Depopulation

I have a solution to a solid 90% of our current problems. The solution? Kill humans.

Nearly all of our problems can be traced back to overpopulation. Genocide? Overcrowded ethnic groups being forced into close contact with each other. Famine? Too little food for too many humans. Epidemics? Too many humans forced into close contact with one another to spread the disease. Environmental degradation? A by product of the pursuit of the huge amount of energy and resources necessary to sustain 7 billion humans. Reducing the human population on Earth wouldn't make these things disappear entirely, but they would be greatly reduced in scale.

It comes across as psychotic to say such a thing, but it would actually solve our problems. Say one human's carbon footprint is X, and therefore the total human population's carbon footprint is 7 billion X. If you reduce the population by 4 billion, suddenly our carbon footprint is reduced by 4 billion X. It means that much less pollution, that much less famine because there's more food to go around, that much less warfare devastation because huge nations aren't competing with each other over excess resources.

Its fairly obvious now that the human population on Earth is currently far to large to be sustainable, and talking about it like this is nothing new. Daniel Quinn, Thomas Malthus, and various others have already discussed this in detail. Every solution we as a species are working on to solve our problems like environmental devastation are focused on sustainable growth. Theres a fundamental problem with this. It doesn't matter what things you have in place to protect the rainforests or to maximize crop yields. In the end, these are temporary measures to alleviate the stresses of a burgeoning population. It doesnt matter how much you reduce one human's carbon footprint. If you keep producing humans, devastation will continue. Sustainable growth initiatives are like using duck tape to seal a gaping hole in the side of your sinking ship.

The only real solution I can see is to reduce the human population. Now this begs the question, how would one actually do this? When I mentioned earlier reducing the human population by 4 billion, undoubtably some people began thinking about the Holocaust x 100, and about the horrors that would entail. If one were to reduce the population in the shortest time span possible, there would be horrors like that brought to life. Spread out over a long term however, such things could be minimized.

Reducing the population in the quickest way would also be the healthiest way for the Earth as a whole. Something like this would have to be carried out in the bloodiest genocide in human history with huge mass killings one way or another. Introducing a genetically enhanced virus would be the most efficient way I can imagine that would also minimize ecological damage.

Short timespan reduction plans also raises the question of who is to be saved? If it is to be carried out in mass killings, undoubtably there will be an uneven distribution. Those in power, those with weapons will live, and those without will not. A virus may be the most fair way of carrying it out: your social status and personal power don't matter to a virus, natural selection would prove to be a random and therefore fair adjudicator of who lives and who dies. I state it matter-of-factly here, but please dont assume that I'm underestimating the horror of what I'm describing here. I'm not advocating mass exterminations.

Population reduction would have to be carried out over a longer term with an international and compulsory 1-child-per-couple law, for the greater good. Having 8 kids per couple was relevant back when a large percentage died before their first birthday, now its not so much. I dont like advocating these things, but I'm facing facts here. The population is too large. Spreading to other planets won't work because there aren't organic things there for us to consume. We have to reduce the human population, or we will face a collapse of civilization and then our population will be forcibly reduced, and not on our own terms. Or maybe thats what the Earth needs in order to recover as an ecological system.

One way or another, we have to bite the bullet in the short term in order to ensure the future of our species.

Awkward Social Moments

First off, I think im going to try and turn this into a weekly thing, publishing an article every wednesday evening. I cant guarantee that I wont have a very pressing issue to talk about and so violate my own schedule, so i may end up publishing more frequent then that. But for the most part, expect an article every wednesday.

I think this is a pretty universal experience among students of all age groups. When you're walking from class to class and you see someone you vaguely know walking towards you. Then you have that awkward 15 seconds to decide whether you should say hi to them or not, and to decide whether they'll try to say hi to you or not. Its especially awkward if your hello is not reciprocated. Thats when your waving hand has to quickly turn into an attack on that non existent itch on the back of your head.

I think this is a common enough phenomenon that it is a direct result of our existing social fabric. What I mean by this is that not pursuing continual social interaction with someone wouldn't happen in more tightly knit communities. Even if you didnt know them that well, you wouldn't ignore a fellow tribe member walking nearby in the savannah circa 10000 BCE.

I think there are two contributing factors to this behavior, although they are intertwined to such an extent that theyre almost one factor. The first is that our population size is enormous. This leads directly into the second factor, that there is an implicit assumption underlying whenever you meet new people: that you may never see them again and thus investing in continual social interaction would be a waste of time and energy. Thus you're only likely to acknowledge someone on the street if there is a good chance of, or there has already been, meaningful and continual interaction.

So when you discuss a class subject with someone in your lecture or discussion, there is an implicit understood assumption that your association with each other is strictly academical, and very unlikely to proceed any further then that. Acknowledging someone outside of the academic context is seen as a breach of that initial assumption, and is seen as being too personal with someone with whom there should be no such interaction.

In other contexts, deliberately ignoring people is used as a method of social stratification (especially in high school). It's like saying "you are not worthy of my notice because I do not wish to associate myself with you".

Obviously there are exceptions to this rule where people meet in classes and become best friends, but i think this happens rarely enough that it doesn't disprove my assertion. Likewise, sometimes people simply don't see one another on the street, but again this is infrequent enough to not put a dent in my assertion.

Its very easy to ignore someone when you both are walking among a crowd. Both parties are able to mutually avoid acknowledging each other by the understood agreement that "there are many people here, I just didnt notice you." However take away such crowds and force the same two people to pass each other and they will (more often then not) greet each other to some extent. In this way, the context of being surrounded by many people reinforces the assumption that such interpersonal interactions are easily traded for one another and are thus not worth pursing. Take away that context and people will pursue interaction.

This is kinda sad in many ways. As such social animals I'd imagine that people should always seek interaction with one another, but we don't because of existing social norms. I think this contributes to the underlying sense of loneliness that pervades modernity.

Running and Zen, or The Art of Doing Nothing

I'm a very active distance runner since i started in cross country my senior year of high school and I've kept it up in college as well; i recently finished my first marathon. A fair number of people think me a little crazy for running as much as i do, but I can't help it. I'm addicted.

There are obvious physical health benefits to distance running, but I'm addicted to the psychological benefits. Too often in my life, and I'm sure many others feel the same, I'm weighed down by my current fears and woes. Recently it's been my internal pressure to choose classes for next semester, thus choosing a major, thus choosing a path in life for myself after college. The ramifications of my choices now are huge, and have thus created a huge burden for me. I'm too often weighed down by fears of the future, regrets of the past, worries about relationships, etc. etc. etc. All that stress does some serious physiological harm to the body.

When I run, all that shit flies out the window. It's just me, the wind, the road, and nothing else. That moment of zen is what I'm addicted to. That moment when all of my mental faculties are focused on the next hill and not whether my major will get me into a well-paying career field, what my exam grade will be, whether this relationship will turn out a particular way, etc. It's deeply psychologically therapeutic and relaxing, and a great way for me to relieve stress.

On a related note, I recently went to a guided meditation session held by the buddhist student organization here on Grounds. I went because i was curious as to what meditation actually is and how one does it. It's a word i hear a lot from all over, but i never knew exactly what it was. So i went to go try it out for myself.

Meditation, it turns out, gives me the exact same kind of zen moment that running does. All it is is sitting in a comfortable position and concentrating only on the sensations of your body. Granted this was only an hour long session and i'm sure there are other techniques, but this was all I was exposed to. By concentrating different aspects of your body, you accomplish two things. First, you can consciously relax the tension in the individual muscles. Trust me, this feels great. Secondly, you are also not thinking about the past/future/etc. In my head i called this the "Art of Doing Nothing", and it feels great.

You dont have to be buddhist or some new age weirdo in order to meditate and enjoy it's benefits. It's a very good way to reduce stress, which is essential for physical and mental health in the uber-stressful modern era.

On a final note I'll include a warning. Although it does feel great to not think about the past and future for a while, it is unhealthy to not think about them to some degree. I think it's certainly possible to seek too many "zen moments" and have it become an unhealthy aspect of your life. Stress can be a good thing, it tells you what's important in life and drives you to focus your energies upon it. Finding a balance between stress and stress-relief is imperative for achieving well being. So many college students are already attempting to do this by balancing school work with partying.

Evaluating "Is America the Greatest Nation?"

A little while ago, some friends were having an argument about which nation is the greatest in the world. At the time I didnt get much into it, but I thought I'd post some thoughts here.

The frist step to a debate such as this, is to explicitly define what it is you're debating. Meaning, how do you define what the greatest nation in the world is? If you're talking military power, I'm fairly confident that the US is the greatest of all time. Similarly if you're talking economic superiority/wealth, again I'm fairly confident that the US is the greatest in history. Defining the greatest nation by those two criteria seems fairly narrow-minded and shallow, however.

One argument espoused primarily by Fox News and other self-proclaimed patriots is that America is the freest nation of all. Well (although i have no source data for this), I'm confident that the US has the most written law governing many different aspects of our lives then any nation in history, and law is one of the largest and fastest growing profession . Many would argue that this is for the good of all within the confines of the society. Maybe that's true. However I question how truly free an American is with so much written law guiding our actions.

The main reason why America appears to be the freest is that there are limits to the powers of the powerful. The common man is empowered to speak out against corruption within the elite without fear of retribution. If this is to be the definition of what is the greatest, then perhaps America is the greatest. Again i would say that this is a very narrow definition. I should also note that although this concept was an American innovation, it has since been copied by many nations throughout the world and can no longer be used to set America apart from any other contenders.

I'd also note that in terms of societal health, I'd think that America ranks fairly poorly. Deep interpersonal social ties are very rare in America relative to other societies. The average American moves residence about 11 times in their life. In other societies, people live and die with the neighbors they've known all their life. Lack of social ties leads to depression, isolation, anxiety, stress, and loneliness among other things.

On the other hand, America does provide extraordinary wealth, opportunities, and health for it's constituents. The poor in America would still be rich relative to other countries. We have a very high average life span. And theoretically it is possible for a low class kid to make it big into the upper echelons of society. Realistically though, America does have serious social stratification that is very difficult to break through.

This post was attempting to objectively evaluate American society relative to others. The main target was those whom claim that America is the freest and greatest society that "god ever gave to man". These sentiments are rife with perhaps undeserved nationalism. All of us are indoctrinated in our mandatory elementary schooling with the alleged history of our nation. Sometime we are told outright lies, like about Betsy Ross sowing the American flag or George Washington cutting down a cherry tree, and other times history is bent to present our nation in a better light. A good number of things are skated over. Like McArthur sparing the Japanese Emperor (despite his war crimes), like sparing Japanese and Nazi scientists in exchange for their data (despite their war crimes). There are others, but I haven't got them off the top of my head. Wiki Unit 731 and Unethical Human Experimentation in the United States, and read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen.

Defining "the greatest nation" is completely relative, based on one's definition of the greatest. In my opinion America is pretty good, but there's substantial room for improvement. I don't know what the greatest is, I just think that people should think before giving an opinion.

Israel vs. Palestine

Disclaimer: I have nothing against either Jews or Muslims (or Christians, for that matter). I have many friends of both religions, and I admire both of them. My views are in no way motivated by any sort of racism or "religious-ism"

Israel was created by western imperialism. The League of Nations/UN backed by England simply decided that the lands of the former state of Palestine were to become the jewish state of Israel. I think that act itself means that Israel has no inherent right to exist. The whole historical ownership argument is bullshit; by that same logic the Native Americans deserve the entire contingent United States, Australia should go back to aborigine control, etc. The concept of zionism as a refuge for Jews following the horrors of the holocaust is understandable, but that doesn't mean you get a right to kick people off of their land just because you want it.

