Saturday, July 08, 2006

How can the human race survive the next hundred years?

There's this thing on Yahoo where they invite "celebrities" to ask questions and then people submit their own answers. The latest "celebrity" to be added to that roster (in addition to the likes of Donald Trump and other "celebrities") is the infamous Dr. Stephen Hawking.

I have to admit, I don't know much about him, but I know he's a big deal in science and all that stuff. To be honest, judging from what my sister has tried to explain to me on his works and his theories from reading his book, it all creeps me out. Black holes, parallel universe... I don't like to think about all that stuff. I think that kinda stuff is best to be left unanswered. Ignorance is bliss, and there's a reason why it's blissful. There's just some things I prefer not to know (you fear what you don't know, but I have a feeling if I knew more about this I'd be more freaked and paranoid). What's wrong with just being?

Anyhoo, so what did the great Stephen Hawking ask the general public?

In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?
This has got to be a question that have been on the minds of many: philosophers, political leaders, popes, truck drivers, Average Joes. There's over 18,000 pages of answers from the public (have fun sorting through all that, Mr. Hawking) and I must say, some of these answers are what I would dub 'ludicrous, weak and ridiculous'.

First of all, if the great Mr. Hawking asks you a question, don't make a response that refers to 'God' or some other spiritual being or even religion. I doubt a man of science will accept that as a just answer.

Some of the other answers are what I would also call 'wishful thinking'. Some of them suggest that everyone needs to start thinking a certain way, blah blah blah -- people, you can't change the way people think. Get real.

One person even suggested that we keep breeding as much as possible so that we can produce for 'genetic variation'. I think her theory is that for every 10 babies, one of them will be a genius. So we need to keep reproducing to produce more geniuses to confront these problems... righhhhhhhht. So what, 'normal' people can't solve social, environmental and poltical problems? Are geniuses the new "Saviours"?

So did I submit an answer to dear Mr. Hawking? Of course I did!

How can the human race survive another 100 years? Control the population of the human race.

Most people don't think twice when they give aid to charities that help poverished third-world countries. Medicine, food and medical help are supposed to 'solve' third-world country problems, such as famine and disease. Has anyone stop to think that this is actually propelling the problem?

They continue to repopulate and add to their overpopulation and poverty problem. In the words of a former Philosophy teacher, "It doesn't matter how many condoms you throw at them, they WILL repopulate."

The answer to this problem: stop giving aid. It is not inhumane, it is for the greater good. The world is three times overpopulated. Overpopulation is what thrives poverty. Sure, there comes the 'moral and ethical' issues of helping their fellow man. I'm not saying, don't help the guy sitting next to you. If anything, we have more of an obligation to help the guy PHYSICALLY near us (say, on our own continent) than of someone else sitting overseas. Instead, we should give money to charities that promote the control of population (Planned Parenthood?) to reduce poverty. Overpopulation is also the driving factor in environment problems.

Peter Singer was on to something, back in the '70s. And eerily enough, some of his predictions are coming true.

Humans are the answer to their own demise. It doesn't matter how many machines or how many advances we make in Western medicine. Mother Nature will eventually have her revenge. And the more there are of us, the less likely ANYONE will see 2106.


"The fact that a person is phyiscally near to us, so that we have personal contact with him, may make it more likely that we SHALL assist him, but this does not show that we OUGHT to help him rather than another who happens to be further away."

"...serious reason for not giving to famine relief funds is that until there is effective population control, relieving famine merely postpones starvation... I accept that the earth cannot support indefinitely a population rising at the present rate...the best means of preventing famine, in the long run, is population ought to be doing all one can to promote population control (unless one held that all forms of population control were wrong in themselves, or would have significantly bad consequences)..."-Peter Singer, "Famine, Affluence and Morality"

Yeah, I've reiterated these thoughts to my friends and enemies on more than one occasions whenever we argue about abortion, Western medicine and all that jazz. And a couple of my points, I'm sure, have been echoed somewhere in those 18,000 or so pages of answers.

I suppose I do sound arrogant in scoffing at other people's answers I've read that I've mentioned and I probably don't have a right to. Perhaps my 'solution' is not even the most correct.

The problem isn't that we're overpopulated. The problem is we're overpopulated with idiots.

No comments: