stargeek
World Population Reaches 6.4 Billion: What To Do?World Population Reaches 6.4 Billion:
|
 In The Hidden Dimension, his dated (1969) but thoroughly researched breakthrough study of the field of proxemics, Edward Hall provides lots of food for thought for environmentalists and architects. Proxemics is the study of space (here on Earth not out in, er..., space), and how we use and perceive it. Hall makes it clear that an understanding of the subject also requires that we understand how time is perceived, since it is, after all, one of the dimensions we move through. This is a social study, not a scientific one. In the belief that 'perception is reality', Hall introduces us to a whole new and valuable world of investigation, one that scientists, in their zeal for 'real', have overlooked. The first part of the book was of particular interest to me because I've been writing a lot on these pages lately about overpopulation, and the book describes extensively how we, as animals, react physically and socially to overcrowding. Last week I cited Daniel Quinn's Story of B which ascribes human overpopulation to one simple factor: production of excess food. This is illustrated in the chart above. To Quinn, it's simply an issue of imbalance. Readers of my article last week had mixed opinions on whether food production really is a direct factor, and were frustrated that having hypothesized the root cause of and solution to the problem ("produce less food"), he offered no suggestions, indeed no hope, on how to implement the solution. Readers also suggested the equation is overly simplistic, and misses important variables. Hall proposes some additional variables and backs his argument up credibly. To Hall, one key variable is the adrenal system, by which he claims the balance of all life on Earth is regulated in a way much more 'humane' than mass starvation: When crowding becomes too great
after population buildups, interactions intensify, leading to greater
and greater stress. As psychological and emotional stress builds up
and
tempers wear thin, subtle but powerful changes occur in the chemistry
of the body. Births drop while deaths progressively increase until as
state known as 'population collapse' occurs. Such cycles of build-up
and collapse are now generally recognized as normal for the
warm-blooded vertebrates and possibly for all life. Contrary to
popular
belief, the food supply is only indirectly involved in these
cycles.
So from a systems perspective, we actually have several more variables
at work than Quinn suggested. Before the invention of agriculture, the
balance of human numbers was
preserved at no more than 300 million people, for three million years.
Food availability caused numbers to rise, natural
predators kept the balance in check. Whenever that failed, as in
medieval Europe, the stress
balance that Hall describes kicked in: 'naturally' lowered birth
rates,
and more death from violence and stress-related disease, until the
overcrowding was alleviated and adrenal levels could return to normal.
It's nature's way of sabotaging the system when it gets out of
control.
In fact pox viruses, of which there are thousands, affect every
species
on Earth (except, and only for the last couple of decades, man) and
are
amazingly species-specific: They flare up only in densely concentrated
populations and are nature's (or god's) perfect population control
mechanism.The adrenals play an important part in the regulation of growth, reproduction and the level of the body's defenses. The size and weight of these important glands is not fixed but responds to stress. When animals are too frequently stressed, the adrenals, in order to meet the emergency, become overactive and enlarged...Mortality [in major animal die-offs that were extensively studied by John Christian] evidently results from shock following severe metabolic disturbance, probably as a result of prolonged adrenocortical hyperactivity. There is no evidence of infection, starvation, or other obvious cause to explain the mass mortality. It is now widely held that the processes of selection which control evolution favor the dominant individuals in any given group. Not only are they under less stress but they also seem able to stand more stress. The adrenals work harder and become more enlarged in subordinate animals...A blowup of aggressiveness and sexual activity and accompanying stresses overload the adrenals. The result is a population collapse due to lowering of the fertility rate, increased susceptibility to disease, and mass mortality from hypoglycemic shock. The dominant animals, however, usually survive.  But since the invention of agriculture, this has now evolved into a much more complex system, with a host of new human-engineered variables:  Agriculture was a human response to the sudden scarcity of food about 30,000 years ago, which arose from a combination of over-hunting of the big, easy game that made human life so idyllic until then, and possibly the ice-age effect of a meteor strike wobbling the Earth's rotation at that time. Everything else flowed from that: Agricultural technology increased food availability but also entailed man living a more regimented, interdependent life in much closer quarters. The resultant increase in stress and violence required the development of a completely new culture, with laws to try to keep the lid on violence, medicines to deal with diseases that spread quickly in concentrated populations, and religions to teach people how to live 'unnaturally'. Natural predators that we used to respect were now demonized and exterminated because they competed with us for food, and soon were eliminated as a population balancing mechanism. The final chart above shows the result. As a consequence, human population has grown virtually unchecked for 30,000 years. We respond to each new disease with new medical technology, and to the explosion in human violence with increasingly strict laws that subjugate, restrict human freedom and incarcerate non-conformists. We've even introduced, recently, medical technology that artificially reduces stress itself (starting with the lobotomy, whose first gruesome