Of course, the farmers raise the grain to feed cows, which reduces the number of people fed by about 40:1.

I dont have any problem with the sierra club sticking up for the butterflies, even if it is somes absurd sounding. And, I wouldnt worry too much about 700 million people in the world. I heard it put eloquently like this once:

If the limitation on population growth is misery and starvation, then we will continue to breed until we are ALL miserable and starving.

AIDS, or war, or mad cow, an earthquake or a comet, or some other equalizer will come along and wipe a significant chunk of us out one day. It's nature's way. And the more dense our population, the more likely it is to happen sooner.

: John raises a very interesting point, not only concerning the Sierra Club,
: but other activist groups as well. In my opinion, many of these issues are
: complex problems but the groups only reduce them to some simplistic
: solution. For example that farmers use fertilizers and pesticides to
: increase their yields results in less expensive food or at least more food
: to feed hungry people; but it does damage to the environment when it gets
: into the streams. They shouldn't be blamed because they seek the most
: economical solution because we all do the same thing when we shop. We buy
: the items that are the most economical for us, not necessarily the most
: expensive.Solutions for septic systems, as John points out, are expensive;
: many groups say "the other guy" should incurr the expense but
: how many of us will buy the most expensive product from him to help pay
: for the expensive system to improve the environment?
: Groups like the Sierra Club are important to keep these things in our mind
: but they need more brainpower to tackle the complex issues rather than a
: quick simplistic solution that attracts lots of attention.
: I didn't mention kayak building, so I did now.
: Alex Warren