. We plan to be starting a family soon after our schooling. In our dreams we picture our kids growing up in or near a small, earth-friendly community where I can teach (any age, kids or adults) or do research while my wife provides domestic support. We are looking for constructive suggestions to help us brainstorm possibilities. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Matt and Chiyuki Bidlack

-- Matt Bidlack (msbidlack@hotmail.com), October 19, 2000

Answers

Matt, You can live earth freindly no matter where you are , just start. You do have to decide how far you want to go though. This forum and the Countryside magazine are the best places to start to figure how far you want to go. We have 1.2 acre, on it we garden, recycle and raise worms. Hope to go solar powered in the near future as I prefer non polluting power when available. Most of what I learned came from my grandfather and Countryside.

-- Jay Blair (jayblair678@yahoo.com), October 19, 2000.

or do research while my wife provides domestic support

Therein is no hope. Your seeking the life style of the 1930's hill- bille. What a picture that conjure's. Get with the real world son.

If the double-tre is not straight then some hoss is slacking in the hames.

-- (jr3star@earthlink.net), October 19, 2000.

Biggest thing you can do, in my opinion, is to invest in solar and wind energy. Cost a lot now but pays you your money back over time and is probably about the most environment friendly thing you can do. Also, consider keeping that family small. Having more than one or two kids is irresponsible. As for the income, consider getting a job teaching in a small rural school district, if that's what you like, and adjust your living ways to the income. It's a trade off and you have to decide if it's worth what you give up.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), October 19, 2000.

Matt, you've probably already started, but I'll say this anyway. The most basic principle to being earth-friendly is to get away from disposables. Recycle everything!! Most things can be re-used several times before they end up at the recycling center. F'rinstance, why buy a funnel? Just re-use a plastic bottle before it goes in the bin. If you just can't live without paper towels, re-use the ones you just mopped up a little water with. I get my newspaper second-hand from a friend who is through with it by mid-morning. I pay her half the cost, then read it, then take it home where wife reads it, then we use them for all sorts of things. The original owner saves the recovered half of the cost, and takes a little extra chip off her mortgage each month.

I could go on & on, but I think you see how you can get started, even while living in an apartment. The real beauty of the re-use/recycle system is in the money you save in the process.

-- Dan G/N.Fl. (Stagecoach@hotmail.com), October 19, 2000.

I agree with most of the suggestions with the exception of a few comments. According to this thread I'm living an irresponsible and 1930's hill bill lifestyle. And guess what! I did it by choice! I gave up a profitable business, cut back, became earth friendly, and started homeschooling our 4 children. I do all of this while providing domestic support to my husband. I love it and am more fulfilled than ever. So if that is your wife's goal, dont let her be discouraged by those type of comments. Go for it!

-- Denise (jphammock@msn.com), October 19, 2000.

Matt, I've been into living "earth friendly" for over twenty-five years. I've learned a lot during that time. There is no perfect life style, and everyone can point at somebody and tell them that they should do things "better".

I can tell you some things that I think are among the very most important things to do to be friendly to our planet and environment.

First, limit the size of your family. There are already at least enough people here to cause serious pollution and shortages.

Twenty-nine years ago I decided to do my part by getting "fixed" after having one child. If I had it to do over, I would have also opted to adopt another child. This is what my two "adopted" kids are planning: have two kids, with one or both adopted.

Second, recycling is ok, but even more important is to try to limit your consumption in the first place. Materialism is not all there is in life. You'll even find, if you avoid the consumeristic lifestyle, that you will be able to enjoy life more, with less time on the job, and retire earlier. Perhaps you might want to join those of us who are trying to encourage "pre-cycling"; in other words, trying to persuade manufacturers to stop triple wrapping things, and stop selling products in non reusable containers.

Third, build an energy efficient house. This is a complex subject which I won't attempt to deal with here, but there is lots of information to help you with this.

I think I speak for most everyone on the forum in expressing my appreciation for asking this question in the first place; just the fact that you are interested in this is a big step in the right direction.

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 19, 2000.

I think that attitude and education is the first steps. You have expressed the first in that you want to. The second is learning how no matter where you live you can be more friendly to the earth. Take small steps then plan for the bigger ones as you discover how this life style can add to your life and not take away from. As has already been said above just by recycling and watching what you buy is a step in ther right direction. Also don't wait until you can do it all at once learn how to garden even if it has to be in pots and how to then preserve what you grow. Remember you can run to the finish line or walk. Either way you get there do it the way that works best for you. Any questions that arise ask here you well get so many right answers some of them may even appear to disagree with one another. gail

-- gail missouri ozarks (gef123@hotmail.com), October 19, 2000.

It's so old, it's become corny, but: Act locally, think globally.

