ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS
About sports, see Totalitarian state nationalism.
Contents now: Environment, Demography,
Nationalist and other Religions
(This long article was written here in 2008.)
ENVIRONMENT, DEMOGRAPHY, NATIONALIST and other RELIGIONS
What IS a long-range perspective? How LONG is
"long-range"? It depends, of course. It depends on whether you think
of it as a geologist, as an ecologist, an economist, as a historian, or as a
When we consider humankind, and its
relations to our planet and its ecosphere, when we consider physical
environment, resources, population, ideas, religions and philosophies, what
is then "a long-range perspective"? Is it 50 years, one hundred, or is
it several hundred years?
Only one century or two centuries do
not suffice to survey and to assess the impact of humankind on planet Earth.
There have been climatic changes
earlier in history of this planet, due to disturbances in the solar system,
volcanoes on Earth, and other factors beyond human control. But humans have
destroyed the ecological systems of the Mediterranean Area, of south-western
Asia, and parts of China beyond repair already in the ages we call
Antiquity, and it seems that amerindians did it in parts of North America
long before they knew of any europeans. The ecological environment of
continental Europe north of the Mediterranean and the Alps was destroyed
during the last 800 years.
THE MAXIMUM STANDARD, - OUGHT-TO-BE
willing to see, and to GRASP THE WHOLE IMAGE of planet Earth, now and
earlier, of nature, ecosystems, and of humankind, it SHOULD BE EVIDENT
that the Earth can, IN THE LONG PERSPECTIVE, NOT SUSTAIN more than
1.000.000.000 - one billion, or in european languages = un milliard,
eine Milliarde, of human beings at any single time, - and this
REGARDLESS OF lifestyle, consumption, exploitation of natural
resources, and of ANY KNOWN, OR UNKNOWN, TECHNOLOGIES
So-called "primitive peoples", as
well as many ancient civilizations, knew that they had to keep their
numbers below some limit. But their wisdom is now, and since long,
abandoned. This is due to the almost worldwide adoption of and present
complete dominance by a set of very harmful religions, philosophies and
Let us first make a survey of
numbers, collected from several sources, lists and diagrams, including
the Wikipedia. All population data before A. D. 1800 should be seen as
Year World population
Population of Europe Europe's
1600 500 million
≈ 18 %
1650 580 million
1700 650 million
1750 790 million
≈ 21 %
1850 1260 million
≈ 22 %
1900 1650 million
≈ 24¾ %
1927 2000 million
≈ 490 million
≈ 24½ %
1950 2519 million
≈ 21¾ %
1961 3000 million
≈ 610 million
≈ 20 %
1975 4000 million
≈ 16,8 %
2000 6070 million
≈ 12 %
During the first two thirds of the 1900-century Europe was definitely
the most overpopulated of all continents, not only in numbers per square
kilometer, but also, and still worse, in its consumption of the World's
natural and other resources. This would have been even more catastrophic
for Europe, had not many million people been able to move away from
Europe to settle and multiply themselves also in other continents.
Europeans have also brought about
much "Ecological Imperialism", which is the title of an excellent book
of 1986 by Alfred W. Crosby, on "The biological expansion of Europe
The fact that Europe's percentage of
the world population has now decreased, must not make us forget that
Europe of today is even more overpopulated than ever before.
To a critic against state
nationalism, it should be wrong, and it is indeed objectable and
misleading, to make all statistics, and not least population statistics,
with state territories as (sole) sorting and reference units. But in
this present world, no alternative and more correct population
statistics of areas and (macro)regions somewhat smaller than whole
continents seem to be available.
In 1972 (according to Erik Dammann)
the most densely populated state territories of the world were: 1.
Netherlands 384/km2, 2. Belgium 282/km2,
3. West Germany 237/km2, 4. Britain 231/km2,
and 5. Italy 180/km2. In the same year, India had
170/km2, Pakistan 123/km2, (and China with very
vast uninhabitable areas 81/km2).
In 2008 corresponding
numbers were, for the Netherlands 401/km2, India 349/km2,
Belgium 341/km2, Britain 249/km2 - a considerable
increase also in northwestern Europe. Pakistan still lags
behind in this objectable, but sole available statistics, with 209/km2.
In 1899, Rudyard Kipling coined
the phrase "The White Man's Burden". It was the title of a poem he
wrote. It was usually interpreted to be a responsibility of the white
peoples to "civilize" and rule over all other races in the world.
Such views are now obsolete. But
europeans and euroamericans still seem not to have accepted that the
real burden which our world suffers, is the burden of bearing too many
"white men". This burden is not only an effect of their enormous
consumption per capita. For three centuries the whites have also been
far too many, both in absolute and in relative numbers.
We can make long lists of effects
from the overpopulation of Europe - and not to forget, even of the (only
less, but) overpopulated nordic countries. Those effects are destroying
nature, as well as seas and oceans and fish around this continent, more
or less irreparably. Here it would be unnecessary to include any
such catalogue, because most people already know of those effects.
The really big problem is that people
STILL ARE NOT WILLING to recognize and acknowledge what the basic
cause of the environmental diasaster is.
So, no lists of problems. Let us
just consider one task, one among many, and one which is very seldom
discussed. Continental Europe and the British Isles need to be
reforested by at least 300-500%. For example, most of Germany was
covered with forests during the whole Middle Ages, and so was much of
England too. This need of reforestation certainly includes the mediterranean countries,
whose forests were, due to human stupidity and ignorance, largely
destroyed already in ages that we call Antiquity.
Statistics since the last decade
(1990s) of the 1900s show that the total population of Europe is now
decreasing, however very slowly, but despite increased
immigration from other continents. So far, Europe is the only continent
of the world with any decline at all of population numbers.
Birth statistics indicate that the
number of children per woman in Europe as a whole was reduced from 2,66
in 1950 to 1,52 or 1,41 in 2005 (whole world: from 5,02 to 2,65)
(Wikipedia sources diverge on Europe 2005.) But such figures may
mislead us, because the effect on population numbers is much postponed.
A generation of young women more numerous than before is now in its
fertile years, in Europe as all over the world.
The ONLY "sustainable development" of
humanity is downsizing. Any form of downsizing, - but we
do not wish it to be war, and hardly any other epidemic than painless
infertility. Our only both desirable and viable alternative is seriously
planned, peaceful and sustainable downsizing, - the word
"sustainable" meaning neither too slow nor uncontrolled. However
difficult it may look, - it MUST BE DONE, even now that it is aleady too
late to avoid environmental disasters.
And the very best part of the world
to start this process, to set the example and to create good models, is
no longer in totalitarian China, but in Europe.
Europe has the best conditions for
the new and ecologically sustainable population policy of determined
downsizing. Positive factors are: educational levels, already
widespread and established ecological consciousness, traditions of
moderate social control in the west, traditions of relative respect for
legislation, and relatively little religious fanaticism.
BUT WHAT DO POLITICIANS ACTUALLY DO ?!!
GROWTH is far from only a capitalist idea. It is a traditional,
never-abandoned religious-political dogma of european social democrats.
This dogma includes unquestioned POPULATION GROWTH !
As social democratic prime minister
of (less) overpopulated Sweden in (heavily) overpopulated EU and Europe,
Göran Persson urged the whole population to create MORE children for his
state (and its business life and its pensioners). Social democratic
leader Jens Stoltenberg in Norway said the same to his youth
organization in 2001, the year when he formed his first ministry. To his
second cabinet, from 2005, he appointed a christian woman from the left
socialist party in his coalition, the mother of four(!), to be Norway's
environment minister! (later replaced with a more suitable person from
the same party).
After this article was published in
the internet Freethinker's Wordbook in 2008, Norway's biggest newspaper,
the rabid nationalistic and state-nation fascist Aftenposten has
published many dozens and scores of articles arguing for and hailing
population increase, both in Norway and in other european state
territories!!! Like the regime of Nazi Germany, Aftenposten
reporters now favour writing about families with four, five or six
The socialist party of France chose a
proud mother of four (Ségolène Royal) to be their presidential candidate
in 2007. But retiring non-socialist president Chirac urged the subjects
of France to make more children than they had been doing for a century.
And so did centre-left leader Romano Prodi as recent prime minister of
Italy. And so did social democratic (PSOE) prime minister J. L.
Rodríguez Zapatero in Spain.
Should we not expect more wisdom from
environmentalist green parties? - Well, not always, or even, not
very often.... The environmentalist party in Sweden has been in
parliament since 1988, and constantly since 1994. In 1988, one of its
two leaders, Eva Goës, boasted that she had six children! -
because, as she put it: "The world needs so many, in order that the
human race shall survive"!!!!! (She is still active for the
Environmentalist Green Party in local and regional politics.)
The "only one child" policy of China
is being criticized(!), and not only by christian biblists, but also by
socialists in Europe! Socialist and christian journalists and
writers alike seem horror-struck by reports from Russia that Russia's
population is decreasing more than in any other state territory!
Instead, they ought to welcome and APPLAUD this positive change! But,
even those who fear Russia's power seem to deplore this
very kind of russian power reduction!!! (In the mid-1990s, the
decrease was 0,6 percent a year, meaning an annual "loss" of 890.000 -
"the most rapid on record" - however far from rapid enough to be ideal.)
Already in 1973 could we read this
editorial headline in a social democrat party newspaper in Sweden: "More
children must be born!" That message has been repeated now and then both
by socialists and conservatives, e. g. in the conservative Aftenposten
(see also above): "Too few children are being born in Europe, and the deficit is
reckoned to be two million per year". This opinion on the matter was
not meant as a first of April joke (1.04.2003), - but it ought to
have been so! (The mad professor's name is An-Magritt Jensen.)
Governments mean it seriously, when:
In overpopulated Luxemburg they
intend to double their numbers in 50 years from 2002, granting a
25% tax reduction for every child, so that parents with 4 children shall
pay no income tax at all.
In France a new bonus for families
with 3 or more children was made law in 2005. But the fertility rate in
France was as high as 1,94.
In Spain (with a rate of 1,37) the
socialist government introduced a bonus of 2.500 euro for every new
In heavily overpopulated Germany
something similar is done, according to news reports of 2007.
In 2007 prime minister Jarosław Kaczyński of Poland was of course right
in blaming germans - that is, long since dead germans - for having
killed or caused the deaths of some millions of polish people. But as he
also complained that Poland of our time does not have 65 million
inhabitants(!), instead of "only" 38 million, he proved himself to be an
egoistic, mad polish fascist or nazi.
