Well, it's sort of climate related, and I expect a lot won't sleep much because of the dire storm warnings,
though nothing is happening here so far.
From a few weeks back:- "Climate change scientists are 95% certain that people are responsible".
Strange choice of words, and not the same as "95% of scientists are certain", but let's pass on that, and assume
they are correct. Why is all attention focused on controlling carbon emissions while ignoring the obvious alternative which is
easier to manage, and has many other advantages ?
We already have far more people than we can support in a sustainable manner, and the sooner the situation
is addressed the less painful it will be. Quite apart from being a far more certain way to control to climate change,
(assuming the scientists are right) the many other benefits are obvious. Even if carbon emissions are controlled in some
other way (fantasy island territory) population control is needed simply to survive in the longer term.
Historically population increase was desirable for manual labour, and fighting wars to claim and occupy territory
(and a bit of fun on the side on a hit and miss basis). Manual labour has largely been replaced by machines, and
future wars (inevitable with ongoing situations) will not be fought with much manpower.
So why do we need more people, who ultimately we won't even be able to feed ?
I think it's fair to say each country causes it's own problems in this regard (including this one) but offhand I can't
think of a single country which would not benefit greatly long term by, say, a 30% reduction, maintained at that
level, not to mention a vast reduction in conflict between countries. If you could do this selectively,
(and overnight) the result would be even more effective, but politics is part of the problem and we all have different
opinions. In the main, the perpetual commercial "growth" concept needs to be stopped. It really only exists to create
new consumers to keep demand higher than supply, so the situation can be exploited by the rich, to get richer.
If we start now, it's ridiculously easy and painless. Accept we are all just animals, with a global equal right to
live and procreate. All the other so called rights given (by ourselves really) such as religion, politics, culture, custom, race,
wealth, tradition, inheritance, location, you name it, all are excuses for exception, and need to be abandoned.
I don't mean generally, just on this particular issue. Each man is entitled to father two children. Each women is
entitled to bear two children. You accept the sex of the child without reservation. Transgression or "mistakes"
(I think we all have a pretty good idea how the reproductive process works) result in sterilization, voluntarily or
otherwise. Women will present themselves for sterilization after the second birth as protection against rampant
men. Men who aren't sure should consider 3 condoms and a traffic cone, because should a DNA test prove
negligence, sterilization will follow as a matter of course. I'm sure there will be many anomalies but the general
principal is entitlement to "replace" yourself, but no more. Countries should provide financial rewards for non
procreation instead of the other way round, but that's getting political again. What about the poor children then ?
Well, there won't be as many for a start, and therefore decent education and jobs should be possible.
This may all sound pretty harsh, draconian even, but what are you really being asked to give up ?
No death camps, no WMD, no wars to secure the very basics, food and fresh water, space to build shelter.
No excuses for genocide. The planet can provide sustainable resources for fewer people, all that's needed
is a little restraint. The alternative is eventual wholesale slaughter just for survival as a species.
Over time, the reduction will occur within the timescale of proposed carbon reduction, and will achieve the same
effect, along with enormous additional benefits. Some people can't have children, and I'm sorry, but IVF doesn't
make sense, adopt some if you must. Natural disasters will still claim lives, as will all the things that do now, the
Middle East will continue to decimate itself, as will many other localized conflicts. Life seems cheap there, mainly
because it's constantly replenished. All these things are "natural wastage" and always have been, and most are
caused by this same problem, gradually becoming more acute. Let them be, you can't stop them anyway.
All this is self evident, doesn't need a dubious climate change "model", or carbon trading shenanigans, just
global agreement from international leaders (statesmen if you prefer) but not politicians as we know them.
No chance for about twenty years then, when things really will have started to bite, and well past the point of
painless remedies.
It's all getting pretty heavy, so here's a bit of light relief for our members with the rose tinted spectacles, who
seem to think all these problems will just go away :-
BBC News - What will life be like in the year 2100? James Burke predicts
There are so many holes in this I don't know where to start. He skirts over the problems above with
"socio economic changes", and mentions Europe as "united without government". The rest of the world has apparently
disappeared (the bit that will have a guesstimated 25 billion people in it) but you will be able to live in the Antartic
should you choose to do so. You should also note that his qualification for prediction refers to the current
computer age where everything is now more "open and honest". I was going to start on the science, but it's
getting late.
On the positive side, still nothing happening here, very light rain (could be described as drizzle really) and dead
calm. Off to bed, the forecast Armageddon will have to wait ! Can't do much anyway, pretty much as above.
though nothing is happening here so far.