Be as economically responsible as you can be for what is going on in the rest of the world. Before you purchase anything (or enable someone else to purchase it) consider how the product was made. Was it manufactured in a sweatshop? Does the country where it was manufactured have any human rights problems? Is the product made from an endangered species? Is it environmentally polluting, etc.

Commerce is becoming increasingly global and for that reason I recommend taking a strong stand on NOT procuring products that support bad, even evil, positions on the parts of governments and/or enterprises. Check the labels for where stuff is manufactured. Learn what countries have bad track records. Of course, try not to buy stuff new anyway, as has been mentioned! But sometimes you have to.

I'm 48 and have been living the best I can do this way since I was 18. I got really discouraged for a long time, but it seems like the folks your age are much better at understanding some of these concepts than the group of folks in between our ages. Good luck to you and please hang around the forum and let us know how you are doing.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), October 19, 2000.

p.s. You didn't say what part of the world you are in, but here's an interesting place in E. Washington where there's a lot of earth friendly folk around. btw, the Barter Faire is this weekend, for anyone interested. It will be coolish (!) at night!

http://www.planettonasket.com/

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), October 19, 2000.

How many children you have is a personal choice and no ones buisness .They do cost more in time , energy and money than you will ever imagine .Yes we would have more money if we only had 1 child, but which of my 4 should I choice to get rid of ? I agree with recycle , cook from scratch{often less packaging }, and live simply .Find yourselfs a few ac. and multiple ! to your hearts content as long as you can take care of the bills.Raise a big garden,chickens,goats and a hog .

-- Patty Gamble (fodfarms@slic.com), October 19, 2000.

Thanks Patty, you said it well.

With the exception of most of the folks on this forum, most of the yuppies I know that advocate the 1 or 2 child policy are fools. They say one child and then spend ludicrous amounts on that child (more than on my 4). They drive a SUV in the city, buy overpackaged everything, buy a new house (and summer home) every 5 years.

It's not how many kids you have, its the lifestyle you lead. Are you building the earth or raping it? Amy

-- Amy Richards (tiggerwife@aol.com), October 19, 2000.

Matt! One way to immediately become "earth friendly" is to move to S.E. Illinois. Rent a house in the country and you'll be thrust into the very depths of poverty while trying to just make ends meet. Lots of opportunities in this old world but I wouldn't wait forever to get started findin them. As far as being thrust into the depths of poverty in S.E. Illinois-a family could do worse. Who cares if there "ain't" two BMW's in the driveway, settin in front of mansion and have 2.3 kids playin in the sculptured front lawn. I don't know it all and don't pretend to but I do know a bunch and most learned from the University of Hard Knocks, which I hold a Phd. So-find a place and move! Get started before you get too old to enjoy it. My $2. worth. old hoot, livin in the country, gibson. Matt. 24:44

-- hoot gibson (hoot@pcinetwork.com), October 19, 2000.

Patty, I'm sorry if my response to Matt's question has offended you in some way. You believe that how many children a person has is "no ones business". I disagree. Only if the person were living on a different planet than I do would I be able to agree with your philosophy. I would not deign to tell you how many you CAN have, but since I am impacted by the population pressures on land, water, air, food, traffic congestion, and taxes, among many others, I believe it certainly is "my business". I believe that the number of people we ask our (finite) planet to support is "the business" of ALL of us! I hope enough people become responsible enough to voluntarily limit their family size, because the alternative will almost surely be government intervention. No one wants it to come to that, right?

You continue by telling us, "Find yourselfs a few ac. and multiple ! to your hearts content as long as you can take care of the bills."

Patty, this is very myopic advice! Do you think "the bills" are the only considerations for deciding how many more people to add to our already stressed planet? Each of us has to choose how we live our own lives, at this point at least. Matt asked for our advice. Specifically, he asked, "How can I adopt an earth-friendly lifestyle?" I appreciate his asking, and I also appreciate the opportunity to respond without you, Patty, telling him to ignore my advice. If he wants to ignore it, that's his business. I hope that Matt will not become a closed minded person as he grows older, as some of us obviously have.

Amy, I'm sorry you know so many fools. It must be frustrating for you. The "yuppies" you cite may or may not be fools; they are certainly hipocrites, if you are accurately describing their actions.

Nevertheless, just because you know some hipocritial, foolish yuppies does not negate the fact that the planet Earth is finite, don't you agree? For this reason, it is necessary that we put a cap on our total population, or it will be done for us--either by wars, starvation, disease, or government regulation. I would hope that all of us would prefer to take charge of our own destiny, rather than waiting for the "four horsemen" to do so

Amy, you also say, "It's not how many kids you have, its the lifestyle you lead. Are you building the earth or raping it?" I disagree with this statement also, at least in part. I believe it is BOTH: how many kids you have AND the lifestyle you lead.

