>
The urge to destroy is –hopefully – also a creative urge. With Mikhail Bakunin‘s words echoing in the minds of the destroyers – us – it should be time to raise the flag of consciousness. But all I see is flags of ignorance. And where’s the creativity?
Time is running out. Or, to be honest, time ran out many, many years ago.
Take a look at this webpage, Worldometers – live world statistics in real time on population, government and economics, society and media, environment, food, water, energy and health. It’s pretty scary.
Take a look at the nearest clock and understand that since this exact time yesterday, 13 million tons of toxic chemicals were released across the globe (probably more, in regards to what’s happening in Japan right now), and 200 000 acres of rainforest have been destroyed. Every two seconds a human being starves to death. Every day 150-200 animal and plant species are driven extinct.
Take a look at this map – the true size of Africa.
(Ok, I know this is not the true true size of Africa because of distortions and such, but the point that Africa is much bigger than it looks on most maps is still valid, and no, the size of something is not really what matters here either…)
So, taking all this information into consideration: where will Earth be in 2045? Where will men, women and children be? Animals?
According to a recent U.N. report, the projected world population by 2050 will be 9.3 billion.
I wrote a bit about that here, more specifically in The Greatest Shortcoming of The Human Race post.
Technology most certainly will continue to develop at an exponential rate, as our development of sustainable agricultural and environmental issues lags behind. Some people claim that technology still lacks what separates tech from Man: a sense of morality, compassion, love, empathy… In my mind, I don’t see how we make good use of that morality, compassion, love and empathy. In my mind, we’ve forgotten everything about the soul, the spirits, and our emotions. Superhuman intelligence is all about the brain, and nothing about the soul, hence I see no difference between Man and Machine.
Everybody knows that we’re in deep need of new, sustainable systems to make this world a better place. Everybody knows that hunger is manmade. But these monumental problems are hardly being adressed at all. At least not by those in power, the responsible people who are able to make a difference. The power of the grassroot campaigns and small-scale activism is simply not enough, and we seem unable to grasp the magnitude of the challenges that face us.
We know we cannot rely on the State to help us out when everything comes crashing down. So is it everyone for himself? Survival of the fittest? Yes, very much so. That’s the way it’s always been, and there’s no reason to believe things will change. Man will not live forever. Man will die off, it’s just a question of when, and I say the sooner the better.
As for America, the Number One Country In The World…
Well, they have the most guns, the most crime among rich countries and the largest amount of debt in the world. While most rich countries are making large investments in education, science and infrastructure, America is cutting investments and subsidizing consumption; they are 27th in life expectancy, 18th in diabetes and first in obesity.
According to the Legatum Institute’s index of prosperity (a measure of material wealth and quality of life (whatever that means) among 110 nations), Scandinavian countries rate the highest, and the U.S., having dropped from a first-place tie in 2007, now ranks 10th.
The main thing seems to be to maintain an unsustainable level of consumption, i.e. to continue to feel good. Obama used millions of dollars in campaign funds to appeal to this way of living, but it will prove to be the true beginning of the end.
This is more than just another financial crisis, this is a crisis of civilization.
The majority of Americans live in a non-reality-based belief system and cannot separate truth from lies, everyday being subject to skillfully manipulated images of information, based on childish, simplistic narratives and clichés. 42 million American adults cannot read, and another 50 million read at a fourth or fifth level grade. Eighty percent of the families in the United States did not buy a book in 2007. Nearly a third of the nation’s population is illiterate or barely literate, and their numbers are growing by an estimated 2 million a year.
So, when these illiterates care to vote, they do so without the ability to make decisions based on textual information. They rely on images; a smile, a nice poster, one word saying ”HOPE”, three words saying ”YES WE CAN”, meaning absolutely nothing…
Political propaganda is mistaken for ideology, feelings are mistaken for knowledge (how many of you cried when Obama was elected?). Style rules over content. It feels good not to think, because that’s what it’s all about: feeling good, knowing everything is alright, not confronting reality. I mean, you claim to be blessed by God or whatever and that’s the solution… An illusional blessing, if there ever was one.
