underage binge drinking

This seems to be a problem of modern times so I have been wondering why this has occurred over the years.

When I was young, a great many years ago, we had drinking under age of course, but I can never recall actually going out with the intention of getting paralytic drunk. Naturally I have been drunk but this has usually been as a consequence of the good company and not noticing just how much I indulged.  Even today I enjoy a drink but avoid over imbibing, it causes me too much agony!

Taking these matters into consideration, I have come to the idea that the reason for my more controlled drinking for pleasure must be due to my earlier life experiences when very young. So what is the difference in my early upbringing and the upbringing of to days youngsters,

The thing that strikes me as a big difference in our upbringing is the lack of over protection which my generation had to put up with. I started school at 5 and at 5 and a day I was walking to school on my own, together with a lot of other children in the area plus an older sibling. We lived in London and this meant that we, in the winter months walked home in the dark, with only good gas street lighting. After dinner, we all played out in the street and wandered over quite a large range of the area.

At 7 whilst playing jumping the rope ( in the street of course ), I landed on the taut rope and double fractured my arm. The kids accompanied me home where my mother got the local scout to splint my arm with a couple of bits of wood from the back garden, then Mum and I took a bus ride ( two buses ) to the hospital where they X-rayed the arm, said how good the scout was and put it in plaster and sent us home. No sedatives for me and Mum had a cup of tea when she got home.

A couple of years later, the world decided to have a war and the children in the cities were evacuated. This meant being taken away from home ( Mum’s and Dad’s ) and being located elsewhere in the country with strangers, known as foster parents, I had 3 such moves and they each had their own problems but we managed.

Whilst evacuated we still walked to make-shift schools in church halls and the like. On one occasion a German aircraft returning from an overnight raid on London, saw us going to school and actually machine-gunned the street. Fortunately, no one was hurt and when we reported the incident to the then foster parents, they commented how lucky we were to have not been shot and simply sent us to school again the next day

Eventually, I went back again to London where the air raids were still going on and after school we now had a more adventurous play ground, we had all the bombed buildings to play in. And so life went on till we were adults, to us this was about 15 at the earliest and 17 at the very latest. We certainly never considered ourselves as children at 17, and because of our actually having to deal with the every day happenings from a young age, we were really quite street wise and aware of how easy it was to get into difficulties and therefore, we could handle the responsibility of every day living, including drinking.

Now days, because of an unhealthy fear of paedophiles and the like, we have children that are lucky if they can get out on their own at the age of 12. Furthermore, all challenging activities are removed for fear that the children will be injured and someone will be sued for some unreasonable compensation. All this over protection denies our children their right to grow and experiment and develop the ability to handle the every day challenges that they will eventually face.

It seems to me that we have got to overcome this unreasonable fear of paedophiles and encourage our children to get out and develop. Statistically, there is next to no chance of a paedophile  interfering with our children between home and school, especially if there are a few hundred other children all travelling in the same direction. Recently there has been a couple of reported cases of men trying to drag children into vehicles but the children have been able to make enough commotion to abort the efforts. Statistics show that there is only 3 main ways of limiting the abuse of children and these are to stop sending them to religious schools, stop sending them to community camps and the scout like organisations, and the most common place of abuse is at home so you have to avoid leaving them alone with any male members of the family. It would be considered unreasonable if one tried to enforce any of these three solutions.

Seriously, I think that we must start to raise our children so that they are aware of the various aspects of life and trust them to have the answers from their every day activities. I think that parents have trust the intelligence of their children and do what the parents of old did, they told their children that they must never go with strangers and pointed out any persons in particular that they, themselves,  didn’t trust. I get the impression that the poor kids of today are academically very able and can cope pretty well; however, they have very limited social education and have absolutely very little idea of self responsibility. I believe this to be because they have been mollycoddled for too long when they should have been encouraged to be more daring and self-reliant.

