ecological disaster
It's a Matter of Survival is the book that i keep referring to as my "hippie book."
but it's got a lot of crazy/interesting facts.
a major point that these canadians are trying to get across is that, yeah, there's an explosive population boom over in third world countries. and yeah, education, promotion of good health, and maybe a bit of charity is a proven way to decrease the amount of children per family. but ecologically, this is not the problem we need to worry about.
the real problem isn't in the third world, it's with those who are better off.
the average north american (they're canadian, so they don't go by US stats) uses 10 tons of coal per year.
the average Bangladeshi uses 220 lbs of coal per year.
they pick this country, because as of the time the book was written, this country had one of the highest population per capita increases.
so comparatively, you have your average 3-child family in north america.
once growing up and doing their own thing, driving their SUV's, running their fridges, TVs, air-conditioners, these 3 little brats do as much damage as would a 103-child Bangladeshi family, just because they do damn-near everything via manual labor. so from the perspective of energy spent and pollutants emitted, we're more to blame than those poor bastards.
i guess that goes with the stat that Edward O. Wilson gave in his the Future of Life book, where if everyone in the world lived a lifestyle like we Americans and Westerners, we'd need six earths full of all its resources to accomodate for everyone's needs.
so our pampered asses should take a majority of the blame for a dying world, but it's a lot easier to put that blame on those who look stupid by popping out kids that they can't afford to feed.
and the kid after kid that these 3rd-world-country families poop out are actually for a purpose. firstly, they're the parents sort of pension.
when they get old, they got somebody to take care of them.
also when they are younger, they have people to do chores for them.
third, if even one of these kids gets enough of an education to get a job in the city, they can usually, alone, afford to feed the whole family.
but even though there may be these reasons, it's not really that good of an idea to fill up the world with people that it can't fully support.
at the time of the book's writing (1990) the pope was against contraception (are catholics still?) stating, "If the possibility of conceiving a child is artificially eliminated in the conjugal act, couples shut themselves off from God and oppose His will."
(why does it seem like the catholic church is the ruler of the third world country and all those ignorant? it promotes the multiplication of mass amounts of people in poor lands that can offer cheap labor as their only service. clever bastards.)
but what El Papa doesn't realize is that by not promoting contraception, a majority of those conceived, or their descendants will die off anyway of a lack of resources/food. the piper must be paid, bitches.
but even now as the population crisis is coming to the forefront in some developing countries, cultural problems arise that keep people from doing what is necessary to provide a better future.
Asian and European countries fear the growth of muslims in and around their own countries and don't want to be drowned out (this, i guess is just an opinion of the author or opinion told to the author. but really, who wants to be a shat-on minority? unless you can figure out how to keep the power. apartheid, bitches).
in Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, a federal limit (seemingly liberal) of 4 children per family caused an outrage. apparently a woman's group protested on the grounds that this will only further promote the common practice of polygamy.
go men.
so with a world population growth of 3 people per second, and the loss of 24 billion tons of topsoil per year, something's gotta be done.
over here in the US (and Canada) we may not be pumping out the kids, but we're raping the environment and fucking it up for those around us (it's like a smoking/non-smoking restaurant. or at least a shitty one like IHOP. you go to non-smoking, but when you leave, your clothes still smell like cigarette smoke. fucked). the author really hasn't covered what we can do yet, but general conservatory actions are probably a good start.
also, a study done in the late 80's showed that on that given year, 6 billion people could be fed on a completely vegetarian diet (this was before the world population reached that point).
a 35% meat diet would only feed 2.5 billion people.
so every 10% of meat that people would cut out of their diet would reap a benefit of 12 million more tons of grain annually.
it's a good thought in theory...
as for third world countries, the best thing that can be done for them is to provide an education.
a study done in Kerala (a state in northern India) where in almost a communistic fashion, mother's, their small children, and school-aged children were given food, people were given communal plots of land, and the children were educated to the point were 75% of the state was literate (versus below 50% for the rest of the country), the average life expectancy jumped to 68 from the national indian average of 57.
being healthy, educated, and having a bit of land makes anyone's life better.
maybe that's one of those things that are obvious but needed to be stated to be thought about and realized.
(so maybe in poorer, failing, overpopulated areas/countries, maybe communism is the best way to promote good living [as opposed to the usual genocide: russia, cambodia, guatemala, argentina, rwanda/burundi, etc.]. but where do you draw the line? eventually some will become more rich and powerful and then once again everyone below them will get fucked over. but if everything is federally maintained at a mediocre level, then maybe everything will be fine. however you still have the ruling class and the inability to prove self-worth or rise above anything but what everyone else does. maybe communism could be a good transitory period from a failing government to something a bit more stable.
god. i need to read marx or something. he'll set me straight.)
but it's got a lot of crazy/interesting facts.
a major point that these canadians are trying to get across is that, yeah, there's an explosive population boom over in third world countries. and yeah, education, promotion of good health, and maybe a bit of charity is a proven way to decrease the amount of children per family. but ecologically, this is not the problem we need to worry about.
the real problem isn't in the third world, it's with those who are better off.
