A Rather Reticent Depraved Proposal.

This is all been well rehearsed, on a number of occasion, by many people, over a long development period, but and it is a big but, until over the past (too) few years not a great deal has in actuality changed. Agreed, in a piece meal sort of way some minor policy matters have been lifted to the forefront of governmental actions prompted by the research evidence that supports the concerns of dedicated experts which have been laid out in an increasingly alarmed measure; that all is not well with the whole human biosphere. Some 1^st world, countries are more willing to take slow mincing step to address the global concerns, moved by environmental pressure group actions winning interest on the ‘green agenda’ and questioned with raising anger by ‘developing’ and ‘undeveloped’ countries most at risk from environmental calamities. But even against those that are denying of climate changes by a few anti-environment evangelist, does not hide the fact that there is no global strategy and no country has a dedicated operational stratagem that can be said to be comprehensible enough to solve the inevitable. Probably there is the chance to mitigate the speed of environs evolution to a long term damage however unless there is to become an actual effective global effort, which seem most unlikely, a tipping point seems imminently expected. It will not be, one thinks, until the rise of some powerful ecological nemesis Valkyries, that take on the ruling environmental Berserkers, will it be certain that a battle is on the move to an effective economic environs paradigm shift. This transformation should be capable of incorporating the needs of human progression and survivable conservation ideals, to evolve a situation which has the ability to shapes the whole of the humans environs future evolution.

In most western countries, the issues with environment degradation, it has become more of a contentious subject, in so far as it is heightening the tension between those that have a puritanical view of seeing nature as it could or should be, in an absolute pristine character, clean of all the detritus humans have dumped on it and the rapid reduction (to zero) of all waste streams; conflicts with those who at least wish to maximise asap, with proactive means, the furtherance of reduction in avoidable waste. This defferential is to be compatible with the continuation of a balanced moderated modern life styles and primarily a consequential debilitation burden for those that do not or cannot afford to do what is necessary (broadly the poorer developing and undeveloped countries) even if they are capable of the implementation of any authoritative environmental directives. In essence the affluent countries can do all the proposing of measures to “save the planet” they want and squeeze or force their own population into reluctantly / willingly, to bear the inevitable life style discomfort at a financial cost to them however given the perverse pressures of global economics and population dynamics, it is unlikely to be enough. The lack of resource ability to meet the affluent countries efforts with the envirins tasks by many (poorer?) countries in undertaking environmental preservation responsibilities, even assisted by the affluent countries; will require the developing and undeveloped to carry a potential greater restricted social progression burden,(progress)which the larger countries would see as placing them at a global disadvantage means they are not going to move at a fast enough pace to offer up, meaningful contributory waste mitigation. Poor countries will takes the view that the affluent should shoulder the greatest cost effort while they are paid to adopt the best mitigation technologies and put in conservation methods, even though they are still less capable of meeting the effects of damaging climate changes to their countries, particularly those countries with large immature populations. Those countries with very small populations, at risk of imminent inundation / collapse, may in the short term, be able to be accommodated with relocation somewhere (?) But this is not going to happen at all with any large scale of millions desperate population repositioning.

All hope is on the speedy introduction, within willing affluent countries, of a range of pollution mitigations and managing all the depleting resources to the use and reuse of materials; in effect it is still a bargaining game of polluter transference from rich to poor to delay or prolong the beginning of the a ecological transition point and cloak over the economic consequences of implementation actions and the changes that will be essential to manage a realignment of global wealth and trade.

No country is going to reach balanced carbon or zero waste ever. But disregarding this definitive statement for the moment the issues are, will there be conflicts to being made life style poorer if others are unaffected, what level of carbon and waste control is obtainable for each country, how fast can a reduction be done, what global level is sustainable and how/who pays? For the time being, barring the sudden appearance of abundant clean energy (fusion?) or extreme ele the world will continue to add to the planets degradation for the next 200 years. Into this unconvincing forecast, the environmental countdown continues; even if there are some more occasional climatically induced events:- much higher unseasonal winds, heavier rains, flooding , fires, desertification, coastal inundation, habitat and homes ruined or soil and fresh water to ground aquifer degradation or with the odd few hundred + deaths, is not going to generated a comprehensive agreeable fair global strategy.

