matrixmann: (Thinking)
(Attention: This is highly speculative content and shouldn't be taken with scientific correctness!
Further down, it also shouldn't be taken as hatespeech or as a base to reason artificial interferences to execute population policy.
At first, it's just thoughts considering and philosophizing about a subject and it's meant as nothing more than that.)




World population grows every year, mainly in Africa and Asia.
Although in those areas, at least Africa the most, the common health care accessible to the normal people is far away from being satisfying. Still a lot of people die in their child years.
But even though, of those who are born, still a higher number manages to survive to make the population grow.
Is that so?
Population growth in Europe and other areas in the world counted as "developed" these days, it happened the most as technological and scientific progress appeared. As the influence of the Christian churches slowly declined, compared to the Middle Ages.
The increase in what health care could provide from the scientific viewpoint, and even the more as the distribution to the normal populace with low and average income for the time episode started to take place (for the sake of taking the soil away from social democrats and early communists), this is what is considered as the main reason for the explosive population growth that appeared between the 19th and the 20th century.
In Asia, this is partly the case, if you take a look at China which keeps increasing its capacities for provision constantly. But compare it to India. India is rich in population, but still the caste system is intact and richness and the deepest poverty both exist in this country without ever seeing light at the end of the tunnel to ever change. The normal population can't have that access to proper health care, otherwise it couldn't be one of the main research countries for medication tests on humans.
So, how would this rule apply there? Health care increasing the chances of survival of the individual, while people still tend to have families with many children born because of social reasons?
Is the population in the "developing" countries really the problem, if distribution of health care to everyone, as a base for survival of the masses of people born, is no topic in those despite economy experiencing growth all the time?

Taking a look at Europe and the already "developed" areas.
Population numbers in those areas have never been higher than today. Today is the max for these ever in history.
If those wouldn't live from getting people from other areas of the world moving into their territory, population numbers would already be in a noticeable decline. (Except for US because reproductive rights are under constant threat of clerical conservatives of being abandoned or killed by lack of funding, and people from the lower classes, who bear the most children there, depend on social programs to provide this to them, as proper distribution of health care to people from all states of wealth doesn't exist there.)
In the developed nations, about 95% of the population born survives into old age. Predators in the 5%-quota are diseases, malformations, accidents, pollution, man-made violence and psychic diseases caused by circumstances habored in this way of civilization.
So, population numbers in those areas remain constant with a slight decline in the long term. They get actively tried to be kept on the max. Be it home-bred population or through immigration.
And this through all the times.
So... basically, where does the point of attention lie really when it comes down to population policy?
In the developing countries, where still the least of the humans born survives until they're adults, and they die in a young age because of diseases damaging their health, or in those areas where nearly every person born survives until approximately 60 at least? And the number of people achieving this is being kept relatively constant at all times?
It may be worth picking up this hard constrast "95% survival" vs. "high mortality" for a closer look.
While the times of boom economic growth are over in the developed world, everything's build up that needed to be build up, now it only suffers from wrong proportion of the distribution, population decline in harsher numbers would be the logical consequence - as, in the phase of building something up, it needs more resources than when only maintaining and keeping up the state of things as they are currently. Also, there is not a need for "more" resources to be used as ante in the process.
Not even to speak of when the next stage of the technoligical age becomes reality and some more machines replace the human labor in the productive sectors, which makes the part of the population being employed in that sector become out of work and for sure also a part of them "obsolete" in the terms of the employment market.
So to say, the high population numbers of the developed world, in the long term, progress into a state of all of its population that it habors isn't "needed" anymore. It's like only in a position of consuming and sucking up resources, in a position of being a "consumer". Unable to give back or be of relevance to the integrity of the system. Others would call it drastically "trash", that's what they are then. - "Trash" that would need to be administered until its death and not be renewed / replaced by another person, to be exact.
So... when an area tries to keep its population number up in a state like before the big industrial boom at the beginning of the 20th century that it actually doesn't need anymore, it raises the question towards "How healthy for the planet is this strategy?"? How good in population policy worldwide is this actually?
And how much does it distort the numbers?
How much is it a factor that's part of the overall problem?
How much does that overclocked number cause in damage because a part of the population already exists in needlessness, but still they consume resources like all other people who are needed by the system to function?
To state something very clearly: The people who this applies to, they aren't to blame for what they are. If they have worked through a respective way of education and even performing an occupation for an amount of time throughout their lives, then there's no talking about "self-caused circumstances". Those people aren't obsolete because they haven't had ambitions and therefore were lazy and spoiled since a very young age. They've become obsolete because the system they live in doesn't need them anymore. In a certain span of time they were needed indeed, but now no more. - In difference to people who didn't even try for a decent school education and stayed away from it to hang out with friends, drink beer and destroy window glasses.
Therefore, because they're not to blame, they should at no point of the story be treated like if they were.
The solution for these should just be, plain and simple, to not to replace them in the next generation. Their life remains untouched, but as there is no need to have another person regrow into that position, there better shouldn't exist one to respawn.