All this crap about lowering drinking age and making closing times earlier is just cosmetics which will have only the effect of making more under age drinkers and more drinking in parks etc. Also all the talk about the police getting tough and having more power to close premises etc, is just going back to the 60’s when the police had the powers and were, therefore, open to corruption and bribery. The police have the authority now, and what it needs is the backing of the courts and the parents to bring these wayward children ( as we now call 16 and 17 year olds ) into line and make them realize that they have to live within the bounds of the law and, more importantly, the norms of society.

Posted in Justice | 1 Comment

Abbott for Prime Minister, god forbid!

It must have been most inspiring for our troops in Afghanistan to be visited by the would be next Prime Minister of Australia and to see him posing with an assault weapon to impress our somewhat substandard press!

When our troops use these weapons they do so in deadly earnest not as a way to impress child like politicians.  I just cannot understand how some 50% of Australians could prefer Abbott as their Prime Minister, he is about as mature as I was at 10 years old. No wonder that the voters voted in a 20 year old at the last election, he must really have seemed like a man of the world compared to Abbott!

Posted in Political | Leave a comment

Space time theory, (mine).

I have been reading a number of articles on the start of the universe which quote things like the ” big bang theory ” and how this is the beginning of time and the start of space. This, is to my way of thinking a human way of equating everything to what can be understood by humans. but isn’t what I think is the actual facts!

I admit that I am no great scientist and that my knowledge has been acquired more by living a longish while. However, to my way of thinking, time and space are infinite parameters. They exist regardless of whether or not we have our universe.

The start of the universe was the beginning of the universe but was not the beginning of time, it just happened at a point in time. When the universe ends time will continue it will only be the end of the universe. It is analogous to my claiming that time, for me, begins when I was born and will end for me when I die, not too soon I hope, but this isn’t the beginning and end of time, it is just the time zone set by me to facilitate my setting of my age and its relationship to other historic facts etc.

Similarly, the scientist seem to think that the beginning of the universe is the point at which space was formed. This again is nonsense, the big bang just occupied the space available at that point of time. As the universe expands, it doesn’t create the space into which it expands, it just expands into the space available. I’ve even read comments such as the expansion of the universe can be likened to a balloon expanding. This may be so but for a balloon to expand, there must be free space outside the balloon into which it can expand. Space doesn’t stop at the boundaries set by humans, it is infinite and, like time, has no beginning or end.

Less confidently, I would suggest that for the big bang to have occurred there must have been energy available existing at the time when the event happened and we know that,from the equation E = M C 2, the energy mass relationship is also and infinite parameter. We try to use up energy but it converts to other substances, it is never destroyed, only converted.

I wonder about these things because it seems to me to be a waste of effort to try to understand what happened before the creation of the universe, delving into infinity isn’t very productive. Just frustrating because it is really beyond our comprehension and will just make us more inclined to believe in the intervention of deities and the like. Which is basically where we are today.

Posted in education | Leave a comment

An unusual country-Australia

Thinking about the last election results and then considering previous election results, I have formed the opinion that Australia is a most unusual country because it seems to resist any progress and would like to keep its colonial status.

There is, of course the obvious matter of having a foreign Queen as our head of state but this is only one of a number of things that seem to back up my theory that we have not yet reached the stage where we are really ready for self government of a world class standard!

Looking back at previous governments starting with Chifley, we had a man that successfully took that country through the second world war and then started the first really big scheme for the development of this country, i.e. the Snowy Mountain Hydro Scheme. Unfortunately, whilst successfully handling the war he managed to upset the “mother country” which is not good for a colony so he was tossed out at the first opportunity and replaced by Menzies. This suited the electorate because we were then in a situation where we had suffered little structural damage to the infrastructure of the nation so we could live a very comfortable life style. Or so it appeared. However, the Menzies government was ham strung by its marriage to the Country Party so it couldn’t do anything to improve our status and Menzies was more interested in becoming the Admiral of the seven ports in England which by this time were not near the sea. So we marked time till things began to get not so good, to stand still, especially for 20 years means that we were actually going backwards.