Within all this there are some elements that are more important than others to attend to, in so far as that there are some problems which can be moderately easy to adjust too, in time, but in doing so it has to be recognised that overall the situation is moving to a seriously terminal situation, in which some influential parties will not be willing to recognise or be disposed to contribute to a individual, nation, or global efforts. The resistance that will be put out will be a partitioning distraction yet this should not delay the adoption of mitigating actions on the basis that every little helps, for example with: carbon transfer around electric transport power, solar, wind wave, bio fuels, carbon retention and capture and more but diverse nuclear generating. The game is on to move countries to do the elasticised ‘something’ pressed on by a number of “green” people demonstrations attempting to move to a unified political adjustment. Efforts of which may have a raising awareness result and no doubt as is the case now some steps in shifting a minority to adopt more waste recycling and a take up of electric powered personal vehicles but it will have little impact on the biggest noxious carbon use polluters; ships, planes, HGV’s, coal nation dependencies and expansion of gas fired power-stations; these steps are all still outside the uncontrolled carbon / methane ‘sinks’ releases.

However the endeavour to understand the polluting sources and implementing the actions to slow, stabilise or stop the detrimental effects of human activity to “save the planet”, to be environmentally friendly, ‘sustainable’, or stop an imminent environmental switch; are all in the long term, possibly absolutely useless.

This does not mean that to save the whole human environment that steps should not be taken but one might have more sympathy with all those irritating ardent green proponents working to ramp up the demands for all easy green agenda implementation actions now and much more within a decade, if they really understood what the ultimate impact was to be. Thus far green agendas are disregarding the overall economic and social cost disadvantages that will impact the majority of people, many of whom are substantial less resourced to not to be irretrievably harmed. Also the green ardent promoters should also focus on the one aspect that would have a profound long lasting permanent solution, one that offers the very best chance for all of humanity and its bio spheres survival.

Something, it is reputed, once said "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth”...... one might assume that in giving this counsel,‘it’ knew what ‘it’ was doing; which was to promote some form of planetary colonisation with abundant resources to accommodate the ‘filling of the Earth’. And in the habitable areas the directive ‘to go forth’ (if that is what it was) has been outstandingly successful for the world’s population as it now stands at 7.7bln and by 2050 it could be in the region of 9.7bln. Although the rate of growth has slowed down, under existing assumed unchanged conditions, it is estimated that over the next 200 years it could be doubled. (1)

This successful challenging growth rate to 7.7bln (mostly achieved over the past 150 years and not deferred with accidental-opportune culling) is just highlighting given all the social / economic/ cultural problems being uncounted now, how difficult it may be too accommodated in a socially civilised well resourced manner (which is not being done now) a future problematical growth rate of -2bln every 30 years. This should be a frighteningly disastrous outlook. Not that this really matters if one looks at the forecast depletion rate of some current essential resources, it will be apparent that there will be a huge wastage of unsustainable human reproduction.

Of all the resources most used just now, it assumes that Oil, Gas, Fresh Water and Soil Fertility will all be severely reduced in 50 years. This is ignoring the metals, chemical and rare earths used for any technological systems and of course the (assumed) associated increasing overall pollution levels being unable to stop a climate switch. One is a little apathetic in the supposition that technology and ingenuity will be suitable in mitigating the degeneration currently in play and has a pessimistic stance that some countries would perhaps be prepared to carry the cost of energy transition and support the less developed ones; it is unlikely to happen in a worldwide comprehensive way.

