Firstly how to do it:
We need a humane, non-lethal sexually transmitted disease that will render the infected infertile, but which will be
curable using modern technology that only individuals belonging to the wealthiest of nations could easily afford.
For example by using stem-cell technology it will probably soon be possible to re-grow any component of any reproductive organ in either sex.
About the Disease…
It should be carried by both sexes (to increase transmittance) but (in order to moderate its affect) should only reduce the fertility of one sex.
The sex most affected should probably be male, as it will be easier to repair the damage because these reproductive organs are more external to the
body (and therefore more easily accessible to healthcare treatment).
Herpes Is A Prime Biological Candidate
So out of 192 nations (worldwide) here’s Who’d Be (most) “Saved”…
3. Japan-(nearly forget Korea)
9. and Israel
Why This Order…
1. These nine countries have the economic strength to impose their interests on the other countries, but the other 183 nations of the world (even
strength combined, do not have the might to impose their will on us. Therefore this order is the most stable, and therefore the most pragmatically
2. In addition no country can impose the needs of the planet on their people (especially in an economic downturn) without politically destabilising
themselves; and thereby making the whole objective politically self-destructive- i.e. self defeating.
3. The nine countries are the engines of world economic growth. Although this makes them the first cause of the planets destruction, this only
because they’ve succeeded in doing what almost all the other nations aspire to do
It’s the possibility of too many citizens from developing nations successfully aspiring the lifestyles of the developed nations that posses the
gravest, global environmental risk.
E.g. World population is scheduled to grow by 50% within 41 years time:
But Africa’s is to double in just 18 years
4. The more the poor nations are affected the more lee-way the western nations will have to develop technological solutions that can improve, and
perhaps one day restore the equilibrium between mankind and planet.
If (in contrast) if the most developed nations were affected most; time would surely be wasted just for the developing nations to socially bring about
of committing the large or vast
resources required to urgently implement the required technological
I.e. We could easily be talking about a century or more delay, during which time the Third World would continue to e.g. clear pristine forests to e.g.
graze cattle, emitting carbon that way, as opposed to the more cost effective route of doing the same through smokestacks-exhausts (as this does at
least raise more money, a portion of which can be extracted without making the masses attracted to revolution). Or the Western method of emitting
almost no waste through nuclear power, or possibly fusion.
The latest, scientific predications, state the world only has ten years to avoid “run away global warming”
are in fact ten years to prove that political free will, of independent democratic nations, is capable of making an impact.
Otherwise more authoritarian solutions be needed.
And without these solutions all nations will suffer, and the suffering will not be equal, and is still likely to be far worse for the (poor) i.e.
third world, than the alternatives that could be provided by covert, international Western action
Some Critical Conclusions…
No doubt the moralistic, humanitarian idealists will continue to argue that if only
all the nations came of the world came together
some great tea-party, then all
the leaders of the world would agree
that all people are equal.
No doubt a new (binding) international law would justly
regulate population shrinkage. The violators of whom would be made to report to an
commission of university children, who would possess
the power to e.g. dismiss global leaders
, and place them in a cell
where will be fed only cookies (apart from the times they are allowed to scrub the floors of the U.N. and donate time to African charities).
Unfortunately the world doesn’t work like that; and if it does then the good news is the liberal left still has time to come up with something (i.e.
they’ve got about 10 years of the 40 they’ve already had left).
What do you think?
Would you privately vote for it (if you could)?
Or do you know another pragmatically realistic
Or do moral emotions get the better of you? Perhaps to the point where you’d prefer to let nature’s way of mass disasters and mass starvations
become the only solutions.
Why should we (as humans) be so dumb to follow such a course?
Maybe NWO really does have the answers?
Just a matter of acedemic debate!
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]