Next: Justice and Rights &
Up: The World Solution for
Previous: The Disarmament Syndrome
Let the reader go to the nearest shopping center, the
nearest supermarket. Let him look around and think: 'How
much easier life would be when 999 of the 1000 people where
not here'. All this thronging of people going to buy, let
us say 'essentials', food, soap, toilet-paper! They go home
and eat it, use it, and then, in a couple of days, they are
back again. A street in London or Rome, all these busses,
cars, scooters, how nice it would be if only 1 out of the
1000 was there. Or take some roundabout in the center of
the Netherlands. This continuous stream of traffic going on
and on, all people inside going 'somewhere'. What is the
purpose of it all, the logics of it? Where and why are they
Should you come to know, you would realise how little it all
means to someone's happiness, his well-being. True, there
might be one individual in there who is going to see his
parents, long neglected, or friends, long not seen. But
then, he could easily go there by bicycle, or by a silent,
electrical, fast, train, only filled up for such rare occasions.
The rest of the traffic ... could easily all go.
All these washing-machines, carpets, truckloads of lifechicken,
going from A to B, and those from B going to A (and
further). These cars, then, would not have to be produced,
neither would be the spare parts, the fuel, the snowmachines in
winter, the daylight flooding during the night,
the energy for it, etc., etc. All these workers and all this
energy, these earth-resources, could then be devoted to go
and lead a useful life (when being taught how to do so).
But, let me be clear before going on first of all. I would NOT
propagate putting all these people in a gas chamber, or through a
sausage machine !!! True, our problems would be over, we would have
clean air, clear water, but the price is inhumane. Only nature's
method here, is to be thought of. Nature's method can NEVER be
wrong. Unnatural-, and anti-natural methods are solely reserved for
man, for 3 rd degree ideation and acts, and they would require
common sense, planning, organization, rights and duties of man,
human dignity. These observed population phenomena tally accurately
with ... simple recreation. Beaches, rivers, forests, and ...
traffic and traffic. How would one pro mille do! Indeed, all this is
number dependent. It represents the pressure of overpopulation
leading to conflict, nerve complaints, war and gas-chambers. So it
is with the use of electricity, of wood (formerly woods and
forests), plastic 'throw-away' cups, saucers, plates, platters,
spoons, knives and forks, but also children's toys, plate-glass,
insane products like chewing gum, the very butchering of pigs and
cows, the production of washing machines and the polluting operation
of them, the soaps in the rivers, and the soap factories, etc., etc.
One man, every person, causes roughly one-five-billionth of the
All problems, all world-problems may be caused by ideation
indeed, they only get real substance by numbers, multitudes.
Once, it was thought that the drug, the golden triangle
would see to a natural diminishing of the world-population.
Certainly, the traffic accidents do not exert much influence,
nor are earthquakes, droughts and floods, heart-
attacks, or the small-scale wars in the Lebanon, Shri Lanka
and so on very effective, in a de-population to the tune of
three zero's (5 billion to 5 million). Then, there was the
hope in a distinctive trend through the pop bastards, to
advocate massive suicide for youth. It looked promising but
came to nothing. It held a favourable discriminating factor
though. Not, like in wars, would the prime of healthy youth
be decimated, but those who had no use for anything in life,
not even for themselves. It now seems that nature made a
lucky strike by the invention of AIDS. With a doubling
period of one year, and starting with 1000, it would take 23
years to reach a 5 billion. By then, the 'breeding storm'
could well have produced a billion or so more to add to the
total. Besides, our expectancy for planetary survival does
not cover a full 23 years.
We live under the cruel empire of the masses (Vivimos
bajo el brutal imperio de las masas.
said Ortega. This is
not only thanks to the phenomenon of group-consciousness,
but also to the over-'mass'ive population that makes for
clodding, clustering therefore for war. When rats are
placed in over-crowded conditions they too show a higher
aggressivity. Take a volume of milk and dilute it a 1000
times with water. Now try to make butter of it. A world population
of a thousandth of today would not curdle into
nations. Group-consciousness is fed by crowdiness, it consists
When you are in a life-boat, fit for only 10, but loaded
to its gunnels with 50 persons, you will not so much become
a victim of the cruel sea but more of overcrowding. Quite
possibly, you would not start throwing 40 people overboard,
but you most certainly, would object to having 50 more people
added. The life-boat Earth, almost on its way to the
deeps through overcrowding, also has such a 'maximum' load.
What is this number?
In 1931, there was a symposium about the future of man. It was on an
afternoon of New Years day. During this, prof. Kidder warned
severely that, unless we acted intelligently, now (1931), our
civilization was in for a terrific crash. It was then envisaged,
that a world population of 0.35 billion (and speaking all the same
language (72) ) would be still a world of wars. In
those days, 1931, the actual world population was 1.9 billion i.e.
more than 5 times the critical of 0. 35. (not speaking ...). In the
same days, Wells spoke of the 'Breeding Storm' and was very
concerned about it. Today, 1985, there are 4.8 billion persons on
the planet or a factor of 13 times.
Even in Plato's time, the burden of man on his own environment
(especially through de-forestation), was far too heavy, was
catastrophical. It had caused the whole Mediterranean to be
'semi-desert' although Plato, lacking the knowledge we have now, was
not aware of that. He did not know that his own country had once
been lushy green, long before Iliad. The amount of charcoal e.g.
that was needed for the smelting of metals, the quantity of wood for
constructions (rapidly destroyed by the enemy) taxed the
Mediterranean climate far over its limits. In general, every
individual on Earth, 'causes' so many cubic stonethrows of wood to
be killed, so many tons of the various metals to be smelted and
transported, by, again, energy swallowing methods, so many radios,
television sets, bicycles, etc. to be produced (under energy
absorption), so many KWH's converted in the power stations thus
devastating our environment, etc., etc. and, in addition to that,
they require oxygen too. Knowing about the overloaded condition in
Plato's time, the estimates made during the symposium of 1931,
appear now wholly ludicrous. Naturally, for a better figure, a
better estimate, we must take into account an existing level of
luxury, of semi-essentials, that adds greatly to the problems, hence
to the solution for a safe and secure future (73).
It is impossible to go back to nature, i.e. go without metals,
without fire, as it is without sane organization.
We must guess anew.
There is another deduction to be made from the example of
the life-boat. Would we be all-right when only one person
was in it, it being made for 10? No way. Even this would
endanger the live more than say the proper load of ten, or
even 14. The rule of 'the least, the best' does not work,
although, only one pair of humans on the planet would make
their future quite extensive. A better estimate would be a
reduction of the contemporary number by three zero's.
Indeed, a planetary population of 5 million, instead of 5
billion would give us more, better chance, a better climate
than Plato had.
But this seems preposterous to the average reader. Do you mean to
say that we have managed to place the optimal population of 1000
such planets on only one? Indeed, without fiddling about the precise
estimates, with decimals, even factors of 2 or 3, it is clear that
the population density on our planet was even destructive in Homer's
time, we have got to go some factors 10 below that. But then there
will not be enough men to dig the necessary coal!? Indeed, but also,
there will be far fewer people (furnaces, power stations, factories,
washing machines, etc.) to need this coal. It is why a maximum
population of, say, only 1000 for the whole planet, is a little too
low (although not lethal). There is a healthy necessity for persons
getting specialized for some of the jobs that need be done for the
well-being of the whole (not the least, scientists, educators (see
mr. Coker in Wyndham's 'Triffids'), etc.). A fair estimate of 5
million, roughly the population after the last Ice age, may easily
prove IN PRAXIS, to be happier when doubled or halved. There is no
harm in deciding so then. True enough, everybody then, need only to
do active work, necessary work, compulsory work, during perhaps two,
three or four months in every year, but this need not make for
unhappiness. We still have to teach them how to live happily 'on
their own steam', i.e. without being constantly entertained by
others. But say, a Britain with only 60 thousand instead of 60
million, isn't that empty?
No! Man-emptiness implies a tree-fullness, air-clearness,
water-clean-ness, and the empty life of today, may become full when
only one pro mille of the people remain. Remember too that a
life-boat made for 10, has less chance with one or two persons in it
than with the full load, or half of that. When survival is
difficult, we need some persons 'in co-operation' in order to save
our lives. That is why co-operation must be mondial not national
(competitive). Wells, in his novel 'The Holy Terror' therefore
speaks of a new world organization as: 'Parallel Independent
Cooperation'. Indeed, a co-operation that has to start with all
well-thinking people. With regard to the life-boat example,
certainly, we would not throw out 40 persons, taking life never has
an excuse (no Summum Bonum (31.4). But there is a
difference in not admitting 50 real-life persons, and not adding not
(yet) existing persons. Before conception, a person does not exist,
has therefore no rights. Immediately after conception, he has full
rights (the rights of man start 9 months before birth).
Infanticide therefore is out of the question, but 'not-producing'
persons is the solution.
Now, everything that we can think of in our world, has
been produced on purpose, has been made on purpose except,
new citizens. True, it is widely known that certain acts
'may' produce a baby, but while acting (copulation), there
never is a thought of actually producing offspring. It is
like meeting a man on a bicycle who on the question of where
he is going, answers that he did not know he was on a bike,
was thinking he was preparing a meal.
The new-world citizen of today, arrives more or less
unexpected, is regarded somewhat as a domesticated pet that
can learn to speak too, but never as a potential-, future-,
participant in world-citizenship. We must plan our population,
not only qua number, but certainly as purposeful act
to add an integer, happy individual. Not, as in Wells' Holy
People marry for passion, a most improper motive, and
their children take them by surprise.
Next: Justice and Rights &
Up: The World Solution for
Previous: The Disarmament Syndrome