Typical Conservative solution, have a war, so we joined the USA in their illegal war in Vietnam. Naturally, there was no exit strategy so this war eventually became a catalyst for a change of government!

The change in government brought in the Whitlam government and this government passed more legislation in its two truncated terms than Menzies did in his 20 years. The changes; however, again were too fast for the electorate so the representative of the foreign head of state was not only allowed to throw our elected government out of office but the electorate actually endorsed the move, not withstanding the move was based on betrayal of the government by a Premier of Queensland that was ready to break the recognised convention when replacing a Senate seat vacated mid term.

With the replacement of Whitlam we then went into another period when nothing got done. The treasurer of the new government even seemed to have an idea as to what was required but once again the ruling of the coalition partner wouldn’t let the changes take place. Howard talked of these changes but never had the ability to make them so we drifted along till once again things got so bad that the electorate again realized that a change of government was essential.

The next government was the Hawke/ Keating government which had to set about over coming all the lost time for progress. This government once again introduced all the changes that Howard had talked about as a treasurer but hadn’t done. Towards the end of the Hawke/ Keating government Keating had got the controls right for a boom time economy and was expecting to be in charge of a government that would have a surplus to enable him to institute his visions for the future, such things as better cities, better education, better hospital etc. However, Keating didn’t bargain on the wishes of the electorate to just drift along and they voted him out and put in a Coalition Government led by Howard, the man who knew the answers but didn’t know how to do the job.

We now have the Howard government which reaped the advantages of the controls, or lifting of controls, by Keating and we had the desired surplus, the problem was now, we had a government like previous coalition governments which didn’t want to create any changes which would make us look ready for true self government. So again we marked time and the surplus actually was eventually like a medal, it did nothing and we had no benefit from it. Finally, the same thing started to occur, standing still was tantamount to going backwards and things weren’t quite as they should be, so back to the old ploy, have a war.   Again we joined an illegal USA war but this wasn’t quite so popular so we tried another ploy, we created the illusion that we were in danger of being overrun by a few hundred boat people. As a consequence of this we now had the surplus being spent on locating the boat people off shore in expensive accommodation whilst they awaited confirmation of their refugee status, which most got, and therefore they ended up in Australia. Politically sound because it suited the electorate that wanted to be protected from all these hundreds of boat people. Eventually, the electorate again realized that a change of government was required and we got the Rudd/ Gillard government.

The Rudd/Gillard government was unfortunate in that it got into power just as the international wealth bubble burst. they inherited a situation which needed quick and decisive action to avoid a calamity. Fortunately they had a surplus available which the previous government had neglected to use so they could spend up big and avoid the major set backs felt by other nations.  This was quite a success story and was the envy of most other countries around the world and one would have thought that the electorate would have been appreciative, but no, they very nearly tossed out the government that had once again done something that was grand and internationally admired. The electorate seemed to rather listen to the crap put out by the Coalition that they wouldn’t have spent up and got us into debt, the coalition doesn’t realize that a surplus isn’t a good thing in itself, it means that we are being over taxed or the government isn’t using the money collected to do the things required to keep the country moving forward. So again, if Abbott were to get into government we would be marking time whilst the rest of the world moves forward.

When will Australia accept that we need to move forward and we can if we start to think beyond our hip pocket and look to the long term future for our country. There is so much we could do with the resources we have. We want someone in the Lodge with a vision for the future and the will to put that vision into practice.

With regard to the boat people, it seems to me that it would be more economical and humane to give them a short course on the Australian way of life and laws and then locate them in places where there are jobs for them. Then, if they can go 5 years without transgressing any of our norms, give them permanent residence visas. However, if they fail the test, they should be deported without any recourse to our legal system.

Posted in Political | Leave a comment

the greatest injustice of the 20th century

I observe with interest that the esteemed US reporter Helen Thompson has been virtually fired for making a statement about the Israelis going back to Poland and Germany etc where they came from and to vacate Palestine where they are unwelcome intruders. I don’t think that she should have been fired because she is stating a fact that many of us, of her vintage, think is a correct requirement if we are ever to have peace in that region again.

