"For most of human history people follow the advice summed up in the [Bible] text: be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. And that makes sense in the light of high mortality and low rate of population increase. But today we face a vastly different situation. We have a population explosion. And because I'm both a priest and an environmentalist people ask me, at times quite angrily, about the attitude of the Pope to contraception. They say if the Church cared about the environment it would support contraception. I think they are right."
—Paul Collins, Australian Catholic priest, environmentalist, and religious writer (Quote from the documentary God's Earth)
The problem
World populations are either too high, or not high enough depending on which side of the fence you are on and what you hope to achieve by being there.
Trends supporting this view
The basic theory of population
Perhaps it is best that we review the basic theory of population as we know it today.
As scientists have estimated, global human population levels have been increasing according to the following figures:
- 71,500 B.C. there were around 5,000 people..
- 10,000 B.C. there were 12,000,000 people.
- 250 years ago there were 1 billion people.
- Present day (2010) there were 7 billion people.
What's the rate of growth? This is important if we are to predict future populations on this planet.
Growth rates for the same period prior to 2010 were:
- Between 71,500 and 10,000 B.C. the growth rate is about 0.008 percent per year..
- Between 10,000 B.C. and 250 years ago, the growth rate is about 0.089 percent per year.
- Between 250 years ago and 1966, the growth rate is 2.08 percent per year.
- Present day (2010) there were 7 billion people.
This suggests an almost exponential growth. However, as with any species, the population numbers must reach a point where the carrying capacity (or available resources) will dictate the maximum population. Hence the approximate exponential growth since the industrial Revolution of 250 years ago has to level off at some point. Scientists now understand this is probably happening as we speak with the latest figures suggesting a drop in the growth rate in 2010 to 1.12 percent per year and is predicted to decline a further 0.4 percent every year thereafter as the cost of dwindling resources increase and people find it harder to find paid employment to maintain a high level of consumption.
And it can also be due to high levels of education as people learn to reduce consumption and control birth rates as a means of protecting the species and preserving the environment.
This is not to say population levels have stopped growing. Population will continue to increase albeit at a slower rate. This means that by 2050, population will reach 9 billion and, by 2250, the population should reach 11 billion assuming war, unexpected release of deadly human-engineered virus outbreaks, an asteroid hitting the Earth, or other factors do not suddenly reduce population levels.
Likewise there is nothing to say in the future that the human population could not suddenly have another growth spurt. If, for instance, certain governments and people in the Christian community find a way to convince enough people in the world to think it is okay to have more babies and make everyone believe technology will provide all the solutions, then there is no reason why human population levels could not increase dramatically.
Let us assume the population levels over time follow a normal and natural trend.
When the population data between 71,500 B.C. and 2050 is graphed, the data creates a kind of S-shaped curve. In other words, the initial stage of growth is reminiscent of an exponential increase in population. Then a turning point is reached where the growth rate slows as saturation (or the point at which the population starts to experience the consequences of the limiting resources needed for its sustenance) is reached. When population levels reach the mature stage, it means the growth rate stops. Thus each human that dies for whatever reason will be replaced by exactly one other human born into this world.
With this crude but effective picture of the natural population trend as seen in all species (and presumably for humans too depending on what we do in the future), scientists have created an equation to closely model this S-shaped curve of the population of any species.
Originally observed and modelled with a mathematical equation in the late 18th century by Thomas Malthus in his Essay on the Principle of Population (first published in 1798). the equation describing this natural population trend is given by:
where P is the population number (a variable that changes with time), K is the carrying capacity (considered a constant for now), and r is the intrinsic growth rate (another constant).
We can begin to solve the differential equation (so we may throw in some real-life initial population numbers at a certain time to see the results in a reasonably accurate way in terms of what the new population number might become) by diving both sides of the equation by K:
Let x(t)=P(t)/K (or x=P/K), which results in the following more friendlier differential equation:
On solving this differential equation, we get:
where Po is the initial population number for one generation, and P is the population number for the next generation. In the limiting case where time t is infinity (or can come very close to reaching this point in a finite amount of time):
This is just another way of saying K is the limiting factor. In other words, population is always restricted by the carrying capacity of whatever it is that is sustaining the population.
When the equation is graphed, it produces the familiar S-shaped curve also known as a logistic (or sigmoid) curve.
In reality, however, the carrying capacity is rarely constant. It can vary over time. For example, the seasons throughout the year can vary the carrying capacity of something that provides sustenance for the population. This can result in a slightly more complicated solution, but potentially more accurate to the way things work in reality.
However, for the purposes of understanding the basics of natural population trends over time, the initial solution is sufficiently accurate for nearly every species on the planet.
So, wherever we are now on the curve for the human population, there will be the potential for arguments to be in favour of both sides: that is, population can be either too high, or population is still sustainable depending on how we affect the carrying capacity of something to help sustain a given population in a certain region (e.g., the use of technology to grow more foods, or whether we build more houses for people only to reduce the amount of fertile land available to grow food). As a rule of thumb, the more independent the source is, and especially if it is from non-government sources, the more it is likely to argue that human population levels are too high; whereas government-sources in certain Western developed nations will likely claim that the population levels are not high enough or can be sustained to a much higher level so long as science can provide the technological answers to human food production, energy and other important resources.
Even if one could support the view that populations are not high enough and carrying capacity could reach extraordinary levels using our technology and so favour a higher population, the question is: Do humans really want to walk around in close quarters with billions of other people living one on top of another while surviving?
No one seems to ask if this is how people wish to live on this planet.
Also how will the large numbers of humans affect the ability of other lifeforms, who are just as entitled to live on this planet as we do and for which we may still depend on their existence for our survival, to live in harmony with humanity? Where will these species have to go to accommodate the extra humans and their needs while living on the planet?
The only purpose for increasing population levels on a biological level is to increase the chances of maintaining the species over a longer period of time in the event of disasters. Clearly we have achieved this fundamental purpose at the present time (unless a big enough asteroid destroys the Earth). Perhaps we should be focussing more on developing a technology to take us beyond our planet and help us to survive elsewhere in case something does happen to the planet, rather than trying to populate the planet with more people. At the same time, we must keep in mind that while we have a planet we can look after for now, a time will come when humans must venture out into space. When we do, we must consider the carrying capacity of other planets to be either exceedingly low, or to contain alien lifeforms that we are unfamiliar with and must preserve, understand, and perhaps learn to adapt should humans need to survive away from our planet while not interfering with the native lifeforms trying to grow on other planets. Either way, it means humans will have to control population levels to some extent by ensuring it reaches a sustainable level for wherever humans may live.
Let us hope there is enough time and curious human beings on Earth to focus more on increasing the carrying capacity while preserving all remaining life on Earth, while looking further afield and beyond the Earth to increase our chances of survival.
Focussing on the human population issue here on Earth, is there indirect evidence to show the population has already reached a limit? Or is the profit of some humans in selling our natural resources creating a bigger threat than higher human populations can ever achieve?
Evidence to support high populations
Whether we should describe it as high population or simply the fact that the population is growing in some places, there seems to be observational evidence to support a growing human population even if some R-wing people might argue that this growth is perfectly reasonable and sustainable in their eyes.
Presented below is the essential evidence in support of a growing population.
Cities continue to expand
One common observation made by scientists is how the environment seems to continually lose trees and the wildlife dependent on the trees and water supplies on the ground reduce in numbers to allow room for houses to be built on the outskirts of cities. Included in this observation is evidence of a massive "biodiversity-reduced" agricultural systems to grow food to help support the expanding human population in the cities. A simple walk in the outer suburbs and a look at certain farms in the countryside would support this claim.
But it isn't just the cities. The valuable commodity of wood and various metals in developing new products is seeing swaths of natural forests removed from pristine wilderness areas. Occasionally we see some nations learning to grow renewable plantation forests to minimise the impact on natural forests. But even these are not sufficient to meet demands for paper and wood for the construction of houses and other products. Furthermore, the plantation forests tend to be of one type of species where few other animals wish to live due to limited foods.
Among the scientific estimates provided by people like the CSIRO in support of this rather interesting observation in support of a possible overpopulation problem is the statement published recently that if the rate of animals and plants disappearing throughout the planet continue the way it is going, more than half of all animals and plant species will become extinct in less than 50 years time. And the finger of blame is being pointed squarely at humans for this tragedy.
Either population levels are too high, or the profit-motivation of certain individuals is reducing the carrying capacity for supporting human populations in the affected areas, and for the rest of the world. Which is it?
To complicate matters, a number of business professionals and governments prefer to see the current extinctions as one of natural climate change and various other natural explanations (perhaps there are too many earthquakes or volcanoes going off around the planet, or the Sun is emitting high quantities of harmful UV rays to affect other species). Even so, does this mean we should see this view as a green light for unfettered population growth and to continue letting the carrying capacity of the land go down while populations seem to expand in certain areas? The assumption for maintaining population growth is that science will find a solution. Perhaps. But can we rely on science to provide all the answers?
Or could it be that some of the more rational L-brain types in business and government circles want their names in lights for political aspirations and don't want to have a proper debate on the topic, especially if there is a chance to affect their profits? As Bill Vaughan said:
"Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them."
Assuming the reason is not an egotistical one, according to recent UN studies, the explanation for losing trees due to natural climate change appears to play only a small role according to the scientists. Unnatural climate change and other events due to human intervention such as land clearing is believed to be the major contributing factor to the latest massive worldwide extinction of animal and plant species.
Whale populations affected by humans
Seen as a valuable food source for Japan and some other nations at certain times in human history, there has been considerable scientific evidence supporting the view that in the past whale populations had been decimated due to over hunting by humans. A moratorium has been put into effect to reduce the impact of humans on whale populations. Yet the demand for whale meat surges on for some nations, including Japan. And as the whale populations recover, the arguments have begun to support the hunting of whales.
But how does the whale populations get decimated in the first place? What's pushing certain species to the brink of extinction only to be saved at the last moment? Is it an over-population in the numbers of people living in those nations with a propensity for eating whale meat that is the problem? Or is it more a question of high-profits by individuals believing that getting rich as quickly as possible by capturing and selling as much whale meat as possible is okay? Or is there something else complicating the issue even further in this analysis?
In defending the argument that whales can be hunted again, certain government officials and business professionals from the whale hunting nations will want to blame certain animals in the natural world for consuming more food than human beings. For example, the Japanese Agriculture Minister Tsutomu Takebe made the extraordinary remark at one time that whales were to blame for the hundreds of millions of people starving around the world. In an attempt to defend his country's controversial scientific whaling program, Takebe said:
”I wonder whether you know that whales consume more than three to five times the maritime resources [than humans do], or in terms of fish, 300 million to 450 million tonnes of fish.
I also have to point out that on the earth there are 800 million human beings who are under-nourished." (1)
UPDATE
February 2004
Greenpeace has investigated a similar attempt at reducing the number of animals consuming fish for human consumption with the slaughter of thousands of dolphins in and around the English Channel by anonymous humans (possibly commercial fishermen). It is either that, or there are some people in this world who have such low self-esteem and/or are not surviving well enough in society that they have to damage the environment on the false pretence that it will make them feel better, or will make them inexorably rich, or get the attention they need (because they feel so unimportant to society).
UPDATE
Early April 2004
Some world governments argue the culling of animals is necessary to prevent the extinction of other animals (including humans presumably if we are to go by Takebe’s earlier statement). While there are not enough natural predators to maintain balance in the ecology (humans and the natural environment have affected the number of natural predators on the planet), humans must increasingly act as the sole predator. In the meantime, if animals have to be culled, the governments and some businesses might as well benefit from the sale of animal skins, meat etc. It is either that or the entire economic system must be challenged and a new system implemented. But just how many people who are doing well financially in the current system want to change?
UPDATE
15 May 2005
Japan has applied for an international license to increase the number of whales it can kill from 900 to a greater commercial number, and want permission to hunt the protected hump-back and fin whales. The argument being that (i) there are plenty of whales including the protected hump-backs to justify the cull; and (ii) the whales help with Japan's scientific research (and presumably not for making sushi in Japan's cafes and restaurants as we are told, unless it is vitally-important Japanese research in how to make a better sushi?).
Why hump-back whales specifically? In fact, why any whale for that matter? Are the numbers so apparently huge to justify such action? Perhaps the Japanese are somehow seeing vast numbers of whales ending up on beaches around the world and any culling would be more humane than seeing the whales starve to death.
Speaking of hump back whales, an interesting statistic obtained in 2005 suggested hump-back whales were increasing in numbers. Although admittedly it is a slow process. What was once an endangered species with only a few hundred left in the wild in the 1960s has crept up to 4,000. But is 4,000 considered too many hump-back whales in the oceans? Are these creatures overpopulating the oceans to the point of affecting all other species that they must be culled? If you're a Japanese fisherman, the answer is probably a resounding, "Yes!". Because it is likely they will argue the whales are very large creatures compared to a Japanese person and 4,000 of them is virtually overpopulating the oceans. Combined with Takebe’s statement, it must mean all other marine species in the oceans are on the verge of collapse because of too many whales eating the food.
Well, the Japanese minister did claim whales were eating too much fish thinking this is the cause for human starvation in Africa and other places. Perhaps there are also starving Japanese people in our midst as well? So why not argue the whales are too big and too many to exist in the oceans in a sustainable way?
Someone will need to do some scientific studies to prove these claims.
As for the scientific research explanation given by the Japanese whalers and the government, what is there to learn from the whales that they must be killed? Are the Japanese scientists trying to figure out why whales die when they get harpooned? That's a hard one to figure out for the Japanese scientists. Seriously, there is one way to conclusively prove this so-called research explanation. Get Japan to agree in having independent crews and vessels from other world nations to accompany the Japanese "scientific research" ships, board the Japanese ships as soon as a whale is brought in, and watch their progress. As soon as the Japanese scientists have finished with their so-called scientific research and sampling (assuming it is not of the gourmet variety), the independent crews can immediately dispose of the whale without allowing the Japanese to have any more access. A very simple solution. Then we will see how long the Japanese can live without their whale meat or whether they are indeed conducting research.
Essentially stop any potential appetite for the whale and see how long it takes before the Japanese scientists say they've studied enough and now want to eat whales. Then let the truth be known.
UPDATE
21 May 2005
According to Australian correspondent in Toyko for the Sydney Morning Herald, Deborah Cameron, the case for research in the manner allegedly being carried out on the whales is because (i) Japan needs lots of samples and measurements (more than 100 at last count) for each whale taken from the oceans; (ii) Most samples and measurements cannot be conducted unless the whale is dead; and (iii) to make it look like it isn't a total waste, the meat is transported to Japan where it can be put to good use for the people. Or alternatively, we should train the natives in Papua New Guinea to hunt Japanese fishermen in the oceans for their own so-called research purposes and let them use the meat for their own cannibalistic rituals they still perform.
As for the opposing argument, other non-Japanese scientists claim (i) much scientific study can be gleaned by non-lethal methods such as DNA analysis of skin samples; (ii) the Japanese aren't learning very much from the research given the number of whales it has to kill after many decades to get whatever it wants and now it wants to kill even more whales for its study giving the unfortunate impression that they have learned less than when they started; (iii) the scientific results from the study is not going to benefit anyone (the Japanese men working for the private organisation conducting the research claims the work is being done for the scientific members of the International Whaling Commission or IWC, but the IWC allegedly denies it and says it doesn't require the information); and (iv) whale populations (with the possible exception of Minke whales) are not high enough to justify killing the animals.
Okay. So why not cut the crap and say exactly why the whales have to be slaughtered? Stop pretending we don’t know. It is clear Japan needs whales other than for research when we listen to Shigeko Misaki in the Japanese province of Wakayama. Misaki, an adviser to the Japan Whaling Association and historian:
"It is healthy food for [Japanese] children and it is a symbol of the community. Whaling itself is not just about acquiring food, it is a point of solidarity." (Cameron, Deborah. Whale is back on the school menu after 20 years: The Sydney Morning Herald. 21-22 May 2005, p.19.)
Just say it is for human consumption. We can all understand why. Everyone needs food to survive, right?
Assuming Japanese people are starving for food and this is the reason to hunt whales, why not try some other food source? Come to think of it, what about human meat instead? Japan would have had a better case if it argued the need to kill human beings if Japan is over-populated by them, let alone the world. Come to think of it, the world is truly Japan's oyster if humans are on the menu. Just say, "Flame-grilled humans in teriyaki sauce" and everyone will understand Japan's position (and may even get approval from the world if they target their own population).
Alternatively, we should allow a team from Japan to work with other nations to help clean up any whales that naturally get stranded and die on the beaches, such as the eastern cost of Tasmania? Perfect. Japanese people can do their supposed research on the whales and be welcome to take any number of carcasses to Japan for food processing if they can't be saved. Sounds like a fair enough deal.
Now wouldn't that be a more environmentally useful exercise?
Or is this more a question of some Japanese people rebelling against the US for its aggressive stance on world issues including opposing the killing of whales? Or is it to do with how starving Japanese people defeated by the US after World War II suddenly saw the value of whale meat to improve the population's health more so than what the US did for Japan immediately after the war?
If this is true, what is Japan doing to help the US by preserving and enhancing the quality of breeding among whales, to control human population levels in Japan (and the world for that matter) so it can potentially maintain its traditions of whale hunting at a sustainable level, and to find alternative food sources having the same level of protein, fats and other quality nutrients?
This is a bit like the antagonism between China and Japan because neither country are willing to listen to each other's suffering in World War II. Japan caused suffering to China during World War II by killing some of China's citizens. China caused suffering to Japan by not helping Japanese citizens to start a new, fresh chapter (ignore the leaders for a moment).
Now we see the traditional, strongly nationalist Japanese people are having the same gripes with the US.
Stop re-living the past and start focusing on a more positive and brighter future. The US and Japan should be working together to find ways of maximising the breeding of whales, or look for alternative food sources (use genetic engineering to create all the proteins and taste in plant-based materials and start selling whale-tasting tofu to the public). While China and Japan should work together to build a monument on a piece of land donated by each country for joint ownership of the nations as a sign of respect for the people of both nations.
It is time we all move forward.
A decision on Japan's latest international whaling license will be made by the IWC in Usan, South Korea on 22 June 2005.
UPDATE
21 May 2005
In an indirect attempt to quell anger and avoid diplomatic incidents among environmental and animal welfare groups with Japanese whaling company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, Australian Federal Court judge James Allsop said any legal action to take the Japanese business to court would be futile because (i) it would be too difficult to legally enforce decisions to stop Japan from hunting whales in the international waters off the Antarctic coast; (ii) it could create a diplomatic nightmare and have economic consequences for Australia (and Japan) if Australian law could be upheld against the Japanese business; and (iii) the Federal Court is unable to resolve an international dispute between Australia and Japan.
Well, how would a bit of bad publicity for Japan do? Surely that would get Japan to be honest in what they are doing and a willingness to search for alternative solutions.
UPDATE
22 June 2005
The decision by the IWC today to stop commercial whaling hasn't perturbed Japan. The country is pursuing a legal loophole in the law where it can increase the number of whales killed for scientific research. It is almost like Japan must be facing starvation again or some other crisis to persist with this argument. Or maybe it just tastes too good. Maybe we should ask ourselves, how easy is it for Australian and American people to go without their KFC if it means protecting the chickens? Would we kick up a fuss and do our own thing just like the Japanese men with their whales by killing our feathered friends just to enjoy the flavour of KFC on our dinner plates? Unless Western families can live without KFC, Japanese people may not be able to do the same thing too.
UPDATE
25 June 2005
Surely the taste of minke whale isn't the prime reason for Japan continuing to hunt the animals? As Bryan Beudeker of Riverview in NSW, Australia, said:
"The fried minke burger "really tastes like beef" according to Miku Oh, the manager of a Japanese burger chain ("Whale burger high on this food chain", Sydney Morning Herald, June 24). If that's the case, why not just eat beef?" (The Sydney Morning Herald: The real thing (Opinion & Letters). 25-26 June 2005, p.34.)
Huh?
So there really is no unique taste to whale meat. Just the fact that it is a Japanese tradition to hunt whales. That is all it is.
Add to this the fact that high quality protein and fats for a healthy mind and body can be obtained from virtually any fish (again there is nothing special in the nutritional value of whale meat), and the position Japan is taking to pursue the hunting of whales under the argument of a unique taste, unique nutrients, scientific research, and/or a feeling of starvation in the nation is looking decidedly flawed. It is now looking like the real reason for hunting whales is purely for traditional purposes while maintaining the beliefs of numerous older Japanese nationals who want to relive the old days when whale meat helped the starving people of Japan to survive and get back on their feet after World War II.
In other words, having whale meat for breakfast, lunch or dinner is equivalent to becoming the quintessential "Japanese man". So does that mean the quintessential Japanese man has no brain too?
Surely we are not so dumb into thinking a feed on a particular type of meat will make the cultural essence of a person? What kind of logic is that? Eating whale meat should not make the "Japanese man". A Japanese man should be exceedingly intelligent enough to adapt to different food sources instead of relying solely on whale meat all the time (or even for a quick snack on the run), don't they?
And anyway, if the taste of whale meat is no different from, say, beef, then surely Japanese people can look for alternative food sources to provide the same nutrients. Heck, why not start a meat substitution racket in Japan by using beef dressed up as whale meat and no one will ever notice the difference. Problem solved!
Seriously, what makes people go beyond being human and looking socially acceptable among your peers in the nation you live is the ability for all of us to take a more balanced approach to life by learning to find alternative solutions to given problems. Why stick to the same things all the time? If clearly one type of food cannot be obtained because of short supply or the harm it brings to the animal, look for something else. Or try to control the human population levels to a sustainable level.
UPDATE
30 December 2005
A Canadian environmental group calling itself the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is attempting to stop Japan from killing whales in the Australian waters off Antarctica with threats of an attack and possible damage to Japanese vessels. The Japanese Government is considering sending a military vessel to protect its Japanese citizens (thinking Japanese crews will be the target of the attack). The Australian Federal (Howard) Government is twiddling its thumbs and saying nothing to help protect its own economic interests with Japan despite the killings taking place in its own waters.
As this goes on, Australian authorities are working hard to stop smaller fishermen from other countries — mainly from Indonesia, Portugal, Spain and Argentina — invading Australian waters.
A bit of a double standard here.
UPDATE
20 January 2006
Due to limited fuel and food supplies, the attempt to get between Japanese whaling ships and the whales had to be curtailed somewhat. Now the move to target consumers in Japan buying whale meat will be the next aim to change human behaviour. As for the so-called research work being carried out by the Japanese on the deceased whales, Kevin Wellspring of Melba, Canberra, had this to say:
"So the Japanese whaling fleet continues to hunt whales in the Southern Ocean for research purposes whilst the Australian Government invents reasons not to intervene.
'Perhaps our Prime Minister could pick up his pen and write to the Japanese Prime Minister requesting a list of referred papers which have been produced as a result of their vital research.
'Such a list should also include the names of the relevant international journals in which these papers have been published.
'He could also be interested in a list of the significant advances in the understanding of whale populations, diseases affecting whales, their ability to recover from harpoon injuries and a heap of more esoteric research resulting from the thousands of whales killed for research purposes over the last, say, 5 years.
'Or perhaps our Prime Minister does not wish to benefit from the results of such a query at the highest level?" (The Canberra Times: Where's research?. 21 January 2006, p.B8.)
UPDATE
25 May 2006
A scientific report titled Slaughtering Science claim Minke whales have dropped to a third of their natural population levels. This is at a time when Japan wants to convince the whaling committee it is okay to increase the killing of whales including the hump backs from 800 to 1,000 per year in 2007. Is Japan able to see the science in this report and not just the alleged science they are performing on the whales?
UPDATE
8 June 2006
The ABC science program Catalyst aired on Australian television has collected all known scientific papers written by Japan about their whaling research over the past 18 years. Roughly 250 papers. Only 55 were peer-reviewed by other scientists (supporting the claim by Japan that its research work benefits the IWC).
What do the 55 papers actually describe? Japan explains the papers were relevant to the sustainability of whales. However only 14 papers could be seen as potentially relevant. But when we ask the question, "Was it necessary to kill the whales to obtain the information?" we find something interesting. Japan claims it was necessary to kill 6,800 whales to get the information to write those 14 papers.
However, the 14 papers fail to explain how the information can be obtained by less intrusive methods. For example, dieting information about the whales through DNA can be achieved by collecting whale faeces in the oceans. All you need is a net at the back end of a whale to pick up a small sample. Want more? No problem. There's plenty to pick up from a whale these days.
Japan, on the other hand, claims they need to kill whales to determine the age of the whales. The precise age is determined by the size of the plug in the whales' ears. Yet the Whaling Committee and other scientists don't need this information. One can simply estimate the age by looking at the whale in its natural environment.
Where killing might be necessary to determine the sustainability of the whales, scientists only found 4 papers. That's 1,700 whales killed per paper.
Japan counters this argument saying Australia kills kangaroos in an unsustainable manner. Yes, but at least Australia isn't making the excuse that it is doing so for scientific research. Australia knows kangaroos are on the Australian menu. And anyway, the culling of this animal is mainly because the population is so high. In times of drought, the kangaroos suffer greatly through starvation. And more importantly, no one is saying kangaroos are endangered. If anything, there is the risk of mass starvation of the kangaroo population. And Australian people think this is more cruel than selectively killing the kangaroos in a quick manner to make them sustainable in the Australian environment. You simply can't do that with the whales. Killing whales, no matter how effective Japanese technology might be, is still a slow and painful experience.
Despite such arguments, Japan is determined to increase the killing of whales including the endangered species such as the humpback whales. So why should Japan be allowed to hunt the endangered humpback whales? And are the other whale species in sufficient numbers?
NOTE: Do we ever need to hunt for animals for food or research? Can genetic-engineering of plants solve all the problems?
UPDATE
16 June 2006
Japan claims it has the scientific evidence to show the whale numbers have increased to sustainable numbers. All it needs is for the IWC to approve whaling and set quota numbers for all nations wanting to partake in whaling. However, an IWC meeting today has quashed Japan's dream for legal hunting of whales for food. Not that it matters to Japan. The nation will continue to kill for scientific research.
UPDATE
24 June 2006
Japan is arguing another reason to resume commercial whaling. This time it is a question of economic survival. There is a view that if whaling is completely banned, both for research purposes and for human consumption, it would cause the collapse of the whaling industry in Japan, stopping researchers from carrying out their research into whales for new ideas, and put people out of work.
As Professor Toshio Kasuya, a marine mammal biologist and a rare and possibly endangered Japanese anti-whaler in his country, said:
"Without the earning from the [whale] meat sales, the whaling organisation that undertakes the government-commissioned research program would be unable to continue operation, and the shipping company that provides the fleet for the program would not be able to recover costs for the whaling vessel construction. This is nothing other than an economic activity. It leaves no room for researchers to carry out research based on their own ideas. It certainly does not conform to the scientific purpose authorised by the IWC convention." (Beeby, Rosslyn. Japanese 'research' just all yen: The Canberra Times. 24 June 2006, p.B7.)
Yes, but isn't Japan smart enough to try a different industry altogether and to train its own people to do something different? In fact, as global warming kicks in, consider getting the Japanese fishermen to learn how to build and run solar power stations. And while we are at it, why not get people back into the rural community to grow food and trees to feed the population and control global warming. A far more socially useful activity.
Mind you, the world could be smarter too. For example, Australia needs a good kick in the arse when it comes to the loss of natural old growth forests of which much goes to the woodchipping industry in Tasmania (and ultimately to Japan who in turn sell it back to Australia as paper at a higher price — yes, Japanese businessmen do have a brain). Australian business professionals still have some learning to do as yet.
UPDATE
14 July 2006
Whaling in the Australian waters off Antarctica by Japanese whalers could become a thing of the past following a Federal Court decision today to allow the Humane Society International (HSI) to proceed with a case to sue Japanese company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd by placing an injunction on the company from further whaling.
Previously a decision by Federal Court judge James Allsop to stop the legal action showed political influence after Attorney-General Philip Ruddock raised the concerns that the case against the Japanese company could spark a diplomatic incident. Now the court's full bench has overturned the Allsop's decision.
As Chief Justice Michael Black and Justice Ray Finkelstein said in this latest judgment:
"We are also persuaded that the primary judge [Allsop] was in error in attaching weight to what we would characterise as a political consideration.
'It may be accepted that while legal disputes may occur in a political context, the exclusively political dimension of the dispute is non-justifiable." (Ralston, Nick. Activists will sue Japanese whalers: The Canberra Times. 15 July 2006, p.10.)
Nicola Beynon, HSI wildlife and habitat program manager, said:
"We now have permission to commence a court case where we will be asking the Federal Court to declare Japan's whaling in Australia's whale sanctuary illegal and order an injunction for the hunt to be stopped." (Ralston, Nick. Activists will sue Japanese whalers: The Canberra Times. 15 July 2006, p.10.)
It is unclear whether the Japanese company will contest the case in the Federal Courts. Somehow the company will have to create a lot more scientific research papers to justify the killings.
UPDATE
31 August 2006
Two Australian commercial fishermen shot and killed 40 seals resting on the rocks of Kanowna Island near the Australian mainland in full view of several marine research students camped nearby. Victorian police are continuing investigations. But there is a general feeling among commercial fisherman that there are too many seals stealing fish and damaging nets and consequently affecting their livelihoods.
UPDATE
October 2006
Iceland decides to resume commercial whaling. It is not clear what the evidence is to support the decision but one must assume it has something to do with the numbers of whales — presumably they are in high numbers. The government of Iceland received a protest letter from 25 nations asking the nation to respect the world moratorium against whaling believing it is unnecessary.
Then again, what can you grow on Iceland these days, other than more ice? They probably need whales to keep the people of Iceland alive instead of eating ice for dinner.
No excuse for Japan to do the same though. The country isn't exactly covered in ice to support the killing of whales.
UPDATE
April 2007
Reducing fish stocks in the oceans caused by overfishing could be contributing to extra shark and sea lion attacks on humans. Further research is taking place to determine if this is true.
UPDATE
15 January 2008
The Australian Federal Court has declared it is illegal for Japan to hunt whales in Australian and Antarctic territorial waters from this day onwards. It is now up to the Federal (Rudd) Government to somehow enforce the law without causing a diplomatic incident or to affect trade between the two nations. Somehow one gets the feeling this is not the end.
Environmental groups have come up with a plan: to chase and film the Japanese in the act of killing whales in the territorial region governed by Australian law. In that way, the evidence can be used in a court of law and could result in massive fines for the Japanese company to pay.
So far it seems successful as the Japanese whalers don't want to find themselves breaking the law. Currently the Japanese whalers are trying to outrun the environmental groups in their ships in the hope they can resume whaling in secret.
UPDATE
31 March 2014
The International Court of Justice on Japan's whaling programme has made a legal and binding decision today stating that Japan should not continue whaling in the southern oceans using the argument of scientific research. Whatever whales have been killed by Japan in recent times must be for human consumption since all scientific information about whales obtained by scientists are sufficient and any further research can be done using non-destructive methods. Until Japan seeks approval to continue hunting whales based on a quota system, Japan must effectively stop all whaling immediately.
Japan has indicated it will respect the decision. And to show no ill feelings, there will be no adverse economic consequences for Australia in terms of the upcoming free trade agreement to be signed between the two countries. Australia appreciates this acceptance. While it does not legally prohibit the culling of whales in the northern hemisphere so long as those few nations involved in this activity stick to approved quotas (and perhaps in the southern oceans as well if Japan can get approval for a reasonable whaling quota), the decision is a reasonable step forward to resolving this controversy.
NOTE: Consumer demand for whale meat is declining in Iceland, Norway and Japan. So maybe Japan won't need to seek approval for getting a whaling quota in the southern oceans — not enough people in the future will support the activity.
The decimation of fish stocks in the oceans
If whale populations are not a strong enough indicator of something happening in the human population (either too many people, or profit is the fundamental problem) to affect the numbers in other species for whatever reason, scientific research is revealing strong evidence that fish stocks in the oceans as a whole are being decimated at the present time. And no, whales are not eating them all.
In the meantime, such astute observers of the latest evidence such as Jenny Goldie, the National Director of Sustainable Population Australia, have to say in a letter to the editor of The Canberra Times dated 20 September 2003 (p.B11):
”In your front-page report on the parlous state of our [Australian] fish stocks ("Loved to death: our fish stocks in crisis", CT, September 18), it is suggested Australians may have to cut consumption of fish in half.
Such reductions were forecast by CSIRO's Barney Foran and Franzi Poldy in their comprehensive report on population and resources "Future Dilemmas" published last year, except they said so in the context of Australia's population reaching 50 million.
Clearly, the situation is even more urgent than they anticipated.
It does illustrate, however, the central problem of a growing population: that the per-capita availability of resources, such as fresh water or [ocean] fish, progressively declines as the number of people increases [especially if the resources form an integral part of developing human society].
Supply of a natural resource may go into a steep dive at some point, or even irreversible decline.
Cod populations in the North Atlantic, for instance, have not bounced back even after the Canadian fisheries were closed.
Those seeking an ever-higher population for Australia, or are complacent about still-exploding populations in some developing countries, have to understand this basic population/resource balance equation. You simply cannot have unending growth in a world of finite resources."
The quote strongly suggests an overpopulation issue as being the fundamental reason for the rapid depletion of natural fish stocks. Well, something has to be eating and depleting the fish and it isn't the sharks (or the whales) doing all the work.
Or is the observation of reduced fish numbers masking a more fundamental issue? Perhaps it has to do with the profit of businesses in over-fishing the oceans for extra money?
Or, we could let the fishermen blame the problem on their massive nets for not being able to properly discriminate the more valuable food resources from the rest of the non-valuable ones (e.g., leaving the females behind and the younger fish and those that are not marketable or don't provide much feed to humans).
Or, we could blame it on the scientists for not coming up with a better solution to capturing fish rather than letting the size of the nets scoop up too much out of the oceans?
Or perhaps blame it on the people whose job it is to manage the fishermen and the fish stocks they capture?
Or blame it on global warming (of the natural kind, of course) as a number of business people and government sources of developed nations want to argue.
Or how about we just accept the premise that humans, in whatever numbers exist on land or reasons they have in doing what they do, are having an impact on the number of animals in the oceans and on land, and stop blaming everything on natural causes?
Simple enough really.
Is the government contradicting itself into thinking there is no over-population of humans on the planet?
Continuing on the fish stock depletion theme, an increasing number of commercial fishermen are arguing how important their mission is to feed the human race. Sounds familiar? Brings back memories of Takebe’s statement about the whales causing human starvation. Before it may have been to quietly make a profit from selling the fish (and probably still do to this day) and to feed their families. But now, as human population increases, it seems the commercial fishermen are making themselves more integral than ever before to the survival of the human race by claiming that they are there to feed people. And many of them do this while still indiscriminately catching huge numbers of fish in large nets.
It seems a similar view exists for commercial farmers growing food on the land.
One can see how the idea has come about. To feed the human population, farmers feel compelled to expand their food production with the help of generous government subsidies.
Are certain governments with their generous subsidies indirectly suggesting that the population is too large and need more food to be produced by the farmers?
UPDATE
December 2005
The Australian Federal Government through Fisheries Minister Ian McDonald has announced a A$220 million plan to buy back Commonwealth licenses from the fishing industry to help curb overfishing in Australian waters for the sake of maintaining a viable business in the next 5 to 10 years.
Not quite so easy, of course, is buying back the lands of farmers who grow food for the nations.
Or, if there is an over-population problem for humans, why not provide every man, woman and child a packet of condoms? It might help provide a long-term solution.
Or are the disadvantaged people in society creating all the over-population problems?
If the Government cannot blame other animals for the human problems including population, the more R-wing types will attempt to blame the problem on certain people in society, in particular the weak, the poor and other disadvantaged people, especially if they are likely to create large families.
As some well-heeled people would say, "If there weren't so many poor people around, we wouldn't have to feed so many people."
UPDATE
February 2009
Some Governments in developed nations will take on the reverse view by saying that there is a need for higher population levels, so long as the extra people entering into the world are young and not too poor or uneducated so they can be quickly trained and put into much needed jobs in the economy.
Well, actually, here lies the solution:
Under-developed and developing nations are noted for their high population of young people from large families compared to the population of older people in developed nations. It seems all these young people need is an opportunity to do work.
As the population of developed nations get predominantly older and smarter, currently some Western companies think it is better to go offshore to set up the factories in these poorer nations because of cheaper labour (only to sell products at high prices in Western shops). Why not reverse the trend? Open up the borders of Western nations to allow people from poorer nations to work in developed nations, thereby supporting the economy and let older people in rich nations generate new jobs for the environment and technology to solve world problems?
The only two things stopping this idea from becoming reality is (i) the concern about terrorism; (ii) the ability to tolerate differences in people and their cultures; and (iii) how much businesses are willing to pay in taxes and wages to people who do the jobs in the developed nations.
In the first instance, we need to immediate tackle the problems between Israel and Palestine, and the Syrian civil war, and find methods of growing food cheaply in Africa and those warring Middle East countries to ensure people do not live in fear and anger to the point where terrorism could become a problem.
In the second instance, people have got to become accustomed to having different people from many nations (i.e. a multicultural society) working together in a developed nation.
If we can succeed on this quest, there is no reason why a new world order cannot take place where each country is seen as a world state rather than a world country, a single overarching world government can direct the flow of people in different nations to assist with various solutions for each state, and ultimately reduce the gap between rich and poor, control population levels in poorer nations, better education for all, greater tolerance levels and acceptance of a wider range of people from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds etc.
Relying on genetic engineering to solve food shortages
One possible indication of high population is the way some scientists have to resort to genetic engineering to solve the food shortage and food quality problems. (7)
UPDATE
21 November 2003
If there is a problem with our genetic engineering, all it takes is roughly 50 years before the problem expands through hybridisation and reproduction until the genetically-modified material eventually replaces the natural version. Or it could rapidly improve the problems in society. It depends on how much testing scientists do with the modified form. To use crops as a case to answer, managing director of the Grains Research and Development Corporation, Professor John Lovett, said Australia's reliance on imported crop genetics could eventually see traditional crops be completely replaced by genetic variants within 50 years:
"It's quite likely that the plants we will rely on in 50 years' time will be different. They may be the same species, they may be completely different species.
'They will almost certainly be used for different purposes." (8)
The question now becomes, "What happens if a Monsanto-type of seed replaces all natural forms? How will the population survive if the company suddenly collapses, or no one is able to afford the cost of the seed, especially if the seed only grows once and can never reseed itself naturally?"
Will this affect human population in a dramatic way?
Politicians have to suggest methods of reducing the human impact on the environment
There is evidence that some politicians have to make remarks suggesting people need rubber bungs for their backsides to solve certain pollution problems as if there are too many people creating other world problems (e.g., the environment). For instance, former Australian environment minister Tim Moore made the particularly hilarious comment on 22 November 1989 that, "...putting rubber bungs in people's back-sides is the fastest solution to [the] beach pollution problem." For further details about this, click here.
Governments have to reduce publicly-owned land to house more people in the cities
Probably more to do with profit than anything else, especially if the area is in a prime spot. But one can't help think of the possibility that over-population could be an issue when we hear the Government and businesses have to reduce the amount of green "publicly-owned" space by way of parks and ovals to make way for new, high density townhouses, supermarkets, office blocks etc.
The things we need to survive must have a monetary value and the cost to buy these things increases more and more over time
A commonly stated view of R-wing governments and many business operators is the idea that "there is no such thing as a free lunch", as if nothing is free, not even for the most basic and fundamentals things we all need in life (including the oxygen we breathe according to astonishing stories emerging from some parts of Japan where people are now having to pay business operators for fresh oxygen just to improve the quality of their lives; or even fresh water). Either a very clever marketing approach to encouraging people to buy everything from businesses, or there is indeed a shortage in critical resources and the higher costs are indicative of an unsustainable population.
In the meantime, the price for the most basic foods, housing and other fundamental social services suddenly goes up for some reason. Then disadvantaged groups in society either have to suffer (with the hope of dying sooner rather than later according to the unspoken wish list of various right-wing "L-brain" governments) or fight in negative ways for their share of the needy resources.
People have to fight for their share of the remaining resources
There is an observation that crime rates in society goes up as more and more people fight for their share of the resources while coping with a rather difficult and unsupportive world. Either this is a population issue, or some people are too obsessive by profit and keeping their wealth to themselves.
To improve the chances of getting access to the resources, people may also get involved in organised crime such as eliminating competition through murder, using fear and violence as a means of getting resources and money from other people and so on. Such behaviour for the sake of surviving easily is what has made many a Hollywood movies like "The Godfather" famous (or infamous depending on how you want to see this situation — as many Mafia families can attest).
As crime rates go up (or more likely they get displaced from one criminal activity to another), the government would prefer to lock people up in prison and throw away the key for life (or even introduce the death penalty) because it is claimed to be too expensive to solve the problem any other way. But the funny thing is that the Government is prepared to spend A$25,000 per year for each person they want to keep in prison or until such time when a good enough legal reason is found to send people to death. It makes one wonder what would happen if the same money could have been used to provide education, housing and feeding these people before they get involved in crime in the first place? Would society have to face crime as we do today?
Otherwise, there is a natural feeling of insecurity growing among ordinary citizens in society. As crime rates increase, the government must spend more money on law enforcement and building up the Defence forces to presumably bring greater law and order, and security, in society. More government advertisements on television and in newspapers become the norm to help calm the public that security measures are being taken so long as people maintain a certain level of vigilance in security matters. The rich and working Australians are learning to stay at home, purchase plasma screens to watch the world around them, lock up property inside garages and homes secured with alarm systems and, if possible, go on holidays in the more secure and familiar local region instead of going overseas.
As the cost of law enforcement to handle the increasing numbers of mentally-ill patients left to defend themselves in the community without adequate support and those other individuals and groups using crime as a means of survival or become rich increases and puts a burden on the budgets of State and Federal Governments who must support the wider more populated community, the Governments start to think it is cheaper to lock up criminals and people with mental illness in prisons and mental institutions.
For example, in a meeting held by mental health professionals on 6 February 2004, Mental Health Council of Australia chief executive Dr Grace Groom accused the NSW Government headed by Labor leader Mr Bob Carr of taking on a "law-and-order" approach to dealing with people having a mental illness in order to save money by the Government. Dr Groom said:
"They [the NSW Government] should be asking, "How do we care for people with a mental illness?" rather than how do we lock them up?" (9)
Then police officers start to feel more insecure to the point they have to start shooting with the aim to kill anyone who holds a knife in a hand, or who has a mental illness. And then they make excuses that they are simply defending themselves and the community when the person carrying the knife has done nothing to attack someone.
As the insecurities of life settle in and the number of cases of crime increases, police officers start to feel the need to have more time to relax, be more creative, and just be themselves because they have so much crime to solve and so little time and other resources to do it all.
UPDATE
September 2003
Some Governments in the world (notably the State and Federal Governments in Australia) have boosted the police force numbers to record levels at certain times of the year. A lot of fuss will be made about it to the media (to give a sense that governments are doing the right thing and society can feel more secure). Yet, on the other side of the coin, we have crime continuing in modern Western society. Why? Do the Governments need to employ every citizen in the world to act as police officers to ensure crime is eliminated? Well, at least everyone will have something to do so long as money is available from the Government to pay for the work!
UPDATE
June 2004
Police officers are trying to make enough money and leave in droves as the stress of work claim a number of casualties. A few individuals heading the police force in some stations are putting up a brave face to the media claiming they have enough funding and there is enough police doing the work and controlling crime.
The number of crimes then get translated into a large number of people being kept in prison (including those with relatively minor offences such as poor children stealing food from a local supermarket) and fighting in the courts for trivial matters. As a result, people in the legal profession are increasingly being forced to provide quicker and possibly ill-conceived judgements and/or dispatch particularly lenient sentences, even for serious crime like murder, so that the average person on the street do not overburden the legal and prison system (because ultimately it costs the taxpayers a huge amount of money to support and maintain). Talk of building new prisons soon becomes a reality for a number of governments. The governments will use the excuse that building prisons is needed to increase employment prospects for people.
NOTE: It is far better for society as a whole and for the long-term security of everyone concerned to have only lenient sentences for serious crimes if people can be rehabilitated. It is not a question of locking people away for the rest of their lives (or even putting them to death) and expect the problem to be solved. That is too naive and silly. The problem will still return in the future again and again no matter how much money is spent on law enforcement, extra prisons, or bullets used to put the people to death, because we have not learnt a thing about why it happened. For the problems to be properly eliminated, more effort should be made to learn why people do the things they do and then try to implement opposite approaches to helping everyone reach a more balanced state.
The law courts, both locally and in the High Court of a nation, have their own trouble handling the growing weight of cases to be processed, especially in an incompassionate society and where populations may be too high. So instead of going through the cases properly and ensuring justice is delivered, the cases are quickly dealt with through behind-the-scenes mediation in order to get some form of quick agreement in writing by the opposing parties. Rarely is all the evidence listened to. Judges are more interested in closing the cases as quickly as possible and will tend to lend support to the party with the bigger financial capacity to win such cases rather than search for the truth. If a case does end up in the courts, judges may be forced to say "Ignorance of the law is no longer an excuse". So even if you have clear evidence to win the fight and prove your claim, you might as well close the case now if you don't know the law. As Maxwell Lotton of Calwell in Canberra has learned of the Australian legal system today:
"The article "Ignorance of law no excuse: justices" [The Canberra Times, 17 June 2004, p.5.] is a frightening revelation of the position of the law in our society.
'It has long been a standing joke that "the law and justice sometimes coincide" but to have the highest court in the land confirm it is no joking matter.
'The man in the street is interested only in justice.
'If law does not provide justice, does this mean that law is irrelevant and should be disregarded by all but the lawyers?" (10)
And to make it even harder for people to get justice, the cost of hiring a lawyer to understand the law properly would be too prohibitive for the average person and there is still no guarantee of winning the case despite all the evidence (because it has to be clear, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, and be well-understood by the judge otherwise it would be ignored even if an expert is present to explain it).
Insurance premiums go up
Insurance companies and the Government has to increase the cost of premiums for things like health and property because of a large number of claims from people. And it isn't so much a profit-motivated action by the insurance companies. According to Private Health Insurance Administration Council chief executive Hayle Ginnane in Australia:
"Generally, the entire [private health insurance] industry is operating on very tight margins — 90 cents in every contribution dollar goes out again in benefits.
'Estimates benefits paid for contributors will exceed A$7.5 billion this year. Increases in contribution rates are necessary to meet these increased benefits in a mainly not-for-profit market. The 30 per cent [government] rebate [estimated to provide $2.4 billion] provides support in meeting the costs of contributions." (11)
The main cause for an increase in health insurance premiums is an increase in the number of people entering private hospitals and the higher costs of treatment. As for property insurance premium hikes, it is primarily large numbers of people claiming for lost, stolen or damaged property.
## SPECIAL NOTE ##
Higher insurance premiums could also be an issue of greed by some claimants wanting to receive money from the insurance companies for any reason (a problem with the way Western society emphasises money as more important than anything else).
Fewer places for accommodation and higher unemployment
There are observations that people in highly populated areas have difficulties finding accommodation. What few places for accommodation exist in society are often priced exorbitantly higher than what most people can afford to purchase or rent. So instead people, especially the so-called Generation X, make the lifestyle choice of spending money for the "here-and-now" things like Plasma TV screens, holidays, restaurants and cafes, expensive cars and so on. Little money is saved for the future or to purchase anything that will last too long to pay off.
Either a profit problem by landlords, or there is not enough resources to build new houses to help with the extra people.
UPDATE
February 2009
During times of economic recession, the focus will be on essential items such as a roof over their heads, food and friends. Expensive ticket items will be ignored. Naturally this would put more pressure on businesses to sack employees or reduce their hours of work in order to stay barely profitable. The latter would be preferred as losing jobs would only decrease the likelihood of people purchasing products thereby putting more pressure on businesses to make a profit.
Health costs go up and social services provided by governments are cut back
The Government and businesses have to reduce spending on health and social services because they claim it is costing them too much. (12)
Again is this a high population issue?
Finding employment is more difficult and requires many more people to fight and compete
The Government has to implement new employment policies that forces as many people to work in virtually any job considered suitable to the Government to help support the population (and not only because people are getting older).
This suggests that either the demand for services across many areas has risen due to population growth and/or old age, or the Government is trying to save money for an election year by getting people to do any kind of job over short periods of time (to make the statistics look good). Or perhaps businesses need people to have any kind of employment so they can receive some money from them to pay for goods, which is good for the government to maintain the economy and great for business to keep certain people rich.
