I’ve always felt like lunch breaks at school were too short and now that I’m older I still feel the same way but about work lunch breaks. Lunch breaks at work are typically 30 minutes. At my job, for an 8 hour shift, I get a 30 minute unpaid lunch and two 15 minute paid breaks. Every time I go to work I wish that I could combine the two fifteens for a 30 or just combine all the breaks so I could have an hour. The two fifteens feel pointless to me as I feel rushed and even the 30 feels rushed. I’m a slow eater so it’s especially a problem for me. I need a good break to work optimally. I get so drained from work and I notice such a big difference in my work ethic and overall being when I’m charged up from a break. They should at least give the option of having multiple small split up breaks or one larger one because everyone works differently. For some, the shorter breaks may be great but for others like me it’s a struggle. Breaks are so important and there are so many benefits. Given the substantial portion of our lives dedicated to work, I strongly believe that the lunch break policy should be modified to offer greater flexibility.
Make school lunches free for all students nationwide.
Of course, this would just be one in a series of policy changes to support children having enough to eat, but it is a strong start. Schools providing free lunch for all would guarantee kids have access to at least one meal per day, and if we add free breakfast to the deal that would give two full meals. Many schools do provide some type of food shelf to send food home with low-income students for the weekend as well. Additionally, many school districts offer free food assistance for students during the Summer months, this website lists resources available in Minnesota. However, let us assume that the additional food gaps would be met nationwide through other policies and focus on school lunch.
According to Prism, child food insecurity decreased 7% between 2020 and 2021, which was during the time congress allowed all school lunches to be free as a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic. However, the waivers are ending along with the Pandemic, which reveal the $19 million in school lunch debt that had been temporarily relieved. A negative lunch balance is a source of shame in many schools, where students with lunch debt will be given an alternative, smaller meal, and/or their hands will be stamped to ensure none of the cafeteria staff serve them the regular lunch. I myself remember the condescending sighs from the lunch lady at the register when she would tell me “You need lunch money”, in a snide tone. As if my parents’ financial situation was my fault and I had failed morally.
Fortunately, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison ruled in 2021 that “Minnesota law is clear: students whose families are struggling to afford their lives cannot be denied a regular school lunch or offered a substandard alternate meal in place of a regular lunch”, but what about the rest of the country? Childhood hunger should not be a states’ rights issue, it should be wiped out across the board on the federal level.
“But my taxes!“
Some folks would argue that we do not have enough money as a country to pay for every child’s school lunch, that students should make a lunch at home if they cannot afford to buy it at school. I don’t know about you, but I would rather my tax dollars go toward making sure kids get fed than the increasingly bloated defense budget or tax cuts for millionaires. I can guarantee you that if politicians cared enough, they would find room in the budget for this cause. Not to mention that schools in the US already obtain their food through grants and funding from the state and federal government in the first place. According to the Minnesota Department of Education, “The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP) and After School Care Program. USDA provides cash reimbursement to public schools, private nonprofit schools and residential child care institutions for nutritious meals and snacks served to children in preschool through grade 12 at a minimal cost”. Requiring students to pay for their meals is only furthering the US education system’s corruption as nothing more than a for-profit system, just like our healthcare. Additionally, how are low-income children supposed to reliably bring their own lunch to school if they don’t have enough food at home?
Food Quality
Now, in addition to making school lunches accessible to all students, we must also ensure the nutritional quality of said food is adequate at the very least. I am sure any of you who went to public school can remember more than one less-than edible lunch. Even the good lunches were not nutritious. I remember Italian dunker day was a popular one among my classmates, which involved two slices of cheese bread dipped in marinara sauce. My cousin, who is a school bus driver, posted on Facebook about how the school breakfast a couple of weeks ago was powdered sugar mini donuts and a cheese stick. Can someone please tell me how these are nutritious meals to fuel growing minds? Green Matters explains that the reason for poor food quality is budget, “Each school only gets about $1.30 to feed each child — and that doesn’t only cover the cost of the food. It also covers the cost of labor, equipment, and electricity”. How proposterous is it that the value of a child’s nutrition is valued at less than $1.30 after accounting for labor? As I mentioned earlier, if our government refocused its priorities, I know they would be able to find more than enough money for feeding our students decent meals.