practitioner won a Nobel prize for it). We are placed in ever-more stringent and oppressive physical, psychological and social strait-jackets to keep our 'natural' reaction to the massive, psychotic stress that unprecedented overcrowding produces, all in the interests of coping with more and more people. The education system 'teaches' us relentlessly that a passive, highly-structured, urban, hierarchical 'consumer' society is the only way to live. Nevertheless, famine, war, disease, crime, domestic violence, mental illness, suicide, depression -- all manifestations of stress, are exploding as quickly as our numbers. It's a pressure cooker waiting to blow. Our culture has so indoctrinated us that the very concept of a world with fewer people is inconceivable, even horrifying, to most of us. Our laws, our religions and our culture have reinforced our natural inclination to procreate and perverted it into a fundamental 'right', even a responsibility. Despite this, because we instinctively know something is very wrong (our instincts reflect our full three million years of evolution, not merely the most recent 'civilized' 1%), in recent years we have added the two new boxes in the upper left of the chart above, to once again balance the forces that determine population size:
The problem now is momentum. The system has been out of whack for 30,000 years and, like an SUV careening out of control on an icy road, the recently-applied brakes are not working fast enough to prevent collision. We need some additional variables to be introduced quickly into the final chart above, to bring human population growth to a quick halt, and start reversing it back to levels that are not only sustainable, and will allow our severely damaged planet to heal, but which will also allow us to throw off our cultural shackles and learn to live fully and naturally again, in a world that is healthy, happy and at peace, and as part of the natural ecosystems of which we are, contrary to all our 'new' culture's propaganda, inextricably a part. We cannot depend on governments or business for this -- they're invested in the status quo, in deep denial, and as the 'dominant' members of our society they are the elite that Hall says will survive the eco-tastrophe when we perish anyway. They control the machinery of production and will not reduce food availability, and will not invest in radical technology of any kind to reduce human population -- it's not in their nature, means or interest to be ahead of the mainstream of public thinking. We cannot depend on education alone -- there is not enough time. We cannot depend on nature's own mechanisms to restore the balance in time (though with global warming, Mad Cow, species extinction, AIDS and other new diseases nature is trying) -- we have too many countervailing technologies in place. We surely cannot depend on the gods, or the lawyers. I am increasingly and reluctantly coming to the conclusion that the only answer -- if there is an answer at all -- is coercive. Not in the political sense -- people are already doing all the unnatural things they can bear, and no political edict to reduce population could ever succeed. We must sabotage the system. We must run the careening SUV off the road before it crashes and kills us all. I know I'm being a bit cryptic -- I'm still thinking this through. I shudder at this conclusion, and the options I can imagine for doing it fill me with dread and revulsion. Just as our culture has given us no choice but to live within its terrible and suffocating walls, we must give this culture, and its people, no choice but to reduce its numbers and its impact on our dying world. I think I always knew and feared my thinking would come to this. My instincts have long told me there is no solution that is not radical. Question is, how to sabotage the system with a minimum of suffering.  There is more in Hall's book that I want to talk about. He has some important ideas that could change the way we think about architecture, about other cultures, and about how we communicate and relate to each other. It's all about perception, and it's fascinating. Look for another article on The Hidden Dimension, much less grim than this, next week Thanks to the two kind readers who helped me find this book. |
So Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was apparently - woo - a tremendous success in the States and everyone was so happy about it and stuff because - ha ha - funny gay men patronising the dumbass straight men - how funny is that!? But now - if the reports are to be believed - then there's going to be a "Straight Eye for the Queer Guy" show coming out, designed to turn the tables back again with - ha ha - hilarious consequences. But turning the tables is not considered by some gay people to be acceptable. Their argument is that gay people already know enough about straight life - given that they've had to spend many years trying to fit into straight culture while being taught that their lives will be immoral, diseased and short-lived before erupting free from this stigma in a blaze of brightly-coloured taffeta and nicely-tapered trouser-bottoms. Their point is - I suppose - that one's a tasteless misrepresentation, and the other isn't...
I'm just having trouble figuring out which is which! Because as far as I can see, both of them share one thing in common - a flagrant and blatantly patronising image of gay people as cheery little inoffensive sexless chappies. Well bollocks to that. Bollocks to happy gay people on TV, bollocks to the straight audiences, bollocks to the producers, bollocks to the bloody cameramen, bollocks to any passing trannies. Bollocks, if you will, to absolutely bloody everyone. I'm going to say this once and once only - and I hope it doesn't come as too much of a shock to anyone: It's not just Straight Eye for the Queer guy that will be patronising shit that sells an image of gayness that is damaging and frustratingly bland. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was patronising shit as well.
I can't really believe that was a shock to anyone, but just in case - I'm sorry for those of you who fell over and hit your head...
Back in the late eighties, when the prevailing mood was that gay
people were diseased perverts that would lead short, ill, shameful and
disgusting lives, the idea that we might get portrayed as happy little
child-puppets was quite appealing. But that time has passed and I
think we've all had enough now of that newest of grotesque gay
stereotypes archetypes - that of the
girl's-best-friend, sexless, happy, home-keeping, stylish queer. I
might actually bloody vomit if I see it one more time on television
and if I get my greasy hands on (Kevin Kline let me
reassure you that I'll be giving him a piece of my oh-so-wise and
oh-so-well-tailored happy gay mind.
It's not because it's an unpleasant image of homosexual individuals, and it's not because there aren't any gay men that are all smiley and pastel in the world (because there are, and they're lovely). No, it's just because I'm sick to death with being "understood" by people I meet on as a "good-natured, slightly-dim, fashion-obssessed hysterical best-friend-in-times-of-need" kind of guy on the basis of the representation of 'my kind' in a few shit films and TV shows. There are differences between gay people and straight people - don't get me wrong. But there aren't any scientists world-wide who truly understand what the hell they all are, so why the hell do a twenty minute comedy show going to have a better idea?
Now I've read my Foucault like the best of them, and I believe him to be right when he says that categorising something is a way of asserting power over it. Hence the creation of homosexuality a little over a hundred years ago. And I'm with him on the next step too - that the creation of the category also creates an identity around which the group can rebel, to try and recast itself. But it works the other way around too. We started off as godless, sex-obsessed, dirty monsters and we fought and we've rebelled. And now instead we're god-loving, relationship-focused, kitchen-cleaning princes among men who like little dog, Versace and television where 'we' get to patronise people. Our 'positive' image has already been reincorporated and recontextualised and reconsidered and represented. The tremendous variety of gay male experience - from the most delicate to the most brutal, from the most elegant to the most fierce, from the most diplomatic to the most battle-ready, even from the most tacky to the most trivially crass - all of it is reduced down to the image of gay men as a fussy little child - who plays at 'houses', plays at 'cooking', plays at 'being a man', plays at life.
Well I want out. And this is where I turn around to face my colleagues who loved "Queer Eye" but are cross about its sequel. It's not enough that a programme on television should just be ostensibly 'nice' about gay people. It's shouldn't float our boats that some show finds it entertaining to see the happy poofs take the piss out of groups that used to kick our heads in. If you want some honour in your programming, demand that it shows you a larger variety of truths. Like the truth that shows identity as something fought for, forged, lost and rebuilt. And not one where it's given like you'd give a pet a name...
From behind the mediaguardian registration wall comes this wonderful little weird nugget of BBC-ness:
Pet TV is a service digital viewers can access by pressing the interactive red button on their remotes, for a week-long run from Saturday May 1. It is being billed by the BBC as an attempt to find out what sort of TV programmes, sounds and images animals respond to. The interactive TV service will consist of a looped series of images and sounds, including clips of snooker balls rolling across the green baize, frisbees flying through the air, cat toys and cartoon characters such as Top Cat. The service will also offer clips from more traditional TV fare, such as EastEnders, Neighbours, The Muppet Show and Animal Hospital. Pet TV can be tried out on dogs, cats, birds and even fish, according to the BBC.
Not quite sure what I think of in terms of how entertaining pets might find it, but it could be ideal ambient TV wallpaper. I'm thinking of having it on all the time...
Nifty
scratching posts and other stuff for your pet available here. Linkdanah's always talking about privilege and I've started to think about this more consciously than before. Just about everyone here in Davos is privileged. Some have been born into privilege and some have gained it through their work. Some people carry their privilege well, others don't. There are people who seem to gloat in and flaunt their privilege, constantly bragging and doing the nudge-nudge-wink-wink. Others carry it naturally. Others seem to feel bad or strange having been chosen to be among the privileged. Some seem to guiltily enjoy the privilege.
Some seem to believe that the privilege they have comes with the responsibility to use it to help others, while others seem to think that privilege is something they deserve to use for their own personal gain.
It's interesting to watch. I wish I could do a survey of all of the people here and ask questions like, "Do you think you deserve the privilege you have, and why?" "What do you intend to do with the privilege and do you think you owe it to the world to focus your energies on helping those without privilege?" Then there are deeper questions about whether people are helping underprivileged people to gain more recognition, out of guilt, out of love, out of a sense of responsibility or some other reason.
I haven't attended any of the philanthropy sessions, but maybe that's what they talk about.
I personally think I deserve some of the privilege that I've gained, but that there are many who don't have as much privilege as I do who deserve it more. I think I owe a lot of my privilege to where I was born, the way my mother raised me, the people I've met and an odd combination of networking skills. I do feel extremely responsible for using the privilege that I currently have to solve as many of the world's problems as possible. I continue to remind myself that the particular serious of events that have put me in the position that I am in has more to do with the people around me than anything else and I owe it to them to carry this privilege well.
musicandcats.blogspot.com/2005/03/carnival-of-cats-53.htmltrack this site | 4 links
The following phrases have been identified by the grok system as matching this entry: "carrying capacity" overpopulation myths -cats -pets