Article Image Powell Gammill

Letters to the Editor • Immigration

Overpopulation cult vs. Human Reason and Development

Recently there was an article posted as an opinion by Frosty Wooldridge regarding the relationship between human population growth and the degradation of the environment.  Perhaps this wasn\'t an article so much as it was a promotion of Frosty\'s book, but nevertheless the ideas are just as poisonous and overtly genocidal.    I am a recent graduate, with a degree in Political Economy and a sub-focus in Sustainability.  I\'m familiar with our situation globally with regard to human interaction with, dependency on, and misuse of the environment.  To keep things concise, our corporatocratic infatuation with profit over reason has prevented many of us from even conceiving of how this behavior is damaging to truly inhuman degrees, but even in the face of this the solution is NOT to blame the general population of the planet by asserting that they are more of a burden than they are capable of altering their behavior.  Frosty has been either misled or severely deluded by this strain of thought, and I fear that promoting his ideas will negatively reflect on what is otherwise a magnificent news source.   I am a freedom loving patriot, and would never demand the censorship of another individual.  However, perhaps there\'s a middle ground to be found here, and that lies in the subject tagline.  Normally Frosty\'s crap is listed as \'environment\' or something of the like.  What I propose is simply changing that mislabel to \'genocide+WAR\' only because those are the ideas he is supporting by arguing his eugenicist rhetoric.  I can be honest and admit I\'d be happy to never see his articles present on Freedom\'s Phoenix again, but that decision is not one I am in a place to make.    What, dear editor, should a compassionate soul like myself seek to do in such a situation?  Perhaps I should take up the keyboard in humanity\'s defense sooner than I had originally imagined and become a direct contributor.  What do you suggest?   Thank you for your consideration, patriotism, and for this excellent resource.   CS

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by foundZero
Entered on:
Mr. Morris, it is indeed time for you, me and other like-minded persons to bring environmentalism to serious discussion. I agree with the substance of your criticisms of Frosty's approach, however the larger challenge is to insert the dialog. We don't need less of Frosty, we need more people engaging.

My observation is that of a core libertarian ethic: do what you want as long as you don't harm others. Formed as it was from conservative ideas that long predate our awareness of environmental impact, the core observation is simple (regardless of how difficult it might be to put into practice).

The fact is that we now understand the Earth to be a complex and unified system where inputs on one side have outputs on the other. We can now understand and prove that industrial pollutants effect all of us globally. That plastic can now be found in almost all of the fish in the ocean, that mercury is now present in most of our ground water and the water itself isn't fit to drink speaks of great crimes against this ethic.

Anti-environmentalists can agrue about global warming, acid rain or the fact that athsma is now epidemiologically concentrated to urban and manufacturing areas, but increasingly they will have to prove that the environment itself doesn't exist to maintain their position.

And that's why I haven't published on the subject to date. My point is simple and requires little elucidation. You seem much better prepared to get into the issue.

Onward and upward!