Conclusion
In the end, this really is not a political issue. I want to see kids being fed healthy food, and I am not sure what is controversial about that. However, as with most issues, we must wait for our politicians to make free school lunch a priority, which is why we must vote with our priorities in mind. In the meantime, we can do our best to help by donating to local food shelves and helping our neighbors out whenever we can. Let’s make sure our kids get fed!
It should come as no surprise that 2023 has been a very controversial year revolving around “certain” digital “advancements”. Strikes have formed from many work industries, but most notably recently in the Hollywood industry, this has happened with the actors and writers.
While the ladder group of people had their requests met and approved, the SAG-AFTRA organization still has actors striking on Hollywood for 114 days by the time this post is published. You may think that’s a lot, but the WGA group had writers refusing to do any work for 148 days before that got resolved, becoming close to one of the biggest Hollywood strikes in history.
Now, the reasoning on this is because Hollywood studios are trying to use AI to create everything, and I do mean everything. Acting, writing, VFX work, the sky is the limit for them. They’d rather use cheap simple methods as opposed to paying people what they are worth.
Because of this, we’ve had an unknown amount of too many to count movies and television productions be suspended on cable and in development streaming because workers are walking odd sets and refusing to head back to work. For over a hundred days, people are more than ever feeling the effect of lack of entertainment based visual content.
This affects us, the media consumers, as we are craving new content to drop and won’t be getting for a while still because of how long the strikes have been going on for as we’re nearing the winter season with the building desire to return to our comfort zones with the movies and shows we enjoy watching when they are available around that time.
So, let’s just go look over of some of this year’s test examples of how AI would be ruining the entertainment industry that these big Hollywood companies say is actually an improvement. Improvement on money? Sure. Improvement on quality?…well actually it’s also a money loss as well. This is a very important issue and I hope by the end of this publication that people are more concerned about AI in the Hollywood entertainment industry. Now, let’s get right to it.
Now AI itself has been used since most notably around the fall season of the year 2022, as I myself remember clearly that’s when people were just using it for artistic fun, much like a fidget toy for example. It’d be a popular but not widely spread topic that was fun to play around with for the random possibilities and photo editing skills other have to try to incorporate that as their own artwork.
Even as I typed out that last line above this, I realize how that sounds. Their “own artwork”. It’s not traditionally made by artists most of the time, as that would usually involve above hours upon hours to sometimes even days to get details like the images above in the image with actual work.
That detail actually revolves around the visual work department of Hollywood filmmaking as we now travel several months later into 2023, when we didn’t think that something so harmless of a idea such as AI art generating could cause such a disruption.
Elemental is a movie so obviously bad and familiar that I should write a whole blog on that. I mean, Romeo and Juliet called and they want their ripped off property back from the acclaimed creative team of Pixar/Disney.
Disney wanted to look as real as possible, so they took a cheap way out without giving the chance to more animators to try and create actual artistic fire. Think of how many jobs they took away to use free AI programming over human talent. Not only does this hurt the industry, but it’s trying to set the standard to children that they will be fooled by anything in AI generated quality.
Prom Pact is a Disney channel film that was about as loved as any current day Disney channel film nowadays, but people got furious when they realized that a scene in the movie had real people sitting on the bleachers in a gym, but behind them in the middle of the scene were five completely fake generated looking people that were trying to be passed off as “real” people.
They refused to pay several extras money but still kept real actors in the same scene with the ai looking people. This would be noticeably an attempt by the company to try to slowly but surely install AI characters into movies or shows so that once it got to a certain point, all there would be is completely AI generated characters, voice actors, locations, and music.
And yeah, this why shows like Secret Invasion are also quite low in viewership, with a bit of negative reception given the fact the opening credits are completely AI generated. I mean, it looks like Samuel L. Jackson has a secondary pair of lips that are quite small inside of his actual lips.
Cheap tactics like these are a very important reason why Disney is losing money this year. I mean, accounting to creativity in both actual human creations and good storytelling is are a couple of many reasons why, but let’s get back on track.
The Flash movie was arguably one of the most controversial movies of the year for way too many reasons to count so let’s just stick to the basic. It didn’t “technically” use AI, but it exploited CGI to the degree it would count by many as AI.
There were actors from the past who were either not the age they were anymore or were dead that are present and moving in the film. That’s because the studios used the excuse of multiverses to allow for CGI to capture that person’s likeness
If that weren’t enough, Tim Burton’s Nicolas Cage Superman finally made the screen in the movie, but neither he or Cage agreed that how the film portrayed him as would have been for their Superman. In fact, Cage himself admitted he was just said to stand in a corner and look at the screen. Nothing else. He was never consulted on his vocals or likeness to be used to fight a giant alien space spider.