And so now maybe is the time for a renewal of the Patriot Act and pose the obvious question: Who will protect you from your government?
This experiment gone haywire is in for a lot of surprises. But degeneration began a long time ago, starting when the great empire of production became the great empire of consumption, the great empire of shame. And that was way back, long before the war on terror. People I rely on say it began by the end of the Vietnam war, when the great expenses of this war began to take its toll on the American population, which collided with the decline of domestic oil.
Chris Hedges of the Information Clearing House: ”All the traditional tools of democracies, including dispassionate scientific and historical truth, facts, news and rational debate, are useless instruments in a world that lacks the capacity to use them.”
So, this is America, the number one leading country in the world.
And the world follows the leader.
On a final note, let me quote George R.R. Martin’s master novel A Game of Thrones here, in relation to the death of Bin Laden, and the very meaning of the word ”death”:
May 20, 2011
June 19, 2006
April 21, 2003
May 7, 1945
>Well-written and point-blank. To face major issues is to face them on several and different levels – individually, locally, regionally, nationally and globally. To decrease the world population is essential and with that comes decreased consumption and general destruction. One children per family policy is a good start and it should last for a long while. It is extremely naive to rely on the "normal" tendency in industrialized countries, that late modern and Westernized families will only have one children; people are obviously forgetting that until that (eventually) have happened the amount of people have increased exponentially and during that amount of time the pollution, logging and other forms of technology related implications have done the same.
As far as I can see there are two major problems in the world and among politically aware groups of people: firstly, capitalism and liberalism – the neverlasting will to "develop" and profit even though it is harmful. Secondly, "Humanists" and their neverlasting talks about Fascism as the major problem in the world (or at least i Europe). Fascism is nothing compared to the real problems, which is overpopulation and its inevitable implications. In fact, those so called "Humanists" will eventually lead mankind to famines since the food resources will be emptied sooner or later (as you're saying). Have you ever heard about a left-wing "Humanist" that is willing to put pressure on countries like Indonesia, India, Brazil or Egypt?
>Everlasting, not "neverlasting".
>"To decrease the world population is essential"? That is a very disturbing comment. The world is not overpopulated in any way – far from it. On the contrary – there are signs of forces at work depopulating the earth, thus making it more manageable. The less people there are, the easier they are to control.
The problem is not that the word has too many inhabitants, it's what we choose to do with the resources that we have.
If we're in such a panic, for instance, then start looking at the meat industry for Christ's sake. Why waste all that energy and land on such pointlessness? Food and space for livestock, when we all could be vegetarians? Really?
This is common knowledge, but still people rant on about the world being "overfilled" with people.
It is sad how the human race in such an obstinate manner refuses to take responsibility for its own conciousness and continuously blames some sort of outside force for the misery.
The biggest problem that we as a human race are facing today is the decreasing and devaluing of spirituality – reducing us to pain-ridden slaves of our own intellects.
Well, that and the fact that BB is watching our every fucking step.
>Linnéa: But is there anything that points in the direction that "mankind" is doing less harm from a technological viewpoint? There are signs of decreases of population, such as Japan and parts of Europe, but at the same time there are even more countries in which the populations are growing. To find ways to decrease the population in great many parts of Asia and Africa is to take responsibility. Everything else is just pretty much naivete. However, you're right when you're saying the people could do less harm if they change their habits and the food industry is ONE – but just one – example.
>Steve: Sorry, I might not have expressed myself very clear. When I say that I don't think the world is suffering from "overpopulation", what I essentially mean is:
1. I simply don't believe in the disinformation stating that this is a fact.
2. That very disinformation is an active force of propaganda.
Conspiracy theorist or not – most of us can agree on the fact that the world is being controlled by less and less people, who in turn are expanding their areas of "responsibility". The food industry is a great example: millions of products, own by a very low number of companies. Same with the entertainment industry.
Socio-politically, we're looking at something similar. BUT, in order for a small clique of chosen few to completely control us all – the population naturally has to be dramatically reduced, to, say, 500 000 000? (See below) That's more than 90% of us. Who do you think will be spared? The poor? The weak?
http://www.crystalinks.com/gaguidetablet.jpg
>I did perfectly understand your first comment but it is just that I don't agree with you in this regard, I guess. Decreasing of population in many places in the world is a "fact" in that sense that it is a pragmatic strategy in order to "save time" and to reduce the risks of full-scale war over possessions of food, clean water, energy and safe places to live; that future war will inevitably be "Social Darwinist" in nature: the Plutocrats, i.e. the rich and powerful, will kill the poor.
However, one children policy have nothing to do with the oppression of poor people – it is about solving socio-political problems and that includes to decrease the amount of poor people. Look at China for concrete examples of how it could be realized in practice.
In the last sense I agree with you. Democracy is in many ways an illusion; what we're seeing is transnational plutocracy, kleptocracy and oligarchy. People like you and I has an amount of agency but it is very little and restricted.
>Steve: I understand where you're coming from, but to me it sounds like the text book example of a diversion to cover up the real cause.
I don't buy that this would only be a short term solution which definitely does not serve a bigger purpose, and which most definitely wouldn't be abused in any way.
To me, this is a great example of one of the most frightening and effective techniques that the ruling class is using in order to get what they want. They create a problem that doesn't exist – in this case the overpopulated earth – which is brought to the public attention through media channels. The public in turn puts pressure on the government, who subsequently offers a "solution" in order to meet the demands of the people – in this case: one child per family, etc etc. The subsequent danger cannot be stressed enough.
Regardless of one's opinion, it's an interesting subject of discussion, for sure.
>Hej Linnéa. Eftersom jag diskuterar med någon som förstår svenska så skriver jag följande kommentar på min livmodertunga.
"I understand where you're coming from, but to me it sounds like the text book example of a diversion to cover up the real cause."
Say what?
"I don't buy that this would only be a short term solution which definitely does not serve a bigger purpose, and which most definitely wouldn't be abused in any way."
Vill "vi" förstöra jordklotet ännu mer? Vill "vi" att allt som över huvud taget är vackert i världen – flora, fauna, sjöar, hav och i vissa fall byggnadsverk – gradvis ska förstöras? Om svaret är nej på de frågorna så måste befolkningen gradvis minskas till rimligare nivåer i många länder, allt annat är en naiv övertro på mänskligheten. Jag kan verkligen inte förstå hur du får in konspirationstankar i allt detta. Visst kan man höra liberala röster, t.ex. i The Economist, som diskuterar enbarnspolitik men de flesta brukar precis som du gör nu släta över framtida problem. Det är mer troligt att det är precis tvärtemot vad du skriver – att man låtsas som att överbefolkningen INTE är ett problem. De som däremot har diskuterat befolkningsminskning och fått viss uppmärksamhet – Edward Abbey, Pentti Linkola och The Club of Rome för att ta några exempel – har ju inte direkt tillhört "the ruling class", vilken i regel utgörs av liberaler/kapitalister/oligarker. Visst kan man kalla dessa "ekofascister" med viss rätt, men har de fel då? Det finns ju dessutom mellanvägar och mjukare reformer, fastän det förstås kan bli problem på vägen. Jorden kommer aldrig bli något himmelrike – det är ju själva poängen. Det handlar mest om att lindra skadeverkningar.
>Steve, det verkar som att vi går om varandra och/eller pratar om olika saker. Jag vidhåller alltså vid att jag inte tror att jorden är överbefolkad, utan att detta är något som vi är menade att tro på, så att befolkningen lättare skall kunna minskas utan motstånd.
Hur vi däremot handskas med/fördelar resurserna som finns, där tror jag att vi är av samma åsikt när jag säger att det är helt åt helvete.
>Linnéa: Vi går nog om varandra lite grann men återigen så förstår jag dina huvudpoänger – vi är av olika uppfattningar och mina invändningar tycks inte bita på dig (och vice versa). Men det känns faktiskt som något nästan nytt att hävda att teorier om världsbefolkningsminskning är en sak som vi "luras till att tro" genom medier och andra maktorgan. Men visst har jag hört några få på vänsterflanken hävda dylika saker, och det hänger samman med den egalitaristiska/marxistiska utopin om en värld utan ekonomiska klasskillnader och en jämnare fördelning av resurser. Det finns förmodligen en och annan socialist som också hoppas på att "the power of numbers" ska kunna krossa kapitalismen och därför inte vill minska antalet fattiga u-landsinvånare.
Därmed inte sagt att jag hoppas att det blir mer ordning och reda på många platser på jorden, med eller utan befolkningsminskning, men några illusoriska föreställningar om en klasslös värld tänker jag aldrig ställa mig bakom.
>"Men det känns faktiskt som något nästan nytt att hävda att teorier om världsbefolkningsminskning är en sak som vi "luras till att tro" genom medier och andra maktorgan."
Jag skulle gärna ta åt mig äran, men det räcker med att googla "depopulation agenda" för att se att det är åsikter som lever och frodas.
Och att medierna utnyttjas för andra, och smutsigare, syften än att skildra "sanningen" är väl långt ifrån någon radikal tanke. Eller menar du att du litar du på det du läser?
Kan tyvärr inte kommentera det du skriver om den klasslösa utopin, helt enkelt för att jag är för dåligt insatt. For the record så tillhör jag inte någon politisk ideologi.
>Som antyds av mina referenser till bland andra Linkola och The Economist så råder inga tvivel om huruvida det förekommer diskussioner om detta, både bland lekmän och "etablissemanget". Det vore absurt om inte politiska makthavare i olika länder diskuterade demografi, det är klart man gör det. Men eftersom man utgår från en progressivistisk kapitalism och över huvud taget har den ekonomiska nivån som mer eller mindre överordnad den politiska så blir detta en underordnad fråga; det handlar om tillväxt. Se bara på med vilken förtjusning DN skriver om att Sthlm kommer att växa och få två miljoner invånare inom en snar framtid (som om det vore någonting positivt).
"Och att medierna utnyttjas för andra, och smutsigare, syften än att skildra 'sanningen' är väl långt ifrån någon radikal tanke. Eller menar du att du litar du på det du läser?"
Jag har en liten anspråkslös blogg som heter Swedish Dissident, vilket torde signalera att jag i alla fall undantagsvis är system- och etablissemangskritisk. Jag litar ibland på saker jag läser om det är relevant, hållbart och stringent, men det var sisådär en åtta-tio år sedan jag läste morgontidningar och såg på Public Service-tv med okritiska ögon.
"Kan tyvärr inte kommentera det du skriver om den klasslösa utopin, helt enkelt för att jag är för dåligt insatt. For the record så tillhör jag inte någon politisk ideologi."
Då är vi två.
>Du säger att det inte råder några tvivel om att detta diskuteras. Och du säger att du ser på media med kritiska ögon. Vad menade du då med den här meningen?
"Men det känns faktiskt som något nästan nytt att hävda att teorier om världsbefolkningsminskning är en sak som vi "luras till att tro" genom medier och andra maktorgan."
Det var bara den meningen jag replikerade, resten är jag som sagt inte insatt nog i för att kunna diskutera. Observera att det är en genuin förfrågan – jag vill veta om/vad jag missförstått.
>Det förs diskussioner inom "etablerade sammanhang" där båda sidorna får komma till tals. Det minimerar risken för att media/etablissemang lurar "massan". Men visst ska allt ifrågasättas, även de som lyfter fram olika "framtidshot", hur självklara de än kan förefalla vara när de presenterar siffror.
Grejen är ju även att mer självstående tänkare/ideologer har så pass mycket tillgång till adekvat information att de kan pussla ihop bitarna själva och dra relevanta slutsatser (som givetvis ska ifrågasättas), vilket också breddar diskussionen och för dem bort från det centrala etablissemanget. Linkola eller någon annan "ekofascist" försöker knappast lura oss, möjligen har de delvis fel i sina analyser, överdriver och försöker provocera.
>I hear you. Tack för samtalet!
>Detsamma!