Saturday, 18 April 2015

Because too many, yet again

I know, I know, this is an old bugbear of mine but I can't help it.

I wonder if I'm one of the few who finds the spiraling number of humans deeply nauseating and depressing. It's not like I attach much value to my life anyway, but objectively it's all exacerbated by knowing that there are 7.3 billion other stupid Janes and Joes out there, all scrambling to survive until their death. This troubles me just sitting by myself in my little corner, and then I only have to step outside my door to be tripping over buggies, brats and their awful mothers who consider themselves saints.

And as we all know, the more there are of something the less its value, so don't be expecting too many people to be troubling themselves over your fate - they've got other things to be doing, like scrabbling for food in the dustbin and queuing up for their ration of Soylent Green.

I live in London, and hey, by standards of the new world mega-cities London is a village, only 9 million milling around its market square. I was in Tokyo last week, 30 million people there. One guy I was talking to told me he got only 4 days off a year, such is the struggle to survive.

So a few basic points to consider:

More people means....   

less countryside....
less solitude, more people in your face....
more demand for endless garbage and crap....                            
more work and toil needed to provide said garbage and crap so....
longer working lives so.....
more pressure on social welfare and state pension.
more morons, as people tend toward the lowest common denominator....                          
so with more people, more vulgarity and crudity.

But as the morons say: It's all good.

I mean if I weren't an AN on metaphysical grounds, surely I might pause to think that any kid of mine is going to face a tougher struggle for survival than me and previous generations. But no, biology always wins. Oh well, I'm just gassing to no purpose, and not particularly eloquently, but there you are, I'm tired and there are more new people to be in awe of.

http://www.populationmatters.org/?gclid=CM-2lPe9_8QCFYoEwwodYyYAww 

https://www.facebook.com/PopulationMatters?fref=ts




19 comments:

  1. Hi Karl, you are not 'one of the few' but one of many. The fact the many can't agreeably make themselves few enough to be collectively content and few enough to spurn the idea of growth-in the sense of the financial economy and in the numbers of human beings is a paradox.... ....if you wanted contentment it would have to be for reasons other than population reduction and by means of almost hermit like detachment, to the point where you would have to accept being seen as anti-social by any so-called society. If in a world of millions malcontent at being one too many human beings is the defining paradox of being alive, then the paradox of being accepted because you are openly anti-social is a more contenting paradox to live by. Of course getting into that sort of place takes a mix of luck and graft, and grafting for less is yet another paradox. But I am sure that for the best AN 'heroes', or anti-heroes, they are the ones whose drive got them to a place they could live with being, and achieved a semblance of calm in spite of the gains and losses in life, not because of them. What they lost they did not necessarily want to lose, nor did the gains that came their way settle them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wise words and beautifully written, Malcolm!

      Delete
  2. Karl: In your post, I notice that you speak of living in London amongst 9 million people. On one web site I know, it is estimated that the demand for the London Underground will rise by 60% in the next thirty five years.

    So here we have another example of more and more people squabbling over less and less. It is a recipe for disaster. In connection with this, you might find the book 'The Toolmaker Koan' by John McLoughlin to be of interest. One of its themes is what is happens when more and more squabble over less and less, eventually wiping themselves out...

    You also speak of the 'value' of your life. Well, what are we to make of the value of life in a society where a Brazilian clothes, or prostitute to put it less diplomatically, can retire at the age of 34 having earned hundreds of millions in whatever currency you can name, from a hard life of walking, wearing clothes and being photographed?

    If this is an example of "It's all good.", then you are quire correct to find "humans deeply nauseating and depressing". But you are not alone in this: there are others of us who find the human (disg)race to be utterly disgusting, having created of this world a cess-pit when it should be a paradise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/19/worlds-mountain-of-electrical-waste-reaches-new-peak-of-42m-tonnes

      Delete
    2. This just epitomises things! Perhaps such a pile of electrical waste should form the grave stone of the human (disg)race?

