Wordsmith.org: Today's Word

Commentary, news, new ideas, links, quote of the day and much more

Today's Quote:

Sunday, May 07, 2006


Global Disaster's Comings and The Root Cause Is . . .

Us. Basically, we can't blame mega-industry, petroleum giants, power production, or little green men from outer space. The problem is that there are just too many human beings.
Although the natural and man-made disasters of today and tomorrow will destroy millions of people, that will not be enough to reduce future damage. Too many people are producing too much waste in many forms and using too much of the planet's irreplaceable resources NOW. This is leading to destruction of natural habitat for other species upon which the entire global eco-system depends. It is leading to global warming - no longer a disputed fact. It is creating a crisis NOW in many parts of the world in terms of food and water and clean air available for the use of the Earth's inhabitants.
Overcrowding - even with enough food and water - has been shown scientifically to cause psychiatric/social breakdown in humans, rats, cockroaches, and every other life form so far experimented with. The results of this breakdown are among other things total disruption of normal social interaction, increased violence, rape, murder, and suicide. This occurs not only in human society but in cockroaches, rats, mice, fish, birds, and all others tested. The underlying biochemical and neurological processes for this abberrant behavior are as yet unknown.
Possible affects of global warming are multitude, but for more information check out
this site . What are the possible solutions? Obviously, the first and most important step to be taken is to reduce population drastically and to keep it at a number not to exceed 2 to 3 billion humans (living outside the womb),. There are now 7 billion humans give or take a few million. How can we effect the necessary changes in a humane manner -without resorting to such draconian measures as killing everyone over a certain age or below a certain minimum criteria of usefulness or benefit to the society at large. These measures are by their nature arbitrary and inflexible enough to endanger the evolutionary process of humans or the future surviveability of the species.
Step 1: Zero population growth. We MUST freeze at this moment the number of new humans added to the current population. That boils down to assuring that the birth rate does not exceed the death rate.
A lot of interesting information about the many contributing factors to population change is availabe at http://www.prb.org/
Aside from those factors not under the control of either governmental bodies or other ruling systems, what would you suggest as the most effective means in which to achieve zero population growth with ten years?
If you feel that such is not achievable without control of a governing power, what solutions would you suggest for governing powers?
1.female infanticide
2.enforced abortion after the birth of one child
3.enforced abortion of all female fetuses after the birth of one female
4.enforced sterilization of all females after the birth of two children
5.enforced sterilization of all males and females over a certain age
6.enforced separation of males and females until a certain age and after a certain age
7.some or all of the above
8.other (explain)

Step 2: Negative population growth
The natural or traditional causes of negative population growth have been in the past 1)disease (particularly pandemics) 2)war(particularly when only young men are at most danger of being killed) 3)food/water shortages leading to higher infant mortality, decreased life-span, reduced fecundity. Unfortunately, in terms of negative population growth goals, medical science has drastically reduced the number of deaths or reductions in fertility of humans. Again, unfortunately from many standpoints, war is no longer largely a matter of personal combat between groups of young men during their most fertile years. War now destroys whole populations in a random manner and does not seem to lead to a long-term decrease in fecundity. Some studies show that over time, wars seem to actually increase the number of births while decreasing the number of deaths over the longer period of time. The baby-booms are examples of this. However, with increasing sophistication in the use of nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare these statistics may change. The trend recently (probably because of the changes in the nature of warfare) has been for smaller more contained wars targeting civilian populations and the use of indiscriminate counter attacks by means of terrorism, land mines, and poisoning of food and water supplies. These wars will reduce populations on a local level only. They do not seem to have much affect on overall population numbers. And finally, food and water supplies as a modifying control of population growth may still have some benefit. The use of genetically modified crops and the use of desalinization plants for water are attempts at getting around these modifying influences.
Negative population growth requires that the number of deaths exceed the number of births. Again, without using draconian and/or arbitrary systems, how would you suggest negative population growth could be achieved within a ten year period without affecting the populations of other species?
1)Stop all medical and social support and allow natural causes of death such as disease and starvation to take their toll
2)Call upon all government and religious authorities to condemn reproduction and to support strict birth control measures including abortion
3)Encourage those who no longer find joy in living to seek a painless government assisted suicide
4)Develop a drug that provides immunity to most diseases while also causing sterilization of all females after the age of 30
5)Encouraging the factors that lead to homosexuality (not bi-sexuality) in both men and women
6)Allowing free migration of all people from country to country while maintaining a global record births and deaths without reference to region and acting to preserve the ratio of male to female births at a constant rate which would lead naturally to decreasing population growth
7)Cut off supplies of food and/or water to any region whose population increases for more than a year statistically
8)Other (explain):

Step 3: Steady-state Population
Your ideas?
Answer questions 1, 2, and 3 in the comments pop-up window. I'll publish all comments as a separate post for voting on the best solutions and for discussion.

No comments:

About Me

My photo
I live on the Pacific slopes of the Talamanca mountain range in southern Costa Rica. My adult children live in the United States. I have a Masters Degree in Gerontology but have worked as a migrant laborer, chicken egg collector, radio broadcaster, secretary, social worker, research director, bureaucrat, writer, editor, political organizer, publicist, telephone operator, and more. My hobby of photography has garnered some awards.

Blog Archive