When these obsolete numbers are being kept and maintained constantly, how much does it distort the real needs and the real functionality of the system that humans build for themselves to live in?
How much is it also responsible for overpopulation - for population that is there, but without a need of human civilization for them to exist?
What happens - how do the numbers look if that population doesn't exist anymore? In the developed world, as well as when Africa, Asia, South America only has the population number that it needs (considered, the economy of the "developing" areas also makes it to a state of things comparable to the so-called "industrialized nations" measured by what their environment allows)?
What if there are not that many people around anymore whose only purpose is to be there as a consumer because there is no task for them in this world?
And, what would happen to the yearly growth numbers if socially the issues of "children as security that supplies you in bad times / old age" would be adequately solved, in combination with that?
What would happen if mankind only grows or stays the same in such masses that it also has tasks for in its differing societies?

At least upon further thought it doesn't seem like the developed world is totally not to blame for the problem of the overpopulation. They try to keep up a number within their territories that's unrealistically high compared to the possible employment rate that it's able to supply when everything is run under fair circumstances (opposed to the current strategy of part-time work and letting the developing countries produce their food and their consumer goods).
When 95% of all humans survive until old age, you don't need people to have 2 and 3 children or more anymore. Better you should be happy if some people can't or don't want to have children because of certain reasons. Because that's getting closer to a realistic number, not even to speak of the children who would suffer for their whole lives as adults if there is no purpose in society for them.
And not even getting started to speak of the impact on the environment if there's one big resources-consumer less in the world...

It would be a drastic restructuring of society as it was to adapt to these circumstances with less people exsting again. But that process would be inevitable, as human civilization always finds a way of making work and production more effective than before, and by the time, this comes at the cost of human labor. No matter which economical system or system of world views it has in a century.
It is like one and only constant thread that keeps unfolding in history.

If not for those processes in mankind, which one can regard from one or another thousand positions, just think about the extinction of animal species: Animals vanished, as humans claimed the living space and bred like rabbits. Where humans live, animals have to go as humans want to live alone or even need the space for themselves.
One doesn't need to wonder about that process, as the earth has only a limited amount of living space.

Environment topics - overpopulation - vanishing of animal species - economy - social problems - all these topics are interconnected with each other. Each brick - another little factor in the other issue.
And when humans want to live up to the high goals they set for themselves in their enthusiasm, then they need to show a willingness to do something for this and to also adapt their societies to the links of the circumstances that are right in front of them.
There is no washing without getting wet. And no-one said it would be comfortable. Who thinks it would be, he lives in the world of a little child... Fairytales and unicorns.
matrixmann: (Waiting for command)
What is there to say?
This is the world you created.
This is the seeds you have sown.
And this is the harvest you get.
Say - are you fucking happy with it?!
Are you happy that any grand nation
can attack another nation,
without being subject to punishment?
Are you happy with crying over people
that you didn't know they existed
until yesterday?
Is this your understanding of
humanism?
Selectable like your joys -
and after a few weeks gone
you have forgotten about everything.
This is your standard.
Scapegoats and heroes
and "Iiiii have nothing to do with that".

Original:
https://matrixmann.dreamwidth.org/129999.html
matrixmann: (Black suits comin')
In Lower Saxony, a chief physician in gynecology is able to openly state "I don't do abortions anymore" and reason his decision with his Christian belief, and the chief of the clinic is able to express his support for the doctor, stating "There is no law in Germany that can force a doctor to do an abortion. Unless her life is in danger and there is a medical indication to do it.".