the average north american (they're canadian, so they don't go by US stats) uses 10 tons of coal per year.
the average Bangladeshi uses 220 lbs of coal per year.
they pick this country, because as of the time the book was written, this country had one of the highest population per capita increases.
so comparatively, you have your average 3-child family in north america.
once growing up and doing their own thing, driving their SUV's, running their fridges, TVs, air-conditioners, these 3 little brats do as much damage as would a 103-child Bangladeshi family, just because they do damn-near everything via manual labor. so from the perspective of energy spent and pollutants emitted, we're more to blame than those poor bastards.
i guess that goes with the stat that Edward O. Wilson gave in his the Future of Life book, where if everyone in the world lived a lifestyle like we Americans and Westerners, we'd need six earths full of all its resources to accomodate for everyone's needs.
so our pampered asses should take a majority of the blame for a dying world, but it's a lot easier to put that blame on those who look stupid by popping out kids that they can't afford to feed.
and the kid after kid that these 3rd-world-country families poop out are actually for a purpose. firstly, they're the parents sort of pension.
when they get old, they got somebody to take care of them.
also when they are younger, they have people to do chores for them.
third, if even one of these kids gets enough of an education to get a job in the city, they can usually, alone, afford to feed the whole family.
but even though there may be these reasons, it's not really that good of an idea to fill up the world with people that it can't fully support.
at the time of the book's writing (1990) the pope was against contraception (are catholics still?) stating, "If the possibility of conceiving a child is artificially eliminated in the conjugal act, couples shut themselves off from God and oppose His will."
(why does it seem like the catholic church is the ruler of the third world country and all those ignorant? it promotes the multiplication of mass amounts of people in poor lands that can offer cheap labor as their only service. clever bastards.)
but what El Papa doesn't realize is that by not promoting contraception, a majority of those conceived, or their descendants will die off anyway of a lack of resources/food. the piper must be paid, bitches.
but even now as the population crisis is coming to the forefront in some developing countries, cultural problems arise that keep people from doing what is necessary to provide a better future.
Asian and European countries fear the growth of muslims in and around their own countries and don't want to be drowned out (this, i guess is just an opinion of the author or opinion told to the author. but really, who wants to be a shat-on minority? unless you can figure out how to keep the power. apartheid, bitches).
in Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, a federal limit (seemingly liberal) of 4 children per family caused an outrage. apparently a woman's group protested on the grounds that this will only further promote the common practice of polygamy.
go men.
so with a world population growth of 3 people per second, and the loss of 24 billion tons of topsoil per year, something's gotta be done.
over here in the US (and Canada) we may not be pumping out the kids, but we're raping the environment and fucking it up for those around us (it's like a smoking/non-smoking restaurant. or at least a shitty one like IHOP. you go to non-smoking, but when you leave, your clothes still smell like cigarette smoke. fucked). the author really hasn't covered what we can do yet, but general conservatory actions are probably a good start.
also, a study done in the late 80's showed that on that given year, 6 billion people could be fed on a completely vegetarian diet (this was before the world population reached that point).
a 35% meat diet would only feed 2.5 billion people.
so every 10% of meat that people would cut out of their diet would reap a benefit of 12 million more tons of grain annually.
it's a good thought in theory...
as for third world countries, the best thing that can be done for them is to provide an education.
a study done in Kerala (a state in northern India) where in almost a communistic fashion, mother's, their small children, and school-aged children were given food, people were given communal plots of land, and the children were educated to the point were 75% of the state was literate (versus below 50% for the rest of the country), the average life expectancy jumped to 68 from the national indian average of 57.
being healthy, educated, and having a bit of land makes anyone's life better.
maybe that's one of those things that are obvious but needed to be stated to be thought about and realized.
(so maybe in poorer, failing, overpopulated areas/countries, maybe communism is the best way to promote good living [as opposed to the usual genocide: russia, cambodia, guatemala, argentina, rwanda/burundi, etc.]. but where do you draw the line? eventually some will become more rich and powerful and then once again everyone below them will get fucked over. but if everything is federally maintained at a mediocre level, then maybe everything will be fine. however you still have the ruling class and the inability to prove self-worth or rise above anything but what everyone else does. maybe communism could be a good transitory period from a failing government to something a bit more stable.
god. i need to read marx or something. he'll set me straight.)
2 Comments:
Are you SURE "El Papa doesn't realize that by not promoting contraception, a majority of those conceived, or their descendants will die off anyway from a lack of resources/food." ? The world probably would not be able to maintain itself if lots of countries in the world began to have a higher quality of life like first world countries, so why would we help them so much? that would be sacrificing some of our own comforts. By allowing all the reproduction possible, you still will have enough kids live to labor for first world countries while hardly using up any resources. And you can still control em cause their dumb and don't know any better from not being edumacated. Contraception gives women a sense of power and is a form of being educated, so why would Papa bother with that when he can have power and control over their minds that an edumacation may possibly change? And they can make him some new shoes, hats, and robes.
i thought that's what i was alluding to.
power of the church...
the man keeping everyone down...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home