We are not anti Jewish or pro Palestinian, we are bemused by the decisions made in 1948 by the Unite Nations Organization to punish the Palestinians for the atrocities committed against the Jewish people of Europe by the Nazis, when they appear to have had no part in those acts of cruelty. Further,to then dispossess the Palestinians of their land, which they had occupied for tens of thousands of years, and give the land to European Jews that had no connexion or relationship to that area, is quite inexplicable.

As stated in my previous blog on this matter, when people have been unjustly dispossessed of their lands, they don’t forget such acts nor forgive them. Examples of such foolish government mistakes are the Northern Ireland conflict, which dates back centuries, the Balkans conflicts that dates back even further, and others.

Israel may think that it is winning and unassailable today but I’m sure that in years to come things may not be so good and they won’t have so many willing allies to blindly support them.

Unfortunately, this problem has developed into a religious war. When Palestine was first invaded it was a country where Muslims, Jews, Christians and even, Atheists lived in relative peace but once the Israelis set up a sectarian state things changed for the worse. Now we have the Muslims migrating to Europe and America and all over the world and as their political influence increases so they will be able to better bring pressure to bear on Israel by causing their supply lines to be cut.

I think that Helen Thompson was right when she expressed her sentiment and the world will regret the stupid and unjust decision made by the UN in 1948!

Posted in the great injustice of 20th century | 1 Comment

Mines Super Profit Tax

I think that it is essential that we take an interest in the mines super-profit tax legislation. We should consider what this tax is intended to do and how it is to be applied and for whose profit.

Firstly the tax is the brain child of Mr Ken Henry who is a Senior Public Servant commissioned by the Howard/ Costello government, and that was a government that couldn’t see how they, together with the other governments of the same ilk, by removing all restrictions from control of banks and the like, was heading for a failure of the world system of economics.

Further more, Ken Henry has a personal interest in that he has to protect his not insignificant, annual income, possibly as much as a million dollars a year.

Obviously, Mr Ken Henry has a barrow to push, whereas in the opposite corner we have the genuine Australian interests represented, these are the mining magnates, the mine companies and the Coalition Parties.

Mine magnates have only their annual salary to protect and, since it is only a mere ten million dollars or so a year, it is easy to understand why they have to so strongly resist any erosion of their income. How could they advertise the advantages of this country to their friends overseas on less?

The mining companies have the problem of having to either pay a fair return for the super profits or move their operations off shore where their profits will be reduced because they will not get the same stable political conditions, climatic conditions or, in the case of Asia, transport availability. We know that the companies will do what is best for Australia because we have the examples of other international companies in similar cases. For example we have James Hardy that continued to fight for the right of their workers to keep their jobs at the mines and asbestos works as long as they could. Similarly, we have had the tobacco companies fighting to keep our right to smoke without being pestered by anti smoking agitators. The tobacco companies are still working to try to ensure that the peoples of Indonesia and Malaysia, etc are not worried by the anti smoking fanatics. We are well aware that these international companies are fully aware of their obligations and wouldn’t think of doing anything that would not be in this countries best interest.

With regard to the Coalition Parties sound objections to the supertax laws, we have only to look at their representatives.  We have Mr Ian McFarlane, previously trusted to negotiate in good faith with the opposition’s Penny Wong to obtain a bill relating to the global warming control problems that would be acceptable to the Government and Opposition and good for the country. When Mr McFarlane successfully accomplished this task, he still had the courage to oppose the bill when it was presented to the Parliament for consideration. This together with Mr Abbott’s promise to cut wasteful expenditure on schools, hospitals and the like but will give 12 months maternity leave on full pay, makes one realize just how well Mr Abbott will manage the economy and not waste money on improving the nation’s infrastructure and services.

