Cav's Place

Despite the potentially confusing name, Care2‘s Population Growth group was meant to bring together those who are worried about overpopulation, and recently it has enjoyed some amount of activity. During one of these conversations, somebody mentioned advocating measures to control population despite not endorsing eugenics, which prompted me to say that I do support eugenics and in fact can’t see any other way to solve the problem without starting mass slaughters and preferably while also getting evolution back into the game. A couple of people came out to say they agreed with me, but then the others firmly rejected the idea.
After those first messages, I was left alone to debate the issue with only one of those who wrote to say they reject the notion of eugenics, so I can assume that the rest aren’t willing to discuss it further. Still, this little resulting debate has been going on for the past couple of days and it did help me build a stronger case in favor of eugenics and realize even more than I did before just how desperately we need such measures. And that’s because I looked up some numbers and realized that my assumptions were way too optimistic, as hard as that is to believe in my case, meaning that even the numbers I’ve been putting forward would be completely inadequate if we’re to have any chance of reducing the human population to sustainable numbers by the end of the century.

I never actually searched for the number of people that die in the world each year, assuming that the result obtained by dividing the population of around 6.8 billion by the average lifespan of about 67 years would be close enough to the truth, which is why I even used 100 million as an example in my “Suffocating the World” post. However, much to my surprise, I now noticed that in fact only about 56 or 57 million people die each year! And that certainly prompts some changes to the plan, because it’s very easy to see the kind of drastic measures we’ll need to take if we’re to have any hope of reducing the population to, say, two billion by the end of the century: We need to get the population to drop by 4.8 billion in 90 years, which means that it needs to drop by 53.33 million each year. When only 56 or 57 million die per year, that means no more than 2.67 or 3.67 million may be born. However, close to 140 million are currently being born each year, which means birth rates must be reduced by just about 98%.
But going more thoroughly through the numbers, including the low death count, is a topic for another time. The point here was just to show that the current number of annual deaths barely allows for any births. That means that anything other than eugenics, anything other than requiring “breeding licenses” in order to have a baby and offering them only to the very best, only to those who have genes that are truly worthy of being passed on according to completely objective criteria, is doomed to utter and complete failure. Anything may help and everything potentially useful should be tried, but nothing except eugenics could possibly do enough.
Education is being pushed forward left and right as a method to solve this problem, but there is no more time for education, and in fact education regarding overpopulation only works on those who are intelligent and at least somewhat altruistic, which are unfortunately the attributes of only a small portion of humanity. Far from me to deny that even a small amount of education could easily halve the number of children certain women have, but that’d be very far from enough in itself.
Improving the standard of living of the poor is another method supported by many, but that likely requires even more time and, in fact, no resources are left to sufficiently improve the standard of living of the current number of poor. Not that this method could achieve more than a fraction of the required reduction in the number of births anyway, but I also have to say that raising the standard of living requires lowering the population, so claiming to do it the other way around on a planetary scale would be funny if it wouldn’t be so sad for us all.
As for financial means, such as reversing the current trend and offering benefits to the childfree and raising taxes for those who have children, those would also be completely insufficient. This approach would stop those who breed just for the benefits, making a living out of the income generated by the very existence of their children, and also deter many who are uncertain about having children, but once again the effects would be very far from sufficient.
You simply can’t obtain an immediate 98% reduction in the number of births and maintain those results for nearly an entire century by hoping that people will see that only very few of them should have children anymore and voluntarily comply. And you can’t obtain those results by nudging or pressuring them in that direction either. Those methods all help, certainly, but they can’t generate the necessary results, they can’t have the required impact! The number of children that may still be born at the current moment is so low that the only way to achieve it is to say exactly what it is, so everyone will know the number of spots they’re competing for, and then call all who want to have a baby to go through the required tests, handing the permits only to those who qualify for the available spots. And eugenics is the only method that could possibly be used in order to come up with objective criteria to base those tests on, as it deals with the traits that could be passed on by the potential parents to their children, if they’d be allowed to have any.

But, of course, that’s an uphill struggle. Limiting births is an uphill struggle in itself, as the vast majority of people think with their gonads when it comes to that, but advocating the notion of eugenics is even worse as it has been terribly tarnished by the Nazis, who claimed to base their atrocities on it despite using subjective criteria such as ethnicity or hair or eye color instead of objective ones and torturing and killing people for the sole “crime” of being alive instead of simply not allowing the unfit ones to have children. But nothing worthwhile’s ever easy, so perhaps we’ll manage to clear away all the mess the Nazis have created before it will completely destroy our civilization, such as it is, by scaring us away from the only effective solution to the world’s greatest problem.

