Tag Archives: Soylent Green

Overthinking the issue

There is a group of people that have had enough; they are ready to end their lives. Every culture has it and the amount of people contemplating it is a lot larger then you might think. Some statistics give us that 7 people per 100,000 have committed suicide. This implies to some extent that over 200 have contemplated it. If those who do compared to those who considered it is 1:30, then we have a much larger issue than we think.

So when I saw ‘Nitschke’s ‘suicide machine’ draws crowds at Amsterdam funeral fair‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/15/nitschke-suicide-machine-amsterdam-euthanasia-funeral-fair), I wondered what the entire visibility setting was about. The impact is a lot larger than most considered. The machine given here is all about a ‘3d print solution‘, yet the machine that has a full body solution looks like a car for people who cannot drive (preventing suicide in traffic in the process). In the article we see “A controversial suicide pod that enables its occupant to kill themselves at the press of a button went on display at an Amsterdam funeral show on Saturday“, so how controversial is it? Even as we see: “the design will be put online as an open-source document for people to download. “That means that anybody who wants to build the machine can download the plans and 3D-print their own device,” Nitschke said“. My issue is not with the idea, the design or the option. It is the mere contemplation of the facts that in the first, a 3d printer is anywhere between $1500 and $6500.

After that we get the source materials to print the elements of that wheel less car (also costing you an additional fortune, that we get form “Regular PLA and ABS filament for 3D printing costs around $25 per kilogram on average. Specialty filaments can cost as much as four times this amount. Not all 3D printing materials are equal“, which now gets us close to an additional $5000 – $15000. So how is that not exploitation? Did anyone consider a $99 alternative?

So you would need three elements. The first is Temazepam (Restoril), a sleeping drug. Now I must tell you that it has addictive properties, yet in this light you might not need more than one usage and as such addiction is not really an issue. In addition you need a trash bag, a high quality one, which sets you back $4 for 10 of them and in addition you will need elastic band, which is $5. This makes the Temazepam (at $107/30) the most expensive part. What you do is to prepare the elastic band to fit your neck, but not tight. In this path, you basically lay back; fit the trash bag over your head and the plastic bag to hold it together. So after you take a large dose of Temazepam, you lie down and after 30 seconds you tighten the bag loosely around your neck with the elastic band. It need not be tight; you fall asleep and never wake up. The bag makes sure that you lose conscience as your brain is deprived of oxygen. The final sleep! Now, I am not in favour of any if this, yet I understand that some people are forced into this situation. When we see that come diseases are just too harsh on the body I get it. I might not like it or agree to it, but it is a place I understand. In all this, I do have an issue with someone like Philip Nitschke and Alexander Bannink making a ‘3d extravaganza’ that looks nice, but it could be seen by some as a Ponzi based IT exploitation. You see if these people do not buy the printer and the resources, they need someone else to do it and that person would have a legal issue on their trail, that whilst 2 out of three elements I mentioned are available in EVERY supermarket, leaving you with the need to get a fix of Temazepam (Restoril). Yet thanks to David McKinley (R), US reperesentative in West Virginia, we have been made aware that you can get that stuff on Canadian online pharmacies whilst he was trying to blame Facebook for it all. Oh, actually, that is not needed either. If can be found at http://drugs-order.net/Buy-Restoril-Online (thank you Mr Google), and only at $87, so that is still $20 cheaper than initially stated.

?? So why am I going here. Why mention David McKinley?

Actually, I am not. It must be said that overall McKinley is very much a republican, which includes pro-life. So even as we read that as an anti-abortion, I come to the larger personal conclusion that he is also against suicide or for the legal mind the ‘self-assisted death‘. Even as we see my last part as speculation, there is contributing evidence when in 2016 we see ‘House Passes Bipartisan Bill to Fix Mental Health System‘, the quote gives us “Congressman David B. McKinley, P.E., (WV-1) voted to help Americans who struggle with a mental health illness by increasing access to medical professionals and making existing programs more effective“, as well as ““People who suffer from a mental health illness deserve access to the highest quality care available and this legislation is a step towards achieving that goal,” McKinley said” this gives us a path, because in many cases the issues of suicide, no matter how triggered are still to some degree an issue of Mental Health. His setting opposes suicide as I see it. I have not found a clear stance where he gave a clear view on his position towards suicide, yet there are clear sights that most republicans with a strong pro-life view tend to be strongly opposing suicide.

The issue is not merely what his view was or the fact that he wrongfully blamed Facebook for an issue that was not the deciding part in a larger frame of illegal opioid sale. It was the issue that the overall availability reaches far beyond Facebook and many places deliver it with additional ‘customer support‘, so there is that issue. It reflects back to the entire Saturday article on losing one’s life as we see “Nitschke said: “In many countries suicide is not against the law, only assisting a person to commit suicide is. This is a situation where one person chooses to press a button … rather than for instance standing in front of a train”“, which might be true, but the entire setting of printing ones coffin to assisted loss of life whilst the entire contraption looks like a comfortable version of a Suzuki Swift is a bit over the top, especially as my setting for the $99 solution that requires no 3d printer or all the other parts that are required to operate the 3d printer in the first place.

I liked the final quote at the very end the best. With “Rob Bruntink, 52, said: “Well, I think it’s quite silly. It’s stupid. I don’t get it. I’m not interested in a real ‘Sarco’. No.”” we hear all the issues in this that matter.

I am in part on the fence, you see, I saw my mother as she went through the final stages of lung cancer, in the end she was offered more morphine than the average dealer can illegally import in a 20’ft container, so there is that need, when people are confronted with that part, we can offer all kinds of solutions to end their suffering. We can tell them to have faith, take one sleeping pill and fall asleep in the sun, you merely need to find the one person willing to treat that person to the .338 round from a 400-800 metres distance at the mere cost of $3.61 and that person will not wake up (there will be an issue of evidence as well as the legislated criminal local laws to avoid) however on the plus there is the entire 3d printing of the suicide machine gets to be avoided as well and that might be the bigger gain here.

This is not me making fun of the suicide issue, not at all. It is the setting on how willing someone would be to be privy to assisted suicide. Perhaps the machine was not at all about any suicide. Perhaps it was merely to get the conversation on suicide started in a more serious setting.

I remain on the fence. I am not in the mind of people being ‘unique snowflakes‘. Nearly every person on the planet is expendable. When we consider that there were 7.6 billion people in April this year (uncorrected of Syrian and Yemeni deaths at present), I feel certain that most of us all (me included) might be regarded as expandable. So in all this, the entire setting of suicide and assisted suicide is vastly over the top. Now, I understand that the pro-life population (like Congressman David McKinley) will forever be against that and that is fine. No matter what their reasoning is, it is their right to oppose it, yet should they be allowed to prevent others? Should the law be allowed to oppose death and ensure intentional extended suffering? That is perhaps the larger issue in play and as the population grows and resources become increasingly scarce is that in any way a position that we can maintain?

This now gets us to the NY Times, where we saw in 2016 ‘34 Countries Need Food Aid, Report Says‘. So here we see “Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, the Central African Republic, Zimbabwe, Burkina Faso, Chad, Djibouti, Eritrea, Guinea, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Cameroon, the Republic of Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mozambique, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Nepal and North Korea” having food shortages. Now there is the one case that North Korea vastly did this to themselves, but the other players how did they get into that mess? It is important to recognise that even as there is a clear difference in issues, there is absolutely no guarantee that the absence of war and strife would fix any of it. This now links to an article called ‘Good News, You Will Soon Be Able to Disrupt Eating Actual Food By Buying Soylent At Walmart‘ (at https://gizmodo.com/good-news-you-will-soon-be-able-to-disrupt-eating-actu-1825195058). For those who passed their teenage years by a few decades might remember ‘Soylent Green‘ a gem of a movie with Charleston Heston. It is based on the 1966 book ‘Make Room! Make Room!‘ In the end we learn that Soylent Green is people, to feed the massively overpopulated planet we had to resort to use the dead as a food replacement.

This now all circles back, you see there has forever been a clear link between suicide and food. Some state: “Let’s start a conversation to reduce depression and consequently, suicide. Food and drink choices can lead to suicide, remember it’s the 10th leading cause of death worldwide. Eat better, feel better, live happier.” These were the words of April Chandler. When we accept that suicide was the 10th leading cause of death worldwide a mere 5 years ago, you might start to see the connection. Even as I was on the fence for the larger extent as some have a genuine issue, we need to remember that the bulk of those people do not and at that point it becomes a mental health issue that cannot be solved with a 3d printer. I think that we are getting closer to the verge of a massive breakthrough. A heralded writer and fellow university Student who treated Australia and the world to ‘The Wellness Doctrines for Law Students and Young Lawyers‘ in 2015 and this year to ‘The Wellness Doctrines for high school students‘ is on the ball, I think that the matter is well beyond those boundaries and the setting that good food (an option not always there) for students in the first place is playing a much larger role in all this. If we accept that having certain foods reduced anxiety, can we agree that a good meal is central in mental health as well? If that can be proven is the need of a decent meal not the focal point is setting the right pace for dealing with mental health? If we oppose the entire ‘sarco’ issue, the issue of a suicide machine in a funeral fair, is the need to properly set the dimension of those who have a genuine suicide claim (terminal patients with only pain as a prospect) against those who are considered to have been exhausted to the degree that they are no longer willing to live, if that is a 1% versus 99% sitting, how can we give any kind of value to the wheelless Suzuki Swift with a red nitrogen button, whilst we see that other news gives us “Soylent may have been a polarizing powdered drink when it first went on sale four years ago, but it’s clearly developed a following outside of the startup world as a drink that’s said to be a substitute for a meal. And it may have truly hit the mainstream market now that it’s available at Walmart” (source: the Verge), whilst the linked article gave us: “Rosa Foods announced on Wednesday that it is bringing the signature brand of packaged, flavored sludge—which takes its name from the disheartening 1973 dystopian film Soylent Green, where it’s eventually revealed the product’s key ingredient is uh, “long pig”—to 450 Walmart stores across the country. Soylent CEO Bryan Crowley added in a statement that the move is “a significant step in providing more ways for consumers to get access to our brand,” expanding beyond its current placement in 7-Eleven stores“, if there is clear evidence that gives April Chandler her view and I have personally seen the validity of the views of Jerome Doraisamy. United they give us the missed setting where governments and other places have failed us. The additional ‘evidence’ is seen in the Mercury News, there we see “Palo Alto and Morgan Hill have the highest suicide rates in Santa Clara County among youths 10 to 24 years old“, so what happens when the evidence gives a much larger support to food being the contributing factor in all this? There has been evidence on a global scale from various sources, some better than others, but when we see that the poorly chosen name ‘Soylent‘ is now an actual optional factor, should we consider other issues as well? I am not stating that Soylent is dangerous or toxic or anything bad, but that as a food, or even food replacement stops (read: prevents) people form eating what they actually need for a healthy life, the entire push changes what we should find acceptable. The question becomes how to prove this. We could combine the dream team Jerome Doraisamy, April Chandler and Jamie Oliver as a team to see if there is a clear case and how to raise the health bar through food for students that they can afford whilst not unintentionally endangering their lives is going to be a much larger issue than anyone ever predicted. Part of the ‘sarco’ issue in the Guardian is also seen in the linked article by Polly Toynbee in ‘The ban on assisted death ignores the reality of illnesses like dementia‘. So when I read “Attempts to change the law at Westminster have been thwarted despite overwhelming public support, 82% in the latest poll. But religious objectors have blocked it time and again, with both Houses curiously packed with a disproportionate number of believers in this mostly atheistic country“, I see the flicker of elected dementia, yet in support of their view when we consider that food could be a contributing factor to a decreased mental health, there is the danger that whichever equine burger we got at Tesco, the danger of bad food is actually a lot larger in lowering the health of people in a global setting and that ignored part can no longer be ignored.

So as I tried to lighten the air with a reference to Soylent Green the Medical Daily (not the greatest source of reliable information) gives us “Eating human meat becomes risky due to the presence of prions — versions of normal protein that had their shape altered, losing their function, and becoming infectious. These distorted proteins can influence other similar healthy proteins, and change them, causing a chain reaction, and creating disease. Specifically, prion disease creates holes in the brain, giving it a spongiform appearance, and ultimately causes death. Unlike viruses, bacteria, fungi, or parasitic infections, which contain DNA or RNA, prions don’t, which means they can’t be eradicated with radiation or heat. They could be present in any nervous tissue, including our organs and muscles. However, they are most common in the brain and spinal nerve tissues“, this brought me back to the episode of ‘Our Town‘ from season 2 of the X-Files, where we hear “Scully, I think the good people of Dudley have been eating more than just chicken“, and that is an actual issue. There is an abundance of foods available in nearly every store where we get to eat a lot more elements than we bargained for and not all are healthy. That evidence remains absent as certain foods take a very long time to take a hold on us. This is seen (at https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20170505/diet-soda-health-risks) in “Numerous studies over the past several years have reported links between diet soda and weight gain, diabetes, heart problems, and other health issues. Most recently, headlines sounded alarms about a higher chance of dementia and stroke among diet soda drinkers” the fact that diet soda drinks are largely available in nearly every store on the planet makes it a much larger issue than most could conceive. Yet in many of these studies it is limited to physical side effects, yet I personally believe that it is impossible for these elements not to have a non-adverse effect to the mental health of a person, the problem is how to show it.

I think that this is the pro-life wet dream, yet no matter how we feel about it, we need to be very careful of the ramification and the acceptance of any reduction of protection to anyone’s life when there is a proven mental health element. The absence of this part and the visibility of both Philip Nitschke and Alexander Bannink, no matter how ideological their view is, especially when the implied evidence all show that there is a mental health issue in place and as such there is now an almost direct link between vulnerable people and the sale of 3d printing goods and resources. I personally believe that the Funeral Fair might have done this as the setting of additional visibility whilst all the players involved forgot or were unaware that what they actually end up doing was to place a minefield around them. A much less humane way to ends one’s life.

So even as I knowingly set the entire Soylent Green matter in different light, the product ‘Soylent’ is a much larger issue to look at. You see I do not think that the food is dangerous; it is what happens when you rely on it to a much larger extent is when we need to look at the impact. Chocolate is not dangerous either, but what happens when you rely on it 5 times a day to still your hunger? How healthy a solution should it be seen as?

Perhaps I am overthinking the entire matter, but the fact that others have been overly avoiding to think of the connected issues to this might be a much larger failure, so I am happy to try and compensate for their avoidance in all this.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics, Religion, Science

How much for just the planet?

This is at the core of what is currently wrong. It is however a serious view that we all must face and we have to face it sooner rather than later. This train of thought started a while ago. I initially saw it on TV, the ‘movie’ was called ‘AFTERMATH, Population Zero‘.

It was a fascinating view to behold. The story is purely fictive; it was all based on the premise that from one moment to the other the global population would suddenly vanish. What would be the consequence? (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUqHECc5rPo&index=28&list=WL)

It is well worth watching it. So if you have seen the movie the next part will make a little more sense. You see, it is all linked to a few items that have been all over social media and the internet in general since late 2009. It was raised again in February 2013 with the story ‘Nestlé’s Peter Brabeck: our attitude towards water needs to change‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-peter-brabeck-attitude-water-change-stewardship). I once made a prediction that we have 8 generations left, a concept that was not even conceivable when I was in primary school. Yet, now it is a reality that the older generation no longer needs to worry about, but our children will feel the brunt of that idea and it will become a reality for our grandchildren. The article gives us the following: “We’re talking about running out of oil; well it happens that we have 120 years of proven oil reserves“. That could be the case, I made a simple calculation half a decade ago, the calculation gave me the approximation that the amount of crude oil used could fill a cube of 15 by 15 by 15 miles, well over 75% had been used in the last two decades. So, yes, it is extremely likely that we have 120 years of oil left, but the ‘proven’ part is not a guarantee, the growth of oil needed, especially if the price keeps on going down, as fuel becomes cheaper, more people will be willing to drive longer to get a decent job, making the population at large a lot more mobile than ever before. Also, as oil becomes cheaper and cheaper, some will stop delivering and wait for better times. That is not a given reality, but it is a possible one. Yet, the idea that oil will run out in no more than 100 years is not too far-fetched either. The second part is an issue for me “we have 240 years of proven gas reserves” If that was so, than the rush for ‘shale gas’ would not have been so strong. The rush for fracking is not a view that comes from a 240 year reserve; it comes (as I see it) from a proven reserve that is a lot less than 240 years. Then there is coal. Yes, there might be a longer reserve in stock, but with coal comes pollution and lots of it.

It is the last part that gives the most fear “we have thousands of years of proven Uranium reserves and we are running out of water today“. It is all about the water. When we look at water, we see that the planet is 70% water, yet only 2% of that amount is good for consumption. Water is running low, there is no denying that, the issue linked here it that the planet has 7.2 billion people this implies that no less than 12 billion litres of water will be needed EVERY DAY to sustain a population. Several sources give the following: “At the moment, around 1% of the world’s population are dependent on desalinated water to meet their daily needs, but by 2025, the UN expects 14% of the world’s population to be encountering water scarcity” (at http://www.globalwaterintel.com/desalination-industry-enjoys-growth-spurt-scarcity-starts-bite/), so as we see the cost of drinking water to go through the roof within the next decade, the approach of Nestle makes perfect sense, although the implication is not a humane one. All these events give now more and more way to the story Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison, a story written in 1966, it would propel Charlton Heston even further as the story became the foundation for Soylent Green as detective Frank Thorn. The movie is nothing like the story, which was about overpopulation, however Harry Harrison, passed away on August 15th, 2012. As I see it, he likely passed away with the knowledge that both his story and the movie based upon it could become a reality. The story ends with “The story concludes with the Times Square screen announcing that “Census says United States had biggest year ever, end-of-the-century, 344 million citizens”“, consider that the current US population is almost 319 million, that is not so far from the expected number in the book (which was set in 1999), Harry Harrison seems to be off by only 2 decades. The movie gives us another need. The movie is about the unaffordability of food and water, the movie is set in 2022, now we have a ball game. Now we get close to what reality is showing. If water is set to become a product for those who can afford it, then water becomes a luxury, no longer a basic right. This is at the foundation of what Nestle is trying to achieve. As politicians are hiding behind the ‘security’ of desalinisation, we must admit that this will shift the timeline, but the massive need for water to be produced will bring with it an increasing need for a fuel source. Which one? Oil? Coal? Consider that over the next decade the need of growth of desalinisation also implies a growing need for power. The power needed to fuel the need of that what was once regarded as a basic right and plentiful available, an implied growth of 1400% over a decade. Suddenly that 120 year oil reserve does not look that clearly set, does it?

This shows my earlier statement, your children will see the shift (a decade from now), your grandchildren will see the need and the pressure on the cost of living. To survive they will need an income for rent, water and fuel as a major expense of their income. A reality we luckily might not face and over all this we see not Nestle, but we see Financial Institutions as the anchor killing us. That part is seen in the article ‘PwC chief misled us over Luxembourg tax avoidance schemes, claim MPs‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/06/pricewaterhousecoopers-boss-kevin-nicholson-misled-mps). How did I get to that part?

Consider the following three quotes “The Guardian’s investigation into PwC’s activities in Luxembourg was made possible by the leak of thousands of pages of confidential tax rulings secured by the accountancy firm, which found their way to the ICIJ“, and then there is “But PwC Luxembourg remains furious at what it calls the “theft” of its documents. Criminal charges have been brought against two former PwC staff members after it complained to prosecutors” and last there is ““Shire has arranged its affairs so that interest payments on intra-company loans reduce significantly its overall tax liabilities … The ‘substance’ of Shire’s business in Luxembourg, used to justify these arrangements, consists of two people … One of Shire’s Luxembourg based staff holds 41 directorships of other companies”“. So, the link here is sizeable reduced taxability. So as these taxations are not achieved, how will desalinisation plants be built? On another credit card? Who pays for that bill and how will that affect the price of water and the subsequent additional taxation?

The final view is given from a Canadian site called Global Research. the quote is “His statements are important to review as we continue to see the world around us become reshaped into a more mechanized environment in order to stave off that pitiless Nature to which he refers” (at http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-privatisation-of-water-nestle-denies-that-water-is-a-fundamental-human-right/5332238). The fact that we let our lives be ruled by politicians who seem to put their own needs first is a massive blow to our chance to survive in an age of humanity. That part is seen as the bulk of nations cannot keep a budget and the overwhelming need that is greed based. So as nations have even less tax revenue, more costs and a slowly but surely growing number of unaffordable needs, we see an escalation into chaos and extremism.

The way we live allows for the approach of Nestle which turns a bad James Bond premise into a reality. The political approach of ‘shove it forward’ will be cast upon our grandchildren, turning their lives into one of working, so that they have a possibility of life. Until we change many ways of our lives and until we change the acts that we consider to be acceptable, we will only end up getting by with less, whilst food, drinks and luxury is left to less than 5% of the population. As time goes buy (pun intended), we see a change of interpretation, we will see politicians to be extensions for whatever, proclaiming on what is ‘actual’ a right and what is not.

So how does the title ‘How much for just the planet?’ and the movie ‘AFTERMATH, Population Zero’ make sense? Consider what is made extinct on a weekly basis for well over a decade? The movie shows that the planet will repair itself over a millennium, so how will the path of our world change if we are willing to get rid of 92% of our global population and impose a stringent rule of population control through birth control? An idea launched in 1966, whilst also demanding existence through sustainable energy. For now, everyone will shoot, scream and give all kinds of emotional response how such inhumanity should not be allowed, which is fair enough, but as Nestle gets a grip on what we regarded as a basic right. So, the emotion of a population will push it forward and will force our grandchildren to make a ruling on getting rid of 95% of the population, very political and what seems to be humanely decent, is in actuality one of the most inhumane acts ever, because this is all for the most due to a cowardly, non-acting generation that started with our fathers, ourselves and our children. A reality ignored within 3 generations, fuelled by greed of big-business and by the acts of all others by playing possum or burying their heads in the sand. Consider that the US consumes 50 billion eggs and 8 billion of chickens each year. They only represent 5% of the global population and this is not including the need for Fish, Meat and vegetables. So how much food is needed and how soon will it run out, because the one part everyone ignores is that meat products are created using water and food.

So, are these thoughts so far reached? Perhaps the next invention is only a year away, an invention that will change everything. This is the hope too many have whilst our lives are no longer driven by innovation, but through iteration for the need of maximising profits. That approach is nice for a boardroom and their needs, but it does not drive forward true technological advancement, that part will slow down more and more. No matter how much we want some cheap and easy solution that does not offend anyone, the chance of finding it becomes less and less likely. Bad News management from governments and big-business alike as well as derived profit through non-taxability from Big-Business, whilst governments are vying for their manufacturing plants and offering too many subsidies offsetting the cost of a labour force. In this environment these governments need to unsuccessfully balance a budget and soon, if the numbers hold true, find ways to produce the one element most never had to produce before, a basic substance always available. I let you work out the math, feel free to be slightly less happy after reading this, but also remember it only takes one mind to come up with that golden idea that will sustain a nation. This has been proven in several cases, for the Dutch Gerard Philips and Frederik Philips stand out, in Sweden there was Lars Magnus Ericsson, Henry Ford in the US and the list goes on a little longer, they shaped industries that would span generations. I have no idea who will be the next name that changes the way we think and live, but as we see the facts, that person better come sooner rather than later.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

The reality of decimation

This is not an academic piece, I would personally state that to some extent this is not even a sane piece, but is it an incorrect piece? That is indeed the question we must ask ourselves. Consider the events as they have plagued us for a little over 20 years.

This piece partially started with the UN report on the environment, but some of the elements have been on my mind for some time now. This is not about the War in Iraq or Afghanistan; this is about something a lot more basic.

Let us start with the UN report on Climate Change 2014 (at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-threat-food-security-humankind)

It is also good to take a look at the policy maker’s summary titled Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (at http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf )

We should consider the quotes that the Guardian article gives us.

First there is “The summary mentioned the word ‘risk’ more than 230 times, compared to just over 40 mentions seven years ago, according to a count by the Red Cross“.

My first counter is that this is not an event that has grown for only 7 years, these events and risks have been in place for well over two decades, the people in governmental power and the power players of big business are no longer aligned. Money only gets you ‘alignment’ to a certain degree. If you doubt this, then consider the power Big Tobacco had from the 70’s until the early 90’s. In the Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business (at http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1606&context=njilb) we see the quote “tobacco companies argued that plaintiffs assumed the risks of smoking. They also capitalized on the fact that they could afford the best lawyers to defend against generally under-funded plaintiffs“.

This is only the first quote where government has been holding its hands over the heads of big business for far too long. It is nothing short of treason against your own population (a slight exaggeration, I admit). It is not just their best lawyers against the plaintiffs, there has been a host of events where political powers had been ‘softly motivated’ to take a stance for the economic growth of a nation, whilst selling its people straight down the drain.

The second quote to consider from the Guardian is “Other food sources are also under threat. Fish catches in some areas of the tropics are projected to fall by between 40% and 60%, according to the report” (the part I saw did not specify the size of the area, or the exact locations).

Consider the amount of nations depending on their livelihood on fishing for themselves and their families, not to mention for whatever income from selling it to others in villages and cities. The claim ‘some areas’ is a loosely placed term I reckon. Consider the massive requirements for Japan alone. There is no evidence what so ever that this will lighten up any day soon. The events of fish shortage will grow above the mere population. A change to that effect will have a massive yield on the oceanic biosphere and as such mass extinction events on our fauna are almost a given certainty. So as we see the events there, we will see that the impact will soon thereafter hit waterbirds which will affect another chain of feeders. The third quote is “Almost everywhere you see the warming effects have a negative effect on wheat and there is a similar story for corn as well“.

Even though, to some part there is a claim that longer warm timeframe might yield some positive benefits, the overall consequence is that the events will be negative. Hunger will soon be an issue that stretches far beyond the third world nations, did anyone consider this?

The report is massive, so digging into this will take some time (after I get it downloaded, which is never easy from the UN document server), in the meantime, follow the next link to take a look at a document now released from the US State Department (at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/219038.pdf)

Now let us go into the deep end. We have seen how being nice, how ‘finding’ a compromise will not get us anywhere. If you doubt this, then consider the fact that several nations are now, after giving us some ‘good news management’ additional grief will soon be gotten by the Dutch (at https://www.nvm.nl/nl-nl/actual/maart_2014/asscher_in_zomer_kijken_naar_lastenverlaging.aspx). They will be looking at lowering the costs for the Dutch population. Consider that the Dutch debt is currently in excess of 25,000 euro’s per citizen. Again, politicians will be trying to spend money they do not have. Even more hilarious, is the fact that they will not have that money for at least half a decade. If we consider this in regards to the UN FCCC report, where we see that climate is not just hitting us, many nations will have to pour billion upon billions into places to prevent flooding’s and other climate calamities. In this light, we will not have any lightening of economic pressures before 2018. The Dutch are not alone in this. The UK, France, Spain, Italy and to some effect even Germany will have to spend large amounts of money. If there is truth to the downward spiral of the climate, what will happen to France when their wine economy takes a 20%-30% tumble? (This is not a found number, that percentage is a mere estimation from other numbers in the UN FCCC report). Such a tumble will devastate the France GDP, which means that their debt will almost literally drown them.

So what is a solution?

Well, to safe our planet we might have to become drastic. The fact that politicians will not act and at the first sign of good news (managed or not), they will try to keep the status quo so that they look good (and leave it to the next person in office). This has been going on for some time and it has been happening in nearly every nation. So, we could rig the game and get rid of 4.7 billion people. It is not a happy act and if it happens I will unlikely to remain (or be allowed) in the ‘surviving’ group.

You see, healthcare, retirement shortages and lesser productivity (in the eyes of big business), would mean that we are to be removed from life. There is additional evidence for that. When we consider the words of the BBC (at http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26818377), where it is quoted “Risk of death by any cause over the course of the study was reduced by 42% for seven or more (up to around 10 portions a day)“.

Are they for real? When I was growing up, I had three meals a day. My lunch could include a sandwich with sliced cucumber and tomato and there were greens at dinner. That makes for two helpings. My grandfather lived to a ripe old age on those meals. So, who is paying these people to state 7-10 portions a day? Let us not forget that the UN FCCC report will have something to say about that. The IPCC report stated (at https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html) “Productivity of some important crops is projected to decrease and livestock productivity to decline“. This is not a global thing, but overall the population is still rising and food would be getting scarcer.

