24 December 1999
We can perhaps excuse the young for they are taught that education is a procedure whereby the teachers spew out lines of babble and the students memorize it thus insuring regurgitation at the proper time – examinations. This secures good grades but only produces a society of befuddled parrots. I remember how one high school principle called me out, and threatened to fire me, by shouting, "You are teaching the kids how to think! ...and I'll not stand for it."
The following essays, I believe, were the top results of some sort of contest, p.c. of course – otherwise they would not have received the awards. Read carefully, the demise of America has its roots in such nonsense.
America's Role in the Next Century
America is one of the most educated and technologically advanced countries in the world. Therefore, America is in a position to take a leadership role in the 21st century, to help solve world problems.
Population growth is a major problem that threatens the Earth. By the end of the 20th century there will be close to 6 billion people. Within the next 200 years, the population is likely to rise to at least 10 billion people. Approximately 85 percent of this growth will be in under-developed countries. These new people will require food, energy, and work in order to survive.
Because of the population growth, the consumption of resources will drastically increase. Many of the resources we are using such as oil, natural gas, and coal, are not renewable. Perhaps the most life sustaining natural resource that will be threatened is water. As water becomes more scarce because of population growth and pollution, water will be in greater demand throughout the world and nations may fight over the water. It has even been suggested that wars of the future may be fought over water rather than oil.
America, along with other developed nations, keep their population growth consistent with the economic growth. Under developed countries have a very large percentage of population increase because of religious beliefs, lack of medical care and lack of knowledge. To assist underdeveloped countries to stabilize their population, America should help support education in underdeveloped nations. Since there is a high relationship between level of education and birth control, the more highly educated a population, the fewer children they will have. Education will help stabilize the world's population which, in turn, will decrease the demand for scarce resources such as water, coal, natural gas and oil. With a decrease in the demand for scarce resources, nations will be less likely to go to war over water.
Over-population creates other environmental problems. As third-world countries begin to develop their industries, human activities, such as deforestation and automobiles, will emit increasing quantities of carbon dioxide and other gasses into our atmosphere. Once carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, it remains there for a period of one hundred years or more. Every year more emissions are added to the carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere. Because carbon dioxide is a good absorber of heat radiation coming from the Earth's surface, increased carbon dioxide acts like a big blanket over the Earth, keeping it warmer then it would otherwise be. With the increase of temperature the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere also increases, providing more of a "green house" effect causing the Earth to be warmer. At the current rate of carbon dioxide and other gas emission into the atmosphere some scientists believe that the rise of temperature may be as much as 2 and 1/2 degrees per century. At this rate, humans, animals and plants may not be able to adapt to the rapid change of heat.
As a world leader, America can help figure out how to reduce global heating. One idea is to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by using more solar energy. Although we have created electric and solar powered automobiles, they are very expensive and not very efficient. Many people are worried about running out of oil, but you can never run out of sunlight. America needs to advance technology in making the production of solar energy less expensive and more effective.
Working closely with other nations to help solve population growth and environmental problems could have other positive effects. By working toward common goals, people throughout the world might come to understand each other better which might reduce racism and violence. More countries might begin to focus on public education, which might reduce the gap between poor nations and rich nations.
Many people and scientists are afraid that an asteroid or some other natural disaster might destroy the Earth. However, the impact of over-population on the Earth's environment is more likely to destroy the earth over time than any natural disaster. Perhaps America can help the world to develop an "ecological conscience." In the words of Aldo Leopold, "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."
When approaching the question of America's role in the 21st century, I first had to look to the past. America is a relatively new country, and our position of world power is fairly new.
The Americas were first explored in the late 15th century, and later colonized in the early 1500's, but it was not until the end of the 18th century that we united, broke away from England, and became a country.
Our position in the 19th century was mainly expanding and consolidating our territory, though leading roles in the Industrial Revolution and the breakthrough of the Emancipation Proclamation were also key contributions. However, through all this we also managed to hunt the whales to the brink of extinction, eliminate 50 million buffalo, decimate the ancient forests, and exterminate 90% of the Native Americans. In the 20th century, the United States moved to a position of world power. This was mainly due to our strength through and after World War II. Pushed into a position of leading the world, we rose to the challenge.
Now we are on the verge of the 21 st century. During the 1900's, America made major advances in the computer world, space program, and treatment of women and minorities, also finding ways to guzzle energy and exploit our natural resources. We have a wonderful opportunity to lead the world, and our responsibility to set a good example is always present. As I see it, America's role in the next century will be to show a new respect and care for our environment and resources, teaching other countries by our example.
