Consider this:

People who hunt deer due to their over population, encroaching on “our” territory (our homes/property), in this situation what is the real problem here? Is it the over population of deer or is it the over population of people in the area?

This may seem like an odd question, but this is the kind of thing we were discussing in my Religious Ethics class today. We were considering the ramifications of unchecked population growth by humans. Is it right that as humans we can grow unchecked? What happens when land and food resources become so absolutely strapped that we just can’t give it to everyone? These are questions that are being faced today and if something doesn’t change it will get worse. Maybe in America it is hard to see these effects everyday, I mean, no one around me is fighting for food or land; however it is paramount to think about third world countries and the poor. The overuse and abuse of resources hits them very hard. Take for example, poor farmers in Brazil who have to chop down hundreds of acres of the rain forest in hopes of having farmland to survive. It is a tragedy that they are pinned between eating for a while and cutting down an invaluable resource that houses literally thousands of unique plants and animals. There are many people sympathetic to both sides, but which is right, where can we find a solution or a compromise? The answer to this question is very difficult.

Do we say that animals and plants are less important than people and therefore who cares, it doesn’t matter? As humans, who are we to decide the value of a creature or a plant both can provide many services that enrich our life. But on the other side, how can we deny people food and farmland, I can’t say if I was in their position I wouldn’t do the same thing. It is a very tight rope to walk and a viable solution that would last longer than a decade or two doesn’t come to mind very easily. Consider the ethics of ways to solve this problem, is it ethically and morally right to limit the number of children people can have? This could make families such as the Duggers illegal. But isn’t it hard to make this illegal when from the perspective of Christian families who value large families due to “be fruitful and multiply” message in Bible it is a command from God to have many children? Also it is ethical to know that some people will die if you limit their food and land accessibility but it could in turn save hundreds in the future. Who are we to place a value on a life? I think it is hard to say when there is so much to do on this issue, what is the right thing? Will we be able to find a solution that makes everyone happy or will some people, animals, and things have to suffer terrible loses? As my professor said, “if the answer to this question were easy, it would be solved already.”

I drew a lot of inspiration (and honestly, fear and a little anger) from the article we had to read for class, “Saving Nature, Feeding People, and the Foundation of Ethics” by Holmes Rolston III. It is a truly inspiring piece and I really do recommend it, it leads to a lot of thinking.

I know this doesn’t offer any solutions, but, I do think this is something important to think about because in the future this issue could turn into a major problem for our world. Just something to think about.