Cav's Place

It would appear that being childfree got something of an image boost about a week ago, when the cover story of Time tackled the issue. That article requires a subscription to read, however, so I can’t know exactly what it says myself, but a piece posted on Grist mentions that the author “discusses the immense social pressure to have kids, and some of the upsides for those who resist that pressure”. However, that same Grist article states clearly that the Time story unfortunately misses the most important aspect of being childfree, namely the environmental one, focusing solely on what can be considered the selfish benefits of being childfree instead.
Admittedly, if any sort of argument has any chance of persuading anyone not to have children, emphasizing those selfish benefits is probably the better choice, especially since those who do care about the world as a whole in any way and are willing and able to put their brains above their gonads already know that having a child is probably the single worst thing they could do. However, the decision to have children isn’t a rational one, because if it was then hardly anyone would be having them, so that large majority of people who listen to their most basic instincts above anything else will not respond to any arguments, instead being far more likely to see such an article as evidence that not having children is an extraordinarily selfish decision, when in fact it’s the other way around.

The sad part is that I ended up learning about the Time story and the Grist article from a dreadful one posted on TakePart and included in their newsletter, which I’m actually still not quite sure how I ended up subscribed to but may occasionally include something interesting. I rushed to read it the moment I noticed a title like “If You Love the Environment, Is It Still Okay to Have a Child?”, only to be sorely disappointed by the actual content, the author’s blatant selfish attitude and his utter dismissal of the issue in spite of admitting that not having children “is perhaps the most effective individual choice” for an environmentalist. He even basically mocks those who actually do take this seriously, by ending with: “If that flavor of honesty gets my pass to the eco-tree house revoked for the rest of the summer, well, so be it.”
At the same time, a surprisingly high percentage of the comments posted so far on this article appear to be from people who are childfree and strongly advocate the concept, at least in large part for environmental reasons, so there is some good to take out of the bad. In addition, a little searching also proved that TakePart can post blunt articles that tackle the issue and reach the right conclusion as well, or at least they could in 2011. Even if it’s quite tongue-in-cheek and mentions a maximum sustainable population of 4.4 billion, which is some 50% above the most optimistic number I ever saw in any serious study taking renewable or fully recyclable resources, a decent standard of living for all humans and the well-being of other species into account, and dozens of times above the particularly pessimistic values, if I wouldn’t have found this article and the few others that at least tentatively attempted to start a debate on the issue over the years, I was seriously considering unsubscribing and forgetting about the site after such a demonstration of “thinking” with one’s gonads.

Getting back to the Time cover story, while it apparently doesn’t even mention the main reason why the vast majority of people shouldn’t have children, it seems to shine an at least passably positive light on the concept. Seeing as mainstream media, when it doesn’t ignore the population issue completely, usually does nothing but spew forth alarmist articles written from the point of view of those who support the current economic system and describing lower birth rates as a huge threat, that’s good news in itself. Add the fact that it also seems to raise awareness about the immense social pressure and even the discrimination that the childfree face and you could say that it’s a good start… Unfortunately, it’s more than half a century too late for a mere start to have much relevance anymore.
Still, it may be the best moment to bring up the issue once again in quite some time and we should quickly figure out how to make the best use of it, although there’s little room for hope when you remember that even all those leading scientists who were pointing out throughout the ’70s that we were already well past any sustainable population limit were silenced when the topic became taboo. A better opportunity might have been provided by the series of articles published throughout 2011 by National Geographic, but that proved to be nothing but a huge slap in the face by taking the “official” line, namely that further population growth is inevitable and not that big of a threat, at most acknowledging the idea that a drastic reduction of the global human population is necessary before any other efforts will be anything more than a waste of time only to quickly dismiss it with nothing but superficial arguments and focusing only on painting the supposed solutions aimed at mitigating some of the problems caused by overpopulation in bright and happy colors.