Also, the nightmare scenario I said earlier is a lot more real than you’d think. The Black Mirror episode “Joan Is Awful” has been highlighted as the most relevant episode of the series. It sees a woman unknowingly and unwillingly have her real life be portrayed by real life actress Salma Hayek (her likeness anyways as she agreed to license herself to the streaming service) from an artificial program, in which the entertainment company plans to mass market to everyone, including their personal and very private lives which then of course are ruined.
South Park themselves parodied that idea with season 26’s episode “Deep Learning”, where the whole school was using AI to make schooling easier for students and teachers. This escalated to usual South Park dangers and Stan decides to use ChatGPT to write a ending for the conflict.
The ending is of course weirdly dialogued for vocals and even some characters say their catchphrases instead of logical lines for talking, things get wrapped up quicker than the third act of a current Family Guy episode, too much detail that’s read like a educational teen novel when describing things, and no consequences for anyone. ChatGPT is credited as an official writer of the episode, most notably made so that the creators could point how lazy and rushed that episode was with AI technology.
It’s been even stated by some that if that type of creative style was used for the rest of the episodes moving forward, they would all be labeled as “lazy episodes”, because that’s what AI programs do. They take what they know from the internet, which can be edited at any time, and use popular searches and lines to fill in for scenes for movies or shows that they think people are wanting more of.
But much like another Black Mirror episode called “Be Right Back”, just because you have all the information on the person or subject online doesn’t make them a whole 100%, or might night not even have the full 100% ever, even if you gathered all you needed to fill up the percentage bar with, because information can be edited, and online information is very different from what they are as a person in real life. Facts and truths can be distorted and altered to be something else online, and then changed again.
People are full of complex and ever changing ideas and opinions and thoughts. For Hollywood companies to assume they know everything they need to know about their actors from their past performances enough to just write them out and replace them fully with AI from their recorded on screen performances and information from the web is as sickening as it can get.
Much like the writers, all the actors want is just a fairly reasonable drop in the bucket of a raise compared to what the major executives and CEO’s of the companies make. But again, it took 148 days for writers to get a deal approved, and we’re still on day 114, waiting for actors to get their fair deal.
And because people weren’t and aren’t working during the time of ongoing productions, it’s actually costing companies money. For example, WB’s new and awful money expert CEO David Zaslav said one of the world’s most expansive “No” to a fairly reasonable increase in pay, which cost them $500 million down the drain, and this was quite long before the strike ended. That amount of money is said to have benefited all the writers for 3 years pay, but they said no and lost even more money because of how greedy company executives like Zaslav can be.
Though, combined with the loses of both strikes with actors and writers, there’s a current estimated loss of $6.5 billion dollars gone because people were and are refusing to come back to work until their deals are met. All that money gone. Wasted. And for what? $6.5 billion for sure would’ve ended things a whole lot sooner and prevented any strikes from happening for a long time again.
Financial gain isn’t enough. We need laws similar to the ones for the writers that will protect and serve actors the right to refuse and prohibit any AI use so that they can’t be replaced, because AI isn’t talent. It’s artificial talent, and I like most people would rather take real talent over fake talent any day from these Mr. Krabs type people who are so greedy and unfairly pay people what they are truly owed.
If the studios keep believing the policy that you can’t put a price on a person’s worth but can easily replace that person for free, then that’s just cruel. We as the people are aware of this and therefore need to address this to as many people as possible.
I believe anyone reading this should help spread the news on the SAF-AFTRA strike, because it’s getting so close to finally ending, but it needs more support from the public to help ensure it’s got enough power from the voice of the people to ensure that the studios cave in to their demands and agree to a benefiting deal that won’t replace actors and allow to pay them for what they are worth.
Now if you excuse me, I’m going to go rewatch Free Guy again. Also, the fact that it’s a movie about a massively popular shooter video game with AI programming in it that by the end becomes an obsessive fishbowl viewing game about looking at AI people interact and grow as opposed to watching real people is completely irrelevant.
This was filmed in 2019, and also didn’t rely on AI as a cheap money making scheme for media, unlike how companies are trying to utilize on relying on nowadays.
