Cav's Place

As my primary action for this year’s Global Population Speak Out, I decided to go all out and wrote and sent a message to a list of no less than 25 recipients. Both the list of recipients and the English translation of the message are below. Please note that I tried to stay as close to the original message as possible, so certain parts may sound slightly odd in English. Still, while I was translating I noticed that I somehow managed to forget my usual reference to the fate of all ancient empires, which is what I compare the current drive for constant growth to, but nothing to do about that now…

Recipients:

State agencies: Office of the President of Romania, Romanian Chamber of Deputies
Political Parties: Greens’ Movement (MV), Green Party (PV), Romanian Ecologist Party (PER)
TV stations: Antena 3, Pro TV, Realitatea TV
Radio stations: Radio Guerrilla, Radio Zu
Magazines: Descopera, National Geographic Romania
Newspapers and other publications: Academia Catavencu, Adevarul, Azi, Click, Cotidianul, Curentul, Cuvantul, Dilema Veche, Evenimentul Zilei, Gandul, Jurnalul National, Romania Libera
NGO: Contraceptive and Sex Education Society (SECS)

Message:

In a world where selfishness and greed are in control, in a world where most people’s thoughs are limited to worrying about today and, at most, tomorrow and where the press focuses largely only on dirt and “sensational” topics, mainly those of local and immediate interest, it is extremely difficult to bring up worldwide problems whose effects are noticed in the long term, especially when you’re talking about the really unpopular ones, whose existence isn’t even accepted by most people, and which can also be easily blamed on “others” each time when they are somehow noticed. And in a country where a large part of the population really has reasons to worry about tomorrow and the media is so preoccupied with the eternal muck of local and national politics, media scandals, fake stars and, possibly, football that even events that are truly history in the making, such as what’s currently going on in the Middle East, have great difficulty in dominating news programs and newspaper pages, it’s practically impossible.
Despite this situation, regardless of any risks, the first of which being that most recipients will stop reading after the next phrase, I will try to draw attention towards the most serious problem the world is facing for at least the last 50 years. The issue is overpopulation, and this message is being sent to you at this time because, starting in 2009, each February, an event called Global Population Speak Out takes place, encouraging researchers, university professors, writers or politicians, as well as activists or simple concerned citizens who acknowledge the existence of this problem and desire to solve it, to express their views in public, breaking this social, political and media taboo because the first condition that must be fulfilled before a problem can be solved is for people to understand that said problem exists, and the second is that solving it must be truly desired.

As you probably know, the world’s population is estimated to reach seven billion by the end of the year, continuing to grow and exceeding nine billion about halfway through the century, only afterwards probably starting to drop slightly. This information is very easy to learn, for example even from the January issue of National Geographic Magazine. But many sources, including said magazine, which I’d like to take this opportunity to state that this time I was deeply disappointed by, stop at offering this data and claiming, in one way or another, that the problem, inasmuch as they somehow accept that one exists, is about to be solved on its own, which is completely false.
It is true that a few studies that claim that the current population, and in some cases even one of more than ten billion, could be sustainable exist, but those studies generally only take into account one element, such as for example the available amount of drinking water or the capacity to produce food or energy, and ignore the effects that such intensive exploitation would have on the environment. The studies that attempted to take into account a large number of factors, including the environmental impact, tend to reach results varying between 500 million and three billion. Under these circumstances, the problem could have perhaps solved itself if this process of reducing birthrates would have started immediately after World War II, in which case the population would have probably peaked somewhere around three billion and then would have started to drop, staying within sustainable limits. But when the estimated population peak is more than three times the maximum that could possibly be sustainable, we certainly can’t talk about the problem solving itself!
At the same time, one can’t say that the blame for overpopulation lies solely on certain countries and certain cultures either. It is true that the people who benefit from at least a resonable standard of living tend to have fewer children, but when the world’s population is so much above any potentially sustainable limits and those people have access to this information, if they wish to look for it, as well as to a large number of effective contraceptive methods, I’m more inclined to blame the average European or North American who chooses to have even a single child, not to mention those who have more, than the average African or, closer to home, even the Gypsy who lives in abject poverty, who ends up creating their own football squad, as they say, as those people are mostly lacking access to both a wide range of effective contraceptive methods and any real way of learning how things stand in the world.
In fact a large part of the problem has to do with resource consumption, and it’s logical that a larger number of people will consume more resources. We currently consume 50% more resources in a year than the planet can regenerate, not to mention that we use very many non-renewable resources and dump toxic substances in every direction. It is true that the full blame for this exaggerated consumption currently lies on a small number of people, about 2% of the world’s population, who are responsible for 50% of the current consumption, so 75% of the maximum allowable consumption under sustainable conditions. But, at the same time, the large majority of the population, about 80%, lives in poverty, in one way or another, consuming only about 20% of resources, so 30% of what could be consumed under sustainable conditions. Which leaves us, the remaining 18%, to currently consume 30% of resources, so 45% of what could be consumed under sustainable conditions.
Some conclusions can easily be drawn from the above paragraph: If we reduce the consumption of the 2%, it appears as if we would solve the problem for the moment. But if we increase that of the 80% we really have no way out. And yet even we, the 18%, desire more and, under certain circumstances, are even entitled to do so. But if we desire more despite having a roof over our heads that we probably don’t fear will collapse on top of us, not wondering where will we obtain some food from the next day, having easy access at least to basic medical services, having certain electronics in our home as well and perhaps even a car in front of our house or apartment building, and so on, what could be said about the 80%? And yet they have the same right to live a decent life as we do, right? But how could these resources be distributed in such a manner so we would all live a decent life, if simply aligning all, so the 2% as well as the 80%, to the standard of living that we, the 18% who even so desire something more, enjoy would take the consumption to 250% of what could be sustainable?
Of course, I recently saw a report about the engineering challenges created by population growth, which included plans to tackle the issues and possible solutions that would allow the current standards to be preserved even under these circumstances. But, on the one hand, some of those solutions only delay the inevitable or even have a very high potential to actually be harmful, not just for the environment but even for the people as well. On the other hand, other solutions are very ingenious, very costly or require immense effort, or perhaps all three at the same time. Under these circumstances, I can’t help but wonder why should we use our ingenuity, time and resources in a desperate attempt to control the effects of a problem we ourselves create instead of solving the problem, allowing us to then use our ingenuity, time and resources in order to develop, advance and, practically, evolve?

But, you will ask, what do all of these have to do with Romania, when we are facing a population drop? Which is a completely understandable question under the current circumstances, when both the politicians and the public opinion in Romania are focused on the economic aspect and, mainly, on welfare. Not to mention that we also have the occasional utterly terrifying statements, like the one Mr. Mircea Geoana made in 2009, if I’m not mistaken, when he said that, considering the negative population growth in Romania and the effects this has on the ratio between the people who are active on the labor market and those who depend on welfare, it would be time for some serious debates regarding the issue of abortion to start, suggesting that perhaps it should once again become illegal! In other words, he was suggesting, practically the state should be able to force a person to have a child despite that person not wanting it, for economic and, considering his opinions, religious reasons, but not the other way around as well!
Well, the connection has to do with the fact that the whole world is connected and no country is some sort of island floating alone through space. You will immediately notice what I mean to say if you will look around a little and read some labels. What countries do the products that are currently in the room you’re in come from? Where were the clothes you are wearing produced? Where was the food you ate today produced? And, though this is more of an exercise of imagination, how many other countries do you assume those producers acquired their raw materials from? Therefore, how many areas of the world does even a country like Romania leave a mark on, through consumption? How many of those areas aren’t currently suffering as a result of this consumption, the pollution generated by the production of these goods or the mistreatment of the workers who need to deal with this worldwide demand? And how dependent is Romania on other countries’ resources?
In addition, Romania covers about 0.16% of the world’s land mass. Considering a maximum sustainable population of three billion, it would result that Romania’s population shouldn’t exceed 4.8 million. But of course we can’t compare a relatively fertile area like Romania with areas of desert or tundra, therefore it is reasonable to double this number, to 9.6 million. More than that would not be reasonable anymore, because fertile areas are more important to other species as well, not just to humans, and either way Romania faces plenty of problems from this point of view, such as the relatively low fresh water resources and the natural desertification tendency of the country’s south. Therefore, even Romania’s population is more than double compared to the maximum that could be sustainable, and I want to stress that those numbers really are maximums, so the recommended values would be even significantly below them. Of course, the current downward trend is encouraging, but it is still too slow.
But, you will ask, how do we actually solve that economic problem that we hear about every day if so few children will be born? We do this by solving the real problem, which is the current money-based system, the situation of those who rely on welfare being only one of its symptoms. In other words, on the one hand we offer people opportunities and make them more responsible, and on the other we move from a money-based economy to a resource-based one. This move is necessary to solve many other problems, so it can be said that it’s not necessary to do anything just because of dropping birthrates.
Discussions about a new economic order are not the purpose of this message, but I find myself needing to provide a few of the basic ideas of this concept: We should start by clearly stating the fact that the tax paid by each employee “for retirement” is not for their own retirement, but is practically a “solidarity tax” through which those who currently require such assistance are supported. From here we move on to making people more responsible, making them understand that, if they can work and have an income, it is their responsibility to make savings and investments in order to be able to support themselves when they will no longer be working. But this policy also requires a different approach from the state, which would need to offer citizens the opportunity to make a living in such a manner, on the one hand, through guarantees and strict controls, raising people’s confidence in the savings and investments institutions and directly investing in educating people regarding these possibilities, and on the other hand easing the way for those who try to live more or less independently from the rest of society, which means the people who would desire to obtain a large part of their food from their own yard, produce the required energy through their own means, preferably through “green” methods, travel by foot or bicycle and so on. Which can be directly connected to the resource-based economy, this concept meaning that, regardless of the available amount of money, what matters are the available resources, products and services, which will be directly distributed to those who need such assistance. The concept is complex and really can’t be discussed here, but the basic idea in this situation would be to directly provide these people with the products and services they require in order to live decent lives, which would be acquired by the state directly from the producers, in sufficient quantities to avoid those demeaning crowds that we currently see when such products are handed out to pensioners, and then distributed to those who need them. This way local producers are encouraged and at the same time all intermediaries, which as we all know inflate prices even several times, are eliminated, which means both that the people who rely on welfare will be able to benefit from products and services both in higher quantity and of better quality than the ones they can currently afford, and that the state will spend less for this than it currently spends on welfare.
So this problem only exists because some interest groups currently desire for it to exist. Realistically, a Romania with, shall we say, eight million inhabitants could look extraordinarily well. It would mean a Bucharest with, probably, around one million inhabitants, few other cities with one hundred thousand or more and in general a much more relaxed life. Of course, some localities would be abandoned, some of those areas later being greened and returned to nature and others being used to build new settlements, as modern as possible. It would mean eliminating the need to build new roads and parking spaces, as the existing ones would be more than sufficient. It would mean that, instead of every remaining piece of green space being destroyed for new buildings, green spaces inside cities could even increase in size and the current buildings would be sufficient, people even ending up acquiring homes without paying anything, as those would already be built and unused, even if some apartment buildings would be torn down in order to build houses in their place. It would, of course, mean less pollution and less dependence on imports. It would mean more space for organic farming, which means a health bonus for the inhabitants. Considering some massive investments in education, research and technology, which are required anyway, it would mean an improvement in the quality of local production, which is currently often harmed by the need to ensure jobs for as many people as possible although they wouldn’t be really needed. It would, also, mean the chance to develop a truly student-centered educational system, as there would be fewer students, which would significantly improve the quality of education. In general, although it would indeed mean an overall negative economic growth, it would mean the chance to significantly improve each individual’s standard of living in a completely sustainable way, which is what truly matters.

In the end, what do all of these mean? They mean that the population growth rate must be strongly negative and that perhaps we should start advancing down that path specifically in the areas where it already is negative, as is the case of Romania, later acting as an example for the other countries. But, of course, all must be done with great care, as a negative population growth can very easily be achieved by increasing mortality, which is certainly not desirable. Therefore, it is necessary to enforce some drastic measures meant to reduce birthrates and select potential parents, respecting some very exact and objective criteria, in order to allow both the standard of living and the average lifespan of the people to continue to improve in a sustainable manner, without being required to fully use our ingenuity, time and resources only to somehow preserve the current situation.
Very simply put, not having children really is a completely personal decision, but having children is perhaps the most public act that most people will ever be capable of. Therefore, society, the state and, in general, the world should in fact get involved when it comes to this. In the end, driving a car has an infinitely lower potential to cause harm than giving birth to a child, and yet people need driver’s licenses…
Of course, any such initiatives are met with an extreme amount of hostility, either simply due to selfishness, due to religious beliefs, due to being associated with certain contemptible events observed throughout history, or due to various other reasons. But somebody needs to look at the situation as a whole as well, as rationally as possible, and see what actually needs to be done, in the interest of the whole world. Not that such an overall view is needed to understand that the entire population should benefit from easy access to a wide range of modern contraceptive methods in complete discretion, as well as from real and comprehensive sex education, which should also include information regarding the overpopulation problem and the advantages of significantly reducing population, even from an early age. Equally obvious should be the fact that people who suffer from illnesses that could be directly passed on to their children, or in whose families a significantly above average incidence of some serious ailments is noticed, shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce under any circumstances. And, seeing as such a reduction can’t be achieved in due time unless most people will not have any children, it should also be understood that those who simply have no special talent, no ability that is not strictly the result of education and intensive effort, can’t currently justify the desire to continue spreading their genes.

Discussions on this topic are very long and extraordinarily difficult, and also extremely unpopular. It was just because of this extremely negative popular reaction that the scientists who alerted the world regarding this issue in the ’70s, in the countries that were sufficiently advanced even then to provide them with the opportunity to correctly analyze the situation, were silenced. That way an important opportunity of solving the problem more easily, with fewer sacrifices and, to put it bluntly, without resorting to draconian measures, was lost. But perhaps the chance of solving the problem somehow, even if now it will be extraordinarily difficult and will require some extremely harsh measures, is not lost. Still, extremely difficult does not mean impossible, and either way nothing worthwhile’s ever easy…
This message does not have a specific recipient, but is addressed to all people who are intelligent and rational, capable of seeing the situation as a whole, thinking in the long term and making the required decisions, no matter how difficult or unpopular they may be. More exactly, through this message I intend only to draw attention towards the problem and, though I’m practically convinced that I will completely fail in this endeavor, encourage others to take this reality into account when they make plans for the future as well. Though this is only the first step, necessary but by no means sufficient, only by solving this problem, preferably strictly by drastically reducing birthrates, without increasing mortality in any way, do we have a chance to offer a sustainable high standard of living to all. Of course, any such endeavors appear utopian, simple dreams at best, and generally are seen as illusions of dangerous insane people, but I will ask you again to look around and will ask how much of what you see wasn’t at some point one person’s simple dream or a simple illusion of a person considered by the others to be insane, in a more or less dangerous way?

The title should say enough, right? My mood is about the one you’d expect, though that’s not particularly different from the one I’m in on any other day. The difference is just that now I once again have a reason to be afraid to check my e-mail, since I sent her a message last night with my usual birthday wish lately. Of course, there’s basically no chance, or risk, of a reply, but I’m once again afraid to look. Not that I looked during the day since I noticed what I noticed back in October and sent her that desperate message, which was also left unanswered, as expected…
That makes too little sense, you say? I know, but what did you expect? Especially if you add this to something I read last night, which was a post on a blog someone gave me a link to, which started by describing a scene so similar to the night she left that I felt the author had pulled it right out of my memories, especially when it came to how he felt, what he thought and what he meant to do but didn’t. And then there’s something else I thought I noticed last night, but I have no way of being sure…
I guess I’ll get back to pretty much doing nothing. But really need to send what I mean to send this month as part of Global Population Speak Out next week, so will need to first finish writing it soon enough. Meant to do it on Thursday, but after writing the introduction more current important events got my attention too much and it was obvious it would have been a bad idea to send something like this that night under those circumstances, since all eyes would be on something else and rightfully so. The translated text will be posted here once I’ll send the message in Romanian to all the addresses I mean to send it to.

Yes, this is finally a post with some real comments about the situation in Egypt. Or, more exactly, comments inspired by the situation in Egypt, but extrapolated and seen as general issues. That’s because yesterday’s events have once again proven the point I mean to make, so there’s no better time for it. Then again, waiting longer could perhaps provide evidence to back my proposed solutions as well, but the situation is so fluid you really can’t tell what will happen next.
As you have probably noticed from the above paragraph, this will be a pretty rushed post, so I won’t be providing links for everything as I’d do otherwise. I’m trying to throw this on here while I still can and before the situation changes dramatically once again, or at least not too long after it will change, considering the news that are coming in just as I’m starting to write this. In case someone’ll read this, I’m sure you can find links and reports on your own if you’re so inclined. It’s hard enough for me to take a break from following the events to write this anyway, and in fact I’ll be writing it in bits and pieces, constantly throwing glances to see what else is going on. So expect it to make even less sense than my writing usually does…

In fact, I will start this with a few tweets that were just posted by a protester. One says: “Protesters in front of presidential palace are just standing around and socializing. This is what I get for protesting with the upper middle class.” The second says: “Not a single chant at presidential palace. Posh upper middle class tires easily. We need the Tahrir lot here!” While the third says: “Never protest with the rich crowd. They aren’t angry enough.” (I have slightly edited them, considering how you are pretty much forced to post on Twitter.)
What is described in those tweets is a completely pointless type of protest: People who just show up for the sake of showing up, unwilling to do pretty much anything, not even as part of a group. They are, therefore, very easy to simply ignore by those they claim to be protesting against. In fact, it’s pretty hard for anyone to take them into account and the real protesters, those who are actually willing to fight for their cause, are completely entitled to feel at least somewhat annoyed by them, if not completely outraged by their lack of willingness to actually, well, participate!

But mere chants don’t accomplish too much either. Yesterday’s events have proven that yet again, not that additional evidence was necessary in any way. Those who want to preserve the status quo can still do so in the face of mere words, no matter how inspired or loud they may be. They can just reply with their own words, as Mubarak and Suleiman did yesterday, or perhaps ignore the protests completely. Quite simply, mere words are not a real threat, they don’t directly endanger them in any way, so there’s no real reason for them to do what’s asked of them. I mean, if the rulers cared about what the people wanted, there would be no protests in the first place, so there’s little point for the protesters to simply express their demands in such a peaceful manner.
In truth, such peaceful protests inconvenience regular citizens far more than the rulers. As a result, under some circumstances they can backfire, causing people who don’t participate in them to take action against them, even though they don’t support the status quo. Such a development was a real danger in Egypt until only a few days ago. Luckily, in this one case, recently more and more workers have started going on strikes and therefore joining the protests in their own way, so this danger seems to have passed, but in many other situations things don’t work out like this and the “silent majority” can break away from only tacitly supporting the status quo by doing nothing and actually end up taking action against protesters, simply because they’re becoming inconvenient without truly accomplishing anything.

What works is direct action, violent if need be. Of course, there are more serious consequences to such actions, but nothing worthwhile’s ever easy and things often need to first get much worse before they can get better. You can sit and chant and shout for weeks or months and not achieve much of anything, and likely even end up turning the “silent majority” against you because you’re becoming a real nuisance for them, or you can take matters into your own hands and accomplish your immediate goals in perhaps a few days, or even hours. I think many such movements would have a much higher chance of success and we’d see the changes we need to see much sooner if people would understand this simple fact and do what must be done from the beginning.
For example, to go back to the current situation in Egypt, it seemed all too obvious to me from the beginning that protesters should have rushed to the presidential palace, the government building and other such locations and at the very least start something of a siege, preventing anyone from getting in and turning those who were already inside into their prisoners. Of course, that wasn’t too likely to work right away either, as such important prisoners were likely to be rescued by their loyal troops, not to mention that such buildings are likely to have underground escape routes as well, but it would have been a proper first step. Then, in order to actually achieve victory, they should have stormed inside those buildings and taken over, either as soon as the rulers would have made their escape, when loyal troops would have tried to clear away the protesters or simply after the siege would have stretched on for long enough.

That said, I’ll get back to following the developments, since Egyptians seem to have finally woken up and are gathering around the presidential palace today. The only question is whether or not it’s too late, as it would appear that Mubarak has already left and the army may have had time to pretty much take over, which could result in yet another military dictatorship, which would mean that the Egyptian protesters have waited too long before taking the necessary actions and will only be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Even though yesterday was a pretty calm day on all counts, I didn’t do much of anything, so here I am once again struggling on Sunday evening to write a second post for the week. It still won’t be about the situation in Egypt because, quite frankly, I couldn’t possibly say anything more about what’s going on there. I would have preferred this to have ended already, likely after the people would have marched towards the presidential palace in large numbers and forced the army to take sides, but as long as they’ll succeed it’s less important how they do it. What will happen afterwards remains to be seen, but currently what we see in Egypt and lots are lots of heroes the world should at least take one moment to bow down to.
Perhaps, once that revolution will end with the victory of the people, I will manage to extrapolate and write a more generic post about such issues, however. Probably not just about the effects this should and likely will have on the Arab world, and perhaps even beyond, but about what the whole world has to learn from it and where should we go from here. Because there are many lessons to learn and quite a few issues to act on now when the time appears to be right, so it would be a terrible waste not to make use of this moment. Who knows when will there be another.

But, as I said, that’s not the point of this post. Then again, this post doesn’t really have a point other than being the second one written this week, in order to stick to my rule, but something did happen recently and I wanted to point it out. That’s because it can end up having something to do with Global Population Speak Out, as it could help me prepare for what I mean to do this month in order to fulfill my pledge.
What I mean to say is that, as a result of some recent discussions with a couple of people, I was reminded of that sex education forum I was a moderator on for a few years, while being with Andra. In fact, I’m still a moderator on it despite not logging on in some five years, as the administrators never demoted anyone, in fact hardly ever logging on at all. Either way, I somehow ended up posting a message, since I was there, and was asked if I could decide to stay on, for old times’ sake. That prompted me to list the reasons why I perhaps shouldn’t, which included the fact that I’m so radically against having children and that the topic is likely to come up on such a forum, especially since I had already noticed that some of the regular users and even moderators already had children, which automatically meant that I saw them as “enemies” from the start.
Thing is that, though I just expected to be laughed at a little, cursed at a little more and then ignored, especially considering how inactive the forum appears to be, there seem to be a few who felt like starting a conversation on the topic. More surprising is that one appears to even agree with the general idea. The rest, of course, don’t, but I could practice with them, sharpen my claws a little, for the actual actions I have in mind for this month, during GPSO. Which actions really should at least happen next week, since at first I meant to do something this week and obviously didn’t. But those plans of mine will tax me quite a lot, so I could really use this practice first… If I won’t find it too taxing in itself and become even less likely to do anything more.

The plan was to write about the situation in Egypt today, but shit really hit the fan there now, so I’m pretty much glued to the Al Jazeera English live stream and The Guardian’s live coverage of the Egypt protests, following the battles and developments. No way to write something now, since I’m not a reporter who can follow a situation and report on it at the same time. Plus that I’m not keen on reporting situations as they’re developing anyway, instead giving my opinions on the general issue, usually either while things are still in the planning stage or after events have already reached at least a preliminary conclusion.
All I have to say at the moment is that this truly is major. If these protests will succeed, the wave will sweep all through the Arab world, possibly reigniting tensions even in Iran. If they’ll fail, all that momentum will likely be lost and few more things will happen. Of course, the question in either case is what will happen afterwards and what will the consequences be for the entire world. Obviously, if these movements will result in fundamentalists, of any kind, gaining power, as the case has been in Palestine, we’d all be far worse off than now, so some sort of international force should be standing by to make sure that won’t happen. But that same international force should also support the anti-government protesters now, while also looking into reasonable solutions for a temporary government to avoid a power vacuum.
I’m getting back to following the developments now, as this has been hard enough to write while listening to the reports anyway. Perhaps the situation will sort itself out soon enough and I’ll be able to say more then… And, on an unrelated note, also manage to figure out what to do this month for Global Population Speak Out, of course, since that should be my main concern. But there are far too many good fights to fight in this world…