“Overpopulation”
is not an accounting measure, it is a moral measurement, an ethical
measurement. Overpopulation is not accounting weighing the human ones
and comparing with food, water and the air, that the planet can
provide.
There
is never overpopulation in the amoral sense of the term, which is the
animal sense, because the overflow of life in this case is regulated
itself by the death of weak people, malnourished, unlucky persons.
There
is overpopulation only in a moral sense invented by the intelligences
and consciences that we praise ourselves to be, but currently the
living conditions of billion people are perfectly immoral. There is
thus overpopulation according to our Human Rights.
The
living conditions of one of our future associates must be prepared
before installing it in the cradle Earth, well before and socially,
otherwise it is useless to create its existence, existence which it
did not ask for and even less under unhealthy conditions for him.
We
must remember all the immorality there is to make a sensitive
existence, conscious, suffering, and mortal for the service of
existing people, even offering him every chance for his body, for his
intellect and for his life.
What
is never the case, because our body is a lottery, like our intellect,
like our parents, and the community, without speaking of our often
catastrophic education.
People
were not widespread on the planet to visit Greenland, Siberia, the
Grand Canyon, the Gobi desert, the Kalahari. No of course it is
because they have multiplied without counting and continue to do so
without reason. When the occupied territory is insufficient to feed
the tribe, then they widen their territory.
An
unfortunate is already too much misfortune. Have you traced the curve
of growth in the number of unfortunate on Earth since the dawn of
humanity?
If
human progress are counted by the decreasing number of unfortunate,
in this case one can only admit our incapacity to progress, and even
all the opposite since one counts the unhappy ones per billion today.
Whereas
in the time of Julius Caesar we could count no more than 200 million
infortunates (which was the number of inhabitants of the planet).
There
always was “local overpopulation”, i.e. going beyond the
threshold of the capacities of feeding of the occupied territory by
people, who do not amount according to the territory, but according
to the close tribe from which it is necessary to be protected, and
which it is necessary to overcome by the excess. What is always the
case currently where the tribe is replaced by the nation.
All
conflicts are expressions of human overpopulation. There have always
been conflicts, and there have always been local overpopulation, now
the local, it is the planet, and overcrowding is widely expressed in
the last century with our game world wars, and continues to violently
do it. Thank you to the terrorists without which we will be bored
strongly!
Governments
will have trouble to tackle overpopulation head-on, because they need
flesh for work, flesh for tax, and as cannon fodder, to increase
their GDP, therefore their power, i.e. took her onto his back to convince the neighbors that the country is strong enough to defend
itself.
Governments
think in percentage of losses and collateral damage when they count
births (7500 serious handicaps for 800,000 births per year in France,
this gives about 1%), mothers can not think about their own child in
these same terms.
States
are masters at home, regarding what do not exceed their borders, but
when it comes to water, air, or some other phenomena, such as
overpopulation in their countries, which have consequences in
international relations, this is no more the case.
The
population of a country has an impact on other countries when it
involves a large uncontrolled immigration, whatever the reasons,
mismanagement of the country, social deprivation, any lack of labor,
civil wars, etc.
The
future problem of the governments will be to agree with the others
harmoniously to depopulate the nations on all planet, because the
population makes the strength of the country, according to their
countable opinion. In France, the President of the Republic is also
chief of the armies…
Religions
are like governments, without misfortune they have no reason to be,
so they must maintain this misfortune. The introduction of mandatory
religion is an effect of overpopulation.
If
normal death per billion in a very short period of time (7 billion in
a hundred years, for example) is not, according to you, a sign of
overpopulation, so what would be the signs of overpopulation?
Because,
indeed, if a person is not fed correctly, is not treated properly,
does not have a healthy life, she dies "normally" quickly.
And in this case, there will never be overcrowded, since a dead man
(unnecessarily because always made unnecessarily for itself) is not
included in the calculations.
The
slate of the calculation of the human
population is immediately erased when famine and misery reign. No
need to worry about overpopulation (animal, therefore amoral) since
there never will be!
Moral
signs of overpopulation are: wars, poverty, misery, malaise,
unemployment, hunger, thirst, pollution, natural and man-made
disasters, governmental disabilities to resolve various problems,
creating new problems, displacement, etc.
There
is a minimum number of human for the perenniality of the species (if
"one" sees a need so that our species continues, as
guardian of the Earth zoo for example).
And
beyond this number what good is it to require someone to exist (this
person will have, obviously, like us all, its word to say on the fact
that he likes or does not like the existence that one imposes to
him)?
If
you think that the world is not in overpopulation state, how do you
assess the amount of human not to exceed?
When
this number "N" will be achieved, what shall we do, or
rather what will they do (in the very near future) to stabilize the
population, than we could not have done ourselves with fewer people?
If there is no overpopulation, shall we give this extra problem to
solve for future generations?
But
what good is it to reach that maximum number of humans for the
planet? Who orders it to us?
But
in fact, what is the use to exist for non-existence, in conditions
that procreators not mastered, neither the environment, nor living
conditions?
