POINT BLANK: John Blankenship
It took all of recorded history until 1830 for the world population to reach 1 billion.
By 1930, we were at 2 billion.
By 1960, 3 billion; 1975, 4 billion; 1986, 5 billion; and in 1999 we crossed the 6 billion mark.
Advances in medical technology have led to remarkable extensions of human life in most of the world.
We’ve also witnessed substantial improvements in reducing child and maternal mortality.
But there is no question that the world is paying a costly environmental and ecological price for this prodigious proliferation of human growth.
Our forests are declining, our topsoil is eroding, our deserts are expanding, and our climate is undergoing radical change. Some of our most distinguished scientists have warned us that the underground water supply of the Midwest is being siphoned off and depleted for a seemingly insatiable conglomerate of fruit, vegetable and livestock growers of the Southwest, via the mammoth irrigation projects extending all the way to Southern California.
There is only so much fresh water on the continent, they argue. If a shortage of drinking water should become a reality, heaven help us.
If you think gas prices are excessive, think about having to pay for a glass of water in the middle of a veritable desert of dustbowl conditions.
One hundred dollars? Five hundred dollars? A thousand?
Who would decide which family members got hydrated and which would not?
It’s an unthinkable nightmare, but could it happen?
The question is, are we wasting our water resources? Are we taking our freshwater supply for granted?
Once we thought that 35 cents a gallon for gasoline was highway robbery.
Now what do we see looming over the horizon?
What if terrorists dumped poisonous chemicals into our water supply? What then? Wouldn’t that also cause a chain reaction of food shortages?
- - -
We are today in a world of an estimated 6.5 billion people, growing by 78 million each year.
Ninety-seven percent of that growth occurs in the poorest countries.
Rapid population growth is primarily attributable to enormous strides in lowering mortality through medical breakthroughs, mass inoculations and sanitary improvements.
We have been less successful, however, in making a wide variety of effective, efficient and affordable methods of family planning universally accessible.
This failure has led to rapid population growth accompanied by devastating environmental consequences.
For example, in only the last 10 years, 600,000 square miles of forest have been cut down.
Particularly alarming is the staggering loss of tropical rain forests — the source of much of many drugs that are indispensable in fighting deadly diseases, including cancer.
Fifty percent of the earth’s last remaining rain forests are located today in just three countries: Indonesia, Brazil and the Congo.
None of these three countries has come up with a conservation plan to protect its share of these rapidly vanishing, vital environmental and ecological repositories.
The problem is compounded by the fact that 70 percent of all developing world families depend upon wood as their sole source of energy.
How can we tell a family to preserve its forest when their day-to-day lives and well-being depend on wood — not only to provide warm meals but to protect themselves and their children from the ravages of bitter cold weather?
- - -
The ravages of environmental and ecological resources are one thing, but the negative effects resulting from the lack of first-rate parenting skills are just as devastating.
Consider this: Almost six in 10 parents in America think their children are either “very” or “somewhat” spoiled.
Did they ever stop to think that their children being spoiled might have something to do with how many of their school-age children have:
-- A computer in their rooms (40 percent)
-- TV in their rooms (38 percent)
-- Phone in their rooms (53 percent)
And how many of their teens also have:
-- Credit cards paid for by parents (18 percent)
-- Cell phone (28 percent)
-- Car or motorcycle (52 percent)
-- Horse (4 percent)
The teens who escaped all signs of indulgence (approximately 80 of 640) shared five positive traits, according to a survey titled “Parenting Practices”:
-- Their families frequently ate dinner together
-- Their parents were not divorced or separated
-- The children were required to keep their rooms clean
-- They had no phones in their rooms
-- They did community service
The parents of those teens, meanwhile, shared a “TLC” approach:
Time — They spent more time with their children — be it at supper, at school or at bedtime.
Limits — They set firmer limits on their children and at the same time expected more of them — such as keeping their rooms clean and managing allowances.
Caring — They took an interest in what their children were interested in — be it baseball or the latest CD or movie.
- - -
Top o’ the morning!
— Blankenship is a Register-Herald writer.
E-mail: jabbb@suddenlink.net
