Archive for July, 2009
Monday, July 27th, 2009
Whether it even exists, and if it does, whether the cause is anthrogenic, solargenic, tectonic/volcanic/geological or a combination, global warming has long occupied center stage.
This effect is simply another error, perhaps orchestrated or accidental, created by our liberal democracy, with its oppositional polarizing process forcing important topics into a false dichotomy or other unrealistic position.
Thus, we rarely achieve lasting decisiveness, regardless of importance or urgency.
Whatever the case, the effect is the same. If we value maintaining our social image by living like all the other Americans around us, we too will adopt a degree of psychologically defensive indifference to the results of our lifestyle choices.
‘But then,’ you might ask, ‘what about all the other negative effects of pollution such as respiratory illnesses, heavy metals in our lakes and oceans, acid rain, etc.—we are still poisoning our atmosphere and environment, should we not be concerned about that?’
Venus offers us a glimpse into an extreme case of global warming with a greenhouse effect run amok. Its surface temperature is hot enough to melt lead.
The crushing atmospheric pressure is over ninety times that of Earth. The clouds contain sulphuric acid droplets. Each day is eight months long.
Like feverish visions from a surreal grindcore soundscape, Venus is a hell.
Then young, Carl Sagan connected these two facts to correctly surmise that a runaway greenhouse effect dominates Venus. Carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, traps the heat trying to radiate away from Venus causing a huge global temperature increase.
From the perspective of planetary science, global warming happens to planets without human interaction.
This opens up the possibility that the effect on our own planet, like any cosmological challenge is for the forseeable future, beyond the means of our control.
A frozen peat bog covering the entire sub-Arctic area of Western Siberia, the size of France and Germany, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas that is melting for the first time since it was sequestered more than 11,000 years ago before the end of the last ice age.
The early 21st Century is a globalizing world of billions of people, each seeking to attain American levels of material affluence.
The United States GDP accounts for nearly a fourth of the world’s total productive output in exchange for the largest share among nations from the accessible petroleum.
Everyone in the world cannot then move up into an American level of affluence. The desire is unrealistic and irresponsible of those who insist every human in the world may live a First World material existence.
What we may consider grinding poverty compared to our few decades of modern prosperity is approximately a typical lifestyle for almost everyone throughout civilization’s history.
However, innumerable small villages have been replaced with crowded urban sprawl. The displacement of wilderness, the sprawl and crowding are certain to continue well into the coming decades.
More people will live in cities than in the countryside next year, and a growing number will be living in slums. The UN report says the number of slum dwellers will pass the 1bn mark in 2007. Urban growth and slum expansion rates are nearly identical in some regions. For a long time we suspected that the optimistic picture of cities did not reflect reality.
The negative effects of crowded urban spaces in the midst of “grinding poverty”, a deliberately unsavory euphemism meaning “traditional living”, is synergistic.
Disease spreads more quickly and is less easily isolated. Psychological stressors, loss of social control and social isolation tend to rise in settings larger or denser than small communities.
Criminality has more opportunity to strike and then disappear into the sea of people. Traditional living, off a landscape now replaced with concrete, has vanished. The slums are a font of unchecked, ever flowing pollution of destroyed human lives and discarded waste.
So, we come to the real environmental debate of the Twenty First Century. Overpopulation, now buried by the global warming controversy, was first formally addressed 35 years ago:
Throughout the world, urban populations are growing in size at a considerably faster rate than rural populations. As a result, by the end of this century, and for the first time in history, the majority of the world’s population will be living in urban areas.
Urbanization is an element of the process of modernization.
Moreover, while in certain countries this process is efficiently managed and maximum use is made of the advantages this management presents, in others urbanization takes place in an uncontrolled manner and is accompanied by overcrowding in certain districts, an increase in slums, deterioration of the environment, urban unemployment and many other social and economic problems.
Mankind’s historic milestone of more people inhabiting urban spaces than open countryside three years ago passed virtually unnoticed, minimized by a notoriously unreliable mainstream media.