What
does it do, to the heterogeneous material (maternal food), to be
assembled to become a person sensitive, conscious, suffering, and
mortal? Explain for which reason this food mechanical assembly, of
which nobody controls the uterine assembly, must become a person
conscious, suffering, and mortal.
The
populating (opposite with overpopulation) is not the possibility of
nourishing the existing population, it is the effective feeding of
the population, and it is also and especially the maintenance in good
health and in the wellness of the entire population.
But
once again, what good is it to require someone to exist for then
telling him that it must do its life by itself, for itself? That is
completely extravagant, incomprehensible, perfectly Ubuesque!
It
is strange that women do not feel that their body belongs to them and
that they are entitled to manage the colonization of the world by
humans if it suits them.
Don't
you feel, Madam, as a little overpopulation, I'm not talking about
food overpopulation, but a vast problem of overpopulation of malaise,
of suffering, and of misery? The world suffers Madam, you do not
control your desire to procreate.
We
could be ten-thousand inhabitants on Earth and live in peace. Do you
believe that so many people (billions) is necessary? Necessary to
what besides? Necessary to protect itself from the human ones! Just
do not make bellicose warriors and there will be no reason to protect
from the others, only of Nature, and this is already not so bad.
Even
if the man were not completely responsible for climate warming, it is
on the other hand completely “responsible” of the population, of
the quantity of population (overpopulation) that suffers the
consequences.
The
global warming is a problem, because we are too numerous and that we
occupy all the surface of the globe, otherwise it would not be one
really, because this phenomenon is recurring, and not really
problematic for a species which adapts very easily to its
environment.
In
1900, there were 2 billion people on Earth. Intensive agriculture has
helped more than double the human workforce. No improvement in
agriculture improves the wellness of humans in general, because the
number of humans grows disproportionately without control as soon as
you give it the opportunity.
The
goal of Life (I mean the mechanism that is Life in general) is not
the wellness, it is the multiplication of the individuals. Life is a
field which increases when conditions are favorable.
That
the planet can feed or not thousand-billion human is not the problem.
The problem is: from which right to oblige somebody to exist? From
which right to oblige somebody to exist to serve those that already
exist?
From
which Right get someone to exist without mastering the fabrication of
his existence in the Frankenstein laboratory that is female uterus?
Are people silly? Certainly. Are they animals? Certainly. Are they
able to understand what is explained? Certainly if one insists
somewhat ...
One
cannot continue to market, iron and wheat, with the same currency.
One cannot continue to play stock market, on iron, and to exploit the
price of wheat in the same way, with the same money. Buy wheat, it is
to buy and to sell our bodies, it is out of the human rights, it is a
wretched slaver system.
We
have all the right to the life as soon as we are born, we have all
the right to food without having to pay it.
The
food is like air, I have the right to breathe and thus the right to
eat without paying. If you do not want me to feed myself without
paying my body, so do not put me in the world. Overpopulation has led
to this total aberration.
Madam,
if your child can not be nourished and nourish himself free, so do
not put it to the world.
Is
it utopian to suggest doing something that we have already done?
Being only a few million human on Earth, that was already done. Why
not try to remake it, while improving the material conditions of each
one by the tools sophisticated which we will continue to improve?
A
little bit humor: Given the amount of water on the planet, there can
be at most about 35 000 000 000 000 (35 000-trillion) humans on Earth
... Including a half square meters per person, the surface of the
planet is about 509 887 006 000 000 sqm (510 000-trillion m²). I can
only assume that there will be some room to move. So let's be
optimistic!
Still
a little humor: There are about 150,000 deaths per day against
350,000 births, if the number of births fell to stabilize the number
of humans, it would mean 200,000 layettes, nappies, etc, of shortfall
per day for the industry of the births. It is totally unthinkable. It
is better to increase the number of deaths to promote the mortuary
industry.
(In
my case, it's a joke, and for you?)
The
solution of overpopulation is not the depopulation, it is the
not-populating. One kills nobody, one does not endanger anybody, one
does nothing, i.e. one does not make, ...not any children.
It
is theoretically easier to do than doing nothing (let's be
profitable). And we do not endanger the lives of others by
manufacturing a being who did not ask anything, because "it"
has no existence.
To
decrease the population to arrive to this perennial value of the
human “species” does not want to say to pass by the weapons about
seven-billion human beings.
That
means that we quietly let die about seven billion people, completely
normally and pleasantly if possible, without replacing them as
supernumerary functionaries.
That
means that one does not oblige to exist seven-billion people to take
care of the conservation of conservatism, and that will do as much
less to pollute, to suffer, to ask stupid questions about “does the
life worth the sorrow”, and to end up dying more or less merrily.
One
can reduce to nothing the misery of the human world in one
half-century, fifty short years, not even a human life, and all that
by doing nothing, absolutely nothing. It is an absolute fact, it's
not a hoax, my argument is infallible.
It's
worth trying this experiment, is not it? Yet there is one thing to
do, one small thing, to transmit what it is necessary not to do, to
the whole of the human population…
If
there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a
new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:
"Now
that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "
Dead
end
E.
Berlherm (May 2016)