According to the Health Resource and Service Administration, over 104,000 people are waiting for an organ transplant. The most reliable way for these individuals to get an organ is through donations that happen upon the death of an individual who chooses to become an organ donor. One of the easiest ways to sign up to become a donor is to go to the department of vehicle services and opt in to donate the next time you need to renew your ID/DL card. It’s free!
From a sustainable point of view, your organs would better serve those who are alive and needing a transplant, rather than rotting in the ground. It can provide comfort to your family as well: they know that your heart may continue beating on the planet, even though you have passed. When my father died, he was able to touch the lives of 7 people who received various organs and tissue.
Imagine if you were in a situation in which you needed an organ donation at the risk of dying. All those people going into the ground, and not one could bother sparing to donate for those who are still alive. If you are not an organ donor yourself, why would that be fair? If you are on the fence, just remember: you can’t use them after you die.
Safe spaces. It’s a term I’m sure all of us are quite familiar with. This is when those who are marginalized or wish not to be emotionally triggered can designate a place with other like-minded individuals where they won’t feel scrutinized or ridiculed for who they are or what they believe in.
Though I believe that certain safe spaces exist for a good reason, such as to protect those who experience racism or bigotry against violent actions, when it comes to adopting such positions in regard to college academia, are they really all that helpful in sparing the feelings and impressionable psyches of students? Or are they actually just a hindrance to the process of learning?
For centuries, colleges and universities have been established institutions where those who sought knowledge could explore varying theories and ideas, whether they be liberal or conservative, to further their intellectual advancement.
But in recent times, the notion of sharing opposing opinions and ideas has become a reason for certain administrations and student bodies to demand that only concepts or speakers deemed unoffensive to a specific perspective be introduced on college campuses.
In a time when we as a society and a nation seem to be divided on almost every issue, whether that be through political affiliation, spiritual beliefs or thoughts on identity and personal freedom, is it really a good idea to keep perpetuating this divide by actively choosing to censor one another?
Though the average college student will spend up to four to six years working towards achieving a bachelor’s degree, there will ultimately come a time when that student will graduate and head out into the world.
If we don’t make the decision to learn about the importance of listening to opposing opinions and realize that compromise can be a useful tool in solving problems, aren’t we really doing a disservice to ourselves and others by not only shielding people from the harsh truth that the world will often be quite dismissive of their feelings, but also blocking them from becoming prepared for a more realistic experience of life?
Also, by censoring language or curbing someone’s right to take an opposing position when it comes to academia, aren’t we permitting the opinions and rights of some to take precedence over others?
College is supposed to be a place where we get the chance to deeply explore our intellect and learn to become well rounded individuals. However, if we can’t promote diverse opinions and ideas in academic settings and choose to simply shut out any language or opinions that we don’t want to hear in fear of being upset or offended, can we really claim to be critical thinkers? Or are we just limiting the power of our own minds?
Reproductive health was taken into war when the United States Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe V Wade on Friday, June 24, 2022. This day was devastating for women nationwide because, for 18,051 days, women had the right to choose. One Supreme Court decision ripped this apart.
Reproductive health is a crucial part of being a woman. When this decision got taken away, women were wondering if they were going to have to keep a baby that could’ve been an accident, could’ve been a baby that was a result of a rape, or maybe it was not healthy to the mother to carry out the whole pregnancy. The overturning of Roe V Wade made this decision not possible. Abortion was an essential tool for women to exercise their right to reproductive autonomy. When a woman faces an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, her physical or mental health could be at stake. Not just her rights.
Safe and legal abortions protect women’s lives. With 22 states still having the ban or restricting the procedure in the early stages of pregnancy, this is an issue. When a state does not have legal and safe access to abortion, this can result in some severe complications and even death. Legalizing and regulating abortion can provide women with safe medical procedures by licensed medical professionals. This step can significantly reduce the risk of life-threatening complications during an unsafe procedure.
“Current estimates indicate that half (51%) of all US pregnancies are unintended, and North America is the only region of the world in which rates have not declined in the past decade,”- American Journal of Public Health.
This statistic shows that over half of pregnancies are unintended, so why should these women not have a right to choose? Unintended pregnancies can lead women down a dark path. Forcing women down this path should not be an option. This path can be riddled with depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues. “Mothers of unintended children aged 5 to 18 years were significantly more likely to be depressed and unhappy than were women whose children resulted from intended pregnancies,” this statistic was published in the American Journal of Public Health in March 2016. This statistic shows that an unintended or unwanted pregnancy also affects the child.
