E-Book, Englisch, 230 Seiten
ISBN: 978-3-7487-6005-4
Verlag: BookRix
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Kein
Political and social issues, both past and present.
Dedicated to those who can see beyond an elitist, dystopian future and fight for a society that lives on less to save the planet.
Autoren/Hrsg.
Weitere Infos & Material
Chapter two
NO MORE A personal view of the world by an unknown whose only qualification is to live in it. TWO MORE PEOPLE If there is one issue above all others that the population of the industrialised world is not prepared to discuss it is the population of the industrialised world. Whilst it may be acceptable to question the wisdom of cadaverous Indians struggling to support a family of eight on a tired piece of earth incapable of sustaining a self-respecting insect, and while it may be considered an unfathomable form of lunacy for pot-bellied mothers of pot-bellied starving Africans to be adding ever more to the death toll, it is quite categorically not acceptable to make even the mildest reference to controlling the numbers of new arrivals to the maternity wards of rich nations. This constitutes sound common sense to those for whom it constitutes sound common sense. On the face of it there seem to be scant grounds for an appraisal of the breeding habits of the rich. We are none of us scratching a living from a piece of dry dirt, we do not live with the constant threat of imminent starvation and we would consider it an infringement of our civil liberties to be told that we could not, or should not, have children. We have the right to have as many children as we might want and the State has a duty to care for them if we are not in a position to do so ourselves. So says liberal wisdom. So says the new feminist logic. Those members of the State who find themselves locked into a constant struggle to fend off debts as the tax burden increases in an effort to fulfil these lofty ideals may well feel a trifle irritated by the woman who ‘has three children and another one on the way, with no idea how to manage’ and may well feel sufficiently exasperated to suggest that she might, perhaps, consider cause and effect... but I couldn’t possibly comment. I couldn’t, in all integrity, be seen to nod about irresponsibility in those who have four children and no means of support all the while the First Family, the paradigm of exemplary conduct for the reverent and lowly-born, is comprised of four children living off the State in the lap of unimaginable excess. Herein lies the existing paradox at the heart of what amounts to a conspiracy of silence about the problem that must never speak its name. Politicians of Right and Left in Western democracies know that the issue of population control is a minefield. Such perennial and recurring social concerns as homelessness and unemployment can quite safely be seen to occupy hours of television time, forests of paper and months of wrangling with no fear of breaking any new ground and thereby jeopardising political careers. When it comes to population, however, the silence is deafening. In order to avoid any line of argument that might lead to suggestions, however mild, that there might be a case for some form of control, politicians constantly perform an amazing variety of acrobatic semantics dedicated to sidestepping the fundamental question of proliferation. The opposition at any given time always knows exactly how to find homes with nice little gardens for the whole population, whatever its size, and the fact that people live in unsatisfactory conditions such as high-rise rabbit hutches, overcrowded family homes and cardboard boxes is, unfailingly, considered to be the result of some form of government incompetence which they, the opposition, would instantly rectify with their own brand of magical policies. They would, if given the opportunity, find well-paid employment for all lIn a free and democratic society with a healthy regard for human rights it is anathema to talk of control, however necessary or however much geared to a common sense appraisal of its universal benefits. In a free society numbers are an irrelevance, not least to politicians. On the occasions that the general public of developed nations finds time to be concerned about population growth it is rarely associated with personal responsibility. The rich tend to feel that it is due to the poor, of whom they have always believed there were far too many to be kept at their expense, whites blame the blacks and women are considered to ‘get themselves pregnant’. Of course this is a blanket generalisation, but then dominant cultures are recognised by generalised attitudes and since the dominant culture of the world today is that of the wealthy, white male it stands to reason that these are the groups who will assume the moral high ground on their own behalf by shifting responsibility onto those they consider to be their inferiors. It is a value system that works its way through every strata of society throughout the world. Rich nations view the population figures of the third world with alarm and suggestions of birth control programmes of a nature that would send human rights proponents into apoplectic seizure if they were proposed for developed nations. Wealthy couples with three children consider it perfectly acceptable to be morally outraged by a lone mother struggling to rear one child on welfare. Poor white families of six happily assume it their inalienable right to breed as they see fit in their own country, whereas their black counterparts are labelled with a rabbit mentality and accusations of ‘swamping’. Rich men who father illegitimate children with impunity regard unmarried mothers with moral distaste, poor fathers slope off and leave mothers holding the baby. Poor families, black and white, demand the welfare of a rich nation extracted from the destitution of the (black) third world. The poverty-stricken of poor nations just plain die, and there the story ends. Religious perspectives on procreation are fascinating, if only because of an age-old and ingenious ability to adapt principle to self interest. Since time immemorial the power of God to punish the sins of humankind has been perceived as an awesome obstacle to the selfish pursuit of pleasure at the expense of diligence and self discipline. At one time this was interpreted as the power of Nature to make a mess of crops and generally ensure that life was made uncomfortable for the humans if they got out of line. The Greeks and Romans personified the forces of Nature into Gods who could, if upset, destroy ships in a mighty storm, cause devastating wars and wreak eternal damnation for theft, leaving nothing but the hope that one day things would get better. In all great religions the principle of retribution for wrong deeds, from the Hubris of the Greeks to the breaking of the commandments of the Judaeo-Christians, has been adopted as an underlying incentive for good behaviour. This fear of God, first felt by humankind through the mysterious and awesome forces of Nature, brought with it a powerful desire to assuage the wrath being heaped on the poor old human head, and with this desire was born the noble idea of sacrifice. At least it would have been noble if the spirit of noble intent had been retained in the execution but humans being what, woefully, they have always been the principle of self sacrifice was swiftly recognised as being altogether too onerous a notion to contemplate. The idea that the wrong-doers should themselves do the sacrificing was therefore lost before it began, to be replaced by a long and gruesome history of the blood sacrifice of animals and other human beings by those with the power to select the hapless candidates for divine appeasement. The wholly laudable human desire to be morally righteous is no more accepted as an individual responsibility today than it has ever been, and the burden of sacrifice continues to be transferred elsewhere whenever it threatens to become uncomfortable. Muslim men who aspire to righteousness through self-denial cover Muslim women from head to toe in shrouds in an attempt to avoid the necessity to confront, and overcome, their own weaknesses. Generations of fathers continue to sacrifice the blood of generations of sons for the greater glory of their country, their principles, their freedom, their God, or just their oil. Christians praise the Lord, hallelujah, for sacrificing his son for their sins. The irksome fact remains that the spiritual significance of sacrifice must necessarily be lost to the individual if the sacrifice itself is vicarious and I’m sure that whoever else may be fooled, God most certainly is not. I would be the first to agree that if a principle is worth having then it is worth suffering for, and anybody who makes sacrifices for personal beliefs is alright by me. But it’s not alright to insist that anybody, or everybody, else makes the sacrifice in lieu. No reasonable minded person has any objections to Catholics, or those of any other religion, believing that they should neither use contraception nor have abortions. Nobody would object if they sacrificed sexual gratification in the belief that sex is for procreation, not for fun. Absolutely no problem. What makes those of us who do object hopping mad is that the sacrifice of sexual pleasure for the greater glory of principle and eternal life rarely, if ever, comes into it. What does, invariably, come into it is the burden for society at large of a string of offspring to feed, clothe, accommodate and generally uphold in the interests of somebody else’s religious convictions. In a rich, developed nation this constitutes an irritating demonstration of hypocrisy. In poor countries such as Brazil, Guatemala and a host of others with no welfare state it is devastating , not least for the wretched children who are the inevitable results. Born into grinding poverty,...
