News articles like this one tend to engender strong, and polarized, emotions in people. A good portion (perhaps the majority) will react with "Awwwww" and a warm tingle at the heart-warming story that's destined for the Lifetime movie-of-the-week. Others, including me, blanch involuntarily (and not just because the mother claims it was a "miracle," despite voluntarily using science-based fertility treatments).

There are arguments that can be made against having excessively large families on the personal level (the distribution of resources, including attention, among more children, the greater risk to each child from gestating multiples, etc.), but these tend to be visceral and opinion-based. Moving on.

The concept of personal liberty and reproductive freedom is unquestionable on the personal level. The concept of responsibility on the global scale, on the other hand, is not. For 99% of its 200,000-year history, the human species experienced very slow population growth (we didn't crack 5 million people until the Bronze Age). A hunter-gatherer existence surrounded by predators and an inconsistent food supply meant that multiple offspring were offset by high mortality rates, and even into the modern historical periods population growth was still slow (800 million people worldwide in 1750, less than the population of India today). The evolutionary nudge toward large families was maintained as necessity in agrarian societies (where large numbers of children were, in addition to bundles of joy, free labor on farms using hand-powered technology), and extended into tradition today even when no longer necessary (my own family, descended from proud farming stock on both sides, spans four generations and more than 50 people, not counting spouses).

This is where harsh mathematics comes in. The current population of the world is about 6.75 billion. This is a fourfold increase in a hundred years and nearly a doubling since I was born. Numbers are projected to level out around 9 billion once the majority of the third world "catches up" with the first world. In stark contrast, the scientific consensus on the maximum long-term sustainable population of the planet, based on its resources and "recharge rate," is a paltry 2 billion, a number we've long ago passed. That number is based on an assortment of limiting factors, such as the rate aquifers recharge, top soil regenerates and ocean fish levels replenish, plus the rate of depletion of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels that are a one-shot supply the planet won't produce again. Our current population is sustaining itself only through depleting a stockpile of resources (much like spending the capital in your retirement fund instead of living off the interest). This is a bad plan (both in the world of finance and in population dynamics).

The human species, then, has three options:

1. Ignore the situation and allow the population to build to 10+ billion, at which point natural population control measures will kick in (in a decidedly non-pretty way, likely through escalating mass famines and regional/global wars over limited resources).

2. Institute mandatory population control measures as China and India have done (with varying degrees of success). These are severe violations of personal liberty and lead to civil unrest.

3. Encourage global responsibility on a personal level. Which means not having 14 children. (It actually means not having more children than necessary to maintain the sustainable population, which in a balanced ecology would be enough to replace the previous generation.)

Unpleasant facts, I know. Our planet just isn't as forgiving as we tend to think it is.

Labels: annoyance, environment, politics, social commentary

Too little, too late. Go us.

Labels: environment

The weather here is experiencing a moderate case of dissociative identity disorder (it's not called "multiple personality disorder" anymore, kids), alternating in three-day increments between rain, frost, wind and 70-degree sun. In other words, it's a typical Nebraska year.

But to wish everyone a happy Spring anyway, a few cheery Spring-ish photos.

Labels: environment, photography

It's Earth Day in Omaha. Head on down to Elmwood Park. :)

Labels: environment, omaha

Tonight from 8-9 p.m. is Earth Hour. Feel free to join in.

Labels: environment, social commentary

Happy St. Patty's Day, one and all. Not being Irish or having any fondness for fermented barley, this holiday doesn't have the impact that, say, Halloween does, but I did remember my green shirt. It's perhaps a throwback to grade school and its silly "pinching" rules (and the associated cheaters who insisted that the some part of their braces or the socks under their shoes counted). Although it seems unlikely any attorney will yell "No green!" and pinch me in the elevator.

I'm happy to see a handful of groups are capitalizing on the "green" aspect of the holiday to promote green technologies. I "celebrated" a week early by buying about $40 of compact fluorescent light bulbs last week and replacing every incandescent bulb in my house (save one three-way bulb that won't accept a standard CFL). I even ordered dimmable ones for my dining room.

On my way in to work today I passed the Scottish Rite Masonic Center (as I always do, although simply because my route takes me that way, not because I'm keeping tabs on the Masons or anything). The Center always has a large sign out front with its name on it (the Center's, not the sign's). Today, they've also tacked a sheet over it to announce a corned beef dinner something-or-other. Except the sheet doesn't fully cover the sign, leaving the "S" from "Scottish" on the left, leading to an amusing advertisement for "Scorned beef."

Weekend highlights: Meghan's dance performance at the Shark Club was good (in performance and turnout), which slightly made up for her overabundance of stress (apparently cab companies in Omaha can't be bothered to help find lost keys). The twins were happy to see me (Kylie moreso because I was carrying an umbrella she could play with). I ordered my copy of CS3 (Design Premium rather than Web Premium, as I'd originally planned; I've never had much interest in hard-copy publishing, the purview of the major difference between the two, but I've recently discovered a company that will make actual hard copy books of my photos, so I guess it's time to learn InDesign). My left eyelid is *still* twitching (grrrr).

Hope everyone is having a great St. Patty's Day. :)

Labels: computers, environment, holiday, miscellany, photography

NPR carried a story on hypermilers (people who modify their driving habits to improve, sometimes dramatically, their fuel economy) on a segment last week. The program hosts even interviewed a man who claims to average 90 mpg on a routine basis. The incredibly impressive results in the program are only attainable with a hybrid, of course, but the interviewee mentioned that the tips work for any vehicle (he used the example of an SUV that averages 12 mpg today getting 18 mpg next week with the right preparation). Tricks for forcing a hybrid engine to "glide" during driving aside, the most basic advice is unsurprisingly common sense: frequent maintenance to take advantage of proper tire pressures and fresh oil, avoiding rapid acceleration and breaking, planning trips with the least number of stops and starts, etc.

The arrival of another pilgrimage over the weekend presented an opportunity to experiment with some of these ideas (spurred at least in part by a jump in gas prices to $3.25 the day before the departure, although to be honest my fuel economy is decent enough anyway that the experimentation was more out of curiosity, as most good experimentation is). I had an oil change and basic maintenance two days before the trip, and then I intentionally drove 60 mph (well below the 75-mph limit) the entire trip. The results:

- The most obvious was an additional two hours of driving. The trip, one way, is about 380 miles, so what was normally an 11-hour round trip ended up being closer to 13.

- The trip was far more "relaxed." It's difficult to describe, but there was a certain Zen quality to it, perhaps spurred by an acceptance that the goal was something other than maximizing time (and aided by a subconscious inner smugness toward the other drivers, much like listening to a snippet of drama from a group of high schoolers and then inwardly chuckling at how inconsequential their concerns are in the grand scheme).

- Adding to the "relaxed" atmosphere was the fact that I didn't have to use my turn signals or stress about traffic. In fact, I didn't pass a single car and never had to leave my lane. (As a corollary, I imagine there were drivers cursing at the "slow idiot," but that had little immediate impact on me personally.)

- The most important result, however, was the jump in fuel economy. The segments from Omaha to Oshkosh and from Oshkosh back as far as North Platte averaged almost 41 mpg, a nearly 25% jump over my trip-standard 32 mpg. My number from North Platte back to Omaha came to 50.1 mpg, a number I'd be inclined to find dubious if I didn't have the gas receipts (that last leg was after dark, making the air conditioner unnecessary, and I did the final 60 miles at 55 mph, which may have been responsible for the extra boost).

By my rough estimations, given current gas prices, I traded two hours of driving for around $25. Many people would find that trade something less than worthwhile, but since I was in no hurry I'm happy to take the money and the reduced environmental impact. Perhaps a new tao will emerge from this, along the therapeutic lines of "Zen and the Art of Hypermiling," offering respite from road rage and aggressive driving by releaving the pressure of the destination.

Labels: amusement, environment, NPR, science

Everyone go plant a tree (or head to the Omaha event).

And if you die before then, plant yourself under the tree first.

Labels: environment, social commentary