Then there is always the one catholic
pope, who urges his believers to murder the life of the whole planet!
The mad pope Benedictus XVI (2005-2013) said in August 2005 (retranslated
here): "All catholics should do their best to have as many children as
possible, for the good of society. Countries without many children not the same vigour and the same strong expectations for the future, as
countries with large families." ("Great expectations", indeed!)
Still more dangerous to the world
than any pope would be a US president like Sarah Palin, in autumn 2008
candidate to become only "one heartbeat" from such power. She describes
herself as "a Bible-believing christian". She denies that global warming
is man-made, she is against not only abortion, but also against
prevention! John McCain
chose her as his mate to
win support from the most conservative christians. It demonstrates a
surprising and shocking lack of responsibility in John McCains
character. - Luckily, they lost. - But then (winter 2012) we see
other republican candidates repeating that old biblist madness!
BUT THAT WAS THEN ....
In many so-called
"primitive societies", or in some of the more sophisticated cultures of
earlier ages in history, they knew how important it was that their
numbers should balance, and never exceed, the natural resources of
which they and their whole biological environment depended. - The
present human "civilization" seems to have forgotten all about this
author of this article
has argued for downsizing the world's population since around
1960 (when he was a teenager, and) when we were about to pass the number
of 3.000.000.000. Many were in those days of similar opinion. But then
came the so-called "green revolution", said to have increased the
world's agricultural production by 250%(?). And after the WOS/UN
population conference in 1974, and when population reached 4.000.000.000
in 1975, the matter of population numbers much disappeared from the
When it is now slowly returning into
focus, it is of course far too late, for all of us, to save the
ecosphere. But we CAN make destruction and collapse go slower.
(2007?): "Japan, the USA and Europe which only make up 13 per cent of
global population, had already 20 years ago used up the global
ecological capacity." (13% in 2007 = about 850 million.)
This is a wise warning from the WWI.
But alas, in the 1990s and around the turn of the century, the WWI
stopped warning explicitly against overpopulation, which they did in
their yearbooks State of the World and other publications until the
1990s. The founder of the WWI, Lester Brown left the organization in
2001 to start the Earth Policy Institute instead, which may seem to be
wiser and more honest than the WWI on population issues.
In the State of the World book of
1996, Lester Brown wrote (here retranslated from norwegian): "We must
begin to query the morality of letting every couple have more than two
children." - But in the yearbook of 2002 we can read this
cowardly treason from the WWI: "Reproduction health therefore implies
that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and they
have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and
how often to do so."
It is tragic that the Worldwatch
Institute can not be
trusted any longer.
Let us quote some other, but wise
WHAT WISE PEOPLE SAY
"The original debate on
environment 50 years ago was in fact about population growth in the
world. That we in Europe today have those low rates of birth ... are in
the right direction. For this reason shall we also support this tendency
still more, instead of counteracting it." - Written by Jørgen Stig
Nørgård in the newspaper Information (København) 14.03.2007, translated
here from danish.
"There are too many people in the
world. This is a fundamental problem to humankind's hope for a better
future. One tenth would be a proper number." - Written by Bo Richardt,
Espergærde, in the newspaper Information 3.10.2003, translated here from
danish. - Yes, indeed. One tenth would be a proper
number for the world's ecosphere. We have a considerable way to go, but:
Alan Weisman writes in his bestseller
"The World Without Us" (2007), p. 272: "Dr Sergej Scherbov ...
calculated what would happen to human population if, from now on, all
fertile women have only one child ... If this somehow began tomorrow our
current 6.5 billion human population would drop by 1 billion by the
middle of this century ... By 2075, we would have reduced our presence
almost by half, down to 3.43 billion, and our impact by much more,
because so much of what we do is magnified by chain reactions we set off
through the ecosystem. By 2100, ... we would be at 1.6 billion: back to
levels last seen in the 1800s, ...". - (3.43 billion is the
number of humans in the mid-1960s. But what happened then?)
Weisman also quotes Harvard biologist
E. O. Wilson (p. 190): "In this century we'll develop an ethic of
letting population gradually subside, until we reach a world with far
less human impact."
James Lovelock who introduced the
Gaia hypothesis, wrote in his book of 1988 (retranslated here): "Had we
been only 500 million people on the planet instead of 5.000 million,
hardly anything we did would have disturbed Gaia to any considerable
Press report 31.08.1973: "We must not
become more people in Norway, says the Norway Nature Conservation
Association (Norges Naturvernforbund). They have asked the political
parties before the parliamentary elections to explain their views on the
growing population numbers of Norway". - Even the leading
state statistician Odd Aukrust said in 1977 that "Norway had passed the
population number which is optimal". But that was then.... For
some reason (maybe threats from the christian party and fundamentalist
movements in Norway?) they soon "forgot" about this. In 1973,
Norway had 3.9 million inhabitants, which was then at least 2 million
too many for ecological balance. In 1905 they were 2.3 million. In the
early 2000s the number was 4.7 million. In 2012 it will exceed 5
Found in Time Magazine 23.10.1995:
"To stave off global warming completely you would have to reduce
emissions to where they were in 1920 ... Are we ignoring the human body,
with its intrinsic heat of 37ºC and its emissions, as a continuing
contributing factor in the earth's global warming?" Signed:
Emmanuel Bannermann, Switzerland. - It is said that the
biomass of krill in the oceans is (still in 2007) equal to the biomass
of the whole human population. Well, but the biomass of billions of
humans has been added to the ecosphere in very short time, and
their emissions, even their body emissions only, are far worse than
those of small pelagic animals.