Whatever the case, the jobs market with limited permanent and full time (for adequate pay) employment forces more and more people to look increasingly desperate for any type of job and in keeping it once they find one, even if it is not what they like or enjoy. Requirements of "Love whatever work you're in", "Smile constantly", "Get cosmetic surgery to force a natural smile with a bit of botex or whatever", "Lift up your breasts and make them look bigger and nicer", "Lose weight" and so on, start to become the norm for staying in the job longer. Otherwise some employers will find an excuse to sack employees for not "looking right" for the job.
As jobs are hard to come by, keeping a job and preventing others from getting a job becomes increasingly important. Many people are often prepared to work overtime, perform shift work, work faster and within tighter deadlines, and even go without holidays and overtime pay just to prove to the employer how valuable they are at work. The consequence of this approach is that there is often very little time to do anything else in life other than work. Thus all those other important things like family life, exercising, sleeping and eating a good diet are often overlooked., resulting in more health problems, and a greater burden on the health system to fix up the problems.
Then health premiums for private health have to go up to handle the extra cases of people with poor health.
Then the children of these overworked parents grow up with poor food eating habits, too much watching television or playing games on the computers if not preoccupied with homework, become obese, display poor manners when dealing with strangers, and have little person-to-person communication unless it is on the Internet.
Or people may decide not to have a family at all so they can perform their work without other stressors to contend with. Staying single or getting a divorce is therefore quite common.
UPDATE
25 October 2003
It is actually easier and less costly to co-habit with one or more people under one roof. The expectations on individuals to meet the needs of others becomes much less and therefore people can live with far less financial and social stress. As a result, the divorce rate is now no higher than in 1981 because people are choosing cohabitation as the way to survive today.
However while divorce rates for married couples remain high, those co-habitation circumstances leading to a de facto relationship between two people are increasingly likely to experience a break up now than had occurred in the past. According to recent statistics on Australian couples, as early as 1970s, only 16 per cent of people had lived with their partner before getting married. In 1995, the figure has jumped to 72 per cent. When couples do actually get married within 5 fives of co-habiting under the same roof, 64 per cent would do so back in the early 1970s. In the 1990s, the figure has gone down to 40 per cent.
And when couples co-habiting under the same roof decide to break up, the figure was 40 per cent in the 1990s compared to 22 per cent in the 1970s.
Of course, in such potentially intimate arrangements between couples (usually of opposite sexes) children may be brought into the world. Consequently this explains why more and more children are living with a sole parent (usually with the mother) today. The statistics support this view when we see that around 3 per cent of children born to a sole mother occurred between 1963 and 1975. In 2001, the figure has grown to 11.4 per cent.
These figures were drawn from a study conducted by Professor David de Vaus at the Sociology Department in La Trobe University. The results were published by the university in a book titled Diversity and Change in Australian Families.
Students at school start to behave like adults to compete for the limited resources and offerings
In support of the higher numbers of people competing for employment and the need for more and more people to be multiskilled and to work faster, students at school are made to follow a similar trend. From primary school right up to college, students are placed in large class sizes and are forced to complete a large number of different courses in order to get a reasonably broad (but not indepth) range of skills.
Now this may seem like a noble cause on the surface of things because it is difficult to predict what the world will be like in five years from now, let alone in 20 years. Young people need enough skills to cope with whatever new world they will face in the future. However the result of taking this approach in the modern education system is giving students less time to complete all work required of them by their teachers, increased stress and hyperactivity, plagiarising work to get the high marks needed to keep their parents (and later employers) happy in order to help them survive in society easily, unable to concentrate on a single task for long periods of time, increased misbehaviour in class, greater escapism through video games, practising unsafe sex, higher levels of bullying behaviour in the playground as kids find avenues to relieve their stress at the expense of others etc.
Consequently, students are more likely to follow the adult "L-brain" trend of becoming manipulative and learning to be deceptive to get something done or achieve goals as quickly as possible, to fight one another, and even if they are trying to be honest will quickly pick out information from any source (even if there are no authoritative references available to support the information) and often without doing much interpretation on that information and then inserting the information into their essays, assignments or reports ready to pass them off as their own work.
Otherwise students becoming stressed at school is not unusual and tends to follow a similar trend as with the adults.
NOTE: Perhaps the education system could be due for a major overhaul of how students should learn. Instead of trying to learn as many things as possible, the aim in the future might be to balance this with a subject that allows students to focus on one topic for up to 3 or 6 months in a year and ignoring all other subjects for a while. This may help younger boys to train their frontal cortex to concentrate on a single task of interest to them for a long period of time. Chances of boys and some girls experiencing hyperactivity, lack of concentration and other problems could be minimised by implementing such a system.
Social hate groups increase
When things are difficult by way of finding employment and getting a share of the resources because of over-population or greed of some people, there is an increase in the number of "hate" groups on the Internet or elsewhere who target specific people such as the blacks (there are lots of them in Africa who will migrate to find work just to survive and feed their families), the Christians (they populate like rabbits), or the Jews (they keep to themselves, rigid in their thinking, and make lots of money) because they feel these people are the cause for so many world problems.
UPDATE
July 2004
The problem is getting worse in places like Russia as the citizens of this nation struggle to survive and realise people from other nations living in Russia are taking quite a few of the jobs in the country. The result is young Russians getting together to promote racism (and following in the ideas of the former dictator of Germany, Adolf Hitler).
UPDATE
29 July 2005
In the latest study published today in the journal Science, a group of black and white American volunteers living in New York, USA, were subjected to mild electric shocks in the interests of science. Nothing too great to cause injury. Just enough of a painful electric shock in the subjects to make the brain of these subjects learn to associate fear in certain specific images shown to the subjects at the time the shocks were made.
The purpose of this study was to see how people of a different race behaved to certain images of people of another race which they have quickly learned to be fearful of because of the electric shocks and what happens when experiencing the same or similar images of this different race over a period of time after the shocks were removed. What was found by the scientists is that once the electric shocks were removed, people quickly overcame their fear of images showing butterflies, birds and, interestingly enough, neutral faces of people having the same colour skin as their own. However, images of spiders, snakes and people having the opposite skin colour took much longer (if at all) to overcome the fear.
It would appear people quickly felt comfortable and less fearful with people of their own race, but not so for other races.
What this appears to prove is that humans have developed distinct races in the past 100,000 years by learning through our experiences the hardships we have encountered with different races and even different species living on this planet. Where there is a conflict between different human races, it is likely because at some point in people's lives, there was a negative experience that made people stick to their own racial kind for comfort, security and love because people that look similar to us are more likely to provide the love.
It is believed to be a natural evolutionary skill the brain has learned to ensure different races and even species do not readily intermingle otherwise we could become the next meal for another animal or be subjected to further pain and hardship under the rules of humans from a different race.
This behaviour of sticking to our own kind and race is believed to be a natural survival instinct. But it is a type of instinct we have learned from our immediate social environment as well as our evolutionary history.
So what happens when people of different races go out on a date and experience many positive things? The study looked at a number of volunteers who fit this criteria and noticed that after the electric shocks were removed were quickly able to overcome their fear of different races.
Mahzarin Banaji, a member of the research team which conducted the study at Harvard University, said:
"The optimistic news is that this predisposition to fear members of another race may be changed by close personal contact.
'We are products of our evolutionary history and our immediate social environment. The former we don't control [at least not in our lifetimes], the latter we certainly do." (Smith, Deborah. Racial fear banished by closer contact: The Sydney Morning Herald. 30-31 July 2005, p.7.)
Emergency services have difficulty helping everyone
Emergency services spokespeople say they can no longer guarantee help to people in an emergency situation because there is not enough staff to handle the demand.
UPDATE
13 January 2004
Whether it is a profit issue, or governments of the world don't want to acknowledge high populations in the debate on the current health crisis. Instead, the governments will choose to keep quiet (since high population numbers having a paid job are needed around election times) especially while there are no complaints from doctors and other medical staff. But eventually, as the stress of handling the growing population (which in itself is also facing stress or is choosing to live it up too much without thinking about the consequences) increases and puts a toll on the aspiration of many young would-be doctors and nurses and those already in the profession are considering early retirement, the government starts to make excuses that there is not enough doctors to solve the health crisis instead of admitting the population is way too high for true sustainability and not enough people are looking after themselves.
Later, reports of patients being quietly euthanised just to free up beds for other patients start to emerge and become investigated by the police.
The Government has to demand an increase in the cost of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) medications for the average person on the street to pay. In other words, where expensive life-saving drugs were previously subsidised by the government to allow people to survive, now the Government has seen the opportunity to save money by reducing the subsidies and asking people to pay more for their drugs. As Annette Ellis MP, Australian Federal Member for Canberra and Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Minister for Family and Community Services, said:
"The Coalition [Liberal (Howard)] Government attempted to increase the cost of PBS medications by 30% in the May [2002] Budget. Labor voted against this increase and the Bill was defeated in both Houses.
'While we believe there is no doubt that the funding of Australia's health system must be reviewed, raising funds by charging the elderly, the sick and families is just not fair." (13)
UPDATE
September 2003
The Howard Government is trying very hard to balance its approach to the problem by advertising on television the importance of people using the PBS to ask a health professionals for drugs that they need only. This is a reasonable attempt. Putting stricter controls on the sale of cigarettes to children is another good attempt by the Government to improve the health of future Australians and ultimately the public health system. But the real test will come when the Government is required to put in the right legislation to ensure businesses operate in a balanced and sustainable way and to treat employees and the less fortunate members of our society well by giving them the time outside the business community to look after their own health and to do the right thing, as well as giving them healthy options (instead of everything being made to taste good and nothing else). Because this is how real savings are made by the Government in providing health services to the community.
People turn to drugs, sex and other activities as an avenue to looking at things in a positive way
People feel generally agitated, irritated and/or cynical about various issues in life because of limited resources and support and their encounters and experiences with so many other similarly irritated people.
To bring back positive feelings and seeing life in a good way, people turn to drugs, sex, theft and other activities for relief from human hardship (including having to listen to more problems from other people) in a modern uncreative and unemotional "Westernised" world.
Speaking of drugs, some people have to set up hydroponics in homes to grow illegal plants so they can sell the drugs and make enough money to afford the cost of things. Because with the money, people can buy food, buy a fancy house like almost everyone else, and so on. At first the drugs are there to help pay for food and housing (sometimes it is for their own drug use), and later it becomes an avenue for getting rich quickly.
Social security agencies have to purchase massive supercomputers costing millions of dollars just to handle the huge numbers of people on welfare. Then to reduce the impact of a large number of people on the welfare system, supercomputers are programmed to detect anything that may look suspicious or give the government any grounds to remove as many people as possible from welfare via pattern-matching techniques.
Governments become cynical about solving world problems and choose draconian methods to force people into employment
The Government starts being cynical about social problems by saying things like, "We can't abolish poverty" and "It's not our fault for society's problems". For a glimpse of this extraordinary attitude in the current Australian Federal (Howard) Government, please read this article. (2)
Nevertheless, the problems still have to be tackled in some way before they get out of hand.
So, the Government will try to find a scapegoat when implementing their socially negative, cost-cutting programs, thinking the problem lies with the disadvantaged for not lifting up their game and finding employment as the government's only solution to solving world problems.
This is particularly true of R-wing governments who get into power. These types of governments are prepared to blame the weak, the unemployed, the poor, and all the least important people for all the social problems. They do this indirectly by subjecting the disadvantaged people to financial hardship through unexpected overpayments in the social security system which have to be suddenly paid back often at a late stage; a sudden and unexpected reduction in rental assistance from the government; the use of secret surveillance activities to find out whether people are doing and if they are doing the right thing or not (and if not, attempt to remove them from further financial support); indirectly influencing the disadvantaged to join the Defence force as the only solution; and/or reducing government funding to public educational institutions in order to get the disadvantaged to join the Defence force or to enter specific areas of employment which the Government wants (3).
And all this effort in an attempt to convince the taxpayer the government is justified on moral grounds to remove the disadvantaged from social security services or having to pay for any appropriate training and/or education using these draconian methods.