I'm also very curious as to why the US continues to back Israel at all (not as a historical argument but as a practical international relations one). In the middle east the US needs allies in order to have continuing access to the oil reserves there. So to do this, we go ahead and back the one single nation that all of the oil-producing nations there hate. And that one single nation produces no oil itself.

Israel is also useless to us as a base for pursuing military operations in the middle east. As soon as Israel is seen to back a military effort against an arab nation, every single arab nation unites in opposition. This almost happened when Iraqi scud missiles hit Israel during the first gulf war.

Maybe the one reason i can see for backing israel would be that theyre a large consumer of American military arms. However that consumption is not inherent to israel as there will always be a demand for the newest military equipment.

Going forward, I can only see one realistic solution. Israel will never go away as a nation, with it's western backing and nuclear capabilities. Palestinians will never forgive the fact that their lands were stolen from them by western imperialism. So maybe instead of a two state solution there should be a one state solution. The entire area of Israel governed by one nation encompassing both Israelis and palestinians, where each as an equal political say, and where neither religion can be used as a means of governance. A sort of hybrid between israel and palestine.

I think the US itself can be an example of this, where historical religious enemies like protestants and catholics, jews, muslims, etc. do manage to live alongside each other in relative peace, where each has an equal say in government, and where no religion is forced upon any other. This would be very difficult to sell to both sides, but I think it can be done.

The Case for a UN Military

I was international relations the other day, and the professor mentioned that some people have made the case for a UN military. I agree with those people, and here ill make my case for why/how. (I think Ill start with the how)

There should be a new prerequisite for joining the UN Security council: you have to give 1,000 soldiers and a certain, but small, amount of money annually to the council's activities. Each nation that meets these two requirements will have an equal vote in oversight of how the military funds are used, and where/how/why the military force is deployed. There are 192 members in the UN, and i think a membership spot on the security council with it's voting rights is enough of an incentive for nearly all the nations to join. That would make an army of 192,000 soldiers (can also accept volunteers from throughout the world) with a certain annual amount of funds for acquiring supplies, weapons, and vehicles. Their commanders could either be volunteers from various nations, promoted from within their 192,000 men, or given from different nations. Also, these soldiers would be stationed at bases throughout the world; deliberately stationed in areas not relevant to their native country.

All of the soldiers would swear allegiance to the UN, and be retrained so that their skill levels and tactics are uniform, and so that theyd be re-socialized into being UN soldiers, not soldiers of wherever doing a short stint in the UN army. The Secretary General would have the ability to deploy his troops where ever and for whatever reason for 30 days, upon which their deployment time can only be extended upon a resolution from and only from the members of the security council. If they dont pass a resolution, the troops would be recalled. Perhaps a 3/4 vote of the council would be necessary for such a resolution.

Thats the how. Heres the why.

Such forces can be used for humanitarian missions all over the world, not just military ones. It would essentially solve the problem of western nations hemming and hawing over whether to send peace keepers somewhere or not. The 30 days power would allow help to be sent to wherever it is needed, immediately. A 192,000 man army could do wonders in relieving the problems of tsunamis, famines, and genocides around the world. National armies can then be solely for the purpose of national defense. The UN army has no such nation to defend: their purpose is to defend and help others. Domestic politicians are totally relieved of the burden of intervening in foreign civil wars or disasters, although they still may want to help. Its the job of the UN army.

The force would be small enough to never pose a threat to a nation's sovereignty, but large enough to protect ethnic groups from slaughter and to make a difference in disaster relief.

If UN forces are deployed to a civil war-ridden area, it presents an incentive for other nations to intervene as well to aid their 1,000 soldiers. Even if they are UN soldiers, they're still US nationals being shot at, and the public would want to move toward their aid.