The state of Singapur/Singapore
imposed punitive taxation and other economic disfavours against those
who got more than two children after 1st November 1972.
The one-child policy of China was
propagated in the 1970s and definitely adopted in 1982. Parents must ask
for special permission to bear more than one child. Parents in Shanxi
who got more than one child, should be deprived of part of their
Bredo Berntsen told from the history
of attempts to counter overpopulation during the 1900s in an article in
Aftenposten, Oslo, 21.06.2004. This history dates a little farther back
than most people know. According to Berntsen, it began at the end of the
First World War, when at the founding of the League of States (so-called
"League of Nations") an appeal was made that the league should refuse
membership to states which did not bind themselves to reduce the rates
of births in their territories. The first world conference on population
problems was in Geneva/Genève in the year 1927, when world population reached
2.000.000.000. This conference was strongly opposed by both
catholics and protestants. In 1948 biologist Julian Huxley, who
was at this time director general of the UNESCO, warned that the
imbalance between population and resources would cause the end of our
civilization. But at the conference of 1974, states like Romania, Turkey
and Argentina still declared that they wanted to double
their population numbers.
Since 1974 it has definitely been too
late to avoid catastrophic destruction of the ecosphere. Biblists, other
christians, islamists and other muslims, state nationalists and some
other nationalists, marxists and other materialist socialists, share the
severe responsibility, and all of them should await very harsh
condemnation and doom.
Alas, the wise people have been too
few and too powerless.
THAT BIBLE !
All biblical quotations
in the following are from the New International Version (NIV) of the
According to Genesis 1:28, God spoke
to Adam and Eve in this way:
"God blessed them and said to them:
´Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule
over the fish and the sea and the birds of the air and over every living
creature that moves on the ground´."
Christian biblists are still
interpreting this verse from the first chapter of the first book of the
judaic Old Testament(!) to be like a commandment, that they shall
always, everywhere, and in all ages, procreate and have as many
children as possible, in immeasurable numbers, and that God will
always help and support their subsistence from all nature created by
him. When in such a god they trust, they need not bother about common
sense or any consequences.
Can we anywhere in the Bible read
even still more explicitly, that the christians shall overcrowd,
overfill and... overkill the planet with their offspring? The
author of this article has read the whole Bible without seeing more of
this same kind. If anyone has, please notify us!
Bible researchers hold that the
Gospel according to Mark is the oldest of the four gospels of the New
Testament. Many versions of the Bible have a footnote on the last page
of Mark, which book originally ended with Mark 16:8. This footnote in
the NIV says:
"The most reliable early manuscripts
and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."
Verses 16:16-17 are like this: "He
said to them. ´Go into all the world and preach the good news to all
creation. Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, whoever does
not believe will be condemned´."
There is no such footnote near the
end of the Gospel according to Matthew. The passage titled "The Guards´
Report" = Matthew 28:11-15 ends like this:
soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story
has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day."
The formula above looks like an
ending phrase of a chapter and a story. But after verse 15 follows
another, the very last passage of the book, titled "The Great
Commission", Mark 28:16-20. It reads:
"Then the eleven disciples went to
Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw
him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and
said, ´All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching
them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you
always, to the very end of the age´."
Among humans, there has always been
some percent of fanatics and totalitarians.
It is obvious that the ends of both
Mark and Matthew have been added to the original texts at some later
occasion. Luke and John do not have this at all. Anyone looking for truth can see that the so-called "Great
Commission" is a falsification - by some people dreaming of totalitarian
world domination - and we can see that it was not an original part of the gospel
texts. It also violates the image of Jesus in the gospels. A
well-meaning healer and prophet like him would hardly have said
anything similar to this. Mark 16:16-17 sounds more like an antique
Lenin or Stalin.
One can easily imagine this occasion,
see the added verses in a different handwriting, below an end lap joint,
and feel a smell of glue ....
should wish to study references in the Bible to the thesis of "God's
chosen people" and indirectly to Israel's pretended successors "the
elect of the elect" = english, usanians and others, - see also our page
Introduction to subject, - or if you look for texts favouring
racism, genocide, and totalitarianism, there are many examples, e. g.
Genesis 12:2-3, Deuteronomy 7:1-10, Deuteronomy 15:6,
Deuteronomy 20:16-18, or Romans 13:1-6.
jewish peoples shall never be held
responsible for anything that jews of Antiquity have done, said or
written. And no single jewish person of today or tomorrow shall be held
responsible for what their parents and grandparents have done in the
Nobody in the whole world can be held
responsible for deeds and misdeeds of their ancestors and parents. Guilt
can not be inherited. Not in the Balkans, not in the Middle East, never
and nowhere. When some people inherit money debts, it is not guilt
(well, their parents could have been guilty of mismanagement),
but for the inheritors it is not guilt, it is bad luck.
But in Exodus 20:5 we read this:
"...I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for
the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who
hate me, ...".
We would rather think that such a
horrible statement - and many others - of the Old Testament must be
inspired by "EVIL".
