Global warming, population control, ice caps melting…
I admit. This post is going to be potentially embarrassing for me, enjoy:
Science, in the very fabric of its being, focuses on one problem at a time and ONE problem only. This also means that scientists are prohibited from looking into another problem that might cause a solution to the problem they are facing. Many environmental scientists are, also, psychologically excited about the concept of the end of the world and want to scare us more than what they want to provide solutions. That… exaggerating a bit. However, there are some interesting facts we should consider.
Scientists have caused the idea that we need to “conserve water” by not using it.
Not a drop of water has left the surface of the planet without a rocket launcher. The only water that has ever escaped the atmosphere has been onboard a space rocket.
You cannot waste water by drinking it, bathing in it, washing dishes with it, or washing your clothes in it. It will return back into the circulation as it was. It will be cleaned by either human or by nature itself. What we SHOULD NOT DO is to mix natural bodies of water with toxic waste. However, even then, water is cleanable to a large degree.
We have a problem with the ice caps melting at the same time as we are “running out of water”
Scientists are simultaneously worried about running out of water and drowning in it. They are also worried about the temperatures rising, which, by the way, are notorious for evaporating water, which in turn, causes rain elsewhere. So. We have potentially created a situation in which it shall rain more as the temperatures rise.
Doesn’t sound too bad to me.
The trouble is, the rain doesn’t necessarily fall anywhere near the location where it evaporated from – also a good thing. The seas don’t need more water thaaat much. They’ll get their waters from rivers.
We have a habit of building into forests when there is arid land abound
We have an instinct of wanting to build into woodlands due to the availability of farming land and what not. However, we SHOULD start looking into building cities into deserts instead and pump water in from the oceans. And yes, I know it’s salty, but I also know scientists can split fucking atoms but somehow removing salt from water is beyond them?! Highly fucking unlikely.
Most people do love cities over the countryside, despite the popular myth of everyone wanting to live in the countryside (anyone who has is dying in boredom) so rather than destroying precious farmable and woodland, build cities into the deserted areas and PLANT TREES in artificially watered environments.
That way, we do not add to the problem, we’ll aid it.
In arid areas, the Sun is plentiful and so is solar power.
(Nevada, Australia, and Africa the new promised lands, no guilt chopping down woodland.)
Over-Population
The trouble with over-population is that it is a very local problem. It affects certain areas of the world rather than the entirety of it.
We know that once an area gets overpopulated by a species, the population starts dying out and decreasing in size automatically.
How, why? Hunger, internal battles, sickness within the hunger-stricken weakened populus… Those are the things that control the population. However, humans don’t like watching each other die and there’s a lot they can do about it. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. We can help the populations in over-grown areas to keep alive by global trade. Even though they are running out of space and farming land where they are, they can be supplied from the outside.
Unfortunately, this often means either charity or extortion. Much of the overpopulated areas are impoverished, making them unsuitable for trading.
Ironically, over-populated cultures also feel having more mouths to feed is an asset rather than a problem. More people trying to make a living for the family is seen as a solution to the problem rather than the problem itself. When a culture sees family as a unit, they forget that each family has individuals who need feeding. However. Let’s move on. The problem isn’t that big of a problem.
Why polygamy can ease overpopulation
Most people, if not all, are polygamous by nature. Not polyamorous, or polygynous, but polygamous. This means that people do want to live in larger groups of people rather than smaller groups of people. Yet, we know that when we fall in love, we will much rather shut everyone else out and be together with that one person we love. We have been conditioned into thinking that once you fall in love with another person, you have to choose one over the other.
Although not ALL love relationships are salvageable by simply adding to the mix, some of them authentically are. This whole website is more or less dedicated to the discovery of polygamy. I started writing to solve my relationship problems, rather than over-population, so the solution should be pleasurable for people rather than “you must”. It should not be sold as “you must” idea anyway. “You must” is rarely a good strategy for a sustainable life.
What is polygamy if it is not one man owning a harem?
When we hear the word “polygamy” we instantly think of polygyny, not polygamy. Polygyny is the practice of one man marrying several women, but polygamy is a wider concept than that. Polygamous marriages can take the form of one woman marrying several men, or several people of both genders marrying each other.
Subconsciously, what we are trying to do with large families is to bring in our natural lovers of polygamous nature into our lives. We want to find our friends, in other words. We count on our children to be who we are missing, and often, they are. This is a spiritual thing, we always attempt to return to those we love the most (unless there’s some other traumatic reason why we feel we cannot, again, another point to consider you can find info on the blog). Now, when we live in forced monogamous relationships, we are MISSING people. We start creating families in order to bring in the people who we are lacking.
If we lived in polygamous families of any description, we would HAVE these people with us as adults. No need to birth babies just to keep your loved ones near you. This would, crazy as it sounds, also stop us from making COPIES OF OURSELVES just so we can be married to all of our loved ones. Souls split and create multiple simultaneous incarnations often simply because we can’t choose who we should be married to. Therefore, I have 10 of me married to 10 of my True Emotion Mirrors who have 10 of themselves married to their 10 favorite women… Monogamy is the root of all evil, let me tell you.