      Delete
  3. What's worse: in Europe, where the dwindling population could lead to a more livable life due to less people, we're importing the precariat of africa and the middle east, who will most likely install their inferior culture once they are here (in one year, more books have been translated into spanish than in the whole history of the arabic language, so they are not interested in cultural exchange). And those muslims are very breedy. It's of course not PC to see Europe as having the highest culture and being worthy of protection, but I don't care about PC anymore anyway. It could have been such a nice vision: an almost empty Europe, maybe even a small cultural elite who will look after our great buildings and print all those mighty books in fine editions, but no, instead it will rot and mosques are gonna get build everywhere.

    It's also telling that almost no one from the muslim world won a nobel prize, and that there are no muslim Goethes or Shakespeares. It will take several hundred years, if at all, until progressive notions arise in the muslim world. I also doubt that Mainländer's vision, that with social democracies installed everywhere, people would kill themselves due to boredom. I think most people are satisfied with waiting for the newest gadget and playing around with it, looking to science to conquer the universe and spread life. This is what Mainländer could not know: the technological advancements that made space travel possible, and with it the vision that we need to spread. So Mainländer fails, though he is still worth reading, but I don't buy his argument that people will die of boredem. I mean, even I, an antinatalist who is repulsed by current culture and the current situation is not bored or suicidal (though I was); true, there are times when I'm bored, but I live the life of a Davila (greates aphorist of the 20th century, really): I spent my time reading books and doing a little bit of programming. There are so many great authors I'd still like to read, languages to learn, and so on. I think Mainländer was suffering from a psychosis, as german professor Ludger Lütkehaus wrote (who is also an admirer of Schopenhauer, so he is not feeling attacked by Mainländer's pessimistic tone).

    Anyway, there will be more breeding, lots of breeding, and it won't be by those people who could become pessimists (most pessimist are from the north or at least Europe; the US also had some great pessimists). Islam is a very life-affirming religion, which is why many women are so into it (despite the fact that that would mean an end to feminism, see Houellebecq's new book), but also men seem to find it more livable than Buddhism, which is without a doubt the greatest religion: the Upanishad's are probably the highest exposition of wisdom ever having been written, it's a million times more worthy of study than the Quran, which is, as Schopenhauer wrote, a `bad' book. So we don't see a shift to Buddhism, which is pessimistic and a little antinatalist, but a shift to islam, which is life-affirming and pro-natalist. Things are fucked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Along with Buddhism, Schopenhauer also ranks Christianity, or more specifically Catholicism/Orthodoxy, as a pessimistic religion. At its core is the doctrine of original sin in which salvation from it is achieved by means of a childless man from Nazareth, born of a virgin, which to me is at least negatively anti-natalist. Many Church Fathers also ingeniously interpret many seemingly pro-natalist precepts found in the Bible, such as "go forth and multiply," in spiritual terms, i.e. one is to go forth and multiply one's virtues and love for God.

      I also think it's telling that, a part from certain strands of Hinduism, only Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Buddhism have developed robust monastic traditions. Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism for the most part all lack such a tradition. There are some quasi-exceptions, such as the Essenes in Judaism (now extinct) and the Sufis in Islam (who were always a tiny minority), but on the whole these religions are heavily optimistic and pro-natalist.

      Alas, though, Catholicism has almost exhausted its influence in the West (partly due to its inane and misplace preoccupation with social issues), where its great mystic and ascetic traditions bore such fruit. Buddhism too isn't growing all that much if at all and its adherents in the West have adopted quite a shallow and insipid interpretation of it.

      Speaking for myself, I have long considered joining a monastery or at least becoming an oblate like Huysmans. I think Schopenhauer's philosophy, which I currently accept, implies and is perfectly compatible with Catholicism particularly. Schopenhauer was known to have admired the Trappists and thought they were the purest example of the denial of the will. I wonder, though, if I have been too corrupted by modern society to actually muster up the courage to join such a group or if I am doomed to morosely trudge through this black age forever in the midst of optimists of all stripes. Monasteries require one to be debt free to join them, and I have a lot of school loans, for for the moment I will just continue with school. Universities can be and were a lot like monasteries, but corporatization and the increasing number of immature students gracing their campuses have made the prospects of becoming a professor less palatable for me.