Even if we all (miraculously) start leading a more responsible lifestyle, with less waste, less consumption, more fuel efficient vehicles, better insulated houses--the list goes on and on--we are still left with the reality that this is a finite planet we live on, with a finite amount of water, air, usable land, and so forth, and if we keep on growing, infinitely, we will eventually have our happy little lives devastated by reality.

JOJ

By the way, Amy, I am not a yuppie, I'm not a fool, I don't drive an SUV (never did, hope I never do!), I avoid excessive packaging, I don't buy a new house OR summer home every five years (I just moved to a new home I built with my own hands, after twenty years in the old one, built in the same way--both of which were constructed largely with lumber I got from hauling bug killed trees to a mill, so as not to have to buy lumber manufactured from virgin growth forests, as most homes are) I have been building energy efficient, passive solar heated homes for many years, I've invented and built several successful alternative energy devices, and I abhor materialism.

If spending "ludicrous amounts" on my one child, and two adopted children makes me a yuppie, though, I have to plead guilty. I spend "ludicrous amounts" of money educating them, and ludicrous amounts of TIME with them. I also spend "ludicrous amounts" of time visiting and talking on the phone to my kids and grandkids. But I do not spend ludicrous amounts of money on "things".

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 21, 2000.

Surprise, Surprise! Once again Jump=off Joe and I disagree. Joe I thought of you on my trip across the country. I went through miles and miles of completely empty land and thought of your contention that the planet is overcrowded. Do you currently live in the city? Because the only way I can concieve of you believing that we are over- crowded is if you live in the middle of downtown Manhattan, or locked in that hellhole we call the Silicon Valley. If you do live in the city it is time to take a long drive out of town. This nation is filled with vast areas of nothing but empty land. All the people in the world could fit into the state of Texas with room left to spare, and we could farm and live off the remainder of the world. This planet is not too small. The planet is not dying. Is there global warming? Probably! The earth has gone through thousands of warming and cooling trends over the course of it's history. The dinosaurs are believed to have lived in a very warm period in earth's history. Scientists tell us that plant life was very lush, and in fact there were plants that grew way bigger than any that exist now.Why? Supposedly one of the reasons the dinosaurs died was a change in weather that included a tremendous cooling. The earth today is still recovering from the last ice age. Is it possible that global warming could make our gardens grow better, and allow us to feed those fabled billions of hungry masses. Come on people think beyond what people tell you. Think for yourselves for crying out loud! If a doctor or a scientist came along and told you that eating pond scum was the way to help would you believe it? Just because someone says that the earth is dying doesn't make it true. Just because someone says we are overcrowded doesn't make it true. It is a small wonder people today are convinced of the imminent danger of over-population because, they seem to crave being over-populated. People pack themselves into cities and then have the nerve to complain they are crowded. Maybe if we put a little of that empty space out there between us we could be a little more reasonable in our view of the world. Maybe then we wouldn't let people with a political motive think for us. You know I have to admire liberal democrats, what better way to get control than to convince people that they need controlling. What better way to get power, than to convince people they are powerless. "There is nothing new under the sun". Go have you babies, maybe they can build a better future for tomorrow. Maybe they can learn to think for themselves. The earth can handle it.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), October 21, 2000.

Bravo!! Well said, Little Bit! Glad you're back!!!!!

-- Denise (jphammock@msn.com), October 21, 2000.

Oh my god! Little bitch is back with her home spun homilies! \ Great. Glad there's so much open space out there in Okieville. Congratulations. Maybe if you keep on cranking out your little brats, you too can have a state that looks like that silicon valley.Yippee!

I live on forty three acres with 2000 feet of a class one steelhead and salmon stream running through the middle of it. As usual, you giant leaps to conclusions have been in egregious error.

I won't even attempt to communicate all the ways your post is full of your typical oversimplificated bullshit. Suffice to say, I am of the opinion that we live on a finite planet. You seem to think we live on a planted of infinite resources. Perhaps you should check your dictionary, if you own one, for the definition of "finite".

I don't give a clump of hammered dog shit if you think the planet has room to put everyone into Texas or not. Have you ever tried to do that? Stupid. Get a grip, Littlebitch.

Please continue your tirade when you learn to think out of your box.

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 21, 2000.

Little Bit-ch, your statement that we could put the entire population of the planet into the state of Texas intrigued me enough to do the math. You are absolutely right! Congratulations. We would then have one person per 3000 square feet. Like solid houses over the entire state of Texas. Why not increase our population by 3000 times? This would only take a few generations, then we could have everyone in Texas, and they would get one square foot apiece. Don't everyone inhale at once, right?

Even if your argument didn't break down when the whole earth has one person per square foot (I know, we can build multiple stories all over the planet, plus underground tunnels; gee what a pleasant place THAT will be!), the problem is that we have LIMITED air and water, among other things. Where are you going to get the water to grow all the food to feed all the people, not to mention all the other things we use water for? How are you going to clean all the waste from the water after all the trillions of people finish shitting in it?