Good enough for a short SF book. Shows that it was meant to be an even shorter story, as it says at the beginning, because it basically only follows a character, with a second added in a couple of places, and gives little detail about the world, but it does its job and sends some messages to those willing to listen. Also, all the little poems supposedly written by Mustapha placed at the beginning of each chapter can fall under “words of wisdom” anytime.

Rating: 3/5

I was initially planning to write yesterday’s post on Monday and a second one on Thursday or Friday, so I could do this month’s computer “maintenance” work right away afterwards. That didn’t quite work out, but it’s pretty much the only thing that failed to work out this week, while a few others went quite significantly better than expected.

I meant to write a post on Monday because I knew I was going to be alone between Tuesday morning and Thursday afternoon, so it was unlikely that I’d feel like sitting down to write a serious post while having full freedom of movement around the house. And that was completely true, but instead I ended up going shopping on Tuesday, which was one of the things that turned out much better than expected.
I knew for the past few months that I was going to need some things and initially meant to try to buy them myself at the start of April, but I noticed I wasn’t going to completely run out before May, so I delayed the attempt. And right now, since I was alone, I thought I could try to get a little food as well, despite the breakdown that followed when I last bought something that counted as food. But I not only managed to buy everything I meant to, but also two items I had been needing for years and never saw when I went shopping before. And I also recharged my cell phone card, which required actual interaction with someone and I’m still unsure how I managed that. I mean, I toyed with the idea and tried to prepare for it for weeks, but certainly didn’t think I’d manage.

Otherwise, the time spent alone was nice, especially since there was quite a lot of it lately. It also helped me regain just a tiny shred of confidence that I could perhaps just manage to survive by myself at some point. Not that it seems possible to end up no longer living with my parents, no matter how much I’d wish it, or that I’d have anyone in mind that I could live with, as living alone for an extended amount of time is something I certainly have no desire to try at any point… But it’s been quite some time since I was alone for over a day and an even longer time since I did much of anything while alone, so I was even more insecure than usual. But these days went really well, which once again made me confident that I’d manage quite all right as long as no problems would arise that’d require contacting another person in order to solve.
The very surprising part, even for me, was that I ended up waiting for dad with food on the table when he got back on Thursday. I certainly meant to sit quietly in my room once he sent me a message saying he’ll be back soon, but found myself trying to quickly fix myself something more to eat, which quickly turned into me fixing a lunch like all the others I fixed myself while alone… And then, when it became obvious that I wasn’t going to finish before he got back, I decided to also make some eggs like I usually make them and give him a taste as well, just to prove to him that you don’t need to fry everything in lots of cooking oil. The resulting time spent together was pretty awkward, at least for me, so I’m sure it was a bad choice, but I guess I was feeling good enough after the time spent alone to “afford” something like this. Not intending to “interact” again anytime soon, however, so now I really wish they’d act as if I’m not here and stop greeting me whenever I need to get out of my room to go to the bathroom!

About the health concerns… Monday night I was thinking that something must be seriously wrong with me and just making it far worse by worrying about the worst possible scenarios, as I always do whenever I think there is a health problem, but by the time I got back after Tuesday’s “adventure” I was too shocked to notice any such problems anymore, which resulted in me feeling a whole lot better as well. It’s still obvious that something’s likely wrong, and probably not something very minor, but for the moment I’m once again relatively able to ignore it most of the time. Still, I should at least get that tooth filling replaced, as I still haven’t done that and it’s something I could do, as I highly doubt any potential treatment for any of the other problems would be even partially acceptable for me, even if I knew exactly what they were.

