Why no mention of the "Elephant In The Room"?

Or as Jo from Supernanny would say, Family Planning!

This summer I took a job as a groundskeeper at the zoo in my city and we have a new section called the Jungle Odyssey. All around the facility as signs that give tips on how to help protect the environment and help protect endangered species such as don't use palm oil, turn the bedroom light off, don't use as much water, and recycle, but never any mention of what could help the world the most: STOP HAVING KIDS!!?

If I were in charge, for example, of any museum, park, or facility that does environmental education might be something like this for example: "This urinal saves 10,000 gallons of water a year. You can help by using a condom, they're free near the sink." Or in the ladies room, "we use low flush toilets in this rest room, you can help by talking to your doctor about family planning. Also, talk to your doctor about an operation so you can cut down the use of disposable products for women."

As for kids, they might want to know too, for example: "Your parents had you, but many grownups don't have kids. Often zookeepers have to travel to far away parts of the world to work in animals, and it can be hard to do that with kids. Stay in school and get good grades so you can travel the world."

At the zoo, I see so many couples with multiple kids, often one walking, one in a stroller, one in one of those baby in front carriers on the dad and then, the wife is pregnant. I feel hopeless with all we do to protect the environment when people are humping each other, letting the kids happen.

Their audience is the family with children, so no way are they going to risk alienating that audience....which is why 100% of corporate ecological education is greenwashing. When I stay in a hotel, there's always a sign in the bathroom about re-use of towels. Fine with me, it's not as if I replace my towel every day at home either, but let's not pretend it is for the environment rather than to cut laundry costs - if it were about the environment, you'd inform me on how much carbon I spent traveling to your hotel and recommend a video conference.

Regarding your proposed signs, I would find the one in the woman's restroom to be kind of bad advice...I don't think a hysterectomy for the purpose of eliminating menstruation can be medically justified; there are a lot of potential risks as the uterus does also have a function of holding other organs in place. These days there are plenty of reusable products, and these could be promoted, both overtly through informational signs, but also practically, for instance by having private restrooms with sinks.

Actually, I did not mean having a hysterectomy, my sister had a uterine ablation after having to deal with bleeding so bad she tells me "it was like the Godfather". Forgive me, as a guy, I do not know all about these things.

It would be good to talk about the reusuable products. When I clean up the restrooms (yes, the women on The View are right, the ladies is always worse than the mens) I have to haul away almost a full bag of "unmentionables". Yet I have never seen a reusable product advertised, it is all commercials for Tampax and Kotex. I guess there is more money in disposables.

I wonder if it would help if more women asked their doctors about family planning if it would be impossible to ignore, even if they just bought a boat and need women to get pregnant to make money for the payments.

Which brings up I think I know why physicians don't care about the environment: Most specialties, you see patients all day so you better "love people". Medical school and residency they work in the hospital all the time and never get outside except the parking lot. I don't think a medical student or a resident ever gets to see a pet, an animal, or a plant so all they know is the office and the hospital and their own families.

Ablation is generally used to treat extremely heavy periods. I'm not sure it's an appropriate treatment for people who are in the normal range, but it's a moot point because even women who need it have difficulty accessing the treatment due to the overwhelming natalism of the medical profession.

It's also well known that there is no need for placebo pills; women who are on the pill can quite safely take them constantly and not experience periods. It's not widely mentioned, and of course the pill does have environmental concerns of its own (hormones entering the water supply).

Reusable products are on the rise, especially among younger women. Cups are probably the most popular, which is why I mentioned that it would be helpful to have sinks in the stalls, so that women could rinse them. There are also washable pads. These options are significantly more environmentally friendly than disposable products, but of course they are effectively one-time sales, as the product lasts 5-10 years. Naturally you won't see many advertisements on TV, although I do get quite a few on social media. If that's not too much information, we even have a thread on the topic!.

Quote
yurble
Ablation is generally used to treat extremely heavy periods. I'm not sure it's an appropriate treatment for people who are in the normal range, but it's a moot point because even women who need it have difficulty accessing the treatment due to the overwhelming natalism of the medical profession.

[/url].

Yurble, do you suppose that the doctors are so breederific because of the training conditions I mention above? Since I do not "love people" I do not think I could be a doctor and I would not live through the training. Why would anyone do it?

Quote
mr. neptune
Yurble, do you suppose that the doctors are so breederific because of the training conditions I mention above? Since I do not "love people" I do not think I could be a doctor and I would not live through the training. Why would anyone do it?

I think it probably takes a certain mindset to become a doctor in the first place, to get through the years of training and the miserable residency period. A lot probably have some form of savior complex. Anyhow, after residency people do have the chance to see nature - I know several general practitioners who do hiking, etc.

Since you asked me, I think a large part of it is the norms people are taught. It takes a certain sort of person to be able to distinguish between the factual aspects of a discipline and the opinion-based aspects, when it is all taught together. Natalism is so integrated with the curriculum that many people just never question it.