Indeed, R-wing governments will spend millions of dollars trying to create evidence through situations of entrapment and surveillance activities developed by the Government to help allegedly prove that people are "not doing the right thing" and therefore create the moral and legal grounds to deny people further government support. While a few might get what they deserve, the majority of people are doing the right thing. But the Government is more interested in showing examples of the few doing the wrong thing and then claim the entire world problems of poverty, unemployment, overpopulation and other issues is due to these disadvantaged people.
And the solution? Just get these people into employment.
it might explain why some R-wing governments are prepared to say things like "It is better to have a bad boss, than no boss [or, by implications, job] at all". For example, according to official media reports, Australian Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott was known to have said in July 2002 that:
"...it was better to have a bad boss than no boss at all..." (4)
Abbott was a young minister at the time when he made this statement. He iwas learning the long and presumably honorable traditional R-wing ways of the Australian Liberal (Howard) Government (perhaps learning a little too well for most people's liking).
This just proves the serious creative "ideas" drain in the collective thinking of R-wing governments and their supporters, mainly. Why? Because they do not want to change the system. Why would they? It is making them rich, isn't it? So there can't be a problem with the current economic system if they are rich. The problem has to be with the disadvantaged people.
NOTE: Now if only those millions of dollars spent on surveillance activities could be redirected to more useful social and "self-esteem building" activities like low-cost education, access to low-cost and stable accommodation, and encourage people to contribute in their own way to society (before the ones who are doing very well for themselves start to burden everyone else with their problems and expectations), the government will almost certainly have a better chance of solving the financial and social problems.
Governments struggle to find funding to support carers given the numbers of sick or disabled people to look after
To save even more money, a R-wing government will suggest to parents caring for neglected children of other families (another over-population problem?) to fill in the form for being a guardian of the children instead of being a carer. This means the Government can cut the family allowance to the parents to an absolute minimum. Then the Government will argue that the children are not at risk just so that the government can avoid allowing parents in financial strife to be legally classified as carers.
Governments can't handle extra people from overseas if they can't control how they arrive
The Government has to treat the increasing number of asylum seekers entering the borders of a country with contempt and made to live like second-class citizens in appalling detention centres or prisons (should be aptly named concentration camps given how similar the asylum seekers are treated short of being put to death as the Jewish people had been under the Nazis) for years as if the current political climate does not encourage compassion and generosity of spirit to the visitors. The reason for this, according to the Government, is primarily because of high costs to feed, house and provide security to asylum seekers (and now, following the 11 September 2001 attacks in New York, the Government feels it has a legitimate concern of terrorists getting into the country).
NOTE: It has been argued that the cost to feed, house and provide security for one asylum seeker in an Australian detention center is equivalent to putting an Australian student through medical school.
Costs to the government to educate people is considered too much
There are too many students, as if suggesting a high population, to educate in public schools and universities, so the Government reduces funding to the institutions with the ultimate aim of fully deregulating the entire education system.
Then the government says you have lots of choices, but somehow manages to restrict you to just one or two particularly "well-funded" or "incentive-loaded" areas until enough people have joined and then later get them to pay high fees for the services. Examples of this include increased funding to private educational institutions (where parents are still required to pay a high fee for their children's education) and less to public educational institutions, and the public health insurance industry such as those in Australia and the US.
Governments recommend conserving resources to the people
While some people might argue a natural cause for the depletion of natural resources, some governments do acknowledge a reduction in the amount of available fresh water supplies for human drinking purposes as a likely population problem, but not openly. So they will advise the population to conserve water and later enforce it through legislation instead of controlling population (because people will spend more money on conserving water through new technologies provided by businesses as an incentive to support the economy).
In the meantime, governments receiving taxes from their citizens would prefer to ignore there is a population problem partly because some governments are too profit-motivated to do the right thing or just need the money to pay for essential services because they need to win the next election, or others simply don't know what the solution is. So the governments thinks is more people, more employment and eventually more growth will see more solutions to current problems. It means people will continue to build more homes to support a greater population level without advising people that there could be a population problem (or a population that is not yet reached sustainability for the amount of natural resources available to the population).
As Zac Bamba of Ballina, NSW, Australia, has noticed as of September 2003:
"In view of the fact that Premier Bob Carr has advised we will face water shortages in Sydney, why then are new land subdivisions being sanctioned? It seems something of a paradox to me.
'Will the quality of life in Sydney be any better when we are 10 or 20 million souls as compared to today?" (5)
Governments have to be clever in increasing the taxes they can receive from people to help pay for services
For example, during the (Howard) Government era, a decision was made to change legislation to help classify more and more people as employees rather than "self-employed" contractors running a business (including situations where they allow recruitment agencies to match clients for them and/or after working for a period of time for one client). In that way, the Government can maximise the tax they receive from these people.
The Government has to classify more people as earning a high income through "tax bracket creep" so people have to pay extra tax. Then around election time, the Government may give a small tax cut to its citizens as if the people have short memories and therefore will re-elect the Government for being nice enough to give a fraction of the money back. As the Australian Labor Shadow Treasurer Mr Mark Latham has remarked in September 2003 about tax bracket creeps:
"As wages go up [for the average working Australians], people move into higher tax brackets. They pay more taxes through to [Treasurer Peter] Costello. And the government at budget time gives part of them back in the form of a sandwich and milkshake tax cut.
'So it's a bit of a pea-and-thimble trick, to collect more taxes over the 12 months and then give back part of them in the budget. That's not something that's actually going to help the average Australian family." (6)
Quality of processed foods tend to go down
The quality of the most basic foods sold to a large number of people suddenly takes a downturn due to the high demand for the food and limited resources to handle the demand. Shortcuts are taken in the businesses manufacturing the foods. Quality control takes a backward step. Then people find problems in the food they eat.
For example, you may buy bread or a packet of muesli and then discover a regular mouthful of what tastes remarkably like a piece of "rat faeces" fell in it, or whoever prepared the food "didn't clean their hands". Sometimes this rude awakening in the tastebud can be so strong, it can linger in your breath for several days after eating the food.
So perhaps the food labels should now say, "No preservatives or colouring. However, this product may contain traces of faeces as a potential flavouring enhancer. Eat with extreme caution!"
People have to go to war to fight for basic resources
People have to fight in wars for such simple things as adequate food and territory just to grow food, house people, and generally just survive properly.
Then a cynical R-wing government starts to believe that war is the only solution to the population problem when it finally acknowledges what the problem is after all this time.
Along similar lines, certain governments has to spend huge amounts of money on Defence (including an increase in the number of television and newspaper advertisements to recruit new Army reservists) and explain to the public how great the new Defence housing establishments containing all the latest modern technological conveniences for military officers are. They do this not only to emphasise the Government's (and all other rich and powerful people's) perceived insecurity in the world in not solving world problems properly as well as attracting the less fortunate to Defence like a rabbit to a carrot, but also as a "final solution" to the human population problem (especially those people who overburden the system such as the long-term unemployed).
As an incentive to join the Defence, the Government redirects money from vital social security budgets to Defence budgets. Finally the next step is to see social security pensions cut-off after a short period of time (as occurs in the United States), where it is hoped people will suddenly see the miraculous attraction (or the light) in joining the military and thus all the supposed glory in fighting a war for your country.
And if that is not enough of an incentive, a R-wing Government has to use dubious means of getting the disadvantaged into the Defence forces. For example, it would not be unusual if young Defence cadets were to suddenly hang around near a long-term unemployed person who happens to be at one regular location (e.g. the library), and start talking about how great it is to be in Defence, getting paid for going to university etc. If that does not provide sufficient indirect incentive to get the long-term unemployed person into the Defence forces, there is also the nasty approach which is to find anything the disadvantaged person may be doing wrong and try to get them into trouble with the law until the person cannot continue with his/her activities.
On a more subtle approach, Defence personnel may try to destroy civilian relationships and make it difficult to find stable accommodation for the disadvantaged person. Then the Defence personnel and/or their families and friends will give the impression they are friendly, stable and helpful so the person would think that being in Defence is the way to go.
Or certain people within the Department of Defence, with the approval of the Federal Government (unless you are in the US Army, in which case you can do almost anything you like), may also provide free war games on the Internet to get civilian people interested in this kind of activity and so hopefully get them to join the Army, the Air Force, or the Navy. If not, watching a movie like Independence Day, Battelships or something along those lines may get people to be excited about joining the military.
Or why not re-televise the same American comedy war sitcoms like M.A.S.H as a means of taking out the harsh realities of what it is like being in the military. By taking on a more light hearted look at military life, it is hoped the average citizen on the street will decide to join the Defence forces.
Or how about providing free and realistic-looking war games to prospective military cadets?
For example, the US Army spent a small fortune of taxpayers money to develop a free online-only (this allows the US Army to see who is using their software) first-person shoot-em-up game called America's Army. The software is designed to target anyone in the gaming demographics (especially the 18 to 24 year old market) with a view of attracting new Army recruits. A pity the game doesn't come with real bullets to show the effect of what happens when you get shot by the enemy. Anyway, the software was released in August 2002 and has tapped onto a big consumer market for 3D games.
Interestingly, there is no option to choose which side you would like to be on. You are always forced to be an American soldier fighting against generic terrorists. A rather subtle form of government/military propaganda you might think? It certainly looks like it. It is a pity the US Army hasn't come up with a game called Diplomacy, Peace Missions and Helping our Fellow Human Beings in Need titles for alternative solutions to our growing social problems.
As a further incentive to join the Defence force, R-wing authorities are unusually happy to glorify war by letting newspaper editors publish articles promoting how great the military machine is in destroying al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan. One can observe this in the article titled Aussies helped kill 300 Taliban fighters: commander published in The Canberra Times dated 11 May 2002, page 2.
While readers can understand that soldiers who are placed in a combat situation with al-Qaeda fighters on the ground will be forced to fight in order to survive and therefore have to kill, there is no need to show how great the war is on terrorism (or any other war) when people have to be killed. In other words, people do not have to make war look like a noble cause for humanity because they need to attract people to join the Defence forces. Yet the Government will be happy not to intervene and express an opposite view to help balance this type of subtle war propaganda in newspapers.
The rather expensive business of attracting people to the Defence forces and the ugly business of participating in war itself has a definite purpose for certain governments (usually right-wing) when solving certain social problems such as overpopulation. (14)
Or how about legalised euthanasia?
Some non-religious governments have to consider serious options such as legalising euthanasia as a possible solution to overpopulation where a significant proportion of the population are in retirement age (so long as there is adequate replacement of the population with enough young people). Otherwise, if the population is aged much younger, wars and military service is usually considered the only "R-wing" solution to overpopulation problems if they are not engaged in supporting the economic system.
Women contemplate having abortions
Women resort to more abortions to reduce the numbers of babies entering the world where there is limited resources to support them.
Sunday 8 August 2004
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government-funded ABC television station has televised what is presumed to be the true realities of abortion showing in graphic detail what actually happens to the baby foetus when it is forcibly killed and removed from the womb. It is believed such images will strike a cord with the conservative and religious members of Australian society and hopefully support the Government's latest policy of paying new mothers A$3,000 for each new baby born into this world. The ultimate aim would be to get voters on side with the Government as the election is only months or weeks away from taking place in Australia.
Unfortunately the documentary is not completely balanced in its presentation:, nor is it clear the reasons for the abortion. Indeed, there is nothing to show the realities leading up to the abortion from enough women in society who may, in fact, be suffering financial problems, serious health complications, rape or whatever due to an underlying issue.
For example, the documentary won't explain whether the poverty experienced by some women who choose abortion is an example of limited support and resources in a society that is too highly populated by humans all demanding their own support systems and resources, while at the same time expecting others to pay for these support systems and resources? In other words, can the environment cope with a higher population?
Similarly, isn't rape an example of men who are suffering their own form of emotional, psychological, financial and physical problems in a society that is, again, suggesting it is highly populated and men dump their problems on women through their inappropriate action?
More research needs to be shown as to the reasons why women have to choose abortion.
20 January 2005
An official Federal (Howard) Government-funded report carried out by the head of the ANU's Demography and Sociology Program, Professor Peter McDonald, shows the reasons for Australia's decline in fertility rate, which has now reached an all time low of 1.75 babies per woman. This is lower than is required to maintain the population.