We need a better approach to help ground our ecology concerns in reality and within the context of what mankind is able to control.
Anthrocentric morality, an effect of crowdism in action and a problematic distributive justice reaction, defeats us. Overpopulation is the obese elephant in the room and global warming has become our collective blindfold.
Sunday, July 26th, 2009
Throughout the liberal West, we are taught to adore the Promethean archetype, an uncanny hero who empowers the common people against masters imposing social structure.
The ancients offered us the titan who stole fire from the gods and gave it to man, Spartacus, the various prophets and the mythical Robin Hood. Today, we have philanthropists contending with native cultural authority.
I should like to put forward the idea of what I call the open society as a universal principle that recognizes the diversity inherent in our global society, yet provides a conceptual basis for establishing the institutions we need. I realize that gaining acceptance for a universal principle is a tall order, but I cannot see how we can do without it.
Our international philanthropists are each wealthier and better politically connected than many ordinary people. Their individual wealth and popularity becomes a superhuman quality affording these modern heroes great abilities against difficult odds.
Money buys advertising to help sway uninformed millions. It also buys real estate with offices atop staffed with activist policy committees shaping our future off camera.
When it comes to advancing goals, objectives, and agendas, groups that are well organized, and consequently well funded, will eventually triumph over the unorganized, underrepresented, and underfunded. This is the overall truism that emerges from examining the organizational structure and effectiveness of successful interest groups. The same can be said of the organizations that comprise the open-borders network.
The philanthropist-merchants, who appear to be our liberating Promethean heroes, position themselves for secret control through high profile social justice institutions.
Mandatory open society requires limits applied to everyone, called social cohesion, imposed by institutional policy. Diverse values worldwide lose primacy as they are replaced with the one value. This new universal value is the global open society collective itself.
Progress may be measured by conformity to institutional policy and an inversely correlated lack of participation in alternative voluntary value systems. Planet Earth itself then becomes a new closed society.
The conviction that “there is no alternative” blocks the critical policy discussion required in what is clearly a time of national and global crisis on every front. Meanwhile, migrants continue to leave and arrive; they continue to integrate in the economy – or not – and the number of irregular and undocumented residents in many countries continues to surge.
Globalism is the free movement of labor in the form of immigration, goods and the ideas of international merchants. But, a concealed undercurrent of horror oozes within this confusing ocean of people, objects, and information in motion.
The report cites the International Labor Organization, which estimates that at least 12.3 million adults and children are victims of forced labor, bonded labor and sex slavery each year. “This is modern slavery. A crime that spans the globe, providing ruthless employers with endless supply of people to abuse for financial gain,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said as she announced the report.
Smuggling (we didn’t bother to mention narcotics) is one thing, but international organized crime infiltrating local communities is another. Are incoming people sufficiently screened prior to entry or are we just assuming for the sake of expedience against overwhelming numbers that everyone comes seeking honest opportunity in our now open society?
NEWARK, N.J. – An investigation into the sale of black-market kidneys and fake Gucci handbags evolved into a sweeping probe of political corruption in New Jersey, ensnaring more than 40 people Thursday, including three mayors, two state lawmakers and several rabbis.
Even for a state with a rich history of graft, the scale of wrongdoing alleged was breathtaking. An FBI official called corruption “a cancer that is destroying the core values of this state.”
Federal prosecutors said the investigation initially focused on a money laundering network that operated between Brooklyn, N.Y.; Deal, N.J.; and Israel.
Most of our attention is expected to remain on what are called ideological extremists like bin Laden and Greenpeace. Extremists however do not comprise the entirety of all non-state transnational groups.
We’re still searching for non-extremist internationalists dedicated to the national, cultural or religious value systems we have long held dear rather than laboring against us to make our home their personal marketplace. Maybe we shouldn’t hold our breath.