Quote
mr. neptune
Or as Jo from Supernanny would say, Family Planning!

This summer I took a job as a groundskeeper at the zoo in my city and we have a new section called the Jungle Odyssey. All around the facility as signs that give tips on how to help protect the environment and help protect endangered species such as don't use palm oil, turn the bedroom light off, don't use as much water, and recycle, but never any mention of what could help the world the most: STOP HAVING KIDS!!?

Well, I've read some books on marine mammals, one of them was about manatees, the other on dugongs (different author.) Both mentioned overpopulation as one of the big threats on their populations. Problem is, scientists won't state it outright, in public, for fear of having their funding pulled and being castigated. Plus, you know the arch-conservatives will spin this as 'being against/hating humans' and will happily cite all of the previous failed predictions of population doom, and use it to rip their opponents apart.

Quote
mr. neptune
If I were in charge, for example, of any museum, park, or facility that does environmental education might be something like this for example: "This urinal saves 10,000 gallons of water a year. You can help by using a condom, they're free near the sink." Or in the ladies room, "we use low flush toilets in this rest room, you can help by talking to your doctor about family planning. Also, talk to your doctor about an operation so you can cut down the use of disposable products for women."

I think the main risk of a message this forthright is that it puts people on the defensive (and may risk too many people choosing to ignore it, along with legions of parents boycotting your zoo for this 'offensive' message) I might put it this way...

"Our planet and it's animals are in peril. By connection, humans are in peril too. Much is said that pollution is the main culprit, but the often unspoken elephant in the ecological room is that overpopulation is the other, as it creates more demand for resources and outcrowds the animals. If the women of the world had two children or fewer, we could preserve our open space, reduce need for resources, and give the animals and planet enough room to recover and florish, enabling it to further support the animals and us. It would preserve a future for the children yet born, allowing for a time of hope and possibilities, instead of a certain one full of overcrowding, suffering, death and extinction.'

It makes people think about the future of their children more (hopefully) and think about their children's chnces of life in the future rather then just the here and now.

However, I think the main problems will be people thinking it's the duty of other people to have less children, and the politicians saying the 'tree huggers' are anti-human and want to dictate people's life choices now.

Lastly, I think encouraging people to use reusable products to save money and help the planet might get more people on board rather then trying to talk women into a moderate level operation, which heavily risks alienating people and feeling highly intrusive. Women have been using 'reusable' stuff for years prior to the rise of disposable pads and tampons, it's mainly the convenience of disposables that made them so attractive.

Quote
mr. neptune
As for kids, they might want to know too, for example: "Your parents had you, but many grownups don't have kids. Often zookeepers have to travel to far away parts of the world to work in animals, and it can be hard to do that with kids. Stay in school and get good grades so you can travel the world."

Unfortunately the job of 'Zoo Keeper' is highly competitive. It requires schooling, and the openings can be kind of hard to come by. Plus the pay kind of sucks right now.

I think I would say instead :Zoo Keeping can be a interesting job that allows you to meet many different kinds of animals and make a difference. However, it can be highly competitive to obtain this job, and not everyone can become one. Do you have the desire and abilty to put in the time and effort needed for the amount of training it takes?'

I think 'time and effort' likely cancels out 'having kids, or at least having kids right now' in many people's minds, because there are still many zoo keepers that end up having kids.

Quote
mr. neptune
At the zoo, I see so many couples with multiple kids, often one walking, one in a stroller, one in one of those baby in front carriers on the dad and then, the wife is pregnant. I feel hopeless with all we do to protect the environment when people are humping each other, letting the kids happen.

It's because it's still encouraged, damn the consequences. Politicians still need those future low level wage slaves and ignorant serfs to manipulate/boss around, so they won't say a thing. And when the world's a miserable overcrowded shithole hard in the throes of The Sixth Great Extinction, these rich politicians will be quite dead by then.

For the same reason no one ever talks about the dietary elephant in the room. The amount of havoc wrecked by factory-style animal agriculture is breathtaking, but I've never seen it discussed at a zoo, museum, or any other mainstream ecological institution. Asking people to buy a different type of toilet or vehicle is far less scary than talking to them seriously about their life choices, even though in the long run those itty-bitty changes really mean little to nothing.

Quote
bop
For the same reason no one ever talks about the dietary elephant in the room. The amount of havoc wrecked by factory-style animal agriculture is breathtaking, but I've never seen it discussed at a zoo, museum, or any other mainstream ecological institution. Asking people to buy a different type of toilet or vehicle is far less scary than talking to them seriously about their life choices, even though in the long run those itty-bitty changes really mean little to nothing.

I've heard somewhere that people aren't bothered if they are made to give up something occasionally (which is why little peacemeal things like that are easy to do. But ask them to do it everyday, and most people will balk. Toilets and vehicles are peripheral items that don't really require a big change in behavior. But personal choices require a person to actively think about what they are giving up and to do it daily, and most people will balk hard at doing it, especially if it impinges on 'convenience.'