It is a complex issue because there is no clear line between ecological balance and dystopian dictatorship, try as we might, a compromise is impossible because there are too many varying factors to consider when telling people how many children they may or may not have in a life time.
There are more and more celebrities, famous ecologists and certain 'royal' families who tell us we need reduce population to save the planet. When you look at the facts, you can't help but agree with them, however there is point that the world leaders need to re-think their strategies and think about human costs. Which of course they never do because they are families of inbred psychopaths. Literally.
There is more and more evidence to support the claim that chemicals such as BPA (which I've already spoken at length about previously) fluoride and suspicious concoctions added to vaccinations (especially in the third world, thanks Bill Gates) are already been used to reduce fertility and slowly sterilise the worlds population. Sounds extreme, by how else would you explain the fact that twenty year olds now in many cases have the fertility of a forty-something year old. More importantly, why would entire Indian and African villages be sterilised without actually being told what they are having done? Human costs and actual solutions need to both be taken into consideration, the acts committed by the likes of Western Governments such as the UK and corporations blatantly linked to secret agendas such as Microsoft's Bill Gates are abhorrent but should not deter us from finding proper answers to the issues.
The argument made by those who believe the worlds population can go on forever (many of those are blinded by religious scriptures who still cling to the mantra of 'go forth and multiply' and take it literally) feel threatened when the idea of resource control is brought up. How do these people then expect ten, twelve or twenty billion people to live on a planet in the near future which right now is currently being ripped to pieces by the current seven billion or so inhabitants. You can't have your cake and eat it. However if you are one of these people who believes that the world population can continuously expand, you have no worries. Hakuna Matata!
Our friends Timon and Pumbaa know all about the no-worries life style, and so I'm sure you'll be fine with their eating habits too, right?
You know, grubs, aphids, ants. Delicious right? No?
The European Union thinks otherwise. They recently gave €3 million in grants to projects to try and find ways of getting the public to find the idea of eating insects (a more or less infinite supply of protein) more....palatable.
At first I was digusted by the idea of eating insects, and then secondly I was angry at the EU for wasting my tax money on this project which is essentially designed as propaganda to try and convince us to eat less energy-intensive meat sources, but then of course there are worse ideas:
Scientists are currently attempting to grow completely artificial meat in a lab. So far they have only succeeded at growing very small amounts (to the tune of £200,000 per burger) but realise that the meat will have very little flavour and will need artificial flavouring to make it edible.
Both of these choices seem bad, but if I were to choose one, the witchery grub wins hands down. Why? Well because despite my first angry reaction towards the EU for using my money on this project, it actually makes sense. People, including myself, eat crabs, shrimp and prawns. What really is so different about eating their land-borne cousins? In a world which in our life-times will likely reach nine-billion souls, it really makes sense to begin changing our attitude towards food. For too long we in the West have relied on eating parts of the animals which 'look nice'. Whats worse, the parts we are often too squeamish about eating such as heart and kidneys etc are often the most nutritious parts, and they simply go to waste half the time. As a side note, many insects such as meal worms, witchery grubs and crickets have been eaten in other areas in the globe traditionally and are incorporated into local dishes. It needn't be just a survival staple. Of course it is not just consumers who need to change our behaviors, supermarkets play a big role in how food is being wasted (along with sell-by-dates which serve no purpose if you are intelligent enough to know what something which is past its best smells like.
The added bonus to both these ideas however is animal rights. No one wants to know their hamburger came from animals that lived in shocking conditions only to be brutally murdered in a row like something out of the holocaust. Insects lack any form of intelligent thought, so we shouldn't feel too guilty about eating those, and well, the lab meat is a completely victimless crime, its just that its ethically abhorrent against nature. Having said that, blood donering was at the time of its invention seen as ethically wrong too, so who knows, if it can be proven safe then I personally see no logical issue. Its just morals that will take a few generations to change.
There are no easy answers for the problems humanity is about to face. It will require us to change the way we think. When I first read and heard about these two articles I was very angry, but when you consider the alternative, you have to be prepared to adapt your perception. If we are not going to make the difficult choices now and help control population (by this I mean through education and through improving the lives of the most vulnerable both at home and in the third world) then we must begin to consider how we are all going to live at all.
Slimy, yet, satifying.