Never mind, Li'l bitch. I know you can't answer this, so just go on off on one of your famous tangents. Or go try to grow something in your "miles and miles of empty land". Gee, I wonder why all that land is empty. Could it be because there is no water there? Nah; it's just empty because Little bitch hasn't spawned enough of her little delights yet. Give her time, empty land; you won't be empty for long....

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 22, 2000.

First of all, I'd just like to thank all who have provided constructive advice. JOJ, your advice about limiting the size of my family was taken to heart. I have been considering adopting for many years now and discuss it frequently with my wife. I'd like to ask you about the dynamics of your family, i.e. how close in ages your children are and if your biological child ever had any notion of superiority over the others. I'll have to admit, though, I'm a little taken aback by your ruthless response to Little Bit Farm. I feel bad for sparking this miniwar with my blanket question, but I must say I prefer to get all viewpoints without someone trying to wrestle another opinion out of the ring. I commend Denise, Patty, Amy, and Little Bit Farm for sharing their perspectives.

Children are our future and if we can't teach them tolerance for others then where will they find peace? The issues of parenthood and brotherly love are as important as the environment, and I'd much rather see someone taking a proactive stance in their children's lives than watch people throw mud in each other's face over how many to have in the first place. JOJ, you're right to exercise your opinion by living it. The best way to lead is to gently lead by example. The example you set by dealing harshly and disrespectfully to our fellow human beings, however, is one I will choose not to follow. I still am interested in hearing more about your children though, JOJ.

Thank you all, again, for your practical suggestions!

Matt Bidlack

-- Matt Bidlack (msbidlack@hotmail.com), October 22, 2000.

JOJ , I feel sorry for your children if that is how you react to them if you don't like there view point .I did not like yours but did not call you a flamming ASSHOLE ! THere is no reason to speak to anyone on this forum like that and a woman to top it off .I'm glad I've taught my children and especially my son more respect for people .I would rather over populate the world with some of the good people here , than idiots like some of the others .Did you figure in for the 4 children I have there are a bunch of yuppies not haveing any ? How about religion would that matter to you , maybe mine doesn't allow birth control ? HOw about I wanted 4 screaming little brats ! And if I could I would go have another just to piss you off .

-- Patty Gamble (fodfarms@slic.com), October 22, 2000.

ENOUGH is enough, you guys. Please don't anybody else rise to the bait.

-- Cathy Horn (hrnofplnty@webtv.net), October 22, 2000.

Folks, I apologize. I am truly sorry that I let little bit get under my skin. We seem to have that effect on each other, probably because we have very strong and very opposite opinions on practiacally everything.

Matt, although this is not a very good excuse, I do not normally deal harshly and disrespectfully with people who don't deal with me that way. Sometimes, but not often. I have to work on it, though; I confess to being a skepic, and sarcasm is always lurking, as I get very frustrated with foolish people who refuse to think out of the box.

Patty, sorry, but I do not plan to "clean up" my language vis a vis "bad words". I believe words like "hurt", "rape", "war" and discrimination are worse than words like "fuck", "asshole", or "bitch". It's the thought that counts, not the words. By the way, I did not even USE the word "asshole" (although I am certainly capable of hurling such a missile on occassion); YOU did. Is it ok for you to use "bad words", but no for me?

Anyhow, I do work on not getting so hostile, and I will try to work on it harder. I have a number of excuses for my lapse last night, but I doubt anyone wants to hear them. After all, excuses are like assholes-everybody has one.

Matt, I have to go pour concrete now, but I'm happy to share the story of my kids (are you kidding? Us granpa types LOVE to talk about our kids and grandkids! I'll try not to bore you, though)

Later,

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 22, 2000.

Has it occurred to you JOJ, that sometimes one does try to limit the size of their family, but sometimes even with the best of intentions and birth control, there is the hand of God thrown in? That is what happened to me. I had my twins at 21, then scrupulously used birth control with the intention of not having any more kids, then ten years later, the rabbit died. Well that was ten years ago and I guess that the fates spoke louder than my good intentions as I now have a child who is a well mannered, thoughtful and hardworking. What should I have done ten years ago?

I think that every one of us has a responsibility to be earth friendly and most of us try to do just that. I am not counting those folks that could care less. I think that if one tries to reduce waste, encourage others to do the same, just think of the progress we can make. Hostility towards these folks who don't care won't change them, but education will. My son's school has taught them recycling, reduction of waste and how to be earth friendly for the last five years. This education goes hand in hand with what we teach him here at home. The "school" did not begin this education, but caring teachers have done this. More is needed, I admit. And Little Bit, you just go on being yourself, life is much more interesting that way. And JOJ, I go to work every day to a corporate job where people make decisions which can impact your life and mine in a far greater way than you ever thought possible and I don't mind saying, your viciousness made me think of that corporate boardroom first. A little education and a lot less viciousness is what I come here for. And I just bet that you have a whole lot of ideas on how to help us all be more earth friendly. The key: don't turn me off before I have a chance to hear what you have to say. My mom always says you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. best regards to all of you,

-- Cindy Lawson (colawson@mindspring.com), October 22, 2000.

