World population - Things as they seem? ++ (Attention: Highly speculative content!)

[matrixmann]

(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.

Comments

[maadmike.livejournal.com]

"And, just remember: There are still such unpopulated places in the world where fast internet is a dream!"

Yes, there are plenty but if people are choosing to live there they know what it is about. The central Russia is mostly covered with net now.
I thought that there is no place now at Europe which hasn't phone and Internet connection. Looking on West Europe now it is all covered with electricity, roads and much lighter than Russia of course- it is interesting that you still have as you are saying the rural areas from which the youngsters are fleeing.

Oldness as a critical sickness is mostly a finish for everything no matter where you are at the capital's center or far away from it.

[matrixmann]

Choosing? If I'm an adult I can choose, but not when I'm a child which just happens to be hit with the bad luck of being born somewhere in the world. You can't choose where you get born to this world.

Electricity and running water made it after all that time to have a pretty wide spread. But fast internet connection - we live in capitalism, and capitalism doesn't understand providing something as offering services to the common people, it understands it as something to make money with. Do they go into areas for very few people to provide if it doesn't drop profit? I think you know the answer.
As for my country, who do you guess who's to blame for the spread of the of the other services? It was communism 'cause communism regarded supply as the most impotant factor of a functioning society.
But that only I can say as far for East Germany.
If all areas in Europe live with the same circumstances - say, I'd put a big question mark behind it.
And even here, I wouldn't vouch for the really solitude countryside with pretty vew people and more animals than people around you, that in rural areas with these characteristics even both electricity and running water made it everywhere.
At least the back of my head says "wait, water supply - I think I've seen this also, people working with a good old pump in the backyard". Only I don't know if that's a self-chosen thing if that's the case, or if it is a result because there the GDR ended and in Western times nobody connects a village of 100 people or to the water supply system if they have to dig up the earth and first lay pipes.
Another thing I have also heard about is when the street lights get turned off at pretty late hours in smaller villagers. Why? To save money. Yes, villages in fucking supposedly rich Germany switching off street lights at night hours because they need to save money...
And, talking about streets, some rural areas still have to live with the road made of small boulders that they had to live with over the past decades.
Or this stupid nonsense they did - doing a tarred road, but only one lane; when two cars left and right are to be coming up to meet, one's gotta pull over to let the other one pass by.

There's not much in the rural areas left to do for the youngsters who acquire good education. All who can just leave off to bigger cities, to the West, especially to West Germany or other areas. They even get told to better do so, if you happen to be in an area where there is no big future for you to grab.
If you don't state yourself that you stay - and live with a little lesser money -, which is not the majority, then it's nobody except for those who build a house there ages ago who stay.
Often enough these are the elders who lived there for decades and are adapted to the lifestyle. Enough people these days also prefer a living without big physical work or getting dirty. Taking and consuming, and if they come back to the nature, then it's just some hipster thing and they hold certain imaginations what the it looks like and be disappointed by the reality they find.

[maadmike.livejournal.com]

There are satellite TV and internet all other the Russia but I heard the Internet is not so fast yet.

The salaries in big cities of Russia after the economic crisis became so low that it is a work from hand to mouth and the flat prices at big cities are so huge that the half of salary goes for mortgage. My point is if a man is workable and has brain it is much more profitable to live now far from the city - you could make a house very easily and cheap, you could make the food for yourself and to sell and it will be a real healthy food which will not make you feel as you are old at thirty years. I recently bought a sausage and gave a small piece for ants to eat, so they didn’t like it and it has been laying for some days before I’ve bushed it off. It tells a lot about what we are eating now – shit, the prices on eco food are so high that it is impossible with our salaries to have it. But yes there are problems of course – the start money, the loneliness, the lack of everything but our government are trying now to solve some of them and asking people to go to the far mostly uninhabited lands.

[matrixmann]

I don't know how it is about that in Europe. During the past years only fast wireless internet has been a big topic and extension of it, the LTE standard. It's never been a big topic here anyway as Europe is pretty populous and they put everything in net on land.
I only expect it costs a pretty penny 'cause it's not a standard package at your telephone service.
That this may be more present in Russia I'd assume 'cause you've got to spread the net over half a continent with areas which are partly pretty unpopulated.

Flats in the big cities directly are also getting more and more expensive here. That's due to the sell-out of the public housing sector to private investors, which refurbish the flats and then rent them for twice the price or more which nobody of the previous residents of the apartment complexes can afford.
In the big cities you can find the places of education, so there is no way around them (also vocational school when you do an apprenticeship), in the bigger cities the entertainment and life takes place (as said, all is being cut and abandoned in the villages), jobs is a thing I'd say it varies if they're there or not.

