posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:48 AM
"The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man"
~Thomas Robert Malthus~
Born in 1766 and died in 1834, Malthus believed that the human population was increasing exponentially while the production of food was increasing
only at an arithmetic rate. This belief led Malthus to predict that humanity would soon outstrip their own ability to produce food, declaring an
inevitable catastrophe by the middle of the 19th century. Yet, here we are still. What Malthus had not predicted was humanity's cleverness,
originality and ability to improvise, adapt and overcome. What Malthus failed to see was humanity's ability to use technology to solve the problems
that nature either couldn't or wouldn't.
"Geography matters. Inequality is natural. Famine, pestilence, and war are Nature's way of balancing the population.
Born in 1885, died in 1981, Durant was historian and philosopher who lamented the relegation of philosophy to an academic ivory tower, and deeply felt
that philosophy should be the foundation of all political-economic policies. Through a lifetime love affair with philosophy he eventually came to
wonder profoundly the meaning of life, as trite as that may seem, and in doing so came to ask the same kind of question that is being asked in this
thread. He asked this question of many contemporaries in a letter and with their replies attempted to compile a sort of consensus as to the meaning
of life and published this compilation in a book titled; On the Meaning of Life. It was telling in his introduction to this book, his
conclusions on birth control:
We discovered birth control, and now it sterilizes the intelligent, multiplies the ignorant, debases love with promiscuity, frustrates the
educator, empowers the demagogue, and deteriorates the race."
Nature is trying very hard to make us succeed, but nature does not depend upon us. We are not the only experiment.
Born 1895, died 1983 he was perhaps a visionary born before his time. Certainly not nearly as accepted by his contemporaries as he's come to be
accepted today, he was a philosopher, and environmentalist and inventor. Known for his carbon molecules called "fullerness" or "bucky balls", he
also coined the term "ephemeralization", that being the fruit of synergy, in a nutshell, (or a peach pit), it is the principle of doing ever more
with ever less. Ever less weight, ever less time and ever less energy, for every given level of functional performance.
Making the old axiom that less is more, even ever more out of less, Fuller's vision of a systemic worldview was so ahead of its time we can barely
grasp the concept of a world view, let alone a systemic one. What is a world view? Are we as individuals, inherently subjective even capable of
possessing a world view? As stress, uncertainty and frustrations continue to plague us, both as individuals and in our collective cultures, we become
overwhelmed with a bombardment of data in this so called "age of information" easily devolving into the age of disinformation.
Having no clear vision of the future we turn to sites like this that embrace prophesy's of the past, many of which prognosticate doom and gloom for
an unworthy humanity sure to either burn in the eternal flames of hell or simply distinguish ourselves like a flickering candle in its last gasp of
oxygen. We crave freedom and in order to have that freedom we must assert our right to be individuals and yet, we can never know all there is to
know if we refuse to embrace the collective knowledge gathered throughout our past, from civilization to civilization, from idea to idea, hypothesis
to theory, and theory to either falsification or principle.
How is it we break free of our subjective realities plagued with focus on the fragmented pictures of our own experience into the more fluid experience
of wholeness? How do we keep our freedom and avoid the pitfalls of a collective group think, instinctively understanding our own individuality is as
every bit as important as our species as a whole. Separate yet undeniably interconnected, how do we align the two to make for a better world, a
better progress, a better humanity? How can we make informed decisions about a world we hardly know?
"The earth is like a spaceship that didn't come with an operating manual."
What do we know of nature? How can we come to know the nature of nature itself? For, without this knowledge how can we even dare to presume that our
wisdom is infinitely greater than that of natures? Surely nature was around doing her thing long before we came on the scene and if we fail to
achieve immortality as a species than nature will surely be around doing her thing long after we're gone. Would we, should we place some sort of
control upon the growth of population? How can we possibly know natures reaction to such an action? How can any one of us say with absolute
certainty that controlling the population won't just send a message to nature that we have decided to stop doing what nature demands we do? And how
can we be so certain that such a message won't just create our own demise?
Pollution? Should we stop polluting? We ingest and digest just as all living things do and our digestion is, in effect, pollution. Methane gas from
the flatulence of cows is claimed to be one source of our ecological problems. Farting is pollution! What shall we do about pollution?
"Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value."
To look at the exponential growth of our population and not understand the phenomenal success that illustrates biologically is but a contraction. To
look at the pollution caused by our vast technological developments is but a contraction. Nature does not contract, like the universe we live in she
expands! So should we. What good would it do us to protect ourselves from imagined demise by contracting while we live in a system that tends
towards entropy? The planet will someday die and if we don't escape it so will we. The solar system will entropy and if we don't escape it, so
will we. The universe will tend towards entropy and if we agree to do the same, we will surely perish. As painful as it is, we must expand, and
refuse to contract.
[edit on 17-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]