Many people in our own age believe in
the thesis "You create what you think", or "You attract what you think".
(More about this below.) Maybe those barbarous biblical ideas of
revenge, that their god will revenge, and consequently that humans
should seek revenge too, upon innocent grandchildren, and so on, and on
and on, attracts such phenomena to manifest as real events. History
could lead us to think so. That is, because many enough humans believe
in every chapter and verse of that Old Testament, as we know that many
orthodox judaic and millions of christian fundamentalists really do.
Then, what shall we do with the
At first, we must
correct one of the most disastrous and fatal errors of all history,
the amalgamation of the Old Testament and the New Testament into one
joint "holy book". - Use sharp cutting instruments! If you like
it, then save (some of) the thinner and more sensible NT part. - Or: Try
some christianity without a bible!
No other book in the world has had so
much influence for good and/or evil - and caused so much evil.
Except for documentation storage and
family memories, the Bible ought to put away. Of course no
burning! Let us hope that the paper quality is suited for
recycling. This is allowed by both catholic and protestant churches
(see Aftenposten 23.02.2012).
The best parts - certainly less than
50 pages - can be copied and used in new anthologies of wisdom and
ethics collected from the whole world and all ages. That is the kind of
books we need now.
What about the Qur’ān, then?
The author of this article has read it all through, in english, finding
most of it nearly as dry and disappointing as the Arabian Desert itself.
But if you like it, then keep it, but read it critically.
However, the Qur’ān says something
very important, which applies both to itself and to the Bible, and other
scriptures too. It is in sura XIII:38, and in the translated english
Qur’ān it reads:
"To each age its book" !
what about Jesus?
Jesus as a person is of course
unimportant! What is valuable and important are the ethics and
teachings ascribed to a man with this name. But a similar message might
also have been ascribed to other wise men and women with healing powers,
at any time and place in history.
There is no historical evidence that
Jesus has existed physically, but all in all, it seems probable. The
stories about his life, however, have certainly been put together from
various sources originating from various countries of Asia and Africa.
Some people do not like abstract
thinking and feeling, but need to identify with personal idols or
images, wise, brave, or charismatic, perhaps like Guevara, Presley,
Putin, or Jesus. The world needs some of the teachings ascribed to many
wise men and women. But most of us do not need Jesus as a person
or even as a symbol. On the contrary. The abuse of him, and what has
been associated with him - for instance the whole Bible - is more likely
to remain a serious obstacle to survival of many living things on Earth,
even the human species.
To abandon the Bible does of course
not mean that one has to abandon belief in celestial religions and "holy
spirits". But Biblism and biblical denominations ought now to have the
end of their days. The new millennium surely needs to find new
religions, and religions which support fundamental human rights and
freedoms AND the health of the planet's ecosphere.
Bible fundamentalists, users and
propagandists should be regarded as anti-environmentalists and
enemies of life and the Earth.
In Islam too, there is a dogma, or
something like a dogma, that muslims should increase the number of
Allāh's disciples/followers on planet Earth, not only through
propaganda, but also through procreation. So the same accusation
of being enemies of life on Earth is valid against fundamentalists of
both Islam and Christianity/Biblism, and, of course, State nationalism.
The pope(s), catholics as well as
protestant biblists, and others who propagate the message of continuing
population growth, ought to be treated in a manner similar to other
war criminals. They have in fact declared war against human life and
the world's whole ecosphere.
Freedom of expression
means that all humans on Earth must have the unrestrained right to
criticize all religions, both temporal and celestial. Such criticism
is absolutely necessary to prolong as much as possible the life of
humankind and many other living beings!
ANY HELP FROM OUTSIDE ?
Biblists seem to believe
that (in the end) their god will ultimately conjure up solutions to
all environmental problems, so that humans can continue to multiply and
consume resources endlessly without harming anything. (Like Jesus
managed it with just a few loaves and fish.)
So, the millenarian (boring) paradise
shall be given to us from outside the Earth, from outer space. This is
also the belief of many ufologists. They think there will come saviours
in spaceships. Researchers of religion now reckon Ufology among the new
religions born in the 1900s.
The author of this article finds it
more probable than not, that aliens from other planets exist and have
visited the Earth by now and then, maybe even constantly, and at least
since the 1940s. Stories about abductions, however, seem less reliable.
Let us assume then, that we are being watched by extra-terrestrials. So,
the big question: WHAT DO THEY WANT?
Ufologists say that those aliens have
come here since the 1940s, because they want to warn us against nuclear
wars (and eventually, to stop such a war), which could have harmful
consequences even beyond planet Earth. Be that as it may.
It must now be obvious that they do
NOT want to help us stop overpopulation and environmental ruin. If
they had wished to do that, they would have done it in time, before it
was definitely too late. As now it is.
To them, we must be a most
fascinating object of study and research. A study in
overpopulation leading to destruction and partial or total
self-destruction. The aliens are keenly interested spectators,
watching a drama of religious stupidity, which must be really very
unique in the universe!
In fact, some human researchers of
biology and medicine on planet Earth are doing just the same with
bacteria or other small organisms.......
Of course the alien scientists wish
to preserve this (very funny?) study object, to watch the process
through. That is why they do not want the experiment and the fascinating
performance to be abruptly finished all too soon in a sudden nuclear
armageddon. They want our destruction to continue more slowly, because
so it must be much more exciting and interesting, maybe even informative
and instructive, to those aliens.