One may wonder why one has such a pessimistic observation of a humanity terminal future, well it comes from a view of 6 human characteristic: a) Humans do not know their own psychological composition, b) Herd self preservation, c) selective self interest predominates, d) Habitually reticence to observable transformations, e) Entrenched cultural hierarchy and f) Conformity deception. Take issue with the conjectures one has attached to the listing as required but one can make a case for each element of the characteristic that one has put a caption to; albeit that one has not taken an expansive magnanimous view for overlaying them with the ‘better’ aspect of the state of humanities potential attributes. But on an empirical, maybe none obvious preponderance ranking to the above, it is difficult to clearly see those ‘better’ traits however one promotes them, being overtly dominant and effectively dynamic in having impact on what is occurring today.

As a point of view with the above in mind, consider a few issues that afflict in one form or another, all countries:  health provision, education, homelessness, non-productive labour (unemployed), demographic imbalance, and food shortages / food banks, poverty. None of these problems are irresolvable especially in modern developed countries like the UK, America, and Europe etc. but to do it runs up against systemic economic prejudices that are causative factors (good or bad) moral indifference and fearful moral attitudes are laid over phrases like “the wasters,the undeserving poor,vagrants,thier choice-free will”. In every city the euphemistic ‘fall out’ evidence is there to see but one will just suggest a single issue that ought to make the point. In the last twenty years the increase and use of food banks in the (for example) UK, America, Canada and Germany has grown from being unknown (near unusual) to common place. (2) Most of this has been caused by unmanaged economic / political failure. And in the UK’s case a deliberate act using the created austerity pogrom much criticised by an UN rapporteur, Philip Alston. (3) Of course the gestation choices leading to such issues and resulting problems is also made by all other prosperous civilised or developing countries that hold onto MAD economic dogmas.

Endemic within these problems, which cannot be put aside, is that it does show that there is a rising tide of unwanted, uncared-for, unused human resource (other than being a deprived consumer) or as a source of cheap disposable (slavish) labour to support a designed economic operational preference. It is an exasperating disgrace, for as in the case of food banks, and the other modern afflictions, governments studiously ignore their growth and existence, reliant on a preponderance of public indifference, shielded by their self interest to not become angry. They are only comforted with the activities of diverse charities and thus supports the blossoming endemic deficiencies, to help administration do nothing in enacting actions to stop the causes. These are issue that can be resolved but if government see no responsibility for their policy failures how does one expect a meaningful response to what is becoming diseases festering at the heart of espoused civilised cultures. Yet even with the evidence most identified with, “rough sleepers” food-banks, homelessness, unemployment, which is suggested by some, are as a results of lifestyle choices, cannot account for the wide spread appearance of them within westernised countries. One might also offer that on a larger scale, this is also probably symptomatic, of long standing problems within the developing / undeveloped countries but seen as normal and acceptable; from a comfortable distance. But these ‘diseases’ must point to the modern prime cause of these difficulties, leaving aside the technological impacts on productive economics and global financial trading which of themselves are a causative factor, should indicate to the source reason that few are willing to seriously acknowledge.

As much as one lays out the problems with the postulated environment ‘unusual’ changes occurring around the globe and on which some steps can be taken to adapt to the threats and bring in fast painful stringent de-carbonising schemes as the green agenda advocates, “to save the planet”, it will eventually help mitigate the climate imbalance and pollution (over a long time, 100yrs+?) even though some countries will be environmentally ruined. However whatever efforts are applied they will not be good enough for the ‘diseases’ of the times and the stresses to the human ecosphere will eventually return.

In 1729 Dr Jonathan Swift, (1667-1745) wrote a pamphlet called A Modest Proposal (4). He had become disturbed with the visible destitution that was evident in the large city and towns of Ireland, although he did try to help where he could, it was made apparent that he could not solve the poverty stemming from the social imbalances (“no such thing as society”) as it was an accepted natural consequence of life’s choices, as viewed by the ruling authorities – landed gentry etc. Determined to bring the knowledge of such poverty to wide unreceptive spectators, he wrote the pamphlet (probably tongue in cheek?) to outline a potential plan of action to manage the child / adult destitution, beggars, homelessness, unemployed etc by making the plan economically useful and by controlling the source of the problems, to alleviate if not eradicate the wasted iniquity. He wrote in a hidden diabolically acerbic way with his statements designed to be pugilistic with the deserving affluent; unwilling to acknowledge their studious ignorance to the poverty that supported their ‘superior’ position in the iniquitous social order. He tried to ‘appeal’ to the profitability options that could be available in the commercial production with his plan. At the time, although he was also incensed about the abusive usury that Ireland had endured at the hands of the English, he wanted the rich to take notice of his plan and disgustedly think!