If you would read carefully I did not call anyone an Asshole and maybe I should have .But then I usually have more respect for people than that .JOJ your mouth or fingers need to be washed out with soap .There is no need for that language on this forum you are not in a bar with the guys .Show a little more resect for the woman and yes children that read this forum .

-- Patty Gamble (fodfarms@slic.com), October 22, 2000.

I support people's rights to have as many children as they chose. I also think it's myopic to think that decisions about the quality of life we have are not impacted by population. Population is a component of sovereignty. Population is a component in the hegemony of getting more people who think/worship/behave like the intiating group (i.e. early Jewish tribes, Catholic Church, LDS, Hitler, etc. Many other groups...I'm not picking on any one.) Go Forth and Multiply is the credo for making sure there's enough "right thinking/behaving" people to "master" the earth/other nations (according to the "correct" doctrine). This wasn't mandated for all these years just because kids are cute, or a blessing. But that's not really why I'm posting.

Our economy is global, and largely no longer bounded by what happens in Texas, Upper Stick Creek, or Santiago. Market forces will drive political decisions in support of feeding all these extra mouths; medicating all these extra sick, etc., *everywhere* in the world. It's nice to think that what we chose in the way of family planning doesn't matter. And today, maybe locally it still doesn't. But consider the generations after. Do we think they will chose to limit their family size? Or what generation then? Or never? So what if the rest of the world is overpopulated, you say?

I live in the Western U.S. We are incredibly overpopulated for the amount of water we have available (I'm not talking W. Washington, but regionally.) Fact. We are depleting the Oglalla aquifer. The rest of the populations in cities, run-off from fertilizers, etc. are often trashing the rest of the water with polution. Our fish and marine mammals are dying out here. Why are we using so much water? Is it to grow food to feed ourselves and our large families? Or rather is it to grow crops to send to those other nations in our global economy? Growers don't live on, nor provide for family farms anymore. They are "specialists" and sell to the highest bidder.

I would hate for anyone to ever tell someone they can't have however number of children they want!!! But don't lose sight of the fact that JOJ has made some very valid points! Please consider them. My 2cents.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), October 22, 2000.

Since I have no desire to roll around in the mud, I won't. Here is a lot more info on population.

Th\is is from a speech by Knight Kiplinger.

It is going to be a very precarious world, but I think we have the opportunity of doing better in many respects, in the century now coming to a close. What about the Malthusian nightmare? The nightmare of over-population, environmental degradation, urban squalor, the starvation of large portions of the people because of a shortage of food. Well, when I get really down about the present, I pull off of my bookshelf of failed prophecy. Some of the books say of Paul Earlich, from the 1960s the population bomb, by that projection we would all be starving today, actually we would have been starving in the early 1980s.

The world population today is about 6.5 billion people. It is likely to increase to about 8 billion by the middle of this century and then go into a decline. Probably the first population decline in world history since the middle ages. Why do I think that? The rate of population growth peaked 28 years ago in 1970. In 1970 the world was growing at a rate of 2% a year. The green revolution was not keeping up with plunging death rates from better public health, antibiotics, the concurring of diseases. But, since then, the annual rate of population growth has fallen steadily from 2% in 1970 to about 1.3% now, and the odds are very good that population growth in the world will fall under 1% over the next ten years or so. Now, that still means another 70 million people a year living on earth. And I do not mean to be sanguine about that. 95% of this population growth will be in the less developed nations.

But, if you look at what is happening to fertility rates. Fertility is the average number of children that a woman will have in her lifetime. Fertility rates are plunging around the world. In Bangladesh in the last 15 years, the fertility rate has fallen from 6 children in the average womans lifetime in Bangladesh to three today, a dramatic difference. There are about nineteen less developed countries that have taken their population growth rate down to what is called the replacement level, just replacing mom and dad. Two babies born to a woman in her lifetime. Now, Western Europe, North America, we are under the replacement rate. We are well under two children in a womans lifetime. Most of the less developed nations are well above that. But, among the 19 nations that have taken their populations down under the replacement level, you have China, coercively, unfortunately, Tieland, Cuba, Malashia, and many more have taken their fertility rates through voluntary birth control and sometime coercive family planning below the replacement level.