Based on a national random survey of 1,250 men and 1,951 women aged between 20 and 39 years, two-thirds of males and 41 per cent of female respondents indicated they were childless. Around 7 to 8 per cent did not want children at any stage in their lives. The reasons given varied from their age, lack of a partner, the uncertainty about the future of the relationship if a partner is found, health-related issues, a dislike of children, concerns of not being good enough to become parents, the world was not good enough or safe enough to have children, to financial and lifestyle choices. The biggest reasons against having children, however, was the capacity to financially support children and the ability to be good parents.
It is on the financial front where the problem becomes more self-evident. The job insecurity situation with more and more of the workforce going on casual and short term employment is the biggest concern for many people. If people are not guaranteed of a sufficiently long period in employment (probably at least 5 years and preferably up to 20 years), then many male and female respondents were happy to forego children in return for building up wealth, savings and making major purchases.
As the report said:
"Despite Australia's economic prosperity, people remain concerned about their capacity to create and maintain a family environment in which children can be nurtured and supported financially and emotionally." (15)
Thursday 10 February 2005
An effort to find ways to get people to make babies has been mounting. Now the Australian Federal (Howard) government-funded research centres are coming out with new ways to increase the sex drive of women. Because, only last week, Australian scientists have suggested a method of enticing men to become attracted to women through new perfumes containing female sex hormones. And just to make sure the hint has got through, the government-funded ABC television documentary program later that night would talk about babies and what they think about the world according to psychologists. Cute, isn't it?
So what will happen next? Will Australian men be required to play a different game of rugby league originally known as the game of "organised bum sniffers"? Will the new game have to be called the game of "organised pussy sniffers" just to get men interested in making babies with women? It seems we may have to. How else will women and men intermingle in a friendly contacts sport in the bedroom? And while we are at it, how about more sponsorship for women's sports so men can watch it too and perhaps even entice them to join in. Get Puma or Adidas to supply the sexy and revealing sports clothing and we should have no trouble getting men involved in the sport with women, and vice versa.
One thing is certain, there will be no shortage of ideas in this area.
Thursday 24 February 2005
AMP Insurance has conducted a survey on the cost of raising one child in today's Sydney environment. While it is generally true that the more money parents earn, the more money is spent on a child, based on average wages and salaries of a typical Australian family, it costs more than a mortgage of A$335,000 to raise a child to 16 years of age. Actually, the total cost is around A$445,000. The figure can be reduced by living in a smaller town, not giving in to demands by the child to have everything, choosing to buy second-hand goods, making your own food in the garden and so on. If the costs can be sufficiently reduced, the likelihood of a couple having children will increase assuming the couple's aims are to create children and not some other goal.
Enough to scare people from having babies?
Governments recommend more recycling
As population increases, possibly exacerbated by global warming, there isn't enough fresh water supplies to go around to sustain the population. As a result, some governments consider the option of recycling sewage water for people's drinking needs. It is either that, or toilets have to be converted to the dry compost variety where no water is needed. And if dry compost toilets are used and water still runs out, the human population definitely knows it is in dire straits!
UPDATE
26 November 2006
WA Premier was present to show to the media fresh water generated from the Indian Ocean using the power of wind farms and a new desalination plant.
Hungry for a bug or two?
There is talk about the need for humans to start considering eating insects as a source of protein. As of 2013, nearly 2.5 billion people already eat insects. However, as the amount of protein reaches insufficient quantities to support the entire human population, the only way to give everyone the protein they need is to look at insects.
This is interesting. If people are already recommending the consumption of insects, isn't it apparent the human population is already too large? Otherwise once we have consumed nearly all the insects, what's left? Do we start feeding on our own flesh? That sounds like the time human civilisation will collapse and we will become extinct just like it happened on Easter Island. If there is any life remaining on this planet, they will naturally thrive in our absence. Let's hope we don't get to this drastic stage before we realise there is a problem with our human population.
Human population not expected to stabilise in the 21st century
The latest statistical analysis of the most recent population projections from the United Nations combined with advanced techniques to estimate future demographic trends is strongly pointing to the likelihood that human population will not stabilise any time in the 21st century. Previous projections by computer modelling and figures on birth and death rates in various countries suggested that perhaps 2050 would be the time population levels will stop growing. Not so according to the latest trends and analysis.
Patrick Garland of the UN's population division and colleagues at several universities are predicting an 80 per cent chance that the world population will reach between 9.6 and 12.3 billion by the end of the 21st century. At the present time (i.e., 2015), the population has reached 7.2 billion (and growing). The primary cause for this alarming increase are in those countries on the African continent where researchers have concluded that levels of fertility throughout the region are not going down as previously predicted.
Part of the problem seems to be that many African women still believe in the idea that having large families is the only answer to all their woes, especially if it means finding enough helping hands to gather food from great distances (as well as the fact that sex is often seen as an emotionally positive and stimulating way to overcome what is effectively a harsh and difficult environment). To put it bluntly, limited education remains the biggest problem facing many African people. Beyond that, access to low-cost contraceptives is hard to come by in many parts of the continent. And this would explain the increasing rates of HIV infections among sexually-active adults (and, unfortunately, children too).
Should the population continue to grow in Africa, natural resources will go down even further, and this will mean greater unemployment and social unrest, if disease does not kill off enough of the population.
Further details about this UN report can be found in the 19 September 2014 journal of Science under the title "World population stabilization unlikely this century".
Talk of humans living on Mars
NASA and one private company (i.e., Tesla Corporation) are talking up the benefits of colonising Mars. The availability of new mineral resources, the potential for selling new real estate to starry-eyed buyers, a slightly lower gravity environment and with it an easier platform for spacecraft to take off to the stars, and so on. We suspect the benefits will not stop there. As soon as the first humans reach the red planet (expected to become a reality after 2030), plenty of others will be eager to move there. Not such a bad idea considering fewer humans on Earth can only mean a reduced population size. Let's hope we can encourage more humans to venture out to Mars as soon as possible.
Anything to help improve Earth's environment!
What is the solution?
Do we have a population problem?
Looking briefly at the observations, one could be forgiven into thinking that the answer is a re-sounding, "Yes!". However, not everyone will agree. In fact, it seems the answer depends on which side of the fence you are on — either the business/government (especially the R-wing types) with a vested interest in maintaining the economy and all its benefits, or the more independent scientific side with a focus on environmental research, or other people (described as mostly L-wing types) who tend to be on the ground seeing the consequences of high population and are exclusively focussed on looking after the environment.
The answer also depends on where people live. In particular, are we talking about people living in third world nations, or developed nations? Are we talking about living in the icy or sandy deserts of the world, or in the food-rich supplies of the tropical rainforests where one might find a plentiful supply of just about everything one might need? Are we talking about living in the cities where food somehow miraculously appears in supermarkets (probably explains why city kids think money grows out of an ATMs) thanks to transportation, or the local countryside if the land is agriculturally productive? Why is all this important? Because scientists know a portion of land where people live or can access to grow food is limited by how much food can be grown (or acquired) on that piece of land and hence can only support so many people. And unless there is a way to duplicate the soil structure and biomass and stack it in multiple layers one on top of the other, and give it all the nutrients and water it needs, there will be no choice but to have the food brought in from different locations across the planet should the population relying on a particular portion of land to grow food becomes too great.
Hence, business professionals will argue that only a good economy will ensure the infrastructure and trade is there to bring in and transport enough food from other parts of the world to support a growing population (in other words, the food can be obtained elsewhere even if, for any reason, we cannot grow the food on the land where people live), or else the scientists will eventually find a solution.
The latter suggestion is certainly a key argument for the R-wing types. For example, it might be true that Australia has currently gobbled up 18 per cent of fertile land to urban sprawl in the cities and if this continues, population growth will not be sustainable. However, it has been suggested technology can help by providing a National Broadband Network (NBN) as a means of providing new jobs and hence stop the urban expansion into valuable agricultural lands. In other words, people can work in regional towns or in high rise buildings in the cities and even in desert areas away from fertile areas for growing food, so long as people do not have to move around to get to work, and the transportation infrastructure is there and cheap enough to provide adequate food and water to everyone. That is the solution. And, so long as there are no great natural disasters or economic collapse, people should be happy to live in this kind of world.
On the other hand, the environmentalists will argue all the infrastructure, trade, technology, and even enough money in the world will not save the human population in the long-term as it continues to grow and especially should something cause a serious disruption to these critical areas. A classic example would have to be in the event of a supervolcano exploding or an asteroid hitting the earth, Or world trade can suddenly be brought to a stand still in the event of a world war. Or people can find themselves unable to afford what's available in the shops when banks and their shareholders get too greedy because people have been tricked in getting into serious debt that they can't pay back. Or sometimes technology could result in a genetic modification of foods that are not properly tested. Then we may find sudden increases in cancer rates, genetic damage to our reproductive genes, or our immune system is compromised. The size of our planet is putting a cap on the number of people we can sustain. Even with our technology, there is only so much we can do to feed the people. And it doesn't take much in the event of a natural or man-made disaster of world proportions to turn a situation of sustainable population into an unsustainable one. Just to add to this problem, our profit motivation is already seeing much of the technology needed for growing and distributing food controlled by a few rich and powerful people. Once these people ask too much by way of the costs other people must pay to survive while controlling the essential needy commodities of food and water, an economy can easily collapse. Even if people finally do take back control and share in the wealth of what is available, it could be a long time before enough food and water becomes available to support everyone again. And even then, it may be too late.
Despite these differing and opposing views of the people on the population debate, there is one factor in common for everyone: there must be adequate resources in a given area in order to support the population living in that area. And for sustainability to be a reality, those resources need to be recycled (and preferably on site, or someone else on the planet has to do the work) to ensure the support is maintained indefinitely. Otherwise, it becomes a question of, for how long should the resources, or the ability to create the resources for our survival, last and who should have the power to control these needy resources when things start to get expensive and limited? Here we have one group of people claiming they can guarantee the essential resources for our survival right now through the current economic system. Just wait and there will be a technological solution for everything. The other group argues emphatically of the need to think over a much longer timeframe and especially in the event of major natural disasters or economic collapse. Indeed, in some ways, the power should be returned to the people in the areas considered essential to one's survival. Which means more control of how the needy commodities are produced should be distributed back to the people over the long-term.
Whatever the truth, one thing is certain. There must be adequate resources and recycling to support a population. And the population needs to be not too large as to cause problems in the recycling and rebuilding of those resources, even in the event of a natural global disaster.
Clearly this is the exact problem facing third-world nations such as Ethiopia.
Is there a solution?
Unfortunately, we have left it too late. The environment of many of these third-world nations have been seriously degraded (we only need to look at a number of African countries). Magnified by global warming together with increasing populations due to the fact that many poor people believe having more children means more feet on the ground and hands in the air to acquire more food (since the adults expect their children to support them), we have already reached a point-of-no-return unless there is a radical new world order established, economics is pushed aside, and a new effort to rebuild the environment together with new rewards to encourage people to work in this area takes place right now. Of course, before any long-term solution of this nature can be implemented, the immediate needs of feeding the vast numbers of people to start this process off must be somehow met (and it is better to do it now while we can feed everyone so long as the food is distributed properly), or else we let nature deal with these people in the harshest way possible (which isn't acceptable if people are going to suffer and die).
So what is the long-term solution?
There is a way to deal with the population problem, where it is perceived as a problem in certain parts of the world. First, we must learn to love one another and have faith in the potential of each and every person alive today in achieving great things.
Secondly, we have to provide education. Because one fact that has stood the test of time is the way people with an education can choose to limit the number of babies they bring into the world. Why? It seems to be because when people have the right education, they know how to use it to think about problems and apply the knowledge and skills in order to achieve certain things, and often this results in receiving adequate money or food. Once the parents are happy their survival needs are met and have a few general wants, they don't have to create extra children, and hence more mouths to feed. Well-educated people tend to limit the number of children to one or two and that is about it. Of course, things can get a little complicated when we look at families with a Christian upbringing. Here, a religious belief that children represents God's love and hence can be a solution to world problems can see a number of Christian families grow to phenomenal numbers. However, to be brutal, religious people are not entirely seen as well-educated. They might be intelligent, but they are not trained to think for themselves and make appropriate decisions independent of the views of others who head a religious family. They usually accept whatever they are told no matter what. For example, Sarah Louise-Palin, an American politician, commentator, and former Governor of Alaska in 2008-2009, is a staunch religious follower of Christian thinking. Her acceptance of certain Christian views and education has revealed moments of how well she was educated as a young child and into her adult life. According to the LA Times, Sarah showed an apparent belief that humans and dinosaurs walked together on the Earth just a little over 6,000 years ago. No doubt many scientists will find considerable disagreement with her views, but for someone who is highly intelligent, it is surprising how many Christians do think in a similar way to Sarah.
