I like that Naess looked further into problems which included views which extended past human economics and their personal interest towards other life forms. I agree with the fact that shallow efforts are being made to protect the environment in lieu of human interest. The idea of setting the bar high for ecological goals is necessary in the comparison with the monumental economic and development goals. Moreover, I agree with the points of deep ecology listed, especially the eighth which describes the obligation to be a part of an environmental movement. Therefore, if it is true that the planet is letting us do away with each other like it allows everything else to do, then it would be my responsibility to try to preserve humanity. This poses a contradictory obligation on me to protect the humanity of which I am a part of and then also speak on the behalf of the Earth and its natural processes being what is necessary. Earth is a closed system in that it preserves matter and therefore natural resources. I conclude then that the only way to save humanity is to save the Earth that we live in. Right now, if I subscribe to Naess’ view, I must spread knowledge and help in the creation of sustainable lifestyle products. The planet has been consumed from and needs replenishment, but I hope the future proves that it will not be with detrimental costs to human existence. However, the notion of earth killing humans intentionally seems bizarre. http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Meteorologist-weeps-as- Earth-prepares-to-kill-off-4860258.php, this link poses the idea that climate change is the means of killing humanity. On the other hand, it is hypothesized that climate change had a positive effect on humans by driving evolution. Check this video out, start at 11:46 http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVo8CXdL5w8.
Raising the quality of life of women causes them to have fewer children for a variety of reasons. The first is that there is no reason to continue to have children as investment goods. Usually, no matter how poor a family may be, two children are desired and any more after that are expected to contribute to the family by working and taking care of elders. The second reason is that women are in schools and building their careers during most of the reproductive years. Only after these women have jobs or finish their education, will they decide that it is time to start a family. I do not subscribe to feminism being the solution to over-population. The end of sexism and the equal treatment of people is not the only motivators of women to pursue an education and therefore have fewer children. I strongly believe that economic opportunity and personal desire for monetary success does more than the idea of feminism to decrease the number of children born in developing nations. I do understand though, that feminism is the vehicle to open doors for women to education and jobs. Thus, overall both the combination of equality and the increased standard of living contribute to lower birth rates. China’s one child policy program is an economic issue as well as a feminist issue. The fact that the one child rule highly favored boys over girls, is proving to be destructive for the Chinese society overall. What it meant for women to be forced into abandoning children especially females, is a clear infringement of women’s rights. However, now the Chinese government and society are making the best possible decisions for its future, for men and women.