Repeat: In 21st century Germany, a gynecologist is able to state "I don't do abortions anymore" - and gets away with it! Where is the big #aufschrei here? Where are the women rights activists here to scream and shout about it?!
I don't even hear a fucking court or a stupid talkshow screaming "Now that doesn't suit out values and definitions of freedom..." and speak about unlawfulness!
Where are you fucking human rights activists here?! Where are you social justice warriors here to cry about it!! I know, you get paid to shut the fuck up about it when religion is involved in such shitty decisions because religion has become so superimportant in this century!

Thank you, people! Thank you for importing this American shit and let religion rule once again over peoples' lives after they have made it to wrest it from state and church to get everyone the same treatment regardless of who they pray to!

If you let one have his way, all the others crawl from under the rock again too!

Don't you fucking dare to complain about the image of a family that the far right comes up with anymore again... You're fucking far right too if you let such things happen!
matrixmann: (Thinking)
First, there were fights over religion, then it was political ideologies, now it's about which food to eat.
Mankind really is bored like an overdeveloped ape with too much free time on his hands, isn't it?

Games

7 January 2017 08:33 pm
matrixmann: (Ready)
Whenever you keep seeing those big presentations and advertising of soccer events, you get the impression like the vision of a lot of dystopic SciFi authors or movie makers has come true: Shiny and glittering shows for the masses. Superstars to cheer at, heroes to believe in - and in the end, they're all created by some moguls that are kings of the mass media. For the purpose: To direct the view of the common people, to distract them or to get their looks to pay attention to the mass event presented which is not very much different from letting gladiators fight over their lives. They shall yell for their lives, think about nothing else except for that it's been a nice relief from everyday hard work or how they can become gladiators themselves, which they get shown in a way to perceive they're all paid with millions and a carefree life, everything to want and everything to look up at. And, what are they behind the curtains? Not the smartest, not the most moral, not the most honest - just a bunch of tragic figures which fulfill their task, but they're destined to realize only once they become too old to go on with that. Then the nature of their physical plague until that moment becomes obvious even to them.
But until then, new gladiators are found to take their places. And the masses go on yelling... Like, one or the other name, it doesn't matter. It's just some soccer players running for the amusement of some common people. Which somebody intended it for that it shall be this way.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
...die Leute sollen sich wieder einen Lebensmittelvorrat für ca. 10 Tage und Trinkwasser für mindestens 5 Tage zulegen. Inklusive die staatlichen und allgemeinen übergeordneten Strukturen sollen sich ebenfalls höhere Kapazitäten und Vorkehrungen für den Notfall zulegen.

Ist das wieder die reine Angstmache vor der russischen Förderation oder hat dort jemand etwas vor?
Oder hört dort jemand das Ende seiner Versorgungsstrukturen läuten?
matrixmann: (Black suits comin')
One just can't deny that it seems like political discussions more and more drift towards the niveau that is common in the US and that it more and more is about seeing races, sexes, sexual preferences and the discrimination of such.
Like - a white average person that identifies with its born gender is not entitled to critisize a dark-colored person or a person with roots from Turkey, even though it has its justification because the person itself behaves inappropriate and it has nothing to do with him being the phenotype that he is.
First that person is black (or orange or yellow or blue like a smurf), second he is human.
And because he is black, no white Central European person is entitled to say anything bad about him because first that would be discrimination. Just because of something nobody is to blame for, which you can't pick when you are created.
Especially that emerges currently in the refugee debate.
But if another issue is the topic, it is the same.
Suddenly there is dicrimination against women or against sexual minorities and the public gets worked up over another matter. Like there are no other problems to complain about or it always can be reduced to this. That's the ultimate reason why nothing works.
People complain about their own poverty because of discrimination, not because the system dropped them.
And, like a planned campaign against something, if wanting to get excited, they pick out only the worst examples for public debates which you can really certify xenophobia, sexism and discrimination against certain religions.
Acting through presenting, like this is the only kind of person critical of a thing that exists.
There is only black and white, nothing in between. You can recognize a sexist by the shape of his nose.
All mantras that progressivism ever preached about not generalizing, projecting an assumption onto a mass of people blanket, they disobey themselves massively if it suits their wishes. They don't see single persons, they also only see masses standing against them. Let alone if they find someone's statements inappropriate according to their mindset, then he's as outlawed for defamations and reputational damage as a serious felon...

