I recently read two articles on the availability of housing and town planning to meet future needs. These articles were very interesting and the comments from readers were also very informative; however, there was no attempt to address the real reason for the existing and ever expanding problem. The articles were a Greens blog and a blog in The Age which were mainly based on the provision of housing into the future.
When reading these articles I began to wonder if any one had thought about why we were in such dire straights regarding over crowding of our cities and pollution every where and global warming. To me the answer is quite straight forward, we have assumed a ” better than you attitude ” towards all other creatures and life forms on this planet whereas we are really just another animal that has to live within the confines and parameters set by our natural environment.
We are prepared to accept that other animal forms can over breed and destroy their environment but we seem to think that we can keep on breeding without any regard to our effect on the environment for, not only ourselves but for all other life forms. We are prepared to cull other creatures that we consider are over breeding but we don’t apply the same logic to our own over breeding
I notice that the Greens talk of halving the carbon output of each person but if one thinks about this it is only a temporary solution. If one of the many godheads we have created, could perform a miracle and halve the output of every individual tomorrow, the pollution would be back to todays figure in 50 years because of the doubling of the population and there will also then be the need for added space to accommodate the extra population.
Nature will solve this problem in its own way, we will eventually have a cull to satisfy the ambitions of our political and religious leaders but, with the destructive powers of todays weaponry, this could well be an act of overkill which would wipe out all human and possibly all other life forms. Accordingly, I think it would be better to devise a more acceptable means of population control.
If we could negate the powers of the various religions we should be able to accept that death isn’t a punishment and is really a part of life which enables life to update and refresh itself. Once we accept this fact, we can then look at controlling life and accepting that some people wish to die, others don’t wish to breed, other life forms are born monsters and should not be kept alive to satisfy the selfish desires of some frustrated woman rather than being allowed to die as would be the way of nature. There are many ways in which the population could be humanely regulated.
Furthermore, not all women want to devote their lives to children and raising families so they should be discouraged from just having babies at a late time of life to be able to say they are a “full woman”. Being a mother is actually a full time and very worthwhile station in life. Rather than having part time mothers that farm out their offspring we should encourage those women that really lust for motherhood, and would devote their whole waking hours to their children, to have children. As we know, in the present social system, those people that have lots of children are usually hard pressed to give those children the necessities of life. The system should be changed to ensure that good and willing parents are supported and are in a position to raise the future generation to the best available standards. And at the end of the parenting period, there should be a national pension scheme for these people to enable them to retire and enjoy all the life pleasures enjoyed by the career population.
I’m sure that if we could rid ourselves of all these gods and religions, we could devise a system whereby we could stabilize the world population at a level that would enable us to make full use of all the beauties of this world without destroying it and also live in peace. The latter would I think, require men to give up their sense of being the top dog, and there would have to be an acceptance of the fact that sex and sexuality are not the criteria by which you can make reasonable, logical and long-term decisions.
I wonder if we will ever generally develop a brain that appreciates that what is in our best interests isn’t always in the best interest of the future generations and others?
Grandad,
I can’t see it working. I really can’t, religion or no, how do you propose to regulate the population? Would you say “right, people over 65 are off to get shot?”. Or would it be done via an application to the government to have a baby.
I agree, good caring mothers (or fathers!) should be encouraged to stay home and give their children a decent upbringing without having to suffer concequences for doing so. But just saying that people can stay home and get benifits just for having children is the wrong way around. It’d encourage having many children and not getting a job. What you want is people who are knowledgeable about the growth of children, and can nourish them with information, skills and concepts. Not just someone who stays home all day and drinks beer.
Also, we’ve evolved to want children, those that didn’t have that drive died out, so I don’t really think there are that many people who don’t want kids. I agree that this is a problem, but I don’t agree that it is religions fault, or that removal of religion will allow us to solve the problem, and I really don’t see how anyone can fix it.
Simon,
You miss the point, it’s not a case of seeing how it can work it is more a case of having to find a solution to a problem.
If you look at it as an equation where the generational adjustments to the population and its demands on the environment can not exceed the ability of the environment to sustain the requirements of the population, then an adjustment has to be made if it looks as though the two quantities are going to become out of equilibrium.
I tried to put forward a solution that didn’t require the killing of people either on an age basis or a space acquisition by force.
It appeared to me that there was only 3 options
1) Do nothing and just wait till it is too late to do anything and we would all then just disappear from the face of the earth. However, the final outcome would probably be proceeded by a period of chaos.
2) Let the powers that be sort out the problem in the best way they know how. Based on past history, this would mean the various powers that have would try to expand to obtain access to the resources they need to maintain their standard of living. Not dissimilar to the expansion attempted by Japan back in the 1930′s where they invaded China and subsequently other countries because they were, and still are, a resource short country.
That is except for human resources!
3) Regulate the growth of the population to ensure that it doesn’t exceed the ability of the environment to support it. This way was my preferred way of facing up to the problem.
There are ways of controlling the population by birth control and one way was, as I suggested, to make it possible for families to have one parent as a home parent. This doesn’t mean handing out money, I’ve never thought this was a solution to any problem. However, it is possible to make it easier for families to thrive by making available the services at a plausible rate.
If we had accessible accommodation such as council homes as they did in years gone by that would relieve the housing problem. Then we should have a state education system available to all on an ability basis, again as we had back in the 40′s up to the 60′s. We should also have a health system which recognizes the needs of families.
I agree with you that we should try to obtain parents that have the necessary parenting skills but how would you do this, would you give each prospective parent a test to determine their suitability? I think that it is better to let those people that feel that they really love children have them then try to make their endeavours as easy as possible.
We must find a way of solving this problem without damaging the rearing of the next generation, it is our future.
This issue is well and truly identified and addressed by many many sci-fi books. In Asimov’s books the Earth is totally trashed, it’s basically just one big storm, going outside one of the domes is just crazy. The place is so packed that people basically use travellators to get around, and going outside is madness. Interstellar travel, massive “Ark” style space ships which basically have their own little world, cities under the sea etc etc.
I think that if you made it possible for people to stay at home and look after their kids, it would have the reverse effect of what you intend. I think if you made it accessible for people to not work and to stay home and rear their kids you’d see more people having kids and taking that option. Speculation of course, but it’s certainly something I’d give plenty of thought to!
I don’t trust people. There are a lot of stupid idiots who are unable to think and who are totally selfish. One example is a Heroine addict, she’s had 2 kids, one lives with the Grandparents, one lives with the brother. The chick is pregnant again. Everyone in the family is thinking “who the hells going to look after this one?”.