As for the gaming front, I somehow finally managed to get the story moving on Gothic II Gold, despite how difficult the game is with the expansion installed. At least I already got much further than I did on any of my previous attempts at playing it, so there may even be some hope of finishing it someday. But I still don’t have the slightest clue how could I possibly make a character that won’t be insanely weak at every point of the game, considering how extremely restrictive the character development becomes with the expansion installed… The atmosphere of this game is so great that it’d really benefit from being very easy, so you could just enjoy it instead of struggling to beat it every single moment, but apparently the developers didn’t agree with that idea at all…

I dread to even read this post now, as my mind was all over the place and I’m sure it ended up even worse that my posts, even most personal ones, usually end up… But at least it’s written and I now can move on to that “maintenance” I mentioned at the beginning. Though the plan is most likely to start late tonight, not right now, and finish tomorrow. Until then, maybe I’ll manage to play a little more…

This post is quite connected to the last one and could have been called “Circus Animals and Slavery”, but it was, in fact, inspired by Bolivia banning the use of animals for circus acts. But while the similarities are obvious, both being utterly exploited by humans, the difference between farm animals and circus animals is that I really don’t see how anyone could even think about challenging the notion that circus animals are performing jobs no different from those performed by police dogs, for example, as they require training, skills and specific actions under specific conditions.
Under these circumstances, is it right to ban the concept of circus animals entirely? Isn’t that something like banning police animals or even banning employers from hiring people? Sure, an important difference is that it can easily be argued that most police animals and some farm animals, not to mention a part of the human employees, are necessary, while circus animals are not, as they are certainly not required in order to provide entertainment in general, so the ban can be considered to be the easy solution to the problem. But that problem is obviously how they are treated, not the simple fact that they are used.

Do the vast majority of circuses abuse their animals? Absolutely. But do all circuses abuse all of their animals? I’m not so sure. And, either way, since the way those animals are treated is the problem, that’s what the law should regulate. It would in effect be a ban on a lot of practices and acts that couldn’t really be performed if the animals would be treated well, but perhaps not on everything. In addition, such a measure could also serve as a means to inform circus owners and animal handlers of the proper way to treat animals, as some of them, those who are more lenient in their training practices but still offer their animals a poor diet and poor living conditions, may really be unaware of the harm they’re causing.
Such a direct ban on the activity itself, however, may do more harm than good not only to the existing circus animals, but also to those currently caught in the trade, legal and illegal alike, as circuses are likely to be important buyers. When all these circus owners are told to simply get rid of their animals, they may well do just that, by abandoning or killing them. And when the traders will know that circus owners will no longer be buying from them, they may follow suit with their current stock. And things may not be much better for the animals handed over to shelters either, as these are usually not the kind of tenants that animal shelters are used to having, which means that the staff may well be unfit to care for them and the living conditions may not be noticeably more suitable for them than the ones they had at the circus. Not to mention the terrible overcrowding and the strain on the meager resources that such shelters usually have to make do with that will result from any significant number of circus owners and traders actually doing the right thing…

But let me be more specific about the solution I’m proposing. Firstly, all circuses should be required to submit their animals to periodic examinations by qualified professionals in order to determine their condition. Secondly, no new animals should be taken from the wild in order to be used in circus acts, though this should not affect the animals that have already been legally taken from the wild and are yet to be handed over or sold to circuses. And, of course, there should be very harsh punishments for those who break these rules or who, as proven by the periodic examinations, mistreat their animals.
Going into further detail, the periodic examinations should very easily reveal any signs of physical abuse or very poor living conditions, which should result in the immediate confiscation of the animals in question and the punishment of the guilty circus owners and handlers. If no obvious signs of abuse can be found and yet the animals suffer from serious health problems, a team should be sent to inspect the circus. If the conditions prove to be poor, those responsible will be appropriately punished. Otherwise, the animals will be held until they could be nursed back to health and then returned, if possible. Lastly, if the animals would suffer from less serious ailments, the owners should be advised on how to treat them and put on probation. If the animals would be in better shape at the time of the next examination, the probation period will end. If not, it will be assumed that the owners mistreat the animals and they will be appropriately punished.
As for the second rule, we must make sure that animals will no longer be plucked from the wild just to provide entertainment for people. This should also make circus owners treat their animals somewhat more responsibly, as it’ll be harder to replace them. However, as I said, traders should be able to keep and sell any animals already legally taken from the wild at the time the law would come into effect, as otherwise they’d be likely to abandon or kill them. Efforts should be made to obtain, even by purchasing, those animals that could still be returned to the wild in order to do just that, but owners and traders shouldn’t be pressured in ways which could result in an even worse fate for the animals in question than the one they had up to that point.

I believe that such regulations could work towards improving the living conditions of circus animals, which are the real problem, while significantly reducing the problems potentially generated by an actual ban. Most circuses would eventually be forced to give up on animal acts because they’d lack the resources, skills or even the willingness to treat their non-human performers properly, but the practice itself could continue rather well where those animals would be treated as valued employees and offered genuine care and good living conditions. Since we’re mainly talking about animals that’d hardly make good pets but would be equally unsuited for life in the wild, being born and raised in captivity, this may well be the best realistic solution for them.
But, going back to the situation in Bolivia, I certainly hope those senators’ fears will soon turn into reality and bullfighting will be banned as well, as there’s absolutely no way to justify torturing and killing an animal like that!

A new series of regulations coming from the Romanian Ministry of Agriculture and dealing with the comfort of farm animals, especially those raised in factory farms, has prompted a series of very amused reactions from the media and a good part of the population, who feel that it’s simply idiotic to think about the comfort of anything other than humans, plus some pretty angry reactions from certain other people, who are outraged that money are being spent on improving the standard of living of farm animals when people are poor and have so many of their needs unmet, especially since these measures are likely to result in price increases for certain animal products.
Granted that the regulations can give reason for a certain kind of angry or frustrated amusement, but that has nothing to do with the reasons mentioned by the media and everything to do with the fact that some of these measures seem to have little actual purpose and nearly all of them certainly do far more for those who raise such animals, allowing them to claim that they now do so much for their well-being, than for the animals themselves, as the major problems inherent to factory farming are not tackled.

There was a time when people were slaves simply because they were of a different race. Now there is still some actual slavery in certain areas and a lot of paycheck slavery everywhere, but things have greatly improved and hopefully will continue to do so. Yet, while we continue to try to prevent humans from treating other humans as slaves, other animals are treated like slaves simply because they are of a different species. I’m wondering why shouldn’t we make changing this state of affairs the next step, as an integral part of our development and evolution as a supposedly intelligent species?
Sure, other animals are not humans and can’t be treated the same way, but we are responsible for how an animal we raise lives and ultimately dies and should act accordingly! So, while such an animal is raised and perhaps used to provide other products, such as milk or eggs, it should be treated as something similar to a valued employee and offered genuine care and a decent quality of life in exchange for the services it provides. And, while I agree that we have the right to kill other animals for food, I firmly believe that, when such killing is done in a controlled environment and not, for example, by a starving person lost in the woods, the method used must cause no pain or stress to the animal in question. I also firmly believe that any such sacrifices must only be performed out of need and not simply to satisfy the whims of some who desire certain delicacies or luxuries and that, excepting self-defense, food is the only good reason for killing an otherwise at least reasonably healthy animal, though of course certain parts of it can and should be used for other purposes, because nothing should be wasted.
Yet what’s going on now is something very different… Those who haven’t done so already can set aside an hour and a half and then go ahead and click on the “Earthlings” banner in the sidebar for an idea of what I’m talking about. Though I think everyone already has at least some idea about how animals are treated anyway, the question being only whether or not they care and, unfortunately, very few seem to. Of course, the next question would be what would the ones who do care be willing to do about it. After all, the United States needed a war to get rid of slavery based on race, so who knows what it’d take for the whole world to get rid of slavery based on species…

Yes, I’m quite aware that such changes would make animal products a lot more expensive and would also significantly reduce their availability, but eliminating slavery made pretty much everything more expensive and likely also harder to come by in the areas where it was practiced, and offering employees better working conditions and wages has the same effect on the products of their labor. It’s not a question of what’s convenient for those of us who consume or otherwise use certain products, but a question of fairness towards those who produce them. I’m sure pretty much everyone who has a job would agree with that statement when thinking of themselves, so it only makes sense to extend that same reasoning to all other employees as well, regardless of race or species.
And besides, improving the animals’ living conditions tends to result in much healthier animal products and less environmental damage, which implies a lot of benefits for us humans as well, regardless of where we live or what we eat. So making such changes is in the long-term interest of everyone, meaning that all those who can manage to also think about what will happen to them and what world will they live in a few years or decades from now instead of focusing solely on today and tomorrow should fully support these measures that are currently only brought forward by a small number of animal rights activists, as if they’d do nothing but harm humans, or at best as if they wouldn’t affect humans at all.

Unfortunately, a very long time is likely to pass before other species will stop being treated as they currently are. But perhaps someday enough people will evolve to the level required to care for anyone or anything other than themselves and perhaps a few loved ones, and to think about the future at least as much as, and preferably way more than, about the present. Perhaps when there will be few enough people in the world and they’ll live much simpler lives than many of those who currently reside in developed countries do… That’d be a crucial moment in our evolution from a species with great mental potential to one that could truly be called intelligent.