I have some questions regarding the current thought processes towards the future of our species.
What controls the growth rate of our species? What controls the population of any species within nature? I guess the answer is survival of the fittest and predators. In their basic forms. We also need hunger. So who would be our predator on this planet? Lions in Africa, snakes in America and Australia. Scorpions and sharks.
What about ourselves? What about war? What about disease and old age? Old age is something we are continually combating. I have no doubt we will never beat nature and every one of us will know death just as we have known life. But as we develop our knowledge of medicine and technology, what of those who continually push the longevity of our species to the very ends of our capacity to live as functional humans, without deteriorating from our standard of living? What age can my children expect to live to if we push our longevity up by two years every ten? Four generations from now, the average life expectancy of a British subject will be over 90 years. Who’s paying for their retirement? Who’s paying for their future?
I heard an old man say one time: “What this country needs is a bloody good war.”
Who can disagree with him? Let’s not bring into this question the debate about political gain and financial backing which creates jobs etc. No one likes to talk about war. No one likes to think of the death and destruction of homes and families and countries. People see it as an unnecessary evil. Such a waste of life and money and effort.
But what if it’s not a waste of effort and time etc? What if it is simply one of nature’s ways of thinning out the population of the world? When asked if there’s a God and if there is, why would He/She allow such things as wars, religious people often remark that it’s not God’s will, but the will of man. That’s a convenient answer (and a different page)
Suppose it is God’s will that wars are fought. Suppose He thought, whilst creating this place, that He would be able to control the population of any country by giving them the choice to control their own population. If we didn’t have wars, how many people would there be on this planet right now? A lot more than 6 billion!
But how far do you take it? Can one suggest that this principle extends further than a simple war between neighbouring countries and is it possible that all activities which effect the outcome of a people are elements of population control? Within this scope is the possibility for famine, pestilence, war, murder, accidents, abortion, miscarriage, cot death, suicide, earthquakes, volcanoes …. I suppose the last ones are simply accidents for humans, but nature’s way of ridding itself of a plague of “humans”.
I have heard mention that if the entire population of this rock were to conusme resources at the same rate as an average American, we would need four more planets to survive.
That’s why we need famine. We need a percentage of the population to die each die in order that the rest of us survive