Trail

5 April 2016 09:51 am
matrixmann: (Ready)
The EU made a contract with Turkey about "returning" refugees from Greece and keeping future ones from their island. Well, not even beginning to talk about how much it disregards international conventions they hold up in high esteem if it suits them and that it qualifies for the term "human trafficking" - a look on the map should give you another error in this wannabe-"well thought out" plan.
They always told how much they don't want those people that come from the Balkans, but where are the Balkans? Are they East and South of Turkey? No, they aren't.
Who comes from the Balkans doesn't need to go via Turkey. He already is positioned far ahead on the route. And just returning them to their homey countries doesn't make them not reappear again, as practice shows. Who stops you in these states after what the NATO has left of Yugoslavia? It is rather likely you find help in this over there because of the powers the West liked to work together with in this conflict.
So, what use is it to lock out only those refugees which flee from the warzones you created, when just a big chunk of those who also want to come already sit far behind that border you're trying to close?
Much more, if you don't have the personnel and the time to get a hold of dispatching these?
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
2003: George W. Bush, Tony Blair and other associates go on a search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but fail to find them and others even still today don't manage to detect their whereabouts.
They find a head of state trapped in a clink, leave him to the verdict of the locals, pull down a statue and unjustifiably declare themselves to be the winner of the war - whose results still keep them busy for the sake of security.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
2011: The beginning of something in Syria that didn't end in an upheaval like the Arab spring, but resulted in a full-fledged armed war.

Prospect

3 March 2016 09:26 am
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
This will not end well...
The leaders have no answers, jump around like scared up chickens, acting by an agenda which has long proved itself void. And they still keep sticking with it.
The flow of refugees won't vanish, as there is too much money to earn with them, too much geoplitics to be pushed through them and they pick out the wrong partners to stop the influx.
Those refugees who are already in Europe won't vanish to thin air too.
Even if they close the borders, there's going to be masses which gather at the border and don't know where to go. They won't go home, they've come to far for that and sacrificed too much in their point of view to get there. So - they will continue to try to get their chance to cross the fence when no-one sees it.
What the states can do in the point of "humanitarian aid" and for their own safety, will be to put them all in a camp where they will be forced to live - camps which will quickly be too full to fulfill a humanitarian purpose, camps where the state won't know what to do with its inhabitants, camps which will become like slums or, when the state grows completely helpless and the right political forces for that agenda take over control, turn into camps where death is the only thing that can be found - just because nobody knows what to do and where to put these people.
This is not going to end peacefully...
For a peaceful solution it has already overstepped its bounds.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
February 2011: 17th, marks of the official day when the uprising against the Colonel from Libya that always opened his wallet when Africa needed financial aid started.
His enemies, who spent a long time of friendship with him, still suffer from the results of their deed: Free influx of refugees and soldiers of fortune from Africa as well as the Middle East, other powers taking control of the area, and the oil, a steady flow settled by contract, now is next to be lost.
The outcome of this is still uncertain.
matrixmann: (Waiting for command)
Change to the concept needs to be laid down in time, otherwise it might be possible that time overtakes and it will be too late.
Many empires didn't recognize that point, even fought back against it. Who says that this cannot happen again? Who says everything that is known today still will be known in a hundred years? Who says that breakdowns which happen every few centuries cannot happen today anymore?
Who says that all people involved are that smart to avoid that?
There was a time where European countries fought against each other and longed for superior power in the the continent. The European project that is known today which finds its roots after WWII is a stark contradiction to that behavior. Who says they can't fall back to that through certain disputes that couldn't be agreed on a solution?
Who says that a country with a history only up to 250 years old, not counting the several inner disputes in between, could not suddenly break apart?
Who would have thought that affinities that lasted for hundreds of years suddenly would end in growing enmity only because of interferences of external powers that barely know anything about the history of that places?
Can someone really predict what'll happen to the world as you know it these days?
Nothing of that is written. Everything stays in a dynamic, and the more people exist the more the spiral of conflicts and changes seems to spin faster into a development that its original creators didn't mean to come so soon that they could still experience it.
They try to think that they can build a kingdom that outlasts at least their lifetime so they can build a nice existence garnished with privileges and securities that guarantee them a living in the lap of luxury.
But they underestimate the driving force behind their luxury and what it brings to all other people which can't live by that standard.
The misery they generate with their way of living and the disagreements these oligarchs even have among themselves creates the atmosphere of hate, turmoil, which creeps closer to end their existence.
If they like to stay caught up in this collision on interests, try to sit it out, it will be hate they sowed themselves which will overwhelm them - once more, like the immobility struck down the former enemies of these interest groups.
matrixmann: (Waiting for command)
Watch the world go down...
You won't know when the next revolution knocks on the door. You won't know when the next big change in the world is pending and stands on the brink of claiming what it wants.
You'll only notice when you're in the middle of it.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
"The storms of fate cause misery for many, and few will be able to calm them once they start."