From a few weeks back:- "Climate change scientists are 95% certain that people are responsible".
Strange choice of words, and not the same as "95% of scientists are certain", but let's pass on that, and assume
they are correct. Why is all attention focused on controlling carbon emissions while ignoring the obvious alternative which is
easier to manage, and has many other advantages ?
We already have far more people than we can support in a sustainable manner, and the sooner the situation
is addressed the less painful it will be. Quite apart from being a far more certain way to control to climate change,
(assuming the scientists are right) the many other benefits are obvious. Even if carbon emissions are controlled in some
other way (fantasy island territory) population control is needed simply to survive in the longer term.
Historically population increase was desirable for manual labour, and fighting wars to claim and occupy territory
(and a bit of fun on the side on a hit and miss basis). Manual labour has largely been replaced by machines, and
future wars (inevitable with ongoing situations) will not be fought with much manpower.
So why do we need more people, who ultimately we won't even be able to feed ?
I think it's fair to say each country causes it's own problems in this regard (including this one) but offhand I can't
think of a single country which would not benefit greatly long term by, say, a 30% reduction, maintained at that
level, not to mention a vast reduction in conflict between countries. If you could do this selectively,
(and overnight) the result would be even more effective, but politics is part of the problem and we all have different
opinions. In the main, the perpetual commercial "growth" concept needs to be stopped. It really only exists to create
new consumers to keep demand higher than supply, so the situation can be exploited by the rich, to get richer.
If we start now, it's ridiculously easy and painless. Accept we are all just animals, with a global equal right to
live and procreate. All the other so called rights given (by ourselves really) such as religion, politics, culture, custom, race,
wealth, tradition, inheritance, location, you name it, all are excuses for exception, and need to be abandoned.
I don't mean generally, just on this particular issue. Each man is entitled to father two children. Each women is
entitled to bear two children. You accept the sex of the child without reservation. Transgression or "mistakes"
(I think we all have a pretty good idea how the reproductive process works) result in sterilization, voluntarily or
otherwise. Women will present themselves for sterilization after the second birth as protection against rampant
men. Men who aren't sure should consider 3 condoms and a traffic cone, because should a DNA test prove
negligence, sterilization will follow as a matter of course. I'm sure there will be many anomalies but the general
principal is entitlement to "replace" yourself, but no more. Countries should provide financial rewards for non
procreation instead of the other way round, but that's getting political again. What about the poor children then ?
Well, there won't be as many for a start, and therefore decent education and jobs should be possible.
This may all sound pretty harsh, draconian even, but what are you really being asked to give up ?
No death camps, no WMD, no wars to secure the very basics, food and fresh water, space to build shelter.
No excuses for genocide. The planet can provide sustainable resources for fewer people, all that's needed
is a little restraint. The alternative is eventual wholesale slaughter just for survival as a species.
Over time, the reduction will occur within the timescale of proposed carbon reduction, and will achieve the same
effect, along with enormous additional benefits. Some people can't have children, and I'm sorry, but IVF doesn't
make sense, adopt some if you must. Natural disasters will still claim lives, as will all the things that do now, the
Middle East will continue to decimate itself, as will many other localized conflicts. Life seems cheap there, mainly
because it's constantly replenished. All these things are "natural wastage" and always have been, and most are
caused by this same problem, gradually becoming more acute. Let them be, you can't stop them anyway.
All this is self evident, doesn't need a dubious climate change "model", or carbon trading shenanigans, just
global agreement from international leaders (statesmen if you prefer) but not politicians as we know them.
No chance for about twenty years then, when things really will have started to bite, and well past the point of
painless remedies.
It's all getting pretty heavy, so here's a bit of light relief for our members with the rose tinted spectacles, who
seem to think all these problems will just go away :-
BBC News - What will life be like in the year 2100? James Burke predicts
There are so many holes in this I don't know where to start. He skirts over the problems above with
"socio economic changes", and mentions Europe as "united without government". The rest of the world has apparently
disappeared (the bit that will have a guesstimated 25 billion people in it) but you will be able to live in the Antartic
should you choose to do so. You should also note that his qualification for prediction refers to the current
computer age where everything is now more "open and honest". I was going to start on the science, but it's
getting late.
On the positive side, still nothing happening here, very light rain (could be described as drizzle really) and dead
calm. Off to bed, the forecast Armageddon will have to wait ! Can't do much anyway, pretty much as above.