Unplanned and unwanted pregnancies can have a lot of social and economic repercussions for the mother and their families. By providing safe and legal abortions, you can help society support the right to choice regarding women’s reproductive health. By keeping the right to choose, the women making this decision could be able to pursue an education and employment and gain financial stability. Accessing safe and legal abortion helps all women, especially if she is in a low-income or marginalized family. Restriction on abortion affects those who already face barriers to healthcare. Recognizing that abortion is healthcare is essential for the women’s right to choose.
Herd, Pamela, et al. “The implications of unintended pregnancies for mental health in later life.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 106, no. 3, 2016, pp. 421–429, https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2015.302973.
To answer this question you have to ask if it’s possible that more than 106,000 American’s in 2021 (https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates) would really choose to loose their lives. That’s how many did in 2021. People from all walks of life. Not those people over there – but us people everywhere – are dying every day of this disease. How can that be by choice? Are hundreds of thousands of American’s happy to have the consequences that often accompany addiction?
I don’t think so! No one wants to lose their lives to addiction. No one wants the consequences or impacts that occur with the disease of addiction. Addiction is a disease like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. It’s time we treat it like one.
Lets compare behaviors of a person with the disease of diabetes and the disease of addiction. If you have been diagnosed with type -2 diabetes you must change your daily behaviors. If you have been diagnosed with the disease of addiction you must change your daily behaviors. Issues occur with both diseases. Flare-up from deviating from the prescribed wellness plan happen in both diseases. However when you “fall of the wagon” and eat a cookie or stop exercising and your insulin spikes landing you in the hospital – you are not berated and denied supports or serves – you are not yelled at and harshly judged. No you are supported in creating a new plan. You might be sent to a dietitian and to multiple therapies including those involving mental health supports. The diabetic is left with choice. Choose to take the serves so amply offered, choose to manage on your own, or choose to stay sick and you will likely die of uncontrolled diabetes. This is where the comparison between the two diseases deviates. The creation of a new plan with supports is not what happens with the disease of addiction. Instead one might survive an overdose – an overdose that brought them to the emergency room of a hospital – where once their life is saved – that same person is often shamed, kicked out, and left on the streets sick or sicker than before they got to the hospital. Why? Stigma. Hospital staff are often ignorant. This is not necessarily the fault of the staff. They have passed through an education system that’s lacking. one in which if they are lucky often involves only 1 semester of addiction curriculum. Undertrained staff still view addiction not as a disease but as a moral failing with choice. This coupled with the fact that the individual – who has just been kicked out of a hospital – is likely in-withdrawal. With no plan and no resources this leaves the individual very vulnerable to a relapse and likely dire physical, emotional and mental consequence. How is this representative of choice?
This Act passed into law over a decade ago. It is extremely difficult to pass laws that require powerful lobbying groups like the insurance industry to “pay out” services that cost their bottom line. Addiction treatment can be costly. It is also notable one of the chief authors was a democrat and the sitting President was a republican. Again, it is worth noting how hard it is to have opposing parties agree on pretty much anything. Addiction is a non-biased, equal opportunity disease spanning every socio-economic class in our nation. It’s infuriating and sad that we still have huge swaths of our population responding to those who suffer from the disease of addiction with a “just stop it” or shaming stance. No one would choose to lose their life, their family, their home, their livelihood and all of their comforts to remain high. NO one wants to live that way. Addiction is a brain disorder. There’s no question about it, Let’s start to treat it like one. The next time you hear of someone who’s loved one is suffering from this disease how about you treat them like a friend who’s loved one has cancer. Bring them food, start a caring bridge, write supportive notes on their Facebook page, cheer them on when they make any positive change towards recovery, when they are vulnerable and share what’s happening, or when they ask for help – help them! Addiction is not a choice. It’s a disease.
While I do not have diabetes, my brother has Type-1 Diabetes and needs regular insulin injections or he will die. I am sure this is not new information to most people, but the cost of insulin in the US is far greater than in any other industrialized/wealthy nation. There is a reason for why that is the case, and it is a simple concept to grasp: greed.
