Two sides of world population growth
I could not disagree more with op-ed writer Cynthia M. Allen [“Alarming birthrate trend in U.S., Japan,” Jan. 18].
She compares the trend in low birthrates to the novel “The Children of Men,” in which people stop having children and society descends into moral darkness.
What about Aldous Huxley’s prediction in “Brave New World” that democracy is threatened by overpopulation and could give rise to totalitarian government?
The world population has increased faster than our nonrenewable and renewable resources. Overpopulation is a driving force behind social and environmental problems: political instability, loss of freedoms, increasing violence and crime, vanishing species, rain forest destruction, air and water pollution, water shortages.
Does anyone wonder why we restrict the size of fish caught near Long Island? The reason is to preserve the fish population!
Almost half the world, nearly 3 billion people, live in poverty. I understand the argument that a lower birthrate would slow economic growth, but the opposite is also true: There would be fewer people competing for jobs.
Susan Hermer, Commack
I read Cynthia M. Allen’s opinion piece about alarmingly low birthrates in the United States, Japan and Europe with a mix of dismay and irony.
She correctly identifies the concern of some governments that not enough people are having enough children. The result they want to avoid is that there will not be enough people to support the nation, along with the generation that is aging and retiring from the workforce.
Given this, it’s ironic that we still have people crying about overpopulation and criticizing others who choose to have more than a child or two. They buy into propaganda that tells them that there are too many people in the world and that we need to reduce birthrates, not increase them. To them, it seems, people are the enemy of the Earth.
Today’s children will be our next generation of farmers, doctors, teachers, police officers and scientists — even tomorrow’s end-of-the-world alarmists. If we want to survive as a country, we must be fruitful and multiply.
Michael Cisek, East Islip
Buoyed by president and March for Life
It was wonderful to see so many young people attend the March for Life in Washington [“Trump affirms ‘Life’ movement,” News, Jan. 20].
It also was great that the 45th president was there to address our group from the Rose Garden.
Life is winning. And as President Donald Trump said, “Love saves lives.” Love is making America great again. Tens of thousands of Americans with love in their hearts marched for life. That is what makes America great.
Patrick Grant, Rocky Point
Women making big strides in NY politics
As I watched marches for the advancement of women, I had to wonder [“Women take to the streets to show unity,” News, Jan. 21]. I live in Hempstead and have a female town supervisor, a female county executive, a female representative in Congress and a female U.S. senator.
I guess Sen. Chuck Schumer had better watch out.
Joe Maccone, Westbury
LI should raise its voice for environment
Competing for headline space with shutdowns, marches and porn stars was the Jan. 19 news story “Scientists: 2017 among hottest years on record.”
Human-caused climate change may seem a slow-moving threat, but poor leadership at the Environmental Protection Agency could be deadly, especially for Long Islanders. In particular, climate change threatens our water supply. Long Island is home to 254 Superfund sites, which are vulnerable to both disruptive weather and toxins that could leach into our aquifers.
Can we trust EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who refuses to link carbon-dioxide buildup with global warming, to follow his agency’s own recommendation to protect Superfund sites against extreme weather projected to occur more frequently as the Earth warms?
While Washington leaves us hanging, New York has taken important steps to oppose the Trump administration’s policies. Our state leadership is strong on fighting climate change under Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. We must use our voices and votes to make sure all of our local politicians are proactive in this fight.
Amy Posner, Lido Beach
Editor’s note: The writer is a member of the Sierra Club.
Congress should vote on straightforward bills
With all the drama surrounding the extension of the federal budget, here’s a novel idea [“Shutdown ends, for now,” News, Jan. 23]. Why not dump the add-ons and amendments and offer a simple, focused bill?
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program deserves to be debated and voted on based its merits. Though the Child Health Insurance Program was reauthorized for six years, this issue also deserves to be debated and voted on its merits.
The blame game does not go over well here on Main Street, where the fallout from the vitriol produces anger and confusion. This leads to a loss of faith in the greatness of the United States. We need simple bills and to see who votes yes or no on focused issues. That is true transparency and true democracy.
Christin M. Veech, Commack