Thursday, May 07, 2009 at 08:22
The problem with this argument is the word "they". You assume that the people who want to protect beaches have no concerns about
population numbers. They are quite likely to be just as concerned about pop. figures as
well. I totally agree that we need a massive
population reduction. But it isn't as simple as that is it? Hands up all those who want to live in a country with a huge proportion of elderly people and a very small workforce of the
young to support that segment. On the other hand, you could vote for encoutging restriction on the birth rate but take in lots of
young immigrants to run the country's workforce. Can't see that being a big vote winner either. So while we try to work that out , we had better try to protect as much of our environment as we can.
To their credit, the Chinese had a go at a "one child per family" policy. I'm sure we have all read of the bizarre outcomes of that bit of social engineering.
It's a bit cute to dismiss
the beach bans as just saving a few worms. The point of beach bans is protecting the food chains. The beaches provide the environment that establishes a base level of the food chain that the rest of the marine life need. I'm not qualified to say whether or not this is so, but those whose job it is to study these things seem to think it is.
FollowupID:
631281