But they have now, after at least
60-70 years, obviously proved that they conform to what is
required of impartial scientists, that they are not going to interfere
and spoil the study. They will not help us in any important way.
The human race must help itself!
OBSTACLES AND PROBLEMS
Maybe the biggest problem
is silence. Therefore: Silence must be broken.
Let us consider all the talk nowadays
about climatic change. Climatic change is of course very
real, and there should be no doubt that it is an effect of emissions
from human activity and the impact of humans on the ecosphere of the
planet. But, - the phrase "climatic change" is deceiving, because
it is so over-abused in order to conceal what climatic
change is really about. And that is overpopulation.
The basic cause of climatic change is
not the emissions of carbon dioxide etc. in themselves. But the
fundamental cause of those emission problems is now silenced, as
like a taboo, as if it is forbidden to mention it, or even to think of
Many people today like to
admit that humans consume too much of the world's natural resources.
But... Few people seem willing to admit any more that humans are
In addition to biblists and
islamists, - who else are threatening us, making us conceal the facts,
and forcing us to be dishonest?
They are politicians, nationalists,
economists, materialists, and others who fear change and "too much
Politicians fear losing power and
losing elections. Business people fear recession and even cessation of
growth. Manufacturers of many products fear dwindling markets. House
owners fear falling prices and that much landed estate may become
unsaleable. Teachers fear unemployment and change of occupation. Elderly
people fear smaller pensions and that there will not be enough doctors
Probably there will be work enough to
be done, but with less payment. People in the OVERdeveloped world will
fear reduced standards of living, (that is, in some areas of life, while
quality will rise in others). And many environmentalists will fear to
tell them that they are still too selfish.
Politicians want it to be
forbidden to think downsizing. Common phrases: 1. "Growth is
needed", that is, in order to secure pensions and maintain public
welfare/the welfare state (until it crashes all the same); 2. "We
cannot put back the clock"; 3. "You cannot stop progress", or "You
cannot stand in the way of progress".
But, WE CAN! Because we HAVE
TO. There is NO OTHER WAY.
Since 1987 we are being brainwashed
that we shall accept something named "sustainable development", which is
falsely pretended to be "environment-friendly". It is a grotesque lie.
The phrase was coined by Gro Harlem Brundtland, leader of a socialist
materialist growth party, prime minister of Norway, and later leader of
the WHO. That is another misleading and false name. The World Health
Organization is NOT concerned with world health, which ought to mean the
health of the planet, but only with the health of humans, as many and as
long-living humans as possible, which easily becomes contrary to "world
Lies, deceit, and concealment
may be the most serious obstacles we meet, if we wish to heal what is
possible of the planet's whole ecosphere.
Then there are the states, their
state-nations and dominant nationalities. They are stuck in some very
outmoded behaviours and concerns about their power, weight,
"glory", and prestige, as compared to other states and
nationalities. It is nothing less than absurd that even in our time they
look upon the numbers of their subjects as if those numbers were
still necessary for cannon fodder and vital to their existence and the
maintenance of their myths. Like it was a hundred years ago around the
First World War. Little has changed since then. But now it is HIGH TIME.
Europe could become a model, to be
copied in the rest of the world, forbidding women to have more than two
children and strongly encouraging them to have only one. Immigration
from other continents should continue, but not increase much. Immigrants
must obey the same laws about not having more than one or two children.
Most children of immigrants will europeanize themselves. Europe will
still be Europe, and as time goes by, it might even become a better
E. F. Schumacher wrote "Small is
beautiful", with the subtitle "A study of economics as if people
mattered", first published in 1973. A new edition with commentaries came
in 1998. - That "small is beautiful" sounds "wonderful"! But
Schumacher is nevertheless a disappointment, and not a small one, but a
BIG disappointment. One important reason must be his infatuation with
Catholicism. (See biography in the Wikipedia.) He argued well for
small communities and, like Leopold Kohr before him, for small states
(like it was in ancient Greece, for instance). Confederate states then,
please! But as a catholic, Schumacher refused to argue for a
smaller world population! The Schumacher College pretends
to be "for the study of an ecological and spiritual world view". Sorry,
we have to doubt it.
Silence, lies, and environmental
destruction is the responsibility of egoistic states, of politicians, of
economists, and of christians and islamists.
SMALL PEOPLES - AND NOT SO SMALL
Reduction of populations to a
much lower level, which will be ecologically sustainable for many
hundreds of years, raises the question of very small peoples and ethnic
minorities. Special legislation is needed in many cases, to secure their
survival. Linguistic and cultural manifoldness and richness in the world
must be preserved and secured.
There ought to be not only a maximum
standard for the Earth as a whole. There must also be minimum standards.
Specialists of minority problems have since long calculated such
numbers. They must be different according to various factors, such as
scattered or concentrated settlement, levels of cultural
self-consciousness, and a lot more.
Ethnic groups and languages with less
than one thousand speakers have always seemed to be doomed, except in
small ocean islands. With some 3.000-10.000, prospects are sometimes
better. Below the level of 20.000, members of defined ethnic minorities
must be allowed to have more than two children per couple. Ethnic
peoples of some 15.000-50.000 individuals may be a sustainable number.