As I said, world population growth is going to add 1.5 billion people to the world economy over the next 50 years or so. A big challenge, especially for the less developed nations. The challenge for the advanced nations will be exactly the opposite. We are not growing, most of us, at all. Unique among the advanced nations is the growth of the United States. Only the United States among the major advanced nations of the world is growing at all, a little less than 1% a year. We are growing by natural increase and we are also growing by immigration. We are a big nation. We can absorb vastly more people than we have been absorbing the last few years. Immigration has been a boom to the United States since the beginning of time. The bad raps on Latinos today and Haitians, and Jamaicans, and Asians, this is the very same bad rap, if you go back and read contemporary history from the 19th century, that you heard about the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Eastern European Jews at the turn of the century. The language is exactly the same, go back and read it. As a matter of fact, todays immigrant groups, I think, will assimilate faster even than previous immigrant groups have been.

Some links. These are varied.

http://www.enyart.com/writings/population.html

http://www.abortiontv.com/OverpopulationLie.htm

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0500overpopulation.htm

http://www.timesofindia.com/110900/11edit4.htm

http://www.abortiontv.com/OverpopulationLie.htm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), October 22, 2000.

Interesting! Earth friendly lifestyle turns to how many children discussion turns to name calling rant. Joj, our farm is also called Lil' Bit Farm so I suppose that you can call me names too if you don't like my opinion! We have seven children; but we meet your standards, one is bio and six are adopted. Not only that, but this was by choice. However, everyone has the right to determine their family size and to decide how to create that family. Many people want more than one child. Not all people have $5,000 plus to adopt an infant. Not all people have the experience and desire to parent children that have already been damaged by the system. I did daycare for ten years and discovered that there are more than enough one child families to make up for larger families. Please remember that this is the USA, not China. We still have a few freedoms left. By the way, as an adoptive parent, I just have to ask; How do your children feel about you identifying them as "my one child and two adopted children"?

-- Barbara Ternes (lbfarm@hit.net), October 23, 2000.

Wow, what's going on with this forum? I haven't been able to get on for DAYS! I wrote the following last time I got on, then was unable to post. So I saved it, and here it is:

Matt, I am afraid that my sitiuation won't help you understand biological kid vs. adopted kid, because I had more time raising the adopted ones than the biological one, who only visited in summer and christmas after he was four years old, and I got divorced.

I have thought many times about which kids I love the most; it's pretty much impossible for me to make a conclusion. I love them all. Sometimes I feel closer to the adopted ones, but I think it's only because I spent so much more time with them.

One thing for sure, though. I don't love the adopted ones any LESS than the other one, which is probably a part of why my adopted two are planning to adopt either all their kids, or all but one each, they tell me. By the way, they arrived at that conclusion independently of me, and I believe independently of each other, though I'm not sure.

There was the normal amount of sibling rivalry, when they were growing up, but with a different twist: They would occassionaly have these little dialogs like, "MY Daddy!" "NO! MY Daddy!", which most kids would not have. But they mostly got along very well, and still do. I think this particular argument was prompted more by Jason's jealousy of Wayd and Rocket being able to spend all year with me, while he only got to spend a few weeks per year.

By the way, since you asked, the kids are now 25, 28, and 31. Youngest is the girl, oldest is the "biological" son.

I would also like to say that I am a very tolerant person. Tolerant of other people, and tolerant of others' views. However, I DO NOT have much tolerance for people who deliberately wear "blinders" so that they can remain ignorant (ignorant, as opposed to stupid, that is). I'm not tolerant of closed minds. Minds are like parachutes--the only work well when they are open.

Cindy, you asked, "Has it occurred to you JOJ, that sometimes one does try to limit the size of their family, but sometimes even with the best of intentions and birth control, there is the hand of God thrown in? That is what happened to me. I had my twins at 21, then scrupulously used birth control with the intention of not having any more kids, then ten years later, the rabbit died. Well that was ten years ago and I guess that the fates spoke louder than my good intentions as I now have a child who is a well mannered, thoughtful and hardworking. What should I have done ten years ago?"

Yes, Cindy, it HAS occured to me. I was born at night, but not LAST night! And I was not born in a cabbage patch.

As to what you should have done ten years ago? The answer is obvious: divorce your old man. (This was my attempt at humor). Seriously, Cindy, I think what you did ten years ago is fine. But then, what I think is not what is important. Fortunately, the population of the US has not yet been deemed so far out of line that you had to worry about what Uncle Sam thought, like you would have, however, had you lived in China, or as you might have if it were 2050 A.D.

I also pretty much agree with everything in your next paragraph, too, Cindy. My mom also used that "dicho" (sorry, I don't remember the word in English) I am referring to the flies, the honey, and the vinegar.