His plan; he thought that the poverty problems of the time came from the overproduction of wo/man power for which there was no rewarding occupation by which the destitute impoverished could lift themselves up. But the easy production of new unaffordable newborns was a prime cause to the visible overall vagrancy and it just exacerbated their problems within cities and ‘families’ however if his plan could monetise and control the procreation flow, an equitable balance of serviceable wo/man power could eventually be reached. And the way to do so, ‘for the greater good’, was to produce babies for the plate!

One cannot vouch for the veracity of his statements that supports his modest proposal as one cannot find anything like it that points to nutritional value, succulence, feeding cost to mass gain or ultimately a successful conclusion to an equitable balance of wo/man power by the control of supply. Even using selective breeding and mass production like that of chicken, pigs, beef and mrm to extract maximum ‘meat’ content etc might not be economically viable if demand outstrips selective / voluntary supply that only the affluent and connoisseur would afford with applied strict controls required to purchase the indispensable quality controlled ‘delicacy’(?). O of course his plan would have elevated a whole range of disagreements, religious, social, practical, meshed with the incensed moral turpitude but the essence of his plan was to force the ‘superiors’ to look at the unwanted, uncared-for, penniless population growth and “do something”. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

Whereas Swift suggested the nutritional value and cost effectiveness of producing a new source of sustenance with selective production, it was always likely to meet harsh criticism with humans’ sensitivity and ideological hold onto the value and sanctity of life. This sanctity though only applies in certain situation, times and for certain people. Since his time the requirement for wo/man power has fluctuated (think of the wo/man power thrown at wars or the industrial – commercial loss of life or famines) and link to the hope of equitable balance of the sexes and resources, has never been reached. Although in some richer countries the visibility of the poor had been restrained, overall and throughout the world the deprived (“left behinds”) are increasing.

In many ways, the problem essence of Swifts the “modest proposal”, is population growth vs environs. It is still the story today, writ large. It is apparent that the technological and productive capacity of the past 200 years has been the bed rock for human expansion and as in the pre industrial age a small portion of people have gained control of the means and application of power manifest by them in the rise of the unchallenged syndrome of the modern eras economic opaque accountability and transparency, for which eventually, some force will be required to change it. This underplaying cause though is for the moment being subsumed in the angst of environmental issues to “save the planet”, to do the expensive but easy things by a few countries related to carbon use, waste, pollution and resource depletion etc. However as one has indicated, the real long term solution is to control population growth but as the illusion of ever-increasing GDP depends on a consumptive populace, no country will be willing to adopt measured restraints.

In some countries (westernised) with education and a measure of prosperity, the choice to procreate, delay, or not, is being made on the basis of gaining a better self-interested lifestyle. This has caused a fall in the number of births but linked also to a lowering fertility rate of unknown grounds. This drop is primarily located to the white populace and hardly covers its ‘replacement’ rate (it has varied) but it is made up for by the better procreation rate of a non-white’ ‘ethnic’ populace. It will be a contentious empirical view; however the higher birth rate amongst non-white populations may be as a result of cultural and enhanced economic stimulus provided by a westernised country taken up with the increase in recent generational ethnic input and fresh immigration. This seems to be a trend seen, with (ones conjecture) extract details from within the UK, USA, Canada, France and Germany (5) 

which is probably also repeated in westernised countries elsewhere (?)

A higher birth rate is also noticeable in non westernised nations, those less affluent and with much less lifestyle choices but it comes often with a higher infant mortality, yet overall in global terms (Despite the often hyped but disputed benefits of globalisation lifting poverty?) more births to population increase, is escalating the economic and actually disfranchised population sizes.