What all who claim to care for the environment and the other species we share this planet with must realize is that all their efforts are largely wasted unless we’ll first solve the overpopulation problem and that, while simply being childfree doesn’t necessarily make you an environmentalist, not being childfree certainly means that you can’t truly be one. And what all those who are serious about solving the overpopulation problem, most preferably without killing people or allowing them to unnecessarily die due to lack of access to needed resources and services, must realize is that a mix of basic instincts and shortsighted economic interests conspire to make the vast majority of people from all walks of life vehemently oppose the very idea of doing so, that few of those people will ever respond to reason and that education, awareness campaigns and voluntary measures have always been, are, and will always be little more than a drop in the bucket compared to what’s truly needed to tackle such a problem. Yet tackle it we must, by absolutely any means necessary, perhaps less for ourselves and more for all the other species we share this planet with.

This Monday, I managed to get my MobyGames account back after another talk with Sciere. He did, after all, say that he will look into the matter and see who is in the right when he banned me, so I sent him a message after being banned for a full month to ask how that’s going and, I guess, pestered him enough with the long rants that followed for this to be the simpler solution. It doesn’t imply anything being done about the asshole, he doesn’t even seem to be looking through what was escalated and the submissions that were rejected just when I was banned and have therefore vanished from the “recently rejected” list by the time I was allowed back are lost for good, but he did say that if I’ll feel that anything else is sent back, rejected or escalated unfairly I should let him know right away so he can look into it immediately and decide what to do then, suggesting that he could perhaps ask jaXen to skip them if they won’t really go against the standards but that guy will remain adamant that they do.
That said, I’m only posting this today because I didn’t actually submit anything again until a little while ago. I’m not even sure I care to do it so much anymore, because there’s that feeling of not even being able to do that right anymore that all these rejections have created, even if they’re all from a single approver who clearly has a different interpretation of the standards than the others, and that’s definitely not what I care to be feeling when I’m doing some volunteer work. I kept going until I resorted to the, shall we say, act of civil disobedience that got me banned because it was a conflict and I didn’t want to give in to an asshole’s unreasonable demands, but when I generally think that everything I do is wrong, something like this was bound to have consequences once I was forced to give it some time to settle in.
The site is a dying mess anyway; had been “ill” even before being sold in 2010 and has certainly been dying ever since that happened, since that resulted in it losing even what little support it had before, so I’m not even sure how long will it still be active in any way. If even Sciere, who’s the top contributor, said that the fact that the owners have abandoned it for so long made him decide there are better uses for his time, which is also why he didn’t care to get involved in my conflict with jaXen until he absolutely had to even though he’s probably the one person there who may still hold enough influence to decide on such matters, you know the end is near… Unless, of course, some other company that actually cares for games, perhaps the older ones in particular, and gamers, the more intelligent and thorough ones in particular, will decide to buy it from the current owners and somehow save it. But that’s another issue…

For most of this book, I was saying it’s an entirely run-of-the-mill SF; little to be bothered by, with the exception of what I’ll say below about the main character, but next to nothing to remember, so much so that you could probably readily find hundreds like it and never recall which was which after reading them. Add to that the uncorrected conversion issues, resulting in many misspelled or simply wrong words, not to mention all the missing periods, and it’s not hard to see why it’s given away for free.
Still, if you somehow struggle through to the final portion, it does get notably better. Not enough to make up for the lack of, well, anything relevant up to that point, and definitely not enough to counterbalance the annoying macho hero that appears made of steel while hiding a troubled past and proving instantly irresistible to the hottest women, including an improbably sexually compatible alien, but enough to make reading it no longer be a complete waste of time.

Rating: 3/5

An opinion piece called “Is Democracy Overrated?” was published on the BBC site and, while the author may not go as far as he should and may not emphasize the points he knows will prove particularly unpopular, I have to say that it’s a rather unexpectedly frank analysis at a time when such a debate is particularly relevant. Granted that the opportunity provided by the current situation in Egypt could not be missed if anyone meant to publish such a piece, but that in itself seemed a highly unlikely scenario when it came to the major media outlets from countries that, as the article implies, see democracy as the ultimate solution in itself.
This is, of course, a long discussion, but I did like how the article pointed out how some of the worst aspects of totalitarian regimes don’t directly stem from the fact that the people don’t have any say in the major decisions, and also how the fact that they do have a say doesn’t in any way mean that all, or in fact any, rights and freedoms are guaranteed, that conformity doesn’t continue to be enforced or that those who are different aren’t ostracized in democracies just as well, though the exact definitions of “different” and “ostracized” may differ. It’s true that it also makes some points that I see as unnecessary or even detrimental to the argument, making it rather obvious that the author was either afraid to continue it properly or is far from convinced that it’ll be right to do so, but the piece nevertheless remains a good starting point, perhaps the most notable phrase being: “Orthodoxy, conformity and the hounding of the dissident define the default position of mankind, and there is no reason to think that democracies are any different in this respect from Islamic theocracies or one-party totalitarian states.”