Polygamous people are likely to have less children per woman
What also would happen is that polyandrous people (one female several men) would likely either not have children at all or have one, two, perhaps three, depending on the size of the group. The several adults would easily provide for the few children, as our numbers get naturally smaller.
In a polygynous marriage, it would be likely, or at least common, for the women to have a few children between themselves, fathered by one man, birthed by one or two, but considered mutual children. Even in the case that they opt to have one child for each woman, they’d still have less than half the number of children that the number is at now in a non-asian society. (Which is an average of a bit over 2 per a woman to an average of 8 per woman depending on the country’s socio-economical status. The higher education, the lower the birthrate of course.)
There is a myth that everyone wants monogamy, that everyone wants children, and that everyone wants to live in the countryside. All of these things are false, and adhering and pushing people into these behaviors against their will is causing problems, not solving them.
Cars, waste, extravigance
Creating waste is a major problem in our cultures. Waste decreases when larger groups of people collaborate in preparing food and sharing resources. When an average monogamous family of 4 or 5 buys a car, they easily buy two. When a polygamous group of people would buy a car, it is UNLIKELY that all of the adults decide to each own a car, although that might be possible. It is more likely tho, that it seems extravagant and even difficult for a family of 14 adults or whatever to each own a separate car. For one thing, it is not necessary for all of them to leave the house on a daily basis, grocery shopping, school runs, and such errands can be handled by far fewer cars than what the household would normally require for a smoothly running life. “Carpooling” becomes an OBVIOUS and even fun thing to do.
Shared responsibilities, less stress
Most of the responsibility of a family’s survival lands on the shoulders of the husband. No matter how equal we try to be, it’s the husband who handles most of the problems, and quite frankly, a naturally polyandrous man is not exactly built for the job. They miss their friends and they miss the fun and excitement of hanging out with his mates… Women are less of a motivator for abandoning a family, but come into the picture, of course.
When a polyandrous man shares the workload with a bunch of men, focus their attention on one woman as comes naturally to them, they are less stressed and strained. They are less interested in women as they are of other men, which means they are somewhat gladly monogamous as it only involves one woman, but miss their male friends too much to be happy in a monogamous marriage. The reverse is true for polygynous women, but besides the current point I’m making.
In a polygynous family, the workload over the children is shared between several women. Polygynous women DON’T LIKE handling their entire family alone, and often band together with other women anyway, and see the men as some kind of a necessary evil in the grand scheme of things. In a monogamous setting, they demand the guy to be worth the drama, which puts an extra load of stress on the husband to perform. In reality, they are rather happy seeing a man gone, and replacing them with as many girlfriends as possible.
Why not make this official?
In a polygynandrous family, everything runs in the combination of male and female partners. This resembles monogamy the most, only, several adults share a household and its duties, live in one house, own less cars, create less waste, stress less… And more than likely have more children than the other two alternatives, but still less than current numbers.
How do we convince people to become polygamous?
Now, you’ll be thinking that’s fine, but how do we convince people to become polygamous? I say we don’t. It is a natural bend we have and for as long as we don’t market it as “you HAVE TO become polygamous to save the planet” (very freaking unsexy), it should happen on its own by giving people the PERMISSION to be polygamous, and only point out the perks as a nice side dish.
We have romanticized the idea of monogamy through movies and stories while making polygamy seem a little… Weird. Now it’s time to romanticize polygamy. It doesn’t mean much, it is, in itself both romantic and sexy as hell to those who GET IT.
Building new polygamy-friendly solar-powered cities in the deserts?
One of the problems with going polygamous is that every house and apartment seems to be built for a monogamous family of 4 or 5. It can be difficult to find housing for families of 7 or 10 when only 2 of those people are children. Master bedrooms for two… 🙁 Garages of two cars. :'( Tables for two at the restaurants >:(
Making it the new way
If and when the USA and namely Hollywood change its course, the rest of the world tends to follow. It is Hollywood that rules the world, and all we need to do is to tell Hollywood to save the god damned planet.
Another idea of mine
Now… I also had another idea sometime back after writing this post (this is an edit)… Global warming is caused by extra carbon dioxide in the air. The reason is, that each of these molecules reserves heat and thus makes the air warmer. Now… If something retains heat, it should also be possible to cool it, no? (You can split atoms already, cooling them doesn’t sound like a leap of faith!!) IF carbon dioxide would be compressed and artificially cooled, and then released into the atmosphere, it should then interact with the existing carbon dioxide bringing its temperature of it down, too.
If this was done over hot land, it could be predicted that it creates a low-pressure system that will bring rain to the area, giving growth to plants that will, in turn, tie the excess carbon dioxide into themselves as plants do in order to freaking survive.
I am no scientist, but I figure… Maybe?
Subscribe to get a Daily Message
*) Term changed after this post was originally written. Fractions of old terms may exist elsewhere in the post. Read about term updates.
**) Narcissists are Young Souls left alone to survive and they're doing their best. Their emotional age ranges from 3 to 17 -year old. The younger, the more severe the narcissism.
© 2001-2024 Copyright Sebastyne - CRC-32 ecd1f512. - All rights reserved.