Many of today’s nonstate groups do not aspire to have a state. In fact, they are considerably more capable of achieving their objectives and maintaining their social cohesion without a state apparatus. The state is a burden for them, while statelessness is not only very feasible but also a source of enormous power. Modern technologies allow these groups to organize themselves, seek financing, and plan and implement actions against their targets — almost always other states — without ever establishing a state of their own. They seek power without the responsibility of governing.
We find ourselves confronting a memetic screen that emphasizes a previous lesser threat so that the proceeding greater threat passes unnoticed just beyond.
Eight years have passed since just over three thousand Americans perished in an act of mass murder. Yet, illegal immigration adds more than four thousand American victims of violent crime annually.
While some may contend that foreign policy contributed to the former tragedy, there is little question that open society policy is responsible for the latter.
People don’t analyze what they hear in part due to laziness, but also because they may be forced to take a stand. And why bother anyway? If anyone dares challenge the establishment, whether religious or secular, they are pummeled with assaults on their character and motives. They are labeled intolerant, narrow-minded, or bigoted. So indifference to evil takes root in our desire to avoid conflict and willingness to compromise.
The real question here centers around the ancient idea of caste. Are inherently self-interested merchants that call no one land home but talk a good game the best leadership for us?
In the closed systems of old, these were the landless tinkers and wandering peddlers working appropriately within their natural role. But the old caste society has vanished.
In the Wild West, they were snake oil salesmen offering the single cure for all that ails us. Yet, it came to be known that they only manipulated our beliefs in exchange for our wealth. That isn’t a Robin Hood or any other folk hero in my book.
Sunday, July 26th, 2009
OK, thought-provoking post from my favorite (to read) far-right group, the American Renaissance:
The situation was otherwise in Eurasia, where large game was a dietary staple. Bringing down a cornered mastodon takes cooperation, with each man in his assigned position, ready to respond to shouted instructions. There must be jointly acceptable rules for dividing the kill. And, since females depend on male hunters for their own survival and that of their children, an advantage would accrue to females who chose mates likely to support them for a lifetime. Sexual selection would then mold males more inclined to satisfy the female demand for fidelity.
Environment does not consist merely of natural factors like climate. Since morality is advantageous only when others are moral, a major determinant of the fitness of an individual’s “gene for morality” is the character of those with whom he interacts. As Robert Axelrod and William Hamilton put it in their classic study, “The Evolution of Cooperation” (Science 1981), “there is no single best strategy regardless of the behavior of others in the population.” In fact, seemingly irrational levels of mistrust can become locked into a group. Suppose a mild physical environment has selected for weak cooperative tendencies. A worsening of the environment might make greater cooperation in everyone’s interest, but not necessarily more fitness-enhancing, for any honest, helpful mutants who appear will simply be exploited until they die without issue. It is perfectly rational to be indifferent to others when they are indifferent to you.
1) Black behavior that is unacceptable by white standards—theft, drug use, preoccupation with sex—is not “sick.” It is how traits that were once adaptive in Africa express themselves in Western urban society. This may be part of the reason blacks seem not to experience white laws and standards of personal responsibility as binding, and why black spokesmen are so curiously unapologetic about black crime. They will caution black males that crime is “stupid” (i.e. apt to lead to punishment), and a Jesse Jackson may denounce black-on-black crime as harmful to blacks, but they do not say that crime, particularly black-on-white crime, is intrinsically bad.
2) Black children cannot be expected to respond as white children do to externally imposed white socialization. If the races evolved different values, black and white children will be receptive to different sorts of training and exhortation, a point with important practical consequences. It is often suggested, for instance, that black children would do better in school if told, as white and Asian children are, that school is important. But black children will not care about grades and the esteem of teachers, no matter how much they are told to, if valuing knowledge is a more weakly evolved norm among blacks. Since black societies never evolved formal education, it would make no sense for black children to be ready to internalize praise of education.