That said, while I won’t get into the whole discussion once again now, I did find myself submitting a comment there, which I’ll also add here now, since it pretty much covers my view of the issue:
Of course it is overrated. Democracy is largely tyranny by majority, though if you want to get specific it’s not even a majority that chooses. It is unreasonable to expect the choices made to be correct or fair, the freedoms of all to be in any way guaranteed or even desired, or justice to be appropriately served. The only two things to expect from a democracy are for responsibility to be spread among many, so none will feel particularly responsible for the failures, and for quite little to actually get done.
When you are in a minority, it’s hardly relevant whether your rights are being stripped away and your views silenced by the majority or by a single person, and the more you differ from the generally accepted norm, the greater the risk for that to happen, regardless of the system of government.
What we need are leaders who are fit to lead but definitely don’t wish to do so, people who want to do good for the world and for others without putting themselves above the others. We need leaders who’ll guarantee everyone’s right to live as they please as long as that doesn’t cause environmental destruction or unjustified harm to another. We need leaders who’ll be willing and capable of doing whatever it takes to uphold this simple rule, crushing those who would harm without proper justification and those who’d try to prevent people from living their lives as they see fit despite their lifestyles not causing unjustified harm equally, while otherwise encouraging all to find and follow their own path, make up and speak their own mind and generally overlooking a society adapting itself to fit all the individuals it’s made up of instead of one forcing the individuals to adapt to it.
If we’ll get that, how those leaders are selected and who they are is hardly relevant. If we don’t, however, anything else we may get is like a choice between getting hanged or burned alive: One is more painful for a brief amount of time, but in the end both kill you just as well.

To conclude, history proves that the majority is hardly ever right, whether we’re talking about a majority in absolute terms or of the majority of those who make themselves seen and heard, so any choice made or any course of action supported, directly or indirectly, by “the people” is almost certainly wrong, or at the very least far from the best one possible at that particular moment. The goal, therefore, must be to figure out which minority, small group or, far more often than most “democrats” or “liberals” would ever admit, individual is most likely to not only make the right decisions, but also to possess the willingness and the ability to enforce them in the most efficient manner, obviously without jeopardizing the outcome or wasting resources by striving to obtain additional benefits for themselves, and grant them the opportunity to do so. Anything else means simply walking farther down one wrong path or another, and therefore getting farther from the right one.

The Green Institute, which is the NGO branch of our Green Party, announced another protest against the Government’s plans to allow the Rosia Montana mining project, but trying to attend just screwed up my entire day for absolutely nothing, so this is largely just to state that before I’ll even consider attending any other events organized by our Greens they’ll need to prove to me that they are actually capable of organizing them. Video proving that they managed to make at least a few dozen of their people arrive precisely on time and be completely involved will be a start, and I doubt anything short of that will do, unless of course some other known activists will guarantee that they’ll be there and take over if needed.
Of course, our Greens, and the current leadership in particular, making a mess of anything they attempt to organize is the norm, today’s embarrassment and the mess from the previous protest being only the most recent in a long series. One may certainly feel quite justified to think that they’re doing it on purpose, actually serving other interests and seeking to undermine and discredit any real efforts made for the environment in order to drive away those who may otherwise be inclined to participate, but they’ve been doing this for so long, following the same pattern and messing up so many times in other ways as well, that I’m inclined to think that they’re simply too stupid to know or be able to learn better and too proud to ask for or even accept help. Then again, there is the chance that they’re smart enough to be extremely good at playing dumb…

