Ricochets.

It appears risky to assume, as you do in the essay "Mug Shot," that by taking small steps we can gradually prevent global "suicide." It loses sight of the facts that (1) we no longer have the luxury of time, (2) adverse changes at the macro level are overwhelming beneficial changes at the micro (i.e., small-steps) level, and (3) as you acknowledge, "billions of people around the world have little choice about their lifestyles" anyway.

Essentially, the essay suggests that, if the Titanic is sinking, some of us should reach for a bucket and start bailing. But while bailing may assuage guilt incurred by our otherwise standing idly by as the planet sinks, we must recognize more significant efforts are required if disaster is to be averted. Yes, "we have to work the problem from all sides," but small steps may actually prove detrimental. They can divert attention and resources from more critical actions that must be undertaken to address problems confronting us.

We are passing the point of no return (if we haven't already), and solid and increasingly Draconian remedial measures will be necessary if the Earth, as we know it, is to survive. Pussyfooting around and wishful thinking will not lead to a solution.

ALLEN INVERSIN

Riverdale, Maryland, USA

The May/June 2005 issue of World Watch was particularly informative; thank you. I enjoyed your "Mug Shot" essay. It reminded me of myself. I am firmly convinced that our planet is dangerously overpopulated by our species. I have four children and so far six grandchildren. Ouch!! My awareness of overpopulation was nonexistent 45 years ago. Like almost all human beings (and not just human beings) I was driven by sex and greed. These drives provided evolutionary advantages and are most likely genetically fixed and immutable. But we must deal with them because humanity is on a collision course with the physical and biological realities and limitations of this planet.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

You stated quite correctly that our leaders and institutions are failing us. I have written letters explaining the consequences of our presently not sustainable technologies to our past four presidents, several think-tanks, and various other world leaders, even the present and recently deceased popes. Only the Peoples Republic of China has a halfway reasonable population policy. This subject remains taboo, but it must not. We cannot even begin to think that we can cope with the problems of climate change and global warming, terrorism and other domestic and international conflicts, environmental deterioration, famine, parasitism, etc. without addressing the almost infinitely complex issue of overpopulation. To me it is incredible how poorly this subject is generally understood and how low the awareness of this issue is.

Here is a question. Does World Watch provide information or copies of your magazine to the Vatican? If not, I invite you to send them regularly your magazine and I will be happy to pay for it. Please bill me for it and confirm that copies of your magazine have been sent. I venture to guess that this pope is probably in one of the most powerful positions on this planet. Whatever he says is heard worldwide. Of course, it may appear utterly naive to think that this orthodox Catholic could possibly change his own deep religious convictions and reverse millennia-old church policies. But we are on a collision course and the danger for our grandchildren is very real.

Furthermore, we have neither freedom nor true democracies even in the United States or anywhere else in the industrialized world. Our grandchildren and future generations are excluded from the democratic process, because they cannot vote, yet they will have to bear all the consequences of our present actions and inactions.

I wish that you would more frequently address the issue of human overpopulation in your magazine no matter how taboo it seems to be.

HEINRICH O.E. SCHMID, M.D.

Pettnau bei Telfs, Austria