Any “Earth and Environmental” course would preach the effects of overpopulation on the world and society; however, no professor dares to offer a solution to overpopulation, since the only viable solutions are heavily debated. Despite the moral and ethical debate that silences many people, Johnson C. Montgomery offers an immoral proposition to end overpopulation. In his argument The Land of Plenty, in which his main claim is that countries, societies, and families should be self serving and safeguard their prosperity. While the blunt delivery makes the piece unnerving and has the potential to make people uncomfortable, the points made were logical and reasonable. The most impactful points include the unsustainability of our current system, depletion of expendable resources, and future of the next generation should not be jeopardized by depriving the children to the benefit of others. The first point Montgomery makes is that the United States, or any first world country, ought not to spread available resources such as food and money to struggling countries. Despite the “selfish” implications, the support provided in the…show more content… The metaphor of Earth to Eden is used to create a sense of unity and structure to the piece; however, religious implications can make the argument less sound and appear to be more opinionated than factual. After establishing the comparison of Earth to Eden the author offers the following question, “Should we eat the last tuna fish, the last ear of corn, and utterly destroy the garden?” (540). Once more I agree with the factual points, Earth cannot sustain humans at high capacity without depleting aquatic life, with ocean acidification, and depleting the nutrients of the land through GMO’s and mass production without allowing time to revitalize the land. Earth simply cannot sustain life, or manage the pollution emitted through energy
