Celebrating Rising World Poverty, Hunger and Lots of People
The news yesterday was not earth shattering. The estimated number of people living on the earth is now seven billion. But that is a number that can shatter the earth and its resources.
News venues are touting this historic event as if it is something to be proud of. ABC television was showing babies from around the world born October 31, 2011 speculating that any of these children could have been the seven billionth living human. It was then remarked by anchor Diane Sawyer that when these children turn fourteen, there will likely be eight billion people on the earth. Great. Overpopulation being glorified.
As Victoria McMagnus wrote recently on corrupt.org:
Corporate greed; religious doctrine; ethnic competitiveness; the wonders of modern medicine and humanitarianism – all are to blame for driving world overpopulation. Only when it becomes uneconomic for the situation to continue will our politicians agree to change things. By then it could be too late for the planet.
What does seven billion mean?
If the global population number of seven billion does not frighten you, then you are in a state of denial. For the sake of argument, let us minimize the impact in the United States of what the growing world population means to us. There are deeper implications than just immigration turmoil, the shrinking economy and growing joblessness.
Many still foolishly believe the earths resources are limitless. They are not. The oceans are being depleted at an alarming rate, people are farming lands until they are drained of all nutrients, drinking water levels have dropped worldwide, there is a serious shortage of food and humans keep reproducing. Yes, millions of people are reproducing themselves and they are mostly the ones who should not be reproducing – the poor, uneducated, sickly and inadaquately sheltered. Thousands of do-good organizations exist to make sure we save the children, feed the hungry and prevent abortions without tallying what the real costs are. Does this sound like I’m heading towards a Hitleresque eugenics program? Not at all.
Reducing world population
So, let’s celebrate seven billion! And we can start by killing me. That will be one less person on our planet. But like terrorists and rabbits: kill one of me, two or three will quickly take my place. Hopefully they won’t be bald or root for the Bournemouth Poppies.
China has the right idea with their zero population growth plan. The late publisher of Scientific American magazine, Gerard Piel believed that the world population would soon reach ten billion people and would level off, if the industrialized nations invested in the infrastructure and economic development of third world countries. Then the quality of life would be enhanced and environmental stability would naturally develop resulting in near-zero population growth. Unfortunately, Piel’s Utopian view requires intelligence, rational thought and actions, along with cooperation among mankind, attributes currently in short supply among Homo sapiens.
Bring on the Death – we need some plagues, war or natural disaster
To make a sizable dent in population what we really need is a Malthusian event or events of extraordinary proportions. Because the world population has increased so dramatically over the last 200 years, it would take increasing multiples of original disasters to eliminate most of the population. In 1800 the global population was around one billion people, by the late 1920’s two billion. As you go back through time and look at man made or natural disasters, the numbers of casualties of the original catastrophes should be multiplied to give us some real impact on population reduction.
So World War III will have to annihilate fifty times the number of people World War II did (approximately 60 million) to be effective. That should be easy with our increased global nuclear capability. Add a Spanish influenza pandemic like that of 1918 (estimated 50 million casualties) and make it sixty times stronger. Those two events will eliminate 6 billion people.
If you don’t like this combination of war and pestilence and want to do this in one big swoop – a bubonic plague similar to the Black Death in the 14th century (75 million dead) would need to be eighty times more effective than the original to rid the world of 6 billion.
Hopefully I’ll be among the first gone.
The remaining one billion people will probably be in some sort of living hell, but that is a manageable number to get breeding levels under control.