For western countries maintaining a stable population is inevitable linked to a population replacement level and a balance in age demography preferable with a female – male rationale. It is a ‘replacement’ problem on which the investment and maintenance of all infrastructures and an economy depends; continual expansion and “growth” is all that a modern system knows, no county has undertaken (voluntarily) a managed diminution of reproduction to a lower stable base, one that could logically provide for all citizens and eradicating all signs of the unwanted “left behinds”. But if one looks at the appalling record of just the UK governments, they have been quite relaxed about the increased people disenfranchised as they cannot cause trouble and less “relaxed” about the millionaires / billionaires that can.

In brief, the main points to the above are: one thinks that the environs of the human sphere will not be made sustainably better by adopting any or all the proffered green agenda. It is possible that some moderation will be achieved pro-tem but the continuing drive for “growth” and the pursuit of resources to feed the technology of the green agenda (like battery power vehicles) relieves the larger noxious gas polluters, ship, planes, boats, deforestation and meat production to continue. Environment pollution will continue to expand globally unless an interim solution is forced into play such as more nuclear, wind, hydro and bio; to produce enough electric generation to switch to something like hydrogen motive engines. The use of fossil fuels will continue to be used for the next 100 years (?) although it’s use can be made more efficient and look to create new carbon sinks to be sequesters, it also requires stringent efforts not to destroyed those that exist now. One might suggest that ‘Fracking’ and new ocean resource trawling for materials do not point the way.

Smith advocated the manage production and consumption of human meat to reduce visible vagrancy; the “left behinds”. This is something which is not a new phenomenon but is apparent in civilised countries and more unacceptably obnoxious today in any affluent country that has the resources to stop it, but it is still happening. The eccentric idea of his for useful birth control management never caught on however in his way it would appear that the real problem he attended to was the rich turning a blind eye to destitution and unrestrained population growth. A problem still diligently avoided by any administration because it needs the increase consumer fodder to maintain the replacement level and generate higher economic expansion with GDP. To this end wealthy countries will create and still offer easements and financial gain for babies to be born either by indigenous consummations or by importation means.

By some assumed measures, single working people generate more economic activity into the economic system than they ‘take out’ and with their single status nature, are not producing offspring’s to be carried by the public purse nor do they subsequently generate a following add-on to the planets overall degradation compared to those that procreated with thoughtless abandon. If it is reluctantly accepted that population growth is a Damocles problem for the sustainability of earth there may be an argument to reverse the incentives provided in producing babies and pay single people not to reproduce ideally aim for a stable population. Yes there will be considerable anger against this idea by pro lifers, right to family life, religious / cultural selectivity, age demographics pressure and how to balance the consumption to GDP reduction. How much to pay, to who, for how long, to not have babies and is it worth funding the high procreative nations for birth reductions thereby maybe help solve the problem of escalating unwanted humans? The answer to all these questions and more are solvable yet probably comes down to, how much is it worth to save all of the humans environs for future generation, do today’s humans seriously want to have life’s sustainability for the next 200 years+?  Iniquitous choices: voluntary childlessness, end of life euthanasia,extinction or eat babies!      

 © Renot

2111191405

(1)www.worldometers.info/world-population

(2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food banks

(3) https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/39/Add.1

                             UN Prof Philip Alston

(4) www.guternberg.org  www.bl.uk

(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_The Unites States

(5) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/births

(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France

(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany

(5) https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Population_of_Canada

In this age of heightened emotive sensitive’s and the obsequious deference being paid to anyone who is unfortunately given unexpected offence too, albeit often-times unwittingly due one’s own lack of understanding of the moral, sociological, cultural, religious, gender background etc, etc, of the sensitivities of a recipient or any whom take virulent objections with above issue; one would like to offer ones profuse apologies should anything in this article give such unintentional offence. This to any that have had the misfortune to read it and to those that may never read it; just in case..

Anyway by the time any of this matters, one will have gone home. © Renot