Reader Misunderstands Concept Of Zero Population Growth



Lorrie Buller of Forest Lakes responded to my Letter to the Editor ("Zero population growth one solution to water crisis," published June 19). Now, I would like to respond to hers ("Zero population growth proponent should rethink viewpoint," published June 29).

She begins with: "A recent letter to the editor concerning zero population growth would be amusing, if the author wasn't serious."

My response is: Only fools would think world population growing by 210,000 per day is not serious. (Do they also not believe in global warming?) We are using up Earth's finite resources at an alarming rate. Everyone is experiencing the effect.

Buller continues: "People with her point of view smugly sit in their homes, and never seem to consider that they are also part of the problem."

How can she assume that? I strongly resent being judged by Buller who doesn't know me or my lifestyle. I am doing all I can to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I drive a 1990 truck/camper with 165,000 miles. I have solar on my tiny camper, instead of a gas-powered, air-polluting, noisy generator. I live on Social Security and save money. I have no heat, no air conditioning, no phone, no television, no computer, no hot water (by choice).

My parents had only two children, as do I, thereby only replacing ourselves and not adding to an already overpopulated world. Many of my younger friends are not having children at all, because of their concern. If we really loved our children, we would do all we can to ensure their future quality of life.

Buller said: "If people with the zero population viewpoint are serious, then why don't they remove their further impact on the planet and stop using any resources?"

I just want to remind her that we are for zero population growth, not zero population as she stated.

Jane Finley, Payson

Commenting has been disabled for this item.