So, that option of decimation, which would be unfortunately for me, is starting to make sense. So how will we go about it? Will certain groups get targeted? When we see the HealthCare and retirement options as they dwindle then getting rid of anyone over 45 makes statistical sense (not morally). Alas, we are not that fortunate. If we consider the population numbers, as shown by the UN, Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011), we would also have to shed a little over 75% of the population that is between 15 and 44. How to go about that? If we take the people over 30, our population will face the reality that we saw in the movie ‘Logan’s Run‘. We could of course use the classic ‘Soylent Green‘ as an example, which also solves the food issue for all non-displaced citizens. Perhaps the list will be diminished in the way it was sung by Gilbert and Sullivan in ‘the Mikado‘ through the song ‘As some day it may happen’, “none of them would be missed”, I do however request and require that Nigel Farage will not be allowed to make that list (#JustSaying).

So, if you are currently extremely nervous about what will happen next then do worry, I definitely do! No matter how we will be dealt with (through hunger, war or just permanent removal). The consequence will be a global one. If we can rely on statistics is that within 40 years, if untouched through war, two civilisations remain, the Indian and the Chinese one. It is a simple consequence of the numbers as these two represent 36% of the planet, which means that no matter how much we get ‘culled’, either natural or unnatural, they would then be the only two remaining governments with the size that would places them in power.

All this reads like a joke, but it is far from it. As we have seen governments go into the acts of managed good news, whilst slowly giving us the bad news little by little (as the economic meltdown has shown), we will soon see similar acts by ‘spokespeople’ on how soon crops are grown with almost no water, how we see the use of Genetically Modified crops. The Economists had an article, which is not that relevant, but the quote in there “genetically modified (GM) crops pose health risks” is. The truth is that this is not true as I see it. Actually, we just do not know what the true dangers are. I feel that there is a risk, but there is no actual evidence (at present) that there is a danger. There is in my view indeed a risk, but no long term evidence exists. We are then in the same place as people were with Big Tobacco in the 70’s onwards. Big Tobacco had too much ‘protection’ and as such governments remained idle for far too long. Genetically Modified foods are likely to go into a similar field, but this time governments cannot stand idly by. The cost will be too great when it goes wrong. So am I against GM foods? I feel uncertain, until the long term dangers are known we should not proceed, yet if the shortages in food, space and water are truly coming, what can we do then? Consider that the global population grows by the size of the population of Germany every year, which is the 16th largest nation. Also consider that children 0-6 have the highest need for good food and clean water to survive, now see these items diminish as there is less, there are more mouths to feed and the climate change is soon making it harder on all of us.

The next two generations will likely be the hardest ones in the history of our planet. Never before was mankind hit by so many elements all at once. They will inherit a polluted planet, they will inherit debts unlike anything we ever faced and if the Status Quo does not change really fast, they will walk this world in an environment that could be near extinction on land, in the sea and in the air.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Science

The other solution

This blog today is not a positive or a nice one. It could be seen as a clinical one or even an academic one. It all relates to a state of mind. I have been up for most of the night. Medication got me to some part (after a 16 hour sleeping spree), an uncanny feeling of anger got me the rest of the way. Now, I did not immediately write this story at that time. I learned that you should never make decisions from a place of anger. I think it could be stated that one must not write in anger either. It gives way to only emotion and even though in emotion we might write the story with pure feelings, the chance that others read it in similar fashion is slim to none at best.

The all started with the following news information: It was about the departure of the whaling vessels (at http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=931971). There were two quotes that got my attention “The three ships departed from the western port of Shimonoseki on Saturday to join other ships to hunt up to 935 Antarctic Minke whales and up to 50 fin whales up until March.” Which gave me the first thought ‘Do we still have that many whales?‘ The second quote was “Japan’s whale hunts have long drawn criticism from activists and foreign governments but Tokyo defends the practice saying eating whale is part of Japanese culinary tradition.” I will get back to the second quote later, because that is the one that got me here.

I had to look up some details on the number of whales. Apparently there were at present 800,000 remaining Minke Whales, which turned out to be a 3 year old number. I searched for many sources, yet that number seemed to be way over the top.  This is a lot more then I bargained for. Yet, in the end, the numbers that are estimated are immensely lower than that. The international whaling commission estimated the number of Minke whales in 2003 for the North West Pacific and Okhotsk Sea at around 22,000. It was an estimate. We could come to the definition that the numbers seem to be way too low. So in this environment Japan wants to kill 935 for consumption, which is just over 4% of the Minke whales (going from unconfirmed numbers). Japan does not stand alone however, Norway, its brother in whaling Genocide had been active as well. There are no clear numbers, but consider what we know about people in general (the average greed driven business type), it is interesting that Japan had not been able to meet its alleged quota for some time. Even though anti-whaling is taking pride in this, I must question that. Is it truly due to the anti-whalers, or have the number of whales declined even further.