It's a huge symbolic step forward in international cooperation and world peace, even if it costs each nation involved very little.

With security council oversight and equal voting rights for all members, such a force could never be misused in a way that could not be rectified.

I think i had other reasons in mind earlier, but for the life of me I cant remember them now, so I'll leave this post like this.

The Effects of Sexual Selection on the Human Psyche

First, some background knowledge. There are two basic types of evolution. The first is what everyone knows from high school, Darwin's survival of the fittest model. The organisms best adapted to a particular environment survive and reproduce, those that are not die off. The second version of evolution only takes place in organisms that produce sexually- sexual selection. What this means, is that a member of one sex that has the most desirable characteristics as defined the other sex will have the most sexual access to the other sex, and thus reproduce more then another without those characteristics.

This post is commenting on the effects of sexual selection on the human psyche, especially in the post modern era. With the onset of totalitarian agriculture (see the previous posts on religion), we've essentially never had to worry about natural selection. That doesnt mean that it's not happening, but its just not very high on our collective to-do-list. Sexual selection however, is still very much in play, and the extent to which humans will try to alter their traits is amazing.

The first i'll discuss is very common knowledge due to being highly publicized. Women are involved in two things i've noticed: body-form maintenance and efforts to alter their superficial features.

Body form maintenance means excessive dieting, frequent trips to the gym, bulimia, anorexia, self-starvation, etc. In an effort to make themselves appear more sexually attractive women exhibit behaviors that would, under different circumstances, directly damage their chances at survival and winning the natural selection game. No organism with bulimia or anorexia would survive on the African savanna. The desire to win in sexual selection has grown in the female psyche to the point that it's become a physiological disorder. This has also frequently been featured in the news, where young girls are being socialized into a culture that demands physical perfection.

Make up application is another interesting aspect of female sexual selection competition, in which the use of artificial chemicals are used to try and alter the appearance in a way that appears more sexually attractive. Hair is supposed to be made prettier, eyelashes/cheekbones/whatever accentuated, etc. This has grown to the point that cosmetics is a huge domestic industry. Whats interesting about this aspect of the female psyche, is that some people become embarrassed to be seen without make up. It's so deeply ingrained into their identity that theyre embarrassed of who they are without it.

The degree to which males participate in sexual selection is less publicly discussed, because it just so happens that the ways they participate are somewhat healthier. Body image is still a huge influence on the male psyche. How many jillions of hours do jillions of males spend working out in the gym? Supplements to muscle growth are now a big industry too. Its gotten to the point where some will knowingly ingest supplements that may chemically and forcibly alter their sexual identity. Of course, im talking about steroids. Personally, I've found it kind of amusing to see jacked-up guys out running. I'm somewhat of a running-style connoisseur, and i can tell you that they run with all the grace of a hippo trying to tap dance.

In an evolutionary context, a jacked-up physique is counterproductive. It'd be useful in fighting off other males or predators, but in terms of hunting and gathering it's useless. It'd be more useful to have a physique balanced between light and agile, and heavy and strong.

Both sexes have become obsessed with status symbols, which encompasses a wide variety of things. Both try to dress in fashionable ways with certain name-brand labels to subtly advertise how much they can afford on clothing. And if not in clothing, then in sunglasses, jewelry, handbags, cars, essentially any type of "accessory". Even other people are seen as status symbols: the male with the most sexually attractive female companion is given a high status by other males, and vice versa. This can even happen heterosexually between people of the same sex. The not-attractive male is still given a high status if he is included into a group of high status males.

I'd like to clarify that competing in these things is not intrinsically bad. Every organism has a right to compete to the best of it's ability in every type of evolution. I'm merely commenting on the extent to which it has become dominant in our collective psyche.

I wish I could close with a schpeel on how it'd be better for all of us to stop focusing on things related to sexual selection and focus on things that really matter, like poverty, aids, stopping genocides, etc, but that'll never happen. We've evolved to care about sexual selection to a degree second only to natural selection.