We must make sure that we don’t have this super profit tax enacted; it will destroy the profitability of the mines and all we would get is the possible improvement in our hospital, universities, schools, superannuation and pensions etc. The miners and other workers can be sure that the mines will always look after their interests as exhibited in the recent recession when they made sure that they didn’t carry any redundant staff!

Come on Australians, give the mines a free hand, we did the banks and look how well they have served us!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

ETS application

I note that Rudd is being condemned for deferring the introduction of an ETS bill to parliament. This seems to me to be quite unreasonable and unjustifiable. I think that it isn’t Rudd that should be condemned but the opposition parties. We have sitting on the opposition benches a certain individual named Ian McFarlane that in good faith negotiated a version of the ETS that would be acceptable to both the Government and the Opposition, he did this at the request of his then leader Mr Turnbal.

Next McFarlane betrayed the leader and then when the bill that he had helped to draft was introduced to the Parliament he voted it down, indicating that he will do anything stay in power regardless of the consequences of his vote. McFarlane is the sort of person that, if in a service capacity you found that you had him to protect you back and you were called into action, the first step you’d take to secure you back would be to shoot McFarlane!

I feel that when Rudd said that the introduction of an ETS was an urgent and essential requirement to protect the future of the human existence, I think that he was right. Unfortunately, he is faced by an obstructive opposition which is of the opinion that economic security is more important than ecological security. Hence it seems sensible to abandon the introduction of an ETS bill till the waters are washing around the feet of these global warming sceptics, then it will probably be too late to present an effective bill; however, there will then be more chance of getting a bill passed!

God help us if we ever get the present coalition parties in Government, they are absolutely hopeless and I feel that they are more interested in pleasing big business and other powers than doing what is good for the ordinary Aussie bloke of either sex!

Posted in Political | Leave a comment

Australian Constitution needs to be updated

Well the health update has been made a mockery off by the latest agreement between the State  Governments and the Federal Government. Any improved administration of a more effective health system has basically been thwarted. It would appear that the now proposed agreement has negated any  remaining  meaningful and progressive changes to the National Health Scheme.

We have the Western Australian Government just claiming that it wants to maintain control over its GST allocation,  even though it is made part of a pool established by Federal and all the State  Governments to be exclusively used for the health services.  It seems illogical to have an agreement where the State can put money into a pool but then be able to take it out as it deems fit, without regard to the joint requirements of the Federal and the rest of the State Governments

Similarly, the other States will have the administration of the national fund pool and this is already the cause of the existing blame game. There is no way that having the States trying to allocated the pool of health money will just continue the scrambling of each State to ensure that it gets what it considers its share without regard to the actual need of each State to supply an appropriate amount of money to suit medical needs. The allocation of the fund money will be based on the political status assumed by the State Governments and their perceived pecking order. I cannot see how the new structure will in any way stop the stupid aimless behaviour of these somewhat irrelevant State Government.

Frankly, I do not reckon that the Federal Government will be able to get this effort to improve the national health service operation past the obstructive Senate or past the almost impossible hurdles of a referendum! If it did manage to get the agreement past the existing hurdles, the agreement has been so emasculated that it is virtually ineffective in its existing form!

Posted in australian constitution | Leave a comment

Australian Constitution Needs to be updated.

It is quite obvious that the Australian Constitution was compiled to suit the British Parliament and induce it to give Australia a nominal sense of self-government. It is written to ensure that we have a minimum capability to modify and amend the constitution to best suit our evolution as an independent, sovereign state. For example, the constitution is mainly about The State rights and has little reference to the citizen rights. It divides the country from the word go and ensures that we have not one government but seven, which ensures that we can never have a real consensus between the seven levels of government to obtain what is best for the country, e.g. the present in ability to legislate to obtain a health scheme which will serve the whole country because each state wants to ensure that it gets the maximum even though they have all proven that they are incapable of coming up with a scheme that would make their own health systems work.

