I read the essay "Population Reduction: An Ecosophical View" and found it deeply disturbing to say the least, borderline fascist to say the worst. Seriously: it reminded me of some of the Nazi stuff I've read for history classes. The basic idea is that we should reduce our population so as to be more "sustainable" and "ecologically responsible" and all the usual environmental claptrap. That's all well and good, but how are we supposed to decide whose babies don't get born? Naess doesn't really give us an answer. He babbles some pseudo-economical stuff about how much it will or won't cost us, but he doesn't say WHO has to stop having children. I'll tell you who it'll be: you and me.

 I was talking about that in class earlier, but I just wanted to expand on it. Solnit is constantly talking about getting lost in Field Guide, lionizing the art of losing, of getting lost, seeing it as "the only way to live." Well, there's something to be said for remaining in one place. IF you're constantly getting lost, after all, is it really getting lost anymore? No, because you've come to expect it. Getting lost, for Solnit, is all about finding something new, something real, something unpredictable and out of the norm--but if getting lost is your norm, and it's become predictable, then isn't getting lost just part of your routine? Yes, your routine is different than most people's, but it's still a routine.