Living in a rural area here is just useful for only one thing: Hiding from the world and live in peace (so much peace, at times you've already got to run away from it again).
Planting and breeding your own food supply - the last time you could sell that stuff yourself that easily, that was as the GDR still was. This state relied and covered its food supply in a good amount by local and also small production in private gardens.
These days - it's not forbidden, but to distribute own produced food, you've got to have a license first, then it needs periodic controls by the local health authority; after that then comes every hook that has to do with the selling process. Marketing you've got to do yourself, then all kinds of differing taxes have to be paid to the state from your revenue (revenue tax, added value tax).
In practice it is: If you want to make any buck with it, you've got to sell masses, otherwise it's a business with no profit for you. Rather you carry money still to that side business of yours.
All thanks to West German laws and EU regulations...
Ukrainians must know what one's talking about at this; I read it somewhere before the big agrement ot the EU association that they still had it that they could produce food privately and sell it openly without any obstacles. People did it to add a little extra to the monthly salary or pension (among others it was partly even needed).
Now with the EU association it's not possible anymore. EU and its regulations and so on.

Practically it's a way of securing the business of the big players in the field, so nobody can bite a small bit out of their big cake.
I don't know when West Germany started with such politics, at least I don't know it differently from them, so long it's already on.
Repeat: Sine the end of the GDR, forget about only selling a single egg or cherry...
Quite a bunch of people these days have problems with fruit trees in their gardens still left from those times. The fruit you don't eat all by yourself (because of the masses of fruits), but selling you can't just do as you please. Often enough, there's only the option of giving amounts of it as a present to people you know. No money involved, no business - no trouble. Don't know if that is also legally set this way, at least this way you don't get into trouble because you run a food business that's not registered and controlled.
If you grow as much as you eat yourself and act as a self-supplyer, then there's no the big problem.

[maadmike.livejournal.com]

"Ukrainians must know what one's talking about at this; I read it somewhere before the big agrement ot the EU association that they still had it that they could produce food privately and sell it openly without any obstacles. People did it to add a little extra to the monthly salary or pension (among others it was partly even needed).
Now with the EU association it's not possible anymore. EU and its regulations and so on."

You have to know the Ukrainians they are very demanding and active and will blow a mind to everybody on the way to their goal... I am certain that EU will soon be adjusting to Ukrainians. They had destroyed all the links with Russia just to get to EU and then when they will understand that EU sucks they will easily will broke all the links with EU to get more cooperative with Russians back as if nothing had happened.

"Practically it's a way of securing the business of the big players in the field, so nobody can bite a small bit out of their big cake."

It is very frustrating, for me it is looking like totalirization of the world and something like this was described at Holy Bible - then the times will come and you can't sell and buy without a sign on your body and this sign will be a number of a beast... something like that and it is veeeery disturbing cause all this things described are such unbearable to stand…

[matrixmann]

You know, they are going to be damned to discover this.
Because all that Western Europe ever did was sucking up the resources of others and exploiting other people for the sake of goods for a cheap price and sparing their own resources for "bad times".

You know, such things are sort of what creates the strange atmosphere over here. Why enough Germans also hate their country or like to get away from it. You feel like in a golden cage, locked in by the state and its representants, and if not them do this job, then those people indoctrinated with the rightfulness of this nonsense do the job. People who can't see you having a tiny bit more than them, they become jealuous like nothing 'cause of it - or stupid people who are jealuous on you for having more then them, but they don't see the work behind it and always suspect you must use criminal methods.
I've got a couple of German texts in the journal about this topic in a more intense level... It's really like it's no nothing.
It makes you sick. It makes you depressed. It makes you question at all "Why do I do anything more than just also playing the spoiled child, sucking up the resources?". 'Cause it often feels like all you get thrown in your way is sacks of stones.

[matrixmann]

Not even to say: I'm not talking about getting lame when you're 60. Sickness with most people already starts when they're in their 40s.
And it can even happen to you before that age!
Chronic illness in any way, for example, is no such thing that only starts when you're already on the road to the end of life.

With chronic illness you can't live like the politics of endless freedom. Your body dictates the range of what you can do daily.
And within that range... it can sometimes be so far away from you driving to a town 50km away from you on a regular basis.

[maadmike.livejournal.com]

I am feeling fine at the moment thanks to sport activity at childhood and I hope to feel this way at least for a decade and to this time I have to have some factory to not bent my back for trinkets on somebody's plant - it is one of my goal to be free, active, productive and have an interesting life than to sit somewhere and be thinking always how to get away from all this.

[matrixmann]

Enjoy it as long as you can.
Always remember: There's also people who are not gifted with that luck.
So that's why it's better to not make things a standard for everyone only because oneself is doing good.
This is the same strategy the laissez faire liberals operate on, which were born into middle class families with no worry about finances, about education and about organizing things that seem totally out of reach.

[maadmike.livejournal.com]

I think the most desirable gift I got is the brain which is even 10 % working if to believe to scientists and if a child is borned in Russia and has a brain he could get whatever he likes if he is ready to work and shields himself from lies and affections of the world.

I was growing in a common average family of USSR and never was living as a rich or something but I have the knowledges how things are to be not delighted about.