3) Violence will skyrocket when a group acquires a killing technology it did not develop. Groups that have invented such things as firearms without killing themselves off must also have developed sufficient inhibitions about using them. Groups that acquire weapons from outside sources are less likely to have evolved the same level of self-restraint, just as groups that do not discover fermentation are unlikely to develop a tolerance for alcohol, and often fall prey to drinking problems when alcohol is introduced from outside. Blacks may have been unprepared for access to the firearms developed in Western society.
Consider the remarkable increase in gunshot homicides among black men in the last half-century. In 1943 there were 44 handgun homicides in New York City; in 1992, 1,500 black males died of gunshot wounds inflicted by other black males. Since 92 percent of the 2,200 murders recorded in New York that year were committed by blacks, black males must have also killed several hundred non-blacks with firearms as well. The parallel increase in gunshot homicides nationally over the same period is essentially an increase among blacks.
Neither is Better
The idea that blacks and whites evolved different systems of values says nothing about which values are “better,” and each group can be expected to think its values best.
Whites will continue to consider blacks “irresponsible” and blacks will, more openly, continue to call whites “up tight.” But the practical decisions of life require the adoption of some standards, and a group can use only those standards evolution has given it.
Fascinating, fascinating stuff! But they leave out a vital ingredient: caste.
Caste is the hereditary system of picking people by abilities that are hereditary.
Intelligence is heritable; so are moral traits. The idea of caste is to group together people with these desirable traits and have them thus be available as breeding partners to one another, so it’s more likely a child with those traits emerges.
Sound weird? Our society denies caste, because we’re all equal, so instead we have class, which means we assume the good people all pile up a giant pot of gold. It’s mostly true — with the exception of intellectual, teachers, etc. which may be why those professions have declined into irrelevance while gaining in popularity.
Jonathan Haidt writes more on morality and evolution, and we cover the mechanism of evolution of moral traits elsewhere.
But I find it interesting that people deny caste. After all, on the blog, we pretty much write about America and since 3/4 of us are honkies, we write about white people issues. We probably wouldn’t feel too comfortable trying to express an African-American perspective. And from that white perspective, it seems to me the dominant issue facing us is caste:
- Most white voters are not adapted for the kind of tasks required to vote intelligently, so are swayed by their TVs.
- Most white voters are from backgrounds that did not involve leadership, so they have no way of understanding the laws imposed upon them.
- Most white voters are not adapted to the idea of sacralizing nature, and so separate religion from physical reality, feeling happy if they can go pray in the one and pollute the other.
- Even worse, most white voters are from heritages whose lines did not undertake tasks which required predictive thinking, e.g. “This cause creates that effect which then causes that other effect which then causes…” and so on down the line. They have no way of knowing the actual effect of their actions.
Regardless of what goes on with the racial debate that is surely heating up, as Samuel Huntington predicted it would, the caste debate is only beginning.
Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009
Back in election 2008, many people voted for Barack Obama out of a simple desire to fix the racial inequities and conflict in the United States, a problem that has plagued us for centuries and peaks, periodically, in riots like Watts (1967) and L.A. (1992).
The thinking was that if all people are finally made equal, the inequality that propelled discontent will cease. That formula has been part of the American approach to race since 1968: inequality causes conflict, so bring everyone into a first-world, middle-class lifestyle and things will be OK.
Obama appeared to bridge the worlds. He could function in the white world, but also appeal to African-Americans. Furthermore, he was our first black president. Therefore, the logic went, everyone could see that equality was reigning and we’d all be OK.
From the perspective of history, however, people tend to identify with their own ethnic, religious and cultural groups, and if given an inch, will take a mile. Samuel Huntington in his Clash of Civilizations dovetailed with Spengler and Plato who say a civilization needs to have consensus on a values system, or its political and economic forces tear it apart.
In the United States, this translates to an upsetting of the power balance. After WWII, African-Americans received increasing focus and government and social benefactors worked to end inequality; this culminated in late-1960s riots to which the solution was greater benefits and more forced integration.
The intent was to ensure that equality was enforced and therefore African-Americans would join the middle class, be just like “us” as white people saw it, and so the conflict would end. I call it the “fat and happy” theory: if everyone is bought off, they’ll all be fat and happy, and not riot and interrupt our lives with drama.
But “fat and happy” may only work when your ethnic group is the majority. If you’re a minority, you see a salient fact the majority cannot perceive: your group, and your values, are still not In Control. With Barack Obama, white folks and black folks saw a chance to put African-American values in control. But because the demands of the presidency are political and not cultural, this backfired.
The fragile balance of the 1970s — separate but equal, by other names — has been upset, and now we’re in a competition for who’s going to stay on top. Sad but true, this is the reality of multicultural societies dating back to day one of humanity: one group must be on top, and group-mixing only really occurs when the others destroy that dominant majority. The competition we see now is leading up to that conflict.
Let’s look at a smattering of helpful news items:
[Black professor Henry “Skip” Gates] had returned from a trip to China last Thursday afternoon and found the front door of his Cambridge, Mass., home stuck shut. Gates entered the back door, forced open the front door with help from a car service driver, and was on the phone with the Harvard leasing company when a white police sergeant arrived.
Gates and the sergeant gave differing accounts of what happened next…Gates was charged not with breaking and entering, but with disorderly conduct after repeatedly demanding the sergeant’s name and badge number. It doesn’t matter whether Gates was yelling, or accused Sgt. James Crowley of being racist, or that all charges were dropped Tuesday.
Earl Graves Jr., CEO of the company that publishes Black Enterprise magazine, was once stopped by police during his train commute to work, dressed in a suit and tie.
“My case took place back in 1995, and here we are 14 years later dealing with the same madness,” he said Tuesday. “Barack Obama being the president has meant absolutely nothing to white law enforcement officers. Zero. So I have zero confidence that (Gates’ case) will lead to any change whatsoever.”
We still have no statistical or factual data for what would happen if a white professor did the same thing. Most conservatives would guess the treatment would not vary; after all, even well-dressed, well-spoken men commit crimes (for most of us, distinguishing between a Harvard professor and a con man can be difficult). In their view, the cops did a rational thing — hold the person breaking and entering until his identity can be verified. Then again, most don’t live in neighborhoods where they see black people entering homes.
But to Democrats and African-Americans, the situation appears different — they see racial profiling, or the tendency of law enforcement to notice that more crimes occur in minority neighborhoods, that minorities have more convictions for crimes, and that minority gangs control more of the flow of drugs, and therefore, that they have a higher chance of conviction if they stop minorities. They see this case as clear-cut racial profiling, and think that a white man wouldn’t even be stopped for doing the same thing.
I have no idea which viewpoint is correct. What’s more important however is seeing how Gates is caught up in a war of tokens, whereby black people feel targeted by law enforcement, and white people feel defensive whenever this happens, because they don’t want law enforcement to stop looking for criminals wherever they occur. This is part of that ethnic competition I write about above.
I know how the problem of racial profiling can be avoided. In the 1950s and early 1960s, cops were mostly “beat cops” — meaning they patrolled small areas constantly. After the 1960s, our cops operated by “flexible response,” or taking calls on the radio and sending in the troops in force.
Beat cops didn’t patrol in minority neighborhoods, nor did they stop people on freeways looking for drugs. They defended the turf they came from, and let the rest take care of itself. When we changed to flexible response, and the war on drugs intensified, that’s when racial profiling became a noticed issue.
None of this really matters now. People are not concerned with how well law enforcement works; this is ethnic competition, with each side seeking privileges either by government or economic supremacy. And so to them, it doesn’t matter whether it was racial profiling or not. It’s how you want to interpret it that gets you and your people ahead in the game.
Let’s look at another ambiguous circumstance:
Immigration agents raiding homes for suspected illegal immigrants violated the U.S. Constitution by entering without proper consent and may have used racial profiling, a report analyzing arrest records found.
Latinos made up a disproportionate number of the people arrested who were not the stated targets of the raids, and many of their arrest reports gave no basis for why they were initially seized, said the report, which was based on data from raids in New York and New Jersey.
The raids are ostensibly aimed at targeted individuals who present threats either to national security or community safety, but arrests of illegal immigrants nearby, known as collateral arrests, are also made.
Remember how in high school the kids who got picked on formed a group of their own? This group was ultra-tolerant: you could be any kind of freak, or just a geek, but you were FIGHTING BACK against the majority. That’s how many white elites view the ethnic conflict issue — they perceive themselves as picked-on geeks, and so have joined in a tolerance coalition to smash the majority, and enjoy using ethnic conflict to do it.
Many of these people work in non-profits that look for statistical reasons to discount law enforcement actions against minorities, including illegal aliens.
Once again, there’s a split. Conservatives are going to say these cops went looking for bad guys, and in the process, found thousands of illegal aliens. Faced with the choice of enforcing the law or not, they chose to enforce the law and deport them.
Liberals are going to say that these raids were a pretext for rounding up illegal aliens and deporting them. Again, it’s hard to know what’s true. Believe what you’re inclined to believe, because the real story isn’t the justification of law, but the conflict of groups going on beneath it.
And a final corker of an example:
State police in riot gear rushed a downtown street to break up a standoff Tuesday between hundreds of black and white extremists who exchanged screams of “Black power!” and “White power!” during a protest over the state’s handling of the case of a black man who was run over and dragged by a vehicle.
The conflict began with a march by about 100 mostly black activists who avoided a designated “protest zone” near Paris’ courthouse and walked to the town square to chants of “Black Power!” and “No Justice, no peace!”
The rally in Paris, about 90 miles northeast of Dallas, is the third courthouse protest over the death of 24-year-old Brandon McClelland, whose mangled body was found Sept. 16 on a country road.
Prosecutors initially charged two of McClelland’s white friends with murdering him. But a special prosecutor dismissed the charges last month, citing a lack of evidence, after a truck driver came forward and said he might have accidentally run over McClelland.
Everyone remembers the dragging death of James Byrd, Jr. A sometimes-itinerant fellow with an alcohol problem and very little to his name, Byrd was lured into a compromising situation by white supremacists who then murdered him in a horrible way.
Of course, there’s two sides to that story as well. These white supremacists became that way in prison, where the ethnic battle lines are so cleanly drawn that many states attempt de facto segregation to keep conflict to a minimum.
And back outside the big house, we also have two points of view. Black folks and many Democrats are going to see this case as a racial incident; Republicans and many white folks are going to see this case as an accidental vehicular homicide. Which is true?
Not surprisingly, this has resulted in an interesting trend in Obama’s poll numbers:
That was fast. The hope and optimism that washed over the country in the opening months of Barack Obama’s presidency are giving way to harsh realities.
An Associated Press-GfK Poll shows that a majority of Americans are back to thinking that the country is headed in the wrong direction after a fleeting period in which more thought it was on the right track.
And as if to explain why:
The President earns approval from 41% of white voters, 97% of black voters, and 58% of all other voters.
While up to 90% of minorities normally vote Democratic, they cannot be counted on to approve of the Democratic candidate after several months in office, and not all of them ever do. Yet his numbers are strong with one group, and falling with another. A big part of this is the sudden realization that he’s not a racial equalizer, but a racial polarizer, which plays into our fears that there’s no easy solution to race discontent in America. And the truth is equally “clear” to both sides as they now gear up for conflict.
The truth itself depends on what you believe. Or rather, which side of the conflict you’re on. Truth really doesn’t matter, only getting your group ahead. We thought Obama would end this Us-versus-Them, but it looks like by not being from either side fully, he has intensified it.
Thursday, July 16th, 2009
American conservative thinking has overwhelmed most of the world’s conservative parties. Their idea is to base intense patriotism on the idea that we’re “free,” and can do whatever we want as individuals, and use that to justify caring about social order.
Ultimately what conservatives are trying to argue toward is that the society as a whole is more important than the individual, and that the individual must adapt to common sense about how reality works. They think “freedom” is a vector to that because it sounds good.
As a result, they’ve invented this mythos that Big State government — think Hitler, Stalin and Democrats — wants to take away your ability to do whatever you can afford to do. After all, those who are born smarter and work diligently tend to have some cash ready to use.
In this view, you can buy that big SUV because global warming is an illusion, and no one should be able to tell you what to do so you can be a rugged individualist. This thinking is doomed for the following reasons:
- Given such freedom, people opt for the least obligation possible. They’re not going to uphold traditional values, but demand no values.
- You can’t out-“freedom” the Democrats. They offer no restrictions, no cultural norms, and a welfare state. Almost no obligation, even to go to work.
- If everyone acts on their freedom, we’re not going to pull together in the same direction, and we won’t be able to face big problems of resources limiting our ability to do whatever we want.
It’s that latter one — limited resources versus unlimited needs and desires — that we’re going to face. For a minute, assume that global warming is simply a power grab by third world countries who want the first world to turn off its industry so they can get ahead. Fine — but what about pollution, species depletion, limited farmland, low water supplies, and violent cities?
The libertarians and Republicans this week set up a great wail about a new face in Washington who they associate with Big State decisions. They will claim he is against their Holy Book, their values as individualists, and the sanctity of life.
And thanks to resourceful bloggers, you can read excerpts from a hard-to-find book co-authored by Holdren in the late 1970s, called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, online.
In it, you will find the czar wading into some unpleasant talk about mass sterilizations and abortions.
Oh no! Abortions and mass sterilizations — those might not be fair to the rugged individualist. But they also might be required by the demands of our situation here on earth.
After all, the world isn’t just humans — it’s an environment, too, and scarcity of resources including space which will regulate humanity. We can make decisions within the anthrosphere, but since we’re one part of a big world, we may not have the ability to make those decisions the way we want to. Sometimes, we must simply adapt.
It is now hard to think of a single major problem we face, here in Britain or elsewhere, which would not be solved, or at least ameliorated, by having fewer people.
Everything from hospital waiting lists, crowded trains, the looming energy crisis, water and sewer systems unable to cope, unaffordable housing and unavailable dentistry have, at their core, Britain’s burgeoning population.
Our roads will become even more congested, our trains more crowded and even slower, the waits for service longer and delays ever more a part of life.
Housing will become ever more unaffordable, we will have to spend billions on new schools and hospitals to cater for the equivalent of two new Londons – two vast metropolises somehow to be shoehorned into what is already a desperately crowded land.
We will, inevitably, lose great swathes of our countryside. The green belts will have to disappear. Ghastly and ill-conceived ‘new towns’ will spring up all over the South East and Midlands, the areas where new people want to live. London and its environs are already, effectively, full; but that will not stop them getting fuller still.
The Daily Mail
His point is refreshingly clear: even if we just look at numbers of people, what happens when we get more? We all live in cities, and the cities expand. The countryside is consumed. Whatever environmental problems exist get worse.
How do we reconcile the individual’s unlimited wants and desires with a finite amount of space before we wreck things we need or should keep sacred, like a healthy environment and unpolluted air and water, or just enough space so that earth is not a giant sardine can?
Here’s a short list of data points about how we’re wrecking this planet with overpopulation:
- Humans are using the Earth’s resources and dumping waste 23 per cent faster than nature is able to regenerate, according to the Global Footprint Network, a non-profit group in Oakland, Calif.
- We won’t make adequate progress on the most crucial environmental goals — reducing carbon emissions, preventing overfishing and decreasing deforestation, among them — unless we tackle growth and its ever increasing demands on the planet.
- Forest protection attracts people, people wreck forests
- But isn’t the problem solving itself, as people have fewer children and population growth rates slow? Yes, he says, if you discount immigration
- Human population grew from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion people during 20th century. During that time emissions of CO2, the leading greenhouse gas, grew 12-fold.
- Growing world population will cause a “perfect storm” of food, energy and water shortages by 2030, the UK government chief scientist has warned.
- Given our disproportionately large population to land mass ratio then, put simply, we are running out of space to dump our waste.
- A link between immigration and water shortages: the more people share the water, the less each one has.
- Easter Island is Earth writ small. Today, again, a rising population confronts shrinking resources.
- Water use is growing twice as fast as population, but there is no more water today than there ever has been.
- Seven Environmental Problems That Are Worse Than We Thought — courtesy of our booming human population.
- While the wildlife-conservation movement is valiantly attempting to save the world’s remaining diversity of life, this effort is overwhelmed by the demands of mounting numbers of people.
- Uganda’s rapid population growth — one of the highest in the world — means it will lose its entire forest cover in the next 50 years
- Consumption has grown so much in the last 30 years that demands on natural resources now exceed the planet’s capacity for renewal by a quarter each year
- All efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions may be for naught, however, if we ignore population growth.
You get the picture. Now on to the magic question: how is it that we have systematically failed to address these problems, and that they’re still elephants in the room today?
You’ll notice that a lot of our effort spent on this blog is devoted to smashing the idea of equality, or that each person has a “right” to do whatever they want. We also spent a lot of time pointing out that people have different abilities and hence values to a forward-moving civilization.
Our goal in this is to smash the sacred cow of the conservatives, which is individual autonomy as a promised right to all people. It is also a sacred taboo of the left through their dogma of “equality.”
Why would we do this? After all, we’ll be more popular if we promise you can buy that SUV, and that just buying green light bulbs will take care of the problem. The people who make those promises are far more popular than us.
However, dishonesty has a way of coming back to haunt people. When our writers go home at night, we have no guilt on our consciences because we did not lie — we faced the truth with a level gaze and if it didn’t blink first, we didn’t back down.
Our society is making people into small atoms that do not interact with others. People recede into themselves and do not face reality and mortality. They fear anything except what they intend to do, or in other words, their wants and desires.
Students are immature, they rely too heavily on Internet tools such as Wikipedia as research sources, they fail to learn independently and they expect success without putting in the effort, said respondents to the survey by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations.
“The McGuinty government is applauding itself for increased graduation rates from secondary school,” says the confederation’s report, which urges more funding for for classrooms.
“However, it appears that secondary students are not receiving the requisite skills that they need to be successful in university studies.”
Only 2.27 per cent thought students are better prepared.
Observers blame a number of factors, from inflated parental expectations to the self-esteem culture that leads young people to believe that failure is impossible and paying tuition means getting a good grade.
Look at what this article shows us: the end result of “freedom,” or agreeing to have no direction except personal directions, is that people recede into themselves and become less capable, and more solipsistic.
We’ve been so busy worrying about how to make everyone feel equal and wanted, we’ve forgotten about the world around us. Now as the free resources get tighter, we’re going to have to make hard decisions about the future.
Conservatives are making the biggest career screwup ever by not simply being honest. They could be like the government in the article above — promoting themselves for having made more people graduate, even if at a lower rate of quality, or in other words, hiding the truth behind one positive attribute of a bad situation — or they could be honest.
When you fail to tell the truth, you are de facto lying, because you are hiding things people need to act on behind a smokescreen of happy — like lying to them directly and telling them something or other is not a problem. Conservatives are attempting to embark on a big lie to try to beat the even bigger “freedom” dogma of the Democrats. It is not going to work.
If instead they got practical about facing this situation, starting with the hard parts we are afraid to face — that not everyone can fulfill all of their wants and desires, and that we’ll have to rank people by their usefulness — they will become known as honest people as the years go by. And people will thank them for that.