[socalstanfan1]

The whole over-population argument is hypocritical at it's core.  The solution is for none of the proponents of population regulation to have never been born, along with their great great great grand parents.  No abortion proponent was ever aborted. These are irrefutable facts, no?  Humans make the environment to suite themselves.  So do other species.  Earth deals with it in geologic time and has for billions of years.  Once there may have been organisms who populated this planet for whom oxygen was poisonous.  Long term, that didn't work out.  Humans, mammals, have been on this planet for a very short time.  It seems to me foolishness to think we are causing doomsday.  Or to think we can stop it.  Our only hope, as a species, is to find a way to escape this planet and start over.  You, my friend, and I, will not see that but it might happen.  Or not.  In the meanwhile, do the best you can, live and help others, love and accept love, and enjoy.  The last dinosaurs might have cursed their forebears for screwing things up but the results were the same regardless.  Someday this planet will burn and disintegrate and there is not a thing we humans can do to prevent it.  To think otherwise is merely hubris.

Who ever mentioned "population control"? Or abortion? To point out an obvious historical reality is hardly hypocritical. I haven't seen anyone here propose undoing the changes that have been made to the California water system.  But to grouse about the ill effects of the drought when California has suffered droughts for as long as we have weather records is naive. (Maybe we would agree on that point). And to think that the effects of the drought are not felt more intensely because of the use people make of the environment is foolish. Have humans always made use of the environment? Sure. But that statement in itself is a specious argument: not all means of shaping the environment have an equally powerful impact.  Should one use that fact as an excuse to simply not look at the past in order to understand the impact of those human decisions, and particular ways in which humans have shaped the environment? (Though you basically seem to be saying that human decisions really haven't had any impact on the environment.) That's just a plea for historical ignorance.

I think the tone of the earlier remarks (at least mine) was not hypocritical. They were more in the line of: this is the reality that we've created. Deal with it.

[socalstanfan1]

The whole over-population argument is hypocritical at it's core.  The solution is for none of the proponents of population regulation to have never been born, along with their great great great grand parents.  No abortion proponent was ever aborted. These are irrefutable facts, no?  Humans make the environment to suite themselves.  So do other species.  Earth deals with it in geologic time and has for billions of years.  Once there may have been organisms who populated this planet for whom oxygen was poisonous.  Long term, that didn't work out.  Humans, mammals, have been on this planet for a very short time.  It seems to me foolishness to think we are causing doomsday.  Or to think we can stop it.  Our only hope, as a species, is to find a way to escape this planet and start over.  You, my friend, and I, will not see that but it might happen.  Or not.  In the meanwhile, do the best you can, live and help others, love and accept love, and enjoy.  The last dinosaurs might have cursed their forebears for screwing things up but the results were the same regardless.  Someday this planet will burn and disintegrate and there is not a thing we humans can do to prevent it.  To think otherwise is merely hubris.

Who ever mentioned "population control"? Or abortion? To point out an obvious historical reality is hardly hypocritical. I haven't seen anyone here propose undoing the changes that have been made to the California water system.  But to grouse about the ill effects of the drought when California has suffered droughts for as long as we have weather records is naive. (Maybe we would agree on that point). And to think that the effects of the drought are not felt more intensely because of the use people make of the environment is foolish. Have humans always made use of the environment? Sure. But that statement in itself is a specious argument: not all means of shaping the environment have an equally powerful impact.  Should one use that fact as an excuse to simply not look at the past in order to understand the impact of those human decisions, and particular ways in which humans have shaped the environment? (Though you basically seem to be saying that human decisions really haven't had any impact on the environment.) That's just a plea for historical ignorance.

I think the tone of the earlier remarks (at least mine) was not hypocritical. They were more in the line of: this is the reality that we've created. Deal with it.