This brings us to an additional number. If those numbers are a lot more declined, then what about its favourite customer, the Orca? The Minke whale is a delight to the taste buds of the Orca, and if they go hungry, then what? The Orca is already endangered. We can see that Hawaii reported an estimated 349 Killer Whales (Orca’s) at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/po2012_summary.pdf. There is no way to tell how accurate these numbers are and the area these numbers encompass; unlike Homo sapiens, the fish do not rely on Visa and Passport restrictions to get around, there simply seems to be no way to tell! So back to the Minke Whales. No matter how I twist or turn this, there are no accurate numbers, and there is no way to truly tell. Whether the IWC is intentional in keeping the light away is not a given. It seems to me that the IWC is about longevity of the ‘trade’ and fishing into non-existence is detrimental to their health.

Now we get to the second part, which might turn a little ugly (not intentionally though). The quote “Tokyo defends the practice saying eating whale is part of Japanese culinary tradition” got to me. Now, I am all for culinary traditions and we all have them. I have never eaten whale! Not intentionally, I will admit. I do love seafood and as such there is some curiosity to the eating of whale. The issue I have is with the numbers. You see, whatever tradition you want to keep is fine with me, but when we see the dwindling number of Whales and if we accept that Whaling quotas were not kept, not because they were unwilling to do so, but more likely that they are unable to meet them gives way to the thought that the number of whales have diminished even further then some report. So whatever we see here in regards to the Japanese might also apply to the Norwegians.

So, to preserve and increase the number of whales we can go two ways. We either stop whaling altogether, which apparently the Japanese are unwilling to do, or we decimate (read cull) the Japanese population.

Got your attention now, don’t I?

You see, the Japanese population DOUBLED from 1930 to now. Japan has housing and feeding issues, so why not cull the herd of the Rising Sun? I have no hatred for Japan or the Japanese, so do not see this as a voice of hatred in any way. Consider the ‘neatness’ of the solution. If there is 50% less to feed, then there is 50% less need for whale meat, which should put a nice dent into that requirement. Perhaps, to give the whale a little time to get their numbers back up, a Japanese culling of 60%-73% might be called for.

Is that over the top? You see, that is the crux of it all. Japan has been a proud fishing nation since before the 16th Century. As a person born in the Netherlands, it is something that I have in common with them. The Dutch also has had their issues with Fish. As technology advanced, so did the fishing industry and in the old days ‘Botters’ (as they were called) had two engines with no more than 50 horse power each (which was quite powerful vessels in the 1930’s). In the 1970’s I did some of my work on Kotters, which had between 250-295 horsepower (less powerful then Trawlers). In this industry the reality goes that the bigger the engine, the more you can fish. Even in those days it had become imperative to limit fishing, so that both fish and the fish industry could endure. Even in those days, the Asian super fishers were an issue. With their engines being in excess of several thousand horses. Not only were they a lot larger for just the fishing, but they would also process and can the fish on some of these. That was 30 years ago. Whaling had evolved in similar way. No longer did they go out with hand thrown spears in small rowing boats. No, today these boats have a military style of artillery that shoots out a spear with a rope. It might seem more humane, but as whalers would work 2-3 days to process one whale, nowadays these large ships could process a whale in a mere 3-6 hours, which means that the number of whales processed increase dramatically. This is also part of the conundrum we seem to face.

Let us consider the BBC article on whaling which was published in March 2012 (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17312460), we get quite a different view. The Japanese fishing fleet had only been able to achieve a THIRD of their quota. Now, I am willing to give praise to the anti-whaling groups, but in honesty, I do not think that this is entirely correct. Make no mistake; the anti-whaling group seems to have an impact. However, the fact that they stopped 2/3rd  of the quota seems a bit much. This is where it becomes an issue! Consider that these ships are really expensive. They need to make above a certain number to do better than break even. They have the most modern of electronic fishing equipment and as such, they have an advantage on the old fleets. Yet, they catch less and less. This is part of the foundation where I state that whaling numbers are a lot lower then certain parties claim them to be. I also will admit that I could be wrong. Yet, consider the facts. Modern fishing fleet, electronic equipment to sniff the whales out and they catch ZIP! Over the same large parts of the ocean they stumble upon less and less whales. Could I be right?

So what are the numbers and how many eat them? That is in the actual bottom line. Feeding 120 million Japanese with fish is a fish population draining exercise, but to what extent? This takes me (and perhaps several readers) back to the ‘conspiracy theory days’ of the late 70’s where we heard the noises that we were running out of food and soon we would all go hungry, which always made for a real good rerun of the movie Soylent Green (a legendary movie with Charlton Heston). At that time we had just passed a population total of 5 billion and 2% of that population lived in Japan. Now the global population is 50% larger and this issue has brings about an interesting part. Even though Whaling brought them in the ‘lime light’, the overall need to feed a population is getting an increased amount of visibility. Consider the story from Matthew 14:13-21 where a population was fed on 5 loaves of bread and two fish. Now consider that we feel a need to feed not just us but the hungry too. How much fish do we need to feed 7 billion people? I feel certain that 5 loaves of bread and two fish will NOT cut it. Even though many do not just live of fish, the validity of it remains, how many Minke whales are left and how can we prevent that these species, as well as other whale species become extinct?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Science