But no such small people should be allowed to grow in numbers beyond
Among the worst examples in the world
are the albanian peoples. Albanians see themselves as descendants of the
illyrians of Antiquity, and consequently, as an, or THE, indigenous
people (urfolk, Urbevölkerung) of the Balkan peninsula. (There are two
language groups of Albanians in the state of Albania.) Albanians have
made up a myth of being threatened by surrounding christian peoples. But
they never were any small people. The state of Albania had in 1953
1.250.000 inhabitants, in 2008 3.600.000, fastest growing number in
Europe. In Kosova their numbers grew by 460% (according to the
Wikipedia) in 82 years 1921-2003, from 450.000 to more than 2.000.000.
At present there are about 2.200.000. - This is NOT security of a
people. It is crime! - (Then there are many hundred thousand
albanians in Macedonia, and many in western Greece.)
Lingual minorities, also speakers of
so-called regional languages/"dialects", have a right to insist that
residents and workers in the communities and area of their language
shall learn the genuine autochtonous language of the community,
regardless of how many or how few the indigenous speakers are.
States unwilling to launch policies
of population reduction must become the new "pariah states", liable to
embargoes and isolation. And the name of the first and foremost pariah
state is of course: Stato della Città del Vaticano.
SOME POINTS AND PROGRAMS FOR DOWNSIZING
1. Everybody shall be free to criticize and to discuss religions,
all religions, and with full freedom of expression. Islamists shall have
no privileges anywhere. Biblists and christians (e. g. in the USA or
Norway) shall have no herrenvolk privileges, but be equivalent to other
humans. Biblist terrorism or pressure on environmentalists, writers,
journalists, and others must be ended.
2. The Bible shall be replaced
by new-compiled anthologies of wisdom and religious thoughts from many
parts of the world. Again, as sura XIII:38 of the Qur’ān says, in
english translated edition: "To each age its book"! See
Modern religions shall include respect for individual and collective
human rights and fundamental freedoms, with one exception. There
shall be no right and freedom for parents to have as many children as
3. It shall be punishable by
law from a fixed year and date to bear more than a second child. Fathers
shall also, when possible, be punished.
4. Child benefits from state or
commune shall be paid only for a woman's first child.
5. Abortion and prevention must
be free, easily available, and free of cost. - However, it must be legal
to argue against abortions. Freedom of expression must also allow
opinions which are contrary to welfare of nature and society.
6. Artificial insemination of
women, as well as all kinds of medical assistance and treatment to help
women or couples to have a baby, even their first baby, must be strictly
forbidden, on grounds of ecological morality. And resources for
health care should be used for better purposes.
7. The labour markets must be
adapted to meet the changing conditions when population numbers are
reduced. There will inevitably be a relative increase in the numbers of
elderly people. Retirement age shall not be regulated by laws. Old
people in good health shall be allowed and encouraged to work, if they
8. Persons older than 70 or 75
years shall not have such medical treatment which can only prolong their
lives without clearly improving their life quality. Everyone shall have
a right to receive pain-killing or pain-stilling treatment. Eutanasy
shall be allowed, but only when a patient surely wants it and agrees.
9. Continue with gnat-straining
too! - Public opinion, and especially schoolchildren, are
nowadays being taught "to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" (in
norwegian: "sile mygg o sluke kameler", gnats = "knott" in norwegian), -
in part because it is a taboo to talk about the real causes of the
environmental crises. Is gnat-straining useless then? Yes, and no.
Both no and yes. To collect small pieces of metal and scraps of paper
for recycling is of course good, and when many enough people do it, it
will count just a little, but will in no way save the planet. It
is more like gnats pissing in the ocean. The problem is that most
environmentalists are letting both small rats and tiny wee gnats
mysteriously overshadow and hide the camels.
WHAT CAN NATURE HERSELF DO?
She can revenge herself,
take vengeance on us. So far she has not done it. Her passivity is very
disquiteing! (What now of that gaia hypothesis?)
What we do not want, but
could have expected, would be a pandemic like the Black Death in the
1300s, which could help improve against the imbalance between the
ecosphere and its cancerous growing enemy = the humans, taking away some
billions (= milliards) of them.
AIDS has not done the job. Neither
has SARS nor avian flu. And to be frank, if we may choose, we would
prefer something less dramatic. Of course nature will not listen to
human appeals. But perhaps she too will prefer ... yes, something less
dramatic than a swift, pandemic purge.
A slow revenge.
It is not difficult to imagine how. In "The World Without Us", Alan Weisman got some answers on pp. 241-242,
e. g.: "...if we did go extinct ... more likely to be through
technologies than environmental destruction" ... Or: "...that the one
virus that would be truly effective strikes, and all human sperm loses
viability." But: "No virus could ever get all 6 billion of us. A
99,99 percent die-off would still leave 650.000 naturally immune
It is clear that pollution, e.
g. through radiation or chemical poisoning, can make a majority of
humans sterile. But instead we had better wish for an ideal epidemic
of a virus, which makes humans sterile, and, if possible, without
harming their physical, mental, and emotional capabilities.
We have only weak indications (see
below) that such an "ideal disease" will come. So far, nature seems
indifferent to the idea. Much worse things are more likely.