The protest itself was originally scheduled for 1 PM, which was terribly unwise considering the high temperatures, not to mention that scheduling it during the day on a weekday is a terrible idea either way. The Government is also pretty much on vacation now, which tends to rule out any potential benefits having it take place near the Government building during working hours may otherwise be said to have as well, but this is the way Remus Cernea and his crowd have always done these things, so it was hardly surprising in itself and it’s quite clear they wouldn’t have changed anything if they wouldn’t have been forced to, regardless of the complaints.
However, the authorities were somewhat wiser this time and did force them to, not allowing anything any later and making them reschedule for 9 AM, supposedly for only one hour. That at least took care of the heat problem, but it actually made attendance even less likely, because who the fuck comes to a protest at 9 AM? Worse, they didn’t even announce the change, which was done on Tuesday, the only way to know of it being to see the notification that event details were changed if you were already on it. Granted, the most recent messages they posted on their pages did mention 9 AM, but by then it was already Thursday evening and anyone who failed to notice the change before then would have had a hard time adapting to it on such short notice, not to mention that at the bottom of the event description they were also asking people to actually arrive at 8:30, to make sure everything will be ready by 9:00, and I doubt more than a few ever read that far at all.

Either way, I meant to do my best yet again, so woke up at 7 AM, after about one hour of sleep, to make sure I’ll get there on time. Actually meant to be there shortly before 9 AM, not keen on the 8:30 part, knowing there’ll quite clearly be nobody there then, but a mix of the metro being already in the station when I walked in and the fact that I left early due to being too sleepy to remember that I can get to the protest location without switching made me end up there at 8:40 anyway. Of course, the only ones around were the gendarmes, so I simply walked past and took a stroll through a nearby park which I otherwise very rarely get to see.
Sadly, what I found when I returned, quite exactly at 9:00, was even worse than I expected, namely a single guy sitting on a nearby bench, with some rolled up banners next to him. Circled around the area and by the time I got back to him there were two others there as well, one of them wearing an European Greens t-shirt, so walked to them and looked up shyly, which prompted the first guy to ask whether I was there for the protest, and if so which one, because there are apparently two scheduled. Replied that I’m there in case there will be a protest for Rosia Montana, but it seems that I bothered for nothing, and also that the other is irrelevant, because that crowd always tries to hijack everything. Got told it’s not for nothing, because at least I show that I care, coming for myself if nothing else, and when I said it’d have been nice if at least the organizers would have been there they said they are, the two who arrived a little later, while the one talking to me said he was a “half-organizer”.
So I sat around a while longer while the two “organizers” kept talking on the phone, apparently trying to get others, possibly Institute or Party members, to come and saying everyone’s busy, except for one who apparently said he’ll be there in about 20 minutes when it was already past 9:30, prompting an “yes, so just in time for the end” from the one who had talked to him. They also unrolled the banners a few times, so I could see that they were proper posters on glossy paper, but they seemed genuinely embarrassed as they did that and rolled them back up very quickly.
A single other person came to stay, around 9:20, and he was one of those I see as hijackers, though he had a Rosia Montana t-shirt on at the time. Two others showed up briefly, a few minutes later, but after having a look and exchanging a few words with each other they decided it wasn’t worth wasting their time and left, so we were a grand total of seven people for about a minute or two. Compare that with the ten or so gendarmes, possibly more if those I saw across the street when I left weren’t the same ones I spotted when I circled around the area the first time, who were standing around and occasionally coming to ask the “organizers” what was going on, and with the size of the area that was set aside for the protesters to use, which could have probably held about 200 and yet was completely empty, seeing as the five of us who actually sat around for a while were around the corner, where we could find some shade.

In the end, I got bored and finally walked away at 9:35, though I did so very slowly and always looking back, so it was past 9:40 when I finally made my way back to the metro station nearby and got back, coming out at a supermarket I thought I might as well check out while I’m out, seeing as the catalog we got in the mail mentioned something about an offer for something I might have been interested in. Unfortunately, they didn’t have the exact kind I wanted, so that was for nothing as well and, as I said, I simply messed up my entire day for no reason whatsoever, which is definitely not what I need when, for example, I’ve recently been doing worse with my writing than I did around this time last year, and that was the worst period I had in quite a while from this point of view.