It is never a good idea to post too rapidly on a blog. The short-termism that has come be be a strong social driving force in most of our lives, either by choice or necessity, means that previous blog entries ascend into blog heaven at a greater pace than is sometimes useful, however, somethimes the urge to post is just too strong and it’s what I’m going to to here. Oh dear.
A large number of very important issues were raised. I want to extract some of those issues to discuss them more deply. No offence Stef, but I think the they deserve at least an entire thread to themselves (so I post them here)
The first one is population levels.
There are 9 possibilities:
1) population reduction, food produce increased
2) population reduction, food produce levels maintained
3) population reduction, food produce reduction
4) population level is maintained, food produce increased
5) population level is maintained, food produce levels maintained
6) population level is maintained, food produce reduction
7) population increases, food produce increased
8) population increases, food produce levels maintained
9) population increases, food produce reduction
For the sake of arguement, ‘food’ can be thought of as being replaceable by ‘resources’ or even ‘sustianability’
To me, options 7-9 and in rank order, are the least sensible kinds of situation to get ourselves into. These possibilities would be the likely product of uncontrolled population growth, surely there is some point where population growth is too great for the planet to cope with. This amount would be very difficult to quantify and hence is simply not worth entering into a game which is likely to resemble Russian ruolette.
The remaining options mean that some form of population control (redutive as in option 1-3, or static in option 4-6) is prudent. This is sensitive issue amongst NWO critics such as myself, but of course, it is very much dependent on how it is done. If it is by consensus and leads to a situation whereby the position of the elite scumbags don’t gain (preferebaly they would lose!) then I can’t see the problem with that. As for consensus, well obviously not everyone would agree to one side or the other, but if the majority of people agree (no kobold diebold’s please!) the only other option is to go back into the more risky 7-9 choices. Population control is strongly associated with eugenics (I hope my good internet buddy antireptliain can make a comment there) rejection of which is of course a no-brainer, but I don’t think anyone (other than the plutocrats) is advocating such a method.
Many people automatically impose their own population control in their own lives. For example, my ex-driving instructor said he didn’t want another child becasue he couldn’t afford it. Others only have one or two becasue that is all they can cope with. China has population control. It has faults no doubt, but perhaps that example of local population control is necessary?
To me I think population reduction (again ensuring the cake that’s left doesn’t go to the elite – danger is of course, how to prevent it from doing so?) is perhaps the most reasonable choice IF the planet is going to face energy challenges and this seems quite likely.
But I would hazard a guess that our current population level, albeit high, is currently sustainable. I see market stalls, shops, supermarkets, restaurnats and so forth turn out into the bins, loads of old or slightly damaged produce simply becsue it didn’t meet the critera of profitability. I see natural produce go unpurchased or rejected in certain supermarkets (when they slip through the net) becasue they have some kind of russeting or have an unsymmetrical shape or whatever. I see traders even in poor countires with loads of goods which is also likely to be discarded if they are not exchanged for money.
Credit where credit is due, the big supermarkets ‘Whoops” thier perishables near closing time, albeit to the panic of store mangers who envisage a cue of all customers forming just waiting for the ‘reducred’ labels to be stuck on goods that seconds before would have sold for a higher proce.
I believe is there is enough food for all, and given the power to do so, I would force the most big supermarkets to give say 10 to 20% of the value of their profits to the poor in vouchers either discount or FOC to the poor, and some of this in the form of foodstuffs for people overseas (obviously foods that could be in good enough shape after transport, tinned cans, smoked meats, dry goods, grains adn rice etc) either that or have the supermarkts use this percentage to pay farmers in countries closer to the hungry to ship goods DIRECT to the poor via a non profit organisation, NGO or otherwise.
But I’d go further, I believe option 6 and 3 must be looked at becasue I think the method of food production these days is actually constructing a time bomb for later generations. Sloppy intensive farming – pesticides, GM, ionic non-complexed fertilizers and so forth are already causing us problems. I would like to see a regession to traditional farming methods and put the unemployed people onto the land under the direction of those farmers who know what they are doing and use low level methods of farming organic and GM free.
What is the point in having so many children anyway? I think we’ve all seen examples of where poor people (some sufferingly poor) have large families, sometimes with the rationale that there will be more chance to have a breadwinner in the family. Well, if there were less people in the world, one can imagine there would be more bread per head of population – but as ever, the difficulty is going to be ensuring they actually get that food and not life the life an animal so that some tryant leader , greedy and ungreateful oil Sheihk or some CEO can live the life of Riley.
I think it is beneficial if a world audit (next topic perhaps – a global centre or government) of population and food / resources could be made. I guess someone has already done such a report but I’ve yet to hear about it. Whatever, the side issue of all this is the fact that some are living on the edge of existence while some eat gold leaf fine cakes is disgusting and drastically needs readdressing. Thing is, it involves the whole world undergoing a holistic revolutionary change, and right now, that just ain’t gonna happen.
What’s your view on world poulation levels and resources/sustainbility?
 Stef, Famous for 15 Megapixels.
 Stefs “C’mon baby take a chance with us”
 Stefs “The Andrew Gilligan Drinking Game”
Caulerpa taxifolia – which I suspect is proliferating in synthetic nutrient rich waters