Patty, if YOU read carefully, you will see that I never said you DID. I said you were the one who USED the dreaded "A" word. Please inform me which words you find so offensive. Obviously you feel it's ok to use "asshole", so I guess you must be a discriminating judge of bad words vs. good words. Please help me out here, ok? (a caveat: I am not promissing to abstain from using them, but I will consider it. As a rule, I consider excess use of various "cuss" words to be more of a sign of a lack of imagination, or a limited vocabulary than "dirty" For instance, we all know people who use the word "fuckin" in place of dozens of much more descriptive adjectives: "Pass the fuckin' butter. Look at the fuckin' tits on that chick. Can you fuckin' believe it? I got a fuckin' A on that exam from that fuckin' Mrs. Dinglebob"

I also think that any children who are online are in a lot more danger of being corrupted by about a billion web sites than by my use of "bad" words. Sorry, but that's me.

Sheepish, as usual you have articulated yourself very well. I largely agree with you. Although I don't fully "support" people having as many people as they want, I also don't support having big bro deciding. Unfortunately, this is where we are heading. I do support trying to educate, and yes, convince, people to voluntarily limit family size. As long as this happens, occassional "mistakes", such as Cindy describes, don't really matter much. It's only when we really bave our "backs to the wall" that we will likely end up being subjected to China style mandates. I hope I am not here to see that, and I hope my grandkids will experience a world where population is planned VOLUNTARILY, and they won't have to experience it either.

Little Bit, I have to go pick up my sweetie for a dinner date :) So I don't have time to respond in depth to your post. Sorry. I'll get back to it tomorrow, I think. I did see that you brought up the failed malthusian predictions. This is meaningless. If you tell your kids not to stand in the middle of the freeway, because they'll get killed by a car, and they stand there for a while, and don't get killed, does that mean that it's ok to stand on the freeway? Of course not. Fact is, and I've repeated this to you so many times that it is clear that you are being "willfully ignorant", WE LIVE ON A FINTITE PLANET! Repeat after me, "We live on a finite planet!" Don't you get it yet, litle bit?

Gotta go. Dream in technicolor

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), October 24, 2000.

Back to real time. Looking at the previous messages, it appears that it's only been a couple of days I couldn't get on line.

Hi, Barbara; I assume you see the connection between earth friendly lifestyle and family size.

I guess I'm never going to stop hearing grief for my less than PC responses to Lil bit, am I?

I'm impressed that you chose to adopt six of your seven kids. Way cool. As far as this being the US, not China, and still having freedoms left here, this is one of my points; China apparently reached a point of such overpopulation that the government there felt that they had to take extreme measures. I prefer that the US populataion voluntarily cap our population at a reasonable level, or even begin to reduce it, if that's the concensus, in order to avoid such draconian measures in the future. As a matter of fact, I am chairman of a "Citizens Advisory Committee" which is an interface between my valley and the county government. I am working on organizing "town hall" type meetings to try to get the citizens of the community to have some dialog on our future, vis a vis what level of population we want to have in five, ten, twenty, fifty years down the road, and what ultimate level we would like to stabilize at.I don't know if I'll have any success on this. As you probably know, a lot of people just don't want to even THINK about such a thing. But I truly believe that we, the people who live here, need to face this issue, rather than waiting until we have surpassed the level where we have a good lifestyle, and retain our clean, beautiful valley.

I just read an article yesterday, in fact, about China. They are planning to blast a tunnel clear under the Himalayas, using nuclear bombs, in order to divert a river to the south, in order to generate power and to provide water to the southern provinces, because they are running out of water. Sort of like the US drilling tunnels clear under the Rocky Mountains to divert water from western Colorado to Denver. Denver is buying up the water rights to farms and ranches, taking them totally out of production, because there are so many people in Denver needing water for their city uses. Weird.

I hate to sound argumentative, but I think your impression from daycare work that there are "more than enough one child families to make up for larger families" is not accurate; if this were true, we would not be experiencing population growth, and we of course are.

Barbara, you asked me, "How do your children feel about you identifying them as "my one child and two adopted children"? I don't identify them that way. As you may have seen several posts above, I said, "This is what my two "adopted" kids are planning: have two kids, with one or both adopted." I put the word "adopted" in parentheses to clarify which ones they were.

It's actually kind of funny about that; oftentimes, when I introduce my two "adopted" kids, I get comments like, "wow, they sure inherited your genes" because my boy is six four, my daughter is six foot even, and I'm six six. We all look knowingly at each other and smile. Sometimes we'll tell folks that "Biosperm", as we affectionately call their "real" father, was almost as tall as I am.

Little bit,

Your last post has some cogent statements. I agree with most of what you say; in fact, you are saying more or less the same thing I've been trying to convince you of for the last year or two.

You say, " But, among the 19 nations that have taken their populations down under the replacement level, you have China, coercively, unfortunately, Tieland, Cuba, Malashia, and many more have taken their fertility rates through voluntary birth control and sometime coercive family planning below the replacement level." That's what I'm trying to say here, Little bit; we have to either control population growth voluntarily, or coercively (or let mother nature take care of it through famine and/or disease, etc)

I have heard that the worldwide population would only stabilize by 2050 if we immediately cut reproductive rates to two kids per family; however, I won't argue with your data, as population growth RATES are highly inaccurate. The only irrefutable growth fact is that continued growth means eventual overpopulation in a finite world.

