Friday, 20 August 2010

Pakistan and a moral dilema

I’m concerned for the biosphere, not being compassionate toward disorganized countries that cannot control their birthrates nor the quality of their children through wise reproductive traditions – human lives are secondary to the health of a civilization as the health of a civilization directly affects human lives by default.

There’s two different viewpoints conflicting here; one is that which is represented above and the other is to blindly walk into the abyss due to the post WW2 fixation on moral high ground liberal-esque values. This is either in favour of the biosphere by controlling humanity below the carrying capacity of each territory so that the natural ‘disasters’ are not disasters, such as in Pakistan.

Ok you say that people should be left to make the choice using their own free will? Im afraid when animal urges dictate our very way of thinking that very claim is flawed right from the start.

If the population of any country, not just Pakistan, was reduced to a sustainable level in balance with the biosphere then floods/ natural disasters would not have killed more than perhaps a few hundred, or thousand rather than a few million – that’s why it’s a self inflated natural disaster, it’s part natural but enormously bigger due to there being so many people for it to kill in the first place – population control and building your home wisely is important for it allows the best to rise above the crowd because there is fewer of them to get in the way.

Altruism and compassion from richer countries giving aid are used to domesticate the foreign populations, like pets on a chain of dependency unable to do anything for themselves – all to continue building the Empire bigger and more stupid and to make the problem worse in the future. It doesn’t help the territories that are conquest either, those levels of population cannot continue to be sustained, the food cannot exist after peak oil for anyone let alone the people who are in need at the moment.

The west also continues to import the third world into its territory regardless and ignores problems at home, completely contradicting the ‘war on terror', it is collapsing from within because it doesn't provide strong leadership to the territory it already has. It’s biggest enemy is itself and us in the West dealt with these critical threats, such as globalisation and corporate internal corruption, then they could more easily build the Empire and increase the quality of the territory they conquest rather than ‘develop’ them to death.

Since the dawn of civilisation several countries have missed the boat so to speak, but surely we need to balance the world in more ways than one before it is too late and everybody suffers? Biology and civilization structures interact to create greater things, but we need to face reality and stop being concerned only with the short term social reality because that’s what pays our check. Foreign policy is drugs, high immigration, oil and cheap labour, and look where that has left our economies.

Regardless of numbers, overpopulation exists when you can’t feed your own population, 20 million is 20 million people to feed, if any of them is starving, they’re either religiously anorexic or they’ve fucked each other too much. They’re going to have to bump off undesirables, that is reality, and feeding them with your happy aid is only going to delay the inevitable.

Be aware to me this a moral dilema, I don't want this to happen at all but I cannot see humanity as a whole going down any different path. The vast school of self-important liberals fail to view this current situation in terms of humankind and what would be best for it in the long run. We have a simple fact running throughout the World, thoughtful intelligent people are having few or no children while the masses of ignorant, cultureless weeds continue to breed without concious. What does this say about nurture over nature? Are too many people missing that initial chance? Do we have to accept that not everyone will make the same grade due to their biology? The best solution to the overpopulation problem would not be resolved by trying to educate third world woman, we know thats a pipedream.

The only way to put humankind and the Earth for that matter back on course is to adopt more Draconian methods. Yes to me it seems self defeating trying to save these ignorant breeding monsters, who are way over populated as it is.What may appear horrible at this stage could be beneficial for mankind in the future. I really do hope all these Conspiracy Theories are right and that the Elite are trying to depopulate 3rd World countries. Reckless breeding has gone on too long and need a check, much like a house clean. When the intelligent people have all been out bred out of existence I cant imagine what the world would be like.

Be aware this is evolution happening here - unlike fascism nature will eventually choose which humans are fit to survive in the future. It gives me no pleasure to say this. But cataclysmic change is going to happen, with all its promised attendant devastation, and neither you nor I nor anyone in power is going to do anything about it. People don't fix predictions. People fix problems. And until the Western world truly feels the burn, then overpopulation is a prediction, not a problem, by which time it will be too late, and the human solution to the eventual problem will be brutal, if nature doesn't get there first and make it even more brutal. In fact and again, I'm not enjoying myself here, it's too late now.

The scope of change required from the human race to prevent disaster is so large as to be virtually inconceivable. We can't and won't do it. Overpopulation, our desire to produce young and make sure everybody lives and overconsumption of resources will seal our fate - evolution has made a mistake by trying to combine our animal past with rational thought, the two tear each other apart but the former wins.

It all sounds deeply grim - and it is. But there is an upshot. While human nature is historically selfish and incapable of focusing beyond its own generation, we have two redeeming qualities that should give us a sniff of hope.

One: we're hopeless as a herd but we're quite nice once you get us alone. There's no reason why we can't ease the earth and its inhabitants into their final days with generous levels of palliative care on a small-scale basis.

Our other upstanding behavioural quirk that should console us a little is this: humans are pretty good at snapping into action once messes are made. But that doesn't avoid the fact severe hardship will happen first.

Prof Stephen Hawking, who reckons the human race has a hundred years left if it's lucky, says we should be looking seriously at colonising other planets. Maybe we'll figure out how once we're forced to.

Or maybe when the Earth becomes so clammy and choking that we can barely breathe, we'll invent an ingenious way to sort it out again - one that's far too costly and boring to bother with now. But until then we haven't got a hope in hot, hot hell.

No comments: