|
|
||
|
Home | Hindi | Kabir | Poetry | Workshop | BoloKids | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact | Share This Page! Shop Online |
|||
|
|
||
|
Home | Hindi | Kabir | Poetry | Workshop | BoloKids | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact | Share This Page! Shop Online |
|||
|
Environment Examples of How the Decision Footprint Works
Example No. 1 The Decision Footprint of an American couple consuming at the average rate, creating two children, and a zero Life-support Protection Factor:
Because of this couple’s “decisions”, an additional 47 acres of wildlife habitat from around the world must be converted into human use—leaving less space for biodiversity and a further decline to a life-support system that’s already overstressed. Example No. 2 The Decision Footprint of an American couple consuming at the average rate, adopting two children in the U.S. and a zero Life-support Protection Factor:
This couple’s “decisions”
will have a neutral effect on the health of our life support system. The Decision Footprint of an American couple consuming at the average rate, adopting two children from a country with an average consumption rate of 12.6 acres, and a zero Life-support Protection Factor:
Because of this couple’s “decisions”, an additional 21.8 acres of wildlife habitat from around the world must be converted into human use—leaving less space for biodiversity and a further decline to a life-support system that’s already overstressed. Example No. 4 The Decision Footprint of an American couple consuming at the average rate, accomplishing nurturing alternatives (i.e. helping schools, churches, universities, nursing homes, civic groups, and educating fellow citizens in an effort to help all children around the world), and a zero Life-support Protection Factor:
This couple’s “decisions”
will have a neutral effect on the health of our life support system. The Decision Footprint of an American couple consuming at “half” the average rate, creating two children, and a zero Life-support Protection Factor:
Because of this couple’s “decisions” (even at half the consumption rate), an additional 23.5 acres of wildlife habitat from around the world must be converted into human use—leaving less space for biodiversity and a further decline to a life-support system that’s already overstressed. Example No. 6 The Decision Footprint of an American couple consuming at “half” the average rate, adopting two children in the U.S., and a zero Life-support Protection Factor:
Because of this couple’s “decisions”, they are helping to restore 23.5 acres of wildlife habitat back into our life-support system. Example No. 7 The Decision Footprint of an American couple consuming at “half” the average rate, adopting two children from a country with an average consumption rate of 12.6 acres, and a zero Life-support Protection Factor:
Because of this couple’s “decisions”, they are helping to restore 1.7 acres of wildlife habitat back into our life-support system. Example No. 8 The Decision Footprint of a “Swiss” couple consuming at the average rate, adopting two children from the U.S., and a zero Life-support Protection Factor:
Because of this couple’s “decisions”, they are helping to restore 20.8 acres of wildlife habitat back into our life-support system. Example No. 9 The Decision Footprint of
an “Indian” (India) couple consuming at the average rate, creating two
children, and a zero Life-support Protection Factor:
Because of this couple’s “decisions” and/or “lack of access” to the above elements, an additional 4 acres of Consumption and 21.2 acres of Development Demand for human use has been placed on wildlife habitat from around the world—leaving less space for biodiversity and a further decline to a life-support system that’s already overstressed. Example No. 10 The Decision Footprint of an “Indian” (India) couple consuming up to 12.6 acres each (the minimum quality-of-life standard argued by this essay), adopting two children in India, and a zero Life-support Protection Factor:
This couple’s “decisions”
will have a neutral effect on the health of our life support system.
There are countless other examples and the author encourages the reader to calculate their own Decision Footprint. The above examples clearly show how difficult it is for individuals who create children to have a restorative effect upon the planet’s overstressed life-support system (even when consuming at half the average rate in the U.S.)—the same life-support system that the children they created will depend upon in the future. Yet couples consuming at the average (or at the minimum quality-of-life standard) and choosing adoption in their own country (or some other nurturing alternative) are already life-support system neutral with their decisions; and members of this group, living in wealthy countries, can easily achieve a restorative effect by reducing their consumption rate and increasing their Life-support Protection Factor. As for adopting children outside one’s country, the examples show it’s difficult to achieve a “significant” restorative effect when bringing children into a high-consumption society (even when the parents consume at half the average rate). However, one can achieve a significant restorative effect when adopting a child from a high-consumption country into a modest-consumption society. Furthermore, since the life-support system is in crisis, it’s imperative that all of humanity work together to increase our restorative decisions and not be satisfied with neutrality when consuming above the minimum standard. Neutrality will not heal our injured life-support system. Therefore, the best way to accomplish this task is to lower our population and consumption, and no decision puts more pressure on our overstressed life-support system than the decision to create a child. Nor is it reasonable to believe that a reduction in consumption alone will protect or restore our life-support system. For the time being, the Life-support Protection Factor still provides a method for all of us (especially citizens in wealthy countries) to improve upon our Decision Footprint from decisions made in the past. As for the future, if we don’t change our reproductive and consumptive behavior, our life-support system will continue to decay, and humanity’s long-term physical and spiritual health will continue to decay as well. We need to look up into the night sky and ponder the following questions:
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Because they hold the key
for positive change; religious leaders, teachers, scientists, students,
responsible citizens, and environmental/conservation groups need to
reflect upon humanity’s reproductive and consumptive behavior. Also,
because of their knowledge and position within society, they bear the
greatest responsibility for setting the example and providing
leadership. Yes, overpopulation and reducing consumption are unpopular
topics in a finite world. However, intellectual and spiritual maturity
demands that one warn humanity even in the face of great adversity. But
take heart, as more individuals and organizations muster the courage to
join the chorus, it will only inspire others to speak out—creating a
wave of support and positive change. References April 2, 2006 The Week of April 2, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
Analysis |
Architecture |
Astrology |
Ayurveda |
Book Reviews |
Buddhism |
Cartoons | Cinema |
Computing |
Culture |
Dances |
|
Home | Bolography | BoloKids | Columns | Hindi | Kabir | Poetry | Quotes | Workshop | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact |
|
|
The
Decision Footprint would be calculated by adding one’s
Consumption-decision Factor to their Child-creation Factor (again, a
person does not “decide” to be born, that decision was made by one’s
biological parents or individuals using the aid of a fertility clinic
and should be reflected in their Decision Footprint calculation). If one
is adopting a child, then the Adoption Factor is also added into the
equation. After the first three factors are taken into account, a
Life-support Protection Factor is subtracted to obtain one’s Decision
Footprint.
“Unless
we can find some way to slow down population growth—to voluntarily
optimize the population—the stresses and strains on the natural
resources will be too great to bear.”
Galileo’s
words are as profound today as they were in the 17th century:
