Wednesday, 11 July 2012

Are We Too Many?

Population levels have for years been perhaps the most significant factor in humanity's future viability on Planet Earth, as I have mentioned a couple of times on this 'blog, and occasionally elsewhere as well.

The problem is ratios and proportions – which, centuries ago, were not an issue nor seemingly soon to become one. Now, though, we are in an increasingly difficult situation, and if not handled right will play right into the hands of the Bilderbergers, whose aim is (I am informed) to eradicate 95% of the planet's human population at/by some unspecified date, but seemingly in the not-too-distant future.

Before looking at that, though, let us see what happens when proportions go out of kilter, using (of all things) skirt lengths to make a point. Here, the wearer is of fixed size, but a relatively modest change in skirt length has a disproportionately large effect. Here we have a fifty-fifty (percent) ratio of skirted to un-skirted leg length...

Now, see what happens when just ten percent is taken off the skirt length, resulting in a 60%/40% proportion...

Notice that the change in effect is considerably greater than that ten percent figure suggests. In fact, the 60/40 ratio represents a one-and-a-half to one proportion, rather than a one-to-one fraction. That ten percent shift has had a fifty percent change in its effect. Going one stage further, here is a 70%/30% version of the skirt...

Yes, it looks ridiculous, as ultra-short fashions tend to be (which is one reason I have never liked them); but more significantly the additional ten percent moving of the hemline has resulted in the unskirted length now being some 233 percent the skirted length. Again, the effect has been disproportionate – extremely so, in fact.

This realm is where the world has now ended up, owing to the sheer size of the human population at well over six billion, combined with the greatly increased resource demand/need per capita. The planet is the same size as ever, and every additional person adds to the demand/need while simultaneously taking space away from the resource-generating part of the planet – the double-whammy impact. Every new housing (or whatever) build on green land is a reminder of this trend that is long-established but now dangerous.

In case this all sounds like I am about to join Caroline Lucas' Green Party, fear not! The "watermelon" eco-fascists use environmental issues as an excuse to dictate to and steal from the rest of us: if it hadn't been that oh-so-convenient handle on which to hang their Communist-style methodology, they'd have found something else instead.

Indeed, now that it has been revealed (a couple of years ago) that "climate change scientists" were employed and funded only on the proviso that they came up with the "right" conclusions, we know that all this man-made climate change stuff is undependable anyway. That has been permanently discredited, even if there is possibly (for all I know) a grain of truth in it somewhere. Not that such inconvenient facts stop the usual suspects continuing to peddle the line, even today...

Corrupting it thus has killed off the whole research area's credibility – permanently!

So, what's the answer? Where, as a species, do we go now? The problem remains that, in most if not all cultures, there is a strong incentive to breed more and actually increase population. Some of this stems from societies with high child mortality rates, so was effectively self-compensating.

Of course, if and when the underlying mortality issue is overcome, say through modern medicinal remedies, yet the over-breeding practice continues (likely!) then population levels will start shooting up in such places. That will contribute to the overall population problem.

Even here in Britain, though, our society's structure means that we need more people working in order to generate the (tax) income to pay toward the present older generations' (yes, that's a plural nowadays!) pensions, as well as contributing to their own in future decades. We are fundamentally structured in a way that needs ever more working-age offspring in order to sustain us.

Obviously, the only solution would have to change that dynamic hugely, and I don't know how that could be done. The Bilderberg method(s) will apparently be far more drastic than we the people would approve of, which no doubt explains the enormous secrecy of the whole operation. Here I am thinking of the possibility of a 'manufactured' (i.e. excuse devised for) nuclear/chemical/biological World War, which would be horrific beyond imagining if that's what is indeed being mooted. It wouldn't surprise me...

No: we have to be smarter and able to suggest – and offer by each of us playing our part – something much better that can more naturally and tolerably re-balance our existence on this planet. Anyone who watched the (admittedly fairly poor) Torchwood: Miracle Day TV series will at least have been alerted to the way officialdom including the military are prepared to behave when the "necessities" of an emergency situation arise. That is perhaps the only value to have come from that programme – but it is something we should never forget.

Therefore we as a people need somehow to ensure that our leaders and those with the guns are never avoidably put in a position anything like as desperate as that, nor are they afforded the excuse to act in such a manner. We have to find a better way. Thinking caps on, everyone!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments welcome, with 'clean' language, though not anonymous attacks. Note that comment moderation is enabled, and anonymous comments have again been disallowed as the facility has been abused.