According to Jen Christensen and Betsy Klein, journalists writing for CNN [article here], these price increases appear to have correlated with the rising cases of Type-2 diabetes around the world. Which makes this disease the fastest growing chronic illness on Earth. I, as a cynical person, do not find this to be a mere coincidence that between 2002 – 2013 [according to the article from CNN] insulin prices tripled and even that massive amount of new revenue was not enough for them as the price steadily increased by 54% between 2014-2019.
Throughout that entire period of time, my brother who needed insulin to live since he was 3 years old, the pharmaceutical industry was perfectly fine watching people die and suffer as long as the money was rolling in and stock prices were high. But now, our savior Eli Lilly is here to save the day by reducing the cost of their generic branded insulin from $82.41 to $25. They also say they are going to reduce the price of their name brand insulin Humalog, from $275 per vial to $66.40 per vial assuming one does not have health insurance (my brother does not because he cannot afford the plans he has available through his work). If my brother used Humalog if it was prescribed to him by his doctor, and he uses an average vial in about 3-4 days. That’s twice a week, and if we are talking about monthly costs for insulin that would be an average of 8 vials of insulin per month. If we do the math (don’t worry, I did it for you) that is over $500 a month for insulin! Canada has monthly costs ranging from $25 – $100, and we still can’t reduce the sheer corporate greed of these companies, namely Eli Lilly.
In summary, do not think that Eli Lilly as a corporation is making this decision out of the kindness of their collective black holes where a heart should reside. They are doing this to ease public backlash and give themselves a pat on the back despite not apologizing for the deaths of thousands of people for their inability to pay in order to survive.
As Canada grapples with an escalating wildfire crisis, it becomes evident that climate change is intensifying the frequency and severity of these natural disasters. In this blog post, I want to shed light on the connection between climate change and the alarming increase in wildfires in Canada. The urgency to address climate change becomes even more crucial as we witness the destructive consequences of these fires and their implications for our environment, communities, and the well-being of future generations.
Canada is currently facing a relentless onslaught of wildfires, stretching resources to their limits and causing widespread destruction. These devastating fires have ravaged vast forested areas, displaced communities, and posed a significant threat to human lives, wildlife, and ecosystems. The magnitude of these wildfires serves as a stark reminder of the urgent action needed to mitigate climate change and its detrimental effects. To effectively combat the escalating wildfire crisis in Canada and beyond, it is imperative to address the root cause: climate change. Urgent action is needed on multiple fronts:
First, reducing global greenhouse gas emissions is paramount. Governments, industries, and individuals must prioritize transitioning to renewable energy sources, implementing energy efficiency measures, and adopting sustainable practices to minimize carbon footprints.
Second, investing in strategies to enhance community resilience and wildfire preparedness policies are crucial. This includes early warning systems, robust firefighting resources, and land management practices that reduce fuel availability and promote sustainable forest health.
Third, collaboration at the international level is essential to address the global challenges of climate change. Sharing best practices, research, and resources can facilitate the development of effective strategies to combat wildfires and mitigate their impacts.
To conclude, the escalating wildfires in Canada serve as a somber reminder of the urgent need to address climate change. The devastating consequences of these fires, fueled by a changing climate, highlight the critical importance of immediate action. By raising awareness, demanding policy changes, and embracing sustainable practices, we can mitigate climate change’s impact on wildfires and safeguard our environment, communities, and future generations.
Referenced credible sources such as government reports, scientific studies, and news articles:
If there has been one opinion I have been chastised for or have been told that I would ‘change my mind about‘ it’s my firm stance about not having any children. I know this position does not go over well with any prospective partner of the opposite sex, especially when it is one of the first things to come out of my mouth (I never said I was a nice person). Yet I do believe that I should not have children for more personal reasons, as well as the health of the planet.
Let me explain. According to Katharina Buchholz, a data journalist with Statista, if every single person in the world lived like the average American (which many countries would like to do) we would need the equivalent of 5separate Earths! The planet has enough physical space to hold all of these people, which is a common argument I hear from detractors who do not want to feel guilty about their litters of children who are constantly utilizing resources, which is the real issue. Does anybody know why the Amazon Rain-forest is being burned down? Because farmers in Brazil and other countries need that land to raise cattle and grow soybeans (more commonly known as hamburgers, soy milk, and many other products Americans want). I know that if those individuals are already here, there is no ethical way to remove them from the planet. However, we could start by not heaping shame as a culture upon those who choose not to have children, like myself and many others who do not want that level of responsibility.
MDST 485 Class Blog 