Furthermore, it ensures that we have a colonial powers’ head of state as our head of state which, no matter how you look at it, means that we are still virtually a colony. I know that the monarchists talk about how the “ diggers “ fought for the Queen/King and country, but this is because no other alternative was available at that time. I’d bet my life on the fact that if the English monarchy were to try to impose its will on Australia again, there would not be too many ex-diggers out the fighting against our government, irrespective of what persuasion it may be, to prop up the will of the Queen. The “diggers” were fighting for Australia. They would have fought, regardless of what government was in power. Australia was what was important not monarchs or governments. This can be seen where in countries such as Russia the people fought most fiercely to defend their country against the Nazis, even though a great many did not approve of the communist government of Stalin.

The first thing that we need to do on the way to establishing our nation-hood is to get rid of the states and have one government responsible for the running of the country together with our own national Governor/ President, head of state

The second thing that is necessary to have reformed on our way to nation-hood, would be to reform the parliament to obtain a more democratic system more in line with the British parliament. When we adopted the near British parliamentary system we overlooked one of the main protections to of democracy which exists in the British parliament, the British parliament has a House of Review (The House of Lords), it is a real house of review, it can not deny the elected government the means to govern i.e. it can not deny the elected government access to the finances necessary to govern, nor has it the power to even delay any financial bills. The House of Lords acts as a real house of review, it can delay a bill and send it back to the Commons for reconsideration, I believe it can do this twice. However, if the elected government decides to resubmit the bill for a third time it is decided on the majority vote in the Commons and is passed. This is democracy at work. Our system is a joke, i.e. the continuous thwarting of the elected government in the Senate where the rejection is accomplished on the vote of Senators of somewhat dubious quality representing a few hundred people on the electoral roll.

The present situation is ridiculous where we have an elected government which can not pass its legislation because of a hostile house of review, this is not the function of a house of review, it is just a ploy by the opposition to get back into power by fair means or foul without regard for the intentions of the electorate.

Our parliamentary system is supposed to be based on the British system but I can assure you that there is no way that you could induce the British electorate to modify their system to match ours, they are not that stupid. It is no wonder that many still consider Australia as a colony together with many other nations that would certainly never accept another countries head of state as theirs’.

The constitution as it stands does allow for it to be changed by having a referendum; however, this is also made as hard as possible. The result of the referendum requires, not only the majority of people to vote for it to be passed but there must also be a majority of states vote for it. This is once again a travesty of the understanding of democracy, under this requirement it is possible to have the big states want to accept the changes but have a couple of the small states want to reject the changes and as a consequence many millions of voters may be thwarted by several hundreds of thousands, hardly democratic!

If we do eventually manage to get the constitution changed to be more citizen friendly and protective of our democracy, we could then push on to obtain recognition and protection of citizen rights. We could start by enshrining the right to freedom of speech, nation wide secular education curriculum, freedom of choice for things such as euthanasia, single sex marriage and other things that are interfered with by governments based on their religious beliefs rather than individual rights

Now that so many of us are no longer believers in any gods and not at all impressed by any of the religion, and also that those that are believers in gods are not of Christian belief, we should work to ensure that the laws of the land are based on justice and legal and psychological grounds not religious beliefs that have not any real substance.

Posted in australian constitution | 1 Comment

Survival of Life on Earth

This concern of mine is not one that in the long term effects me, I won’t be around that long; however, I feel that I must record my concerns, hence this blog.

I have recently been listening to the 7.30 Report on channel two which had a series of programmes relating to the population growth in Australia, and tonight I listened to Treasurer Swann talking about the problems we face regarding aging population and global warming. I also have been listening to people like climate sceptic Monkton and others such as Senator Joyce, Senator Fielding, and others such as economists and industrialists and have been impressed by the fact that none of them appear to have been able to address the real problem. The only one that made any sense was Dick Smith, and Lindsey Tanner poo-hood him as being naïve.