Leaving aside this aspect of Christians, there is something about proper education that has a remarkable way of getting people to think and focus on other grander issues rather than to populate the planet with more people. The level of education of the parents (the ones who will procreate) and the type of education that is provided to them gives a fairly good indication of how well human population can be limited to sensible numbers.
But if we don't have education, what then?
As we can see in third-world nations, many people are not educated, and fewer still do not know how to recycle and grow foods and protect the land, let alone the purpose of life and why we are here (and hence how sex and the creation of babies might be seen by these people). The hardships of living in third-world countries without proper education forces many people to use sex as an instrument of finding some pleasure to what is effectively a harsh environment where food and clean water is scarce. The other reason for engaging in sex is because families believe the extra children will help parents find the things needed to survive. More hands and feet on the ground often mean a better chance to gather more resources, thereby increasing the likelihood of surviving. And in the worse case scenario, these children often have to become young adults very quickly as they discover what sex is about as a means of increasing their own and their parents survival. Thus the whole vicious cycle repeats itself until populations are so large and food is too scarce that only war, famine and disease will eventually wipe out a significant number of the human population.
Apart from the obvious physical solution of encouraging people to use condoms, the rest has to be psychological combined with the clearest picture of what the future will become if we allow ourselves to overpopulate the planet.
Perhaps this is where sci-fi films come into their own to help vividly paint possible scenarios for humankind in the future.
Because in the end, there isn't much we can do to stop people from overpopulating except through adequate education, and painting the picture of the future in the clearest way possible using powerful and realistic CGI graphics to show the trend in the population and levels of resources. Then people can think more carefully about what they are doing so that new solutions can be found to help rebuild those natural resources to a level that people no longer have to worry about whether to have more children or not, or what the future will bring — they know it will be positive.
But again these are additional forms of education that not all are privileged to see. For example, we know many Ethiopians living in the country cannot visit the local cinemas to watch sci-fi films to see what could happen if their actions on the land continue in a way that destroys the environment. Clearly something else has to entice people to do the right thing, and give them less of a reason to populate the land with more people.
In the end, it is starting to look like the only way is to go straight to the heart of the problem: rebuilding of natural resources. In other words, we must get nature to create the food people need and restore balance to the natural environment. This has to be the highest priority in countries where people are seeking food. Everything else, including education, will come when people actually get involved in the system of rebuilding the environment and growing food. Because, from the way the mind works for L-brain people, many of them have to see the solution in action and realise its benefits to them before they will do anything to support the solution.
This is where we must focus our attention.
As for developed nations, here the concerns by ordinary well-educated citizens about high population and limited resources together with terrorism and the refugee crisis is evident. Furthermore, many of them can visit the cinemas to see how the future could be in all unfavourable forms (and most emphasise this overpopulation and/or limited resources issue). They seem to understand the problem at hand. However, for governments and business professionals in these nations, should an overpopulation problem ever be acknowledged, it is often kept under wraps and television is used as the propaganda tool to show family-friendly programs to make people think everything in society and the world is doing fine. In the meantime, governments are preoccupied behind the scenes in finding ways to keep levels of unemployment down as much as possible (and so increase their chances of being re-elected by the people), and hopefully enough legislation will be in place to ensure business professionals are not too greedy when supplying the needy resources for the people. Beyond that, it is pretty much open season for procreation if governments can convince people to make more consumers...er, babies,. In an aging population of developed nations, having young people supporting the economy is so critical to maintaining the system at all costs. High populations, especially if they are young, means more consumers for business. And more consumers help to maintain the economy of these nations.
Otherwise any signs that unemployment is at a high rate is usually a sign that people are either not sufficiently educated, or have not acquired the right knowledge and skills to apply in society. At the same time, it is also an indication that the population is probably reaching unsustainable levels due to the inability of people to find jobs and pay well enough in order to acquire enough money to pay for the cost of purchasing needy items.
In the extreme case, the large numbers of people ending up in unemployment are usually dealt with by R-wing people with programs designed to force the unemployed into the Defence forces where hopefully enough of them will die on the battlefields to provide security and so protect the developed nations, and so permit the current economic system as the only known way of solving problems by the rich and powerful to continue for longer until the next crisis in society is reached once again (which is likely to be much worse and more difficult to solve). Otherwise limited resources of food, water and love eventually sees enough people suffer from mental illness, commit crimes, and eventually fill up the prisons with so many people that it costs taxpayers too much to manage. Then the economic system will collapse as people cannot afford the higher taxes needed to be raised by governments, as well as the cost of living.
Clearly there has to be a better way.
Fortunately, there is a better way. All we have to do is balance what we are doing right now and focus on what is important for our survival (and our happiness). Forget money. Forget the need to make massive profits and acquire whatever we want. Focus on food and water and the development of these resources as the first stage. Then comes education.
Then the economic system can build from this solid foundation.
So, how do we achieve this?
Firstly, you need to learn to love yourself and everyone around you no matter how hard it might seem initially. This is especially true in Africa where seeing other people and knowing there exist extra mouths to feed may tempt some people to try drastic action to reduce the population in nasty ways (e.g., ethnic cleansing). However, it we are smart in the vaguest sense of the word, we should see these people as extra hands and feet on the ground and with the brain to change the environment for the better and bring back a level of fertility to the soils that would ensure the long-term survival of all those who are alive now. Acknowledge the importance of others and all living things as the solution in balancing the situation by rebuilding the environment. Create what is effectively a new world order based on a non-economic system.
We must develop a more balanced society that promotes both economic and non-economic approaches to life. The economic approach is only good to help develop those things that we would not ordinarily produce for our survival, but which may prove to be essential later when we need certain technologies to help us survive or achieve greater things and make us think more broadly. Beyond that, the economic approach is an easy way for people to be lazy and not do anything if they have everything they need and want. And you also have rich people who are not very well educated or do not know how to make the right decisions outside their world or business framework. Sometimes people themselves who work for these rich people need to make the decisions and perform the actions that rich people cannot, or are not, willing to do (mainly because they want to protect what they have). It is understandable. We all like to relax and have fun. Life is not about working for your entire life and only rest when you drop dead. The motto of life should be, "Work to live, not live to work". The work we do should be enough for us to relax and enjoy life, and have the things we need to survive. Work smarter, and you should have more time for yourself to do as you wish. Life is certainly not slave labour 24/7. If you want to do more, then that is great. But you must enjoy what you do. Otherwise, you do not have to, and similarly for everyone else. If, for any reason, you are not comfortable enough with your life, you will probably work harder and longer for others to help you earn enough money so hopefully you too can be lazy and live life comfortably at some point (probably in your retirement, if you survive until then). What the system does teach you is that you are here to do something for others and you will earn something in return. That is reasonable. Sure, you can live on your own, growing your own food, and building your own house. Nothing wrong with this. Yet at the same time, there is something more we can achieve by working together and helping each other out. However, you should never go overboard. Do not give your life and soul to this task of helping someone else in the economic system through your job. There are problems with this approach, and there are limits in what the economic system can achieve.
What needs to complement the economic system is another system that has to work opposite to the goals of making money. A kind of paradoxical dualistic system must exist for the outcomes to be truly balanced and the best for everyone and all living things. Like the economic system, the new opposing world order should teach people the value of other people's contributions to solving problems, in this case the needy resources of food, water and a healthy self-supporting natural environment. Yet at the same time people should be creative individuals in their own right and able to make their own decisions when supporting the system. At first, people should learn from others what needs to be done and the best way to achieve it. After a period of time of acquiring the knowledge and applying it as part of the process of gathering experience, people in the new world order should be able to take over specific areas already setup to produce food, recycle waste, and protect fresh water supplies and other aspects. Let them manage the land allocated to them. Let them have a small house of their own to live in and be happy with their contribution to maintaining a productive and healthy environment. If people want to contribute anything else, including sharing food with others, socialising and playing games, or coming up with new ideas to test and see what works, these should be seen as a bonus and a necessary part of growing into well-adjusted and highly balanced individuals.
Let us call this new world order the non-economic approach. This alternative system should always promote the idea of working for others in the early stages and later you can be on your own (or with friends and family in your local area) to support the system and you will be rewarded. The rewards ore not monetary, and you don't have to always work for others. There are no conditions applied on you other than for you to realise that if you want to eat and drink, you need to do some work. Probably more work is required to establish the land to be productive (fortunately you will have people helping you out in the initial stages). But the time you spend working should go down as everything kicks in and nature does its work for you. Just a little maintenance here and there, replanting the next set of crops, checking the water supplies are clean and reliable, protecting the growing fruits on the trees, do some pruning and mulching of dead plant materials, and keeping the paths clean and clear for people in other areas to walk through delivering foods, borrowing tools, or just helping neighbours with important things to do on the land. It should not be like the economic system where you may have to work hard throughout much of your life to earn enough money and then suddenly retire and do nothing except enjoy the fruits of your labour using the money to buy anything you want. You are not a slave in the non-economic system, and you are not working for others who you don't believe in their goals for making high profits all of the time. Life is different in the non-economic system. In the early stages, you must understand the benefits of working together as equals in a co-operative fashion, learning what needs to be done and in sharing the work until the goals are achieved, which in many cases is simply to grow food. Then you sit down with others to enjoy the benefits of the work through excellent food and water (or other drinks manufactured from the food and water). Later, if you so choose, you can be on your own to make long-term decisions and actions on the land to ensure the long-term benefits become easier for everyone, and less time for you and others to spend growing and gathering food and water.
In this non-economic system, your reward is free food and water, and a roof over your head. Not money. And you don't have to always work for others. Once you have the knowledge, you can work for yourself as you look after the environment, grow your own food and provide clean water. And again you will be rewarded amply. Grow enough food and share it with others and you will receive greater things. Perhaps more free time, or opportunities to visit and see great things. This is perfectly fine. Beyond the goal of improving the environment, shaping the land, and growing food, the rest of the time should be about you thinking up new solutions, meeting new people and sharing new ideas, knowledge and experiences, and to learn broader knowledge to give life greater meaning and purpose. There will be plenty of opportunities to play, relax and just enjoy the natural environment. Indeed, there should be no rush or timeline for when your environment should be returned to a pristine state and is fertile to grow food and provide water (so long as you environment still has some ability to grow food for people). You relax and enjoy the work you do. Be creative and find more efficient ways to achieve the goals, which should be rewarded with more free time (as well as food and water) for the individual or groups. As the environment grows, you should be able to work less and less, and enjoy more of what the environment has to offer. The goal of a free lunch starts to become a strong possibility and, in fact, will become a reality. And at certain times of the year, it will be so free that as you walk down the garden you have worked on (your own and/or your neighbours), you can pick a reasonable amount of fruit, vegetables, and a jug of water from a pristine stream running nearby. Cook your own food. Share the food with others and receive different types of food from your neighbours lying further afield. You can help your neighbours in their tasks, and they will help you in return. You are there to protect the planet, and the planet will reward you with an abundance of everything you need to survive and even a few luxuries such as your own home and a place where you can develop new ideas.
There is nothing more you ever need to do.
If you ever want more out of life, sure visit the economic system and earn some money. Exchange some of the foods you produce to people in the economic system and get in return some money to purchase clothing or new tools (assuming these have not been handed over as a gift by the people in the economic system in return for receiving the best organic food on the planet). Learn new ideas in this economic system and the kinds of work you can do there. Then, when you are ready and have earned what you want, return to the non-economic system where you can nurture your own ideas and achieve something greater for the benefit of everyone and every living thing around you. It really is simple.
With all this knowledge and experiences, you will start to appreciate the importance of the environment in securing the future of humankind with everything it needs. And with it, you will then understand population cannot be allowed to run rampant ever again without a strong environmental foundation.
The idea of controlling human population will be more poignant by the fact should the economic system collapse, people in that system will need to survive. Thus, they will be forever grateful that a non-economic system exists to help support them until they are ready to get back on their feet and create a more sustainable and better economic system.
That is how it should work in reality. It is the only way to bring true balance to people and the rest of this planet.