      Delete
    2. The Middle East, and even the Islamic sect, has had many geniuses in the past. It is around the Wahabi movement that everything about them went totally kaputt. And it didn't help that the Ottoman empire, which held Muslims and Christians in a certain order, was Balkanised after the First World War by lovely Europeans -- who needed THREE CONTINENTS of extra space to fill up their spawn. Oh please!

      I'm not Muslim, I was born into a Hindu family, and I live in India.

      Delete
  4. Befor you start listing Population Matters, I would do more research on them. Out of curiosity, I did a head count of the Patrons breeding habits. Some of the most vocal have overshot the two child limit their own organization set, and only one hasn't bred. In sum total, I believe I counted around 35 to 37 children the listed Patrons had, between them. And they have some fairly ugly eugenics views. One Baroness complained of the poor breeding too much, and another, who is a doctor and former head of the organization, wanted to put birth control implants in girls as young as 12 years of age. And you know it won't be compulsory amongst the rich.

    As much as I am an AN, I will not support elitist eugenics, and political compulsion.

    Brian L.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are specifically an overpopulation organisation, NOT an antinatalist group. There is a difference. I support them because they are better than nothing, and provide good information. As for the poor not breeding, I am all for that, as I am for the rich not breeding, and everyone else not breeding.

      Delete
  5. I understand their raison d'être Karl. No problem. I was simply sharing what I had learned about them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Population in europe will start to decline as the fertility rate is dropping sharply. In many countries it's already under the replacement level. The tendency in the next years is population decline not increase.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Highly contestable. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/27/population.eu

      Delete
  7. Some jolly photos to illustrate the point:

    http://coffee-table.viralnova.com/overpopulation/?mb=fbko

    http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/gallery/2015/apr/01/over-population-over-consumption-in-pictures

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Homo Rapiens in action... sickening

      Delete
  8. That last anon was not me. Just wanted to clarify. I'd never argue population was on the decline, when it's anticipated to be around 9 billion by 2050.

    Brian L.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The more of us there are, the more brutally meaningless we become to one another. And, more painfully still, to ourselves. "I'm just a speck, a nothing, less than an ant" is a perfectly rational statement to make considering the state of things, and yet you'll be called mentally ill for voicing it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet the culture of official optimism has never been louder. "You're a special snowflake, precious and always right." Wait til rationing starts....

      Delete
  10. Nothing to do with your life? Finished school and grown tired of exerting your brain? Want to feel important without ever actually doing anything important? Want to stop working? Problem solved! Have a baby!!

    I'm a woman and the situation is just pathetic. I can't help the fact that I'm a wretched human being, but I do my best every day to make myself as minimally wretched as possible. I've devoted myself to a life of study and self-improvement. I work myself to the very bones trying to make my life and the world around me a little less horrible and a little more beautiful. I study poetry, art, music, animals, flowers and Shakespeare. I am "intersex" and proud to be (or as I like to call myself, "eunuch"). I am loathed by society...for not having a gender, for not being a mother, for not upholding the status quo.

    I am proud of my feeble efforts toward self-improvement. Instead of making babies, we each need to make ourselves. We are born like unfinished statues that need to be carefully formed. That is an enormously hard task, a lifelong task, and exhausting! People give birth to others in order to avoid the grueling work of "giving birth" to themselves. At 30, I've put 30 years of effort into birthing myself, and I'm still working at it, still chiseling away at my defects and enlightening my mind. People who become parents abort themselves, trying to craft another being superior to themselves, but they don't succeed at this, because they've aborted already themselves. If you don't know how to make your own self, how can you ever know how to "make" a child?

    ReplyDelete