Not enough trees, sure, but too many people

Once again we read a statement that is true but in fact nothing more than a symptom. It does not address a cause. The question that must be addressed is why do we need more trees.

If we need more trees, why are we cutting them down wholesale? Why not keep the trees we already have?

In fact, what we need is a bigger planet, but that cannot be achieved, so we have to gear ourselves to the planet size we have. That means we have to control our numbers and our planet-destroying activities. 

In fact, the greater the increase in our activities, the smaller should be our numbers. In other words, our increase in population should be inversely proportional to our increasing demand for natural resources.

The world population is more than 7 billion and increasing exponentially. Together with human increase is the increase in domestic animals for food. This synergy of destruction together with the destruction of natural forests for agriculture is totally out of control, causing drought and a lack of oxygen.

The tragedy is that for political reasons this situation is blamed on global warming, not on overpopulation by human beings. The human race is exacerbating its own misery and risking its own survival by feeding other animals food that humans themselves could eat and then eating the animals. Just about everything the human race does is counter to its own interests and that of the planet upon which it relies for existence.

If we need more trees, then we need less people and less consumption of animal-sourced food. If global warming is manmade as claimed, then fewer people would also solve that problem.

There is no such thing as “the balance of nature”. Nature simply works with action and reaction and the only constant is change. If we continue to act against nature, its reaction will be eradicating mankind from the face of the earth. Then there will be a lot more trees and the whole planet will flourish.

J C Wilcox