Title page, see top of Menu.





COMMENTS  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.)
                                                Mental maps



     
        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 politician.
        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
        To those 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 WHATSOEVER.
        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 ideologies.


STATISTICS
       
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 estimates.
Year    World population                Population of Europe        Europe's share

1600      500 million                              90 million                  ≈ 18 %
1650      580 million                        90-100 million                 16-17 %
1700      650 million                      110-120 million                 17-18 %
1750      790 million                            160 million                
 ≈ 20 %
1800      980 million                            205 million                 
≈ 21 %
1850    1260 million                            276 million                  ≈ 22 %
1900    1650 million                            408 million                  ≈ 24¾ %
1927    2000 million                         ≈ 490 million                  ≈ 24½ %
1950    2519 million                            547 million                  ≈ 21¾ %
1961    3000 million                         ≈ 610 million                  ≈ 20 %
1975    4000 million                            675 million                  ≈ 16,8 %
2000    6070 million                            728 million                  ≈ 12 %
 
EUROPE
        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 900-1900".
        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 EuropePakistan 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 ?!!
        Never-ending, limitless 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 children!
        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 baby.
        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 natural wisdom.

        The 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 agenda.
        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.

HIGH TREASON
        Worldwatch Institute (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 opinions:

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 extent."
        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 million.
        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 salaries.
        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 Bible.
        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:
        "So the 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 ....

        If you 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.


        The 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 1900s.
        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 Bible?
        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" !

        Then 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 it.
        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 too many.
        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 instability".
        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 and nurses.
        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 health".
        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 Europe.
        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 70.000-100.000.
        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 also above.
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 they wish.
        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 want to.
        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 survivors."
        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.

YOU 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 the object.
        "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 enemies.
        Finally, let us quote that: "Today, even the most conservative physicists accept nonlocality as a strange feature of subatomic reality
."

        You 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 population.
        Environmentalist organizations 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.




      



        MENTAL MAPS

(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 first holy picture.
        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 empty space!
        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.