Leknaat, Suikoden II

matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
On the occasion of another climate summit: If you wanna do nature a real favor, mankind needs to stop living like a lord and draw on unlimited resources - and not just China, India and all those countries which now start to develop to the standard of the so-called "first world countries".
They also need to stop in the West to regard it as a self-evidence to use and throw away, to regard it as a justified measure to invent new things, cut out the old ones and produce the new ones like there is no end only because they can't reach new economic growth with producing the old equipment, and to produce worse things like energy saving lamps instead of regular bulbs made of glass, plate and tungsten only because some lobbyist with no specialized knowledge says they're environmentally more acceptable.
Above all, as radical and evil as it seems, mankind needs to put on serious thought to the fact that their wasteful lifestyle isn't able to be reached by all people in the world if the world contains more than 7 billion people. Either you can continue and have the least percentage of the human world have access to this standard of living, or you need to step down and live very basic from what the industrialized world currently calls its "normality", or there can only be at the most 2 billion people throughout the world which live like that so the resources they consume is enough for this mass taken from one planet. As it neither is healthy for the earth as well as for other planets to exploit their resources of metal ore, nor it is going to cause the world a lot of joy being contamined by radiation that exists throughout space.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
A batch of foreign and resident nations now interfere into the matters of the Middle East and act like too many cooks that spoil the broth...
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Quote from this one a while ago: https://matrixmann.dreamwidth.org/71079.html

Ideas about an invasion into Syria on the part of Turkey exist?


Strangely enough, up until noon today news popped up about a march-in of regular Turkish troops into Northern Iraq. Officially, they're supposed to be 130 men for training Pershmerga fighters, but in fact it is said it's a complete tank battalion with vehicles and all.

Regarding this a while back - you know what to do with it.

And the saddest thing is, Western NATO countries have nothing else to do than agreeing on pointless and chaotic military campaigns which are damned to end in another fiasco and obviously one of the true players from behind-the-scenes they leave be and let do whatever he wants. Because of the refugees, the European countries even show up to bow down before the Turkish government to beg them to prevent them from entering their living space.
But they always tell it's "Ivan" Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin who's an aggressor...

If he is an aggressor, then what the fuck is this supposed to be?
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
New mandates for interventions in Africa and the Middle East - since hundreds of years these areas have seen nothing else than European big nations coming into their countries, trying to tell them what to do, cheating them with peanuts, and exploiting from them the assets that they want. Nothing has changed of that.
And you keep wondering why there is so much hate against the European nations in these areas? Why militant groups form that crave for nothing else than the beheading of these occupiers?
Or why people keep running away from there?
Development policy is not making a contract with a local tribal chief and supporting police training for building fences and borders - it means making that people can acquire their piece of the cake down there and that they can lead a decent life.
Every kind of military mission that does not have the goal to make this possible is doomed to fail sooner or later. So are politics which don't make this a particular goal of their activities.
Europe as well as the other foreign Western nations are condemned to be violently chased out of these areas as long as they don't get this and still regard every mission of theirs as small-contingent-mission that is soon to be ended without further notice.
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
The Schengen Agreement can also be temporarily suspended. There is no need or must for it to be active for all eternity. If the situation demands it...

July 2017

M T W T F S S
     1 2
34 56 78 9
1011 1213 1415 16
17 1819 2021 22 23
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Statistics


Free counters!

Free counters!
Page generated 25 July 2017 08:46 am