Gotta go,

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), October 24, 2000.

Barbara, I was out tying steel to get ready for a concrete pour, and kept thinking about what you said about not everyone having five grand for an adoption.

I didn't know that it cost so much, but be that as it may, what does it cost to have one the "natural" way" Forgive me for being a mere male, but doesn't it cost a similar amount for "proper" prenatal care, and delivery costs, etc?

Regardless, it is ironic that folks have to think about the costs of adoption, but nobody seems to think about the humongous expense of prenatal care, food, clothing, medical, college, etc. etc, before they go out and make babies.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), October 24, 2000.

Actually I thought adoption cost more than $5000. Around here a normal delivery in a hospital is probably around $5-6000. Alot of people have insurance to cover most of it. The last baby I had in the hospital cost us a $100 hospital co pay. More and more people are starting to have babies at home again which without assistance there would be the cost of your supplies. With a midwife in attendance the rate seems to be $1-2000. The rates probably vary from region to region but I think these figures are fairly accurate. Just thought I'd post since JOJ seemed curious him being a man and all!

-- Denise (jphammock@msn.com), October 24, 2000.

Denise is right. $5000 is a very conservative estimate for a healthy infant adoption. When we checked on costs,several kids ago, working with a reputable agency ran from $8000 to $12000. While some employers offer adoption benefits and there is a tax credit of up to $5000, it is still cheaper to have a baby if you have insurance. Even without insurance, there are ways to cut cost and you can make payments to the hospital. Adoption agencies want some money up front and want the rest when placement occurs. Costs such as food, clothing, and misc. stuff are going to be the same either way. With infant adoption, you also run the risk of the adoption falling through and then youv'e lost both a child and money. Many people are just not willing to take the risk.

-- Barbara Ternes (lbfarm@hit.net), October 24, 2000.

It seems strange to me that no other men took offense to the languge and tone that has been dirrected toward woman on this thread .Do you all think this is appropriate ? If so we should not be worrying about over population but the role men are taking on in this world .To me joj is a rude woman hating s.o.b. who can't stand a strong woman .

-- a real man (real man@realman.com), October 24, 2000.

I takes a real man to make a real joke! Thanks for sharing.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), October 25, 2000.

It seems strange to me that no other men took offense to the languge and tone that has been dirrected toward woman on this thread .Do you all think this is appropriate ? If so we should not be worrying about over population but the role men are taking on in this world .To me joj is a rude woman hating s.o.b. who can't stand a strong woman . -- a real man (real man@realman.com), October 24, 2000.

What a real man you are, real man. Thank you for pointing out what a woman hating sob I am. Oh, rude, too.

What is your problem, realman? Is it that I don't follow some prudish idea of what a "bad" word is? Or something else?

Whatever, dude. I persoanally think addressing overpopulation is a lot more substantive than discussing the "appropriateness" of my writing style.

By the way, I am a flaming heterosexual; I love women even more than I love men, and my woman is a "strong woman" who is capable of reaming you a new asshole, thank you very much.

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 26, 2000.

real man, it seemed strange to me too! Conviction and passion is admirable, making your case for your conviction is even more admirable. Vile, filthy language is not. Methinks JOJ doth protest too much!! Oh well, sticks & stones and all that..... but for the record real man, I for one appreciate REAL MEN! God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), October 26, 2000.

Hi everyone,

JOJ got me to thinking about population control (either preplanned or not preplanned) and I wonder how much impact the unnatural disasters have on the earth's population. We have had over time, the holocaust, war in Uganda, genocide in (gosh my mind just took a dive - I know one of you know this, the South African nation the US contributed humanitarian aid to in the early 90s) and other unnatural disasters since the turn of the century. Then the floods,famines in Africa, droughts, etc. Many people have died from these events. Does that (as awful as it is) contribute to the population "control"?

I know we don't want to go that route to control population, but it seems that these kinds of events will happen somewhere, some of the time. Since we are extending lives far longer through drugs, better health/living, it appears that there are a whole lot more people in certain countries than others less fortunate. If we contine to prolong life further and do not lessen the frequency of having children, would the bad events occurring in the world offset this?

What do you folks think? And a final thought, thanks to everyone who makes this forum possible.

-- Cindy Lawson (colawson@mindspring.com), October 27, 2000.

Cindy, so far we have never had a natural, or unnatural, disaster that contributed very significantly to the population crisis.

Even the influenza pandemic of 1918-19, the one which killed more people than any other in history, killed "only" 20 million or so people. While this is (obviously) a terrible disaster, our population is increasing by that amount every ten or fifteen days.

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 30, 2000.

Damn fuzzy math! Sorry, I believe that should have been every two to three months.

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 30, 2000.