New Ways of Thinking

The June 2010 issue of the Mensa Bulletin came in the mail yesterday, which is a real pleasure for me. Lately, the magazine’s issues revolve around a theme or question posed to the membership i.e. how would you solve the nation’s education problem.

The result is usually a wide assortment of varying opinions, with the problem viewed from scientific, economic, humanitarian, social, political, or practical perspectives. There can even be some solution involving crazy math analysis thrown in, as well. And on the rare occasion, someone with actual first-hand experience will respond!

Regardless, the discussion never fails to open my eyes in some new regard.

This month’s question (How many people can we optimally support, and should we even shoot for that number?) attracted some fascinating responses – three of which I’d like to share.

The first had to do with OIL. The responder argues that the Earth’s 2010 population of 7 billion has been made possible by harnessing cheap and abundant energy – OIL. In only 150 years, the population has increased by a factor of 3 due to increased food and transportation capabilities. Well, I’ve certainly never looked at oil in such a positive light before. Yeah, we’re talking about companies like BP. But, here’s the kicker: IT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. And people can only be supported by the resources available.

Stoopid American Thots: Consider all the GOOD and all the BAD oil has accomplished, and realize for 7 billion people, there’s no going backward – only forward. Sobering, indeed. I’m seeing pictures in my head – starving babies, people killing over food, water, ammo, meds – and realizing that’s happening now in some parts of the world. (Maybe even here?)

As the richest country in the world (or most in debt), we can’t seem to get resources moved to the needy areas fast enough. And in the long run, should we? It only seems to boost the population in an area that can’t sustain itself without help.

The second fascinating magazine response deals with this very idea of SOCIALISM and thus economics. From a strictly textbook economics perspective, we tend to REWARD people FOR procreating, the more money the more they produce. “Society” fills the void because we can’t let the people of Mogadishu starve, for example. However, that doomsday scenario in Mogadishu is its population trying to establish the correct equilibrium with its available resources. Someone with an empty belly is more apt to develop and use birth control and stop adding to the population burden on resources. Or be dead.

I couldn’t help but smile wryly at the third magazine response of note: From a standpoint of the health of the planet, the optimal number of humans is zero. Yes. So, before we point the finger of blame at greedy, scum-sucking companies like BP, let’s consider our own greedy, scum-sucking human nature. Maybe, we’re going to have to let some people die in the world, some acts of socialistic humanitarianism slide by, in order to make more “ethical” decisions for others and the planet? Remember: resources support population and resources are not endless. Resources involve huge impact on the earth.

Let’s revisit that idea of our not being able to move resources to areas of need fast enough…what if they COME HERE to get the resources. Now, we’ve moved to the emotional, hot topic of immigration into the U.S.

And let’s ask the hard questions of ourselves. Many of the world’s 7 billion don’t have the wherewithal to come here, many do, and how many can our existing resources support? Yes, I’m talking about socialized healthcare, food, shelter. The strain on our socialized education system has reached the point that it is failing for MOST of the students and thus society as a whole. (And again, we’re so eager to point the finger at teachers, policy, this party, that party, merely details in the mechanism of the system.) At what point, do we shut the door?

Racism, TEA party demonstrations, crime – all are just symptoms of the much bigger REAL problem which is RESOURCE STRAIN.

We don’t expect our politicians to grasp the big picture. They are to deal with the symptoms we can all see and feel, handle those details in the system, push this cog, pull that lever harder, move the grease around. (No, not that lever, that’s the lever important to me!) And maybe this is why real problems never get solved.





Yeah, I'd just go golfing, too.