The english Wikipedia has a long
article: "Overpopulation". Here are two excerpts:
"German scientists have reported that a virus called Adeno-associated
virus might have a role in male infertility, though otherwise not
harming humans. Consequently, if this or similar viruses mutate, they
might cause infertility on a large scale, though otherwise not harming
humans, thus resulting in human population-control over time naturally."
"Some leaders and environmentalists
... have suggested that there is an urgent need to strictly implement a
China-like one-child policy globally..."
Alan Weisman again:
"Worldwide, every four days human
population rises by 1 million. Since we can't really grasp such numbers,
they'll wax out of control until they crash, as has happened to every
other species that got too big for this box."
However, Weisman also believes that
much of the Earth would recover in relatively short time, if suddenly we
all disappeared from it. That point does not look very convincing.
Chapters like "Polymers are forever" tell another story.
DO CREATE WHAT YOU THINK!
..... at least some of it
Today there is an abundance of books
on the power of positive thinking, - and about powers of its opposite,
destructive negative thoughts and directed evil wishes. Knowledge of
these phenomena is now gaining acceptance even among natural scientists.
Here we will refer to only one book on the subject, a book with a more
than average scientific approach: "The Intention Experiment" by Lynne
McTaggart. It is highly recommendable reading.
Due to the rights reserved we can
only make a few quotations verbatim. The experiments confirmed that
"directed thought had some sort of central participatory role in
creating reality". Directed thoughts have to be highly motivated and
targeted to be effective. From studying attention the experiments go on
to intention, which the author finds to "be something akin to a tuning
fork", so that other people and things resonate at the same frequency.
McTaggart's parable to tuning forks
reminds us of how new trends in society can break through in rather
short time. Other studies of thought power often mention an estimated
"critical mass" of 1 percent of a certain population to be required for
new ideas to break through. History may support this thesis. Then it
should be very essential to mobilize that one percent... to save the
ecosphere through effective population control. It is about positive as
well as negative thinking, negative against the enemies of our planet.
From Lynne McTaggart's book again:
"Negative intention was more powerful than positive intention. Thoughts
to harm had the greatest effect." ... "In order for the patient to get
better, the offending agent has to die." ... "the patient had to want to
annihilate the enemy." This she called "the voodoo effect". The study
also found that negative intention was most effective when sent at a
distance, while positive intention works best near or in the presence of
"Thoughts can take aim with great
accuracy", she says. But for this they have to be highly motivated and
targeted. We know that many people in the world have experienced the
truth of this. - But positive thought power can also be blocked by
Finally, let us quote that: "Today,
even the most conservative physicists accept nonlocality as a strange
feature of subatomic reality."
create what you think! So, do not worship man-made state-nations,
fascist and nazi state-nation gods and demi-gods, or other
man-manipulated bad and evil ideas about something more or less divine
or not divine at all! We have to wipe off the thick covering
layers of harmful thoughts and destructive mistakes, and we have to
search and find better ideals.
Environmentalists of today may often
be unconscious, or dishonest and untruthful about what the world most of
all needs. Environmentalists too create what they think, and conversely,
they most often neglect to create what they have been taught that
they may not think: Active policies and propaganda for downsizing
should develop some more essential intentions!
HUMANITY's most urgent
P.U.R.P.O.S.E.: Peaceful Universal Reduction
of Population in Order to Save the Ecosphere.
(also called "cognitive maps") are the map pictures, locations
and shapes of certain areas on maps which we can recall from our
memories and which your "inner eye" can reproduce in your mind.
State-nation powers see to it that we shall recall and reproduce
their versions of mental maps, and that we shall
not be able to see
different versions. It means that state boundaries - coloured RED (or
black) with strictly unbroken lines, as if unpenetrable - are often
rendered as more important
features than big cities, mountain ridges, long and large rivers, and
even oceans. (Some new school maps in Norway, however, do have
GREEN state boundaries!)
Pupils in Sweden and Norway used
to meet first with the map of (the first) "Holy Land" - Palestine, and
a little later with the "Second Holy Land" map = Sweden or Norway.
And in France, the "hexagon" of France is the
In the late 1800s, Carl Snoilsky
wrote his poem "Sveriges karta" about his mental map of Sweden which he
so clearly remembered from his schooldays. Two lines of the poem read:
"Längst upp i norr ett blodrött snitt, där vidtog
Ryssland tomt och vitt". ("Russia", in those days comprising Finland,
was "empty and white". There was nothing in there that pupils should
bother their minds with. Absolutely improper! "Sweden" only....)
Until the mid-1900s, neighbouring
state territories were usually pictured all WHITE AND EMPTY. This
practice is now less common, but not abandoned.
In advertising, for
instance, we very often meet with maps of Norway or Sweden pictured
like isolated islands in an ocean, or like oblong-shaped ASTEROIDS in
When you se it possible, refuse
such asteroid maps, or refuse to deal with them. Why not return to
sender if you receive such (indeed geographically false) "asteroid
maps" in your letter-box!
Political idiots think we should
let us entertain by totalitarian state nationalistic quizzes (Trivial
pursuit and lots more). Children and adults alike may be tempted
to try state totalitarian puzzle games, to identify the map shapes of
cut out state territories, e. g. Kenya, Bolivia, Portugal, Finland,
etc. But seldom are we asked to recognize shapes of
real islands like Sardinia, Tasmania, Hispaniola, Luzon or Kyushu.
Title page, see top of Menu.