![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re-edited post*
Mar. 15th, 2009 02:46 pmThe central image of the trajectory of a rocket in Thomas Pynchon's brilliant novel 'Gravity's Rainbow' sticks in my mind as being also the single best signifier of modern times.
The apogee of that curve where the rocket starts to descend and ultimately kill is pretty much the analogy of modern science and medicine as well as the cracked moral philosophy that sent it up there - on the premise that it was on a beneficial mission.
Evidently it was sent up on a too-high, too-steep apogee trajectory and as a result, its now on a murderously fast descent.
Bold and absolutely unparalleled measures are required to give this planet a fighting chance and those capable of effecting them are tied by a morass of moralities, politics, religions and ethics. All of which are actually anti-the human race (especially now that the apogee of its civilisation appears also to have been passed).
A reduction in world population is IMHO, vital, starting with all of the (rich) fuel-guzzling urban areas first.
This is the most effective and most obvious remedial action that can be taken but you can bet that it will be the very LAST proposal that is tentatively made around the time that orange, teeming Earth is too hot and crowded to sit down on.
*Population reduction is as deeply unpopular a course of action as in Thomas Malthus's day apparently, and clearly it is considered anathema to hold an opinion in its favour. That cannot be a deterrent; I'd far rather be a lone voice expressing alarm at eg the loss of territory for other, dying species than go with the sacred notion of 'human life everywhere and at all costs'.*****
Meanwhile everyone is running around with serious expressions, yattering about emissions and footprints, recycling and reducing-- its like a bunch of surgeons clustered round a patient with a gangrenous leg debating whether it would be better to trim the toenails.
People who think that advocating less humans is WRONG should ask themselves 'would you HONESTLY be happy if China suddenly lifted its restrictions on family size?'
NB most of our doers and thinkers have compromised their objectivity on this question, and that may always be the case.
Ideally, what's needed is for more women to voice the opinion that breeding should at least rank lower amongst human priorities.
In the meantime, why not --
Limit the existing population to ONE VEHICLE per household.
Restrict fuel allowance PER CAPITA.
These are non-starters of course -- they treat people equally
: )
The apogee of that curve where the rocket starts to descend and ultimately kill is pretty much the analogy of modern science and medicine as well as the cracked moral philosophy that sent it up there - on the premise that it was on a beneficial mission.
Evidently it was sent up on a too-high, too-steep apogee trajectory and as a result, its now on a murderously fast descent.
Bold and absolutely unparalleled measures are required to give this planet a fighting chance and those capable of effecting them are tied by a morass of moralities, politics, religions and ethics. All of which are actually anti-the human race (especially now that the apogee of its civilisation appears also to have been passed).
A reduction in world population is IMHO, vital, starting with all of the (rich) fuel-guzzling urban areas first.
This is the most effective and most obvious remedial action that can be taken but you can bet that it will be the very LAST proposal that is tentatively made around the time that orange, teeming Earth is too hot and crowded to sit down on.
*Population reduction is as deeply unpopular a course of action as in Thomas Malthus's day apparently, and clearly it is considered anathema to hold an opinion in its favour. That cannot be a deterrent; I'd far rather be a lone voice expressing alarm at eg the loss of territory for other, dying species than go with the sacred notion of 'human life everywhere and at all costs'.*****
Meanwhile everyone is running around with serious expressions, yattering about emissions and footprints, recycling and reducing-- its like a bunch of surgeons clustered round a patient with a gangrenous leg debating whether it would be better to trim the toenails.
People who think that advocating less humans is WRONG should ask themselves 'would you HONESTLY be happy if China suddenly lifted its restrictions on family size?'
NB most of our doers and thinkers have compromised their objectivity on this question, and that may always be the case.
Ideally, what's needed is for more women to voice the opinion that breeding should at least rank lower amongst human priorities.
In the meantime, why not --
Limit the existing population to ONE VEHICLE per household.
Restrict fuel allowance PER CAPITA.
These are non-starters of course -- they treat people equally
: )