Firstly I would observe that no one seems to have appreciated that this wonderful planet could well be able to support life for another two or three billion years providing we don’t suffer an astronomical catastrophe. The leadership that is charged with the responsibility of guiding us through the present global warming and population problems seems to be unable to visualize anything beyond three terms of parliament. Consequently, they only plan for a maximum of 50 years population growth and then extrapolate that this will cause economic growth from which we will all benefit. They haven’t yet appreciated that long term planning with regard to life survival should be measured in thousands of years, if not billions…Nor do they seem to appreciate that continuous growth is just not sustainable, even over relatively short periods of 100 years, the planet must run out of its finite supply of resources and space.

I will first talk about the problem of global warming.

When talking about global warming we still seem to talk about our ability to afford to address this problem as if our economic state is of any real importance to this issue! Global warming is a consequence of our not abiding by the requirements of the real force that controls the universe i.e. science. The universe evolves and operates within set parameters set out by physics and chemistry and if we break these laws then we suffer the consequences. We are polluting our environment and if we do not effectively address this problem we will all possibly suffer extinction. Therefore, it is imperative that we keep the problem as the objective and possibly use economists and the like as they should be used, i.e. to advise the best way to obtain the required solution and minimize the effects on the population of the world. This is a problem which we have to solve, even it means that we have to make drastic changes to our present life styles..

Listening to the global warming sceptics and opposition politicians reminds me of when I was much younger the similar argument was about asbestos and smoking. Then we had these sceptics and bogus scientists making statements that asbestos and smoking were safe and it wasn’t necessary to shut down the mines and factories or stop smoking. These charlatans managed to keep the mines working for years and the miners kept their jobs, likewise, the smokers still kept boasting that they would smoke if the chose and there was proof or evidence of smoking related cancer. The charlatans walked away rich, the companies paid out massive compensation and the workers and users are still dying, often in great agony!

The consequences of ignoring global warming will be far worse than those resulting from asbestos mining and smoking!!

Regarding population growth, this is a really interesting and difficult problem to solve. Firstly we, like all other forms of life on the planet, are programmed to reproduce. Over the millions of years of our evolution, we had arrived at a position where we reproduce at a rate that matches the expected death rate from natural predators and disease and as a result the total environment stayed in balance and all was in harmony. However, our evolution has taken us to a situation where we have almost nullified all the natural methods that existed to control our growth.

It is still necessary to reproduce for the species to survive; however, it is now possible to over reproduce and threaten our very existence, therefore, it is essential that we devise a means by which it is possible to keep the population within sustainable limits. Today I heard both Dick Smith and Lindsey Tanner state that the world population is expected to plateau out at 9 billion. How can they make this statement without having set maximum population target and having put in place a means by which the population can be forced to not exceed this limit.

Again we are confronting the ultimate power controlling the universe and if we don’t control the population to a level in harmony with the environment we will breed ourselves out of existence.  This is a really hard social problem because we will somehow have to determine who will be allowed to breed and who will have to be celibate. The problem will be further complicated by the fact that we will have to make a choice but ensure that we don’t destroy the diversity of population or make racial or national based selections.

Another problem with population control is that we no longer have the reason for breeding we inherited through our genes. Our politicians and industrialists would have us believe that the reason for our existence is to work in factories and create growth and money for someone else. Something like an ant community? However, I would prefer to think that we could have a very good future where we live in harmony with the ecology and yet by education learn to enjoy the sciences and arts and other wonders that exist in this world.

This is a problem in that we will not be able to call on our self made gods for a solution, in fact we will have to make sure that we ignore the religious indoctrinations we have been subjected to over the millennia, we certainly can’t afford to breed at a rate of 8-10 children per family, if we do we will very shortly, (less than 100 years), reach above 60 billion and this will most certainly stretch the limit of the available resources!

The language of science is mathematics and since the problem we face is a consequence of science, we must surely be able to come up with a model that would enable us to work out almost exactly the population the world can support comfortably and even a way to obtain the necessary birth regulation system.

Remember, we are looking for a solution effective over a couple of billion years not 50 or 100 years

Posted in population growth | Leave a comment