Pollution ruins our habitat. The planet Earth is our home, our only home, and we have to take good care of it. Landfills are getting bigger and bigger, and the waste that doesn't make it to a landfill often ends up in the ocean, which is one of our major sources of oxygen. From 1960 to the year 2000 garbage production will have increased 100%.
Air pollution is also building up. For instance, smog control is becoming a more pressing issue in major cities. But more importantly, CFC and carbon emissions are breaking down our ozone layer and leading to an increasingly warmer climate. Some scientists predict that this global warming may cause the polar ice caps to melt, raising the world's oceans, with obviously catastrophic results.
Carbon emissions of the US are twice those of Japan or Europe, and sixteen times those of third world countries. One major source of this air pollution is the automobile.
There are half a billion cars in the world today, and there will be one billion in 30 years. Not only are cars a cause of air pollution, and a cause of many deaths and injuries each year, but automobiles are rapidly using up our fossil fuel resources. The world's oil and gasoline supplies will probably run out during my lifetime, and right now there is no good plan to replace them. Fossil fuels are a major source of electricity for the world, and we need to be able to operate without them. Possible alternatives include turning to solar power, but while there are already solar-powered cars on the road, we don't know enough right now to use these cars as cost-effective transportation. Hopefully, the photo-voltaic cells used will soon be cost-effective not only for cars, but as a dependable energy source for all uses.
Other energy alternatives have had negative effects on our environment. Nuclear power plants, originally built in the 1950's, are expensive to maintain and produce extremely dangerous radioactive waste, which can not be conveniently disposed of.
Hydroelectric dams are, in my opinion, an outdated technology that unnecessarily scars the ecosystem. For example, we've exterminated at least 90% of the wild salmon of the Pacific Northwest. Other wildlife and wildlands, are also greatly affected.
Human beings have dealt wildlife a horrendous blow. Biologists report that by the year 2050, during my lifetime, 1 in 4 species will have gone extinct. A large percentage of those will have been from the tropical rain-forest, where 20,000 species are erased from the earth every year.
This is largely due to farming projects, mainly commercial cattle farms. Right now, there are 1.5 billion cattle in the world. That's a ratio of 1 cow to every 4 people! These cows waste space and waste food, seeing as it takes many pounds of grain and gallons of water to produce just one pound of beef. That's a senseless trade, to me, when many people in the world don't have enough food to eat, or any fresh water to drink.
Since the 1960's, 200 million people have died from starvation. It took one million years for the world's population to reach three billion. But in less than 50 years, the population of the world has doubled, from 3 billion in 1950 to 6 billion in 1999. At that rate, by the year 2050, there will be 12 billion people on this planet. We're using up our resources and filling what space we have. When we've doubled the number of people, where can we all live? What will we eat, and where will our wastes go? How will we get the energy to survive? Population control is a sensitive issue, but I believe it is a pressing one which we must address immediately. As I said before, this Earth is our only home, our only chance, and we have to find a way to preserve it.
In conclusion, I must stress that America's role in the upcoming century will be to take action. By acting as motivated, caring citizens, and living up to our standards of respect and responsibility, we can improve and preserve our planet for all future generations. individuals must care enough to take initiative and actively seek solutions such as solar power; energy conservation; reusing, reducing, and recycling. Gentleness towards the land, and even smaller families will ensure that our world becomes a healthier, more beautiful home and habitat. Only when we learn to respect and live in peace with the environment can we learn to respect and live in peace with each other. America must lead and teach, and most of all, we must work together.
In both of the essays which were judged 'best', the indoctrinatees blame American culture for destroying all worthwhile items and organisms in this country, including the precious "Indians". It is hard to tell if the young writers equate the "Indians" with the equally precious buffalo or salmon, however. Guess what 'the Final Solution' will be for global warming, pollution, resource depletion, racism, sexism and over-population? EDUCATION! I wonder if their teachers 'suggested' that, or if the students hoped to improve their grades by proclaiming job security for teachers. Ha.
If we look at the solution from another vested interest group, we would pin the world's salvation on everyone's access to an attorney, for if everyone were to insist on his legal rights, there would be no unequal distribution of wealth, etc. Then, too, if everyone had his own psychiatrist, we could all become sane and the world's problems would be solved in short order. Yes, why pick teachers as our saviours? One essay writer opines that, if everyone worked on solving the problems, as a common goal, we'd eliminate 'racism' as a by-product of our striving to end "global-warming". I wonder if the common cold would also be eliminated, as an indirect result of everyone working toward common goals.
The U.S. population has had compulsory public schooling coast-to-coast for over a century, so this population is as 'educated' as they can be; yet, we have lots of crime, violence, racism (anti-White, of course) and economic inequalities. I dimly remember my master's thesis which was based on the works of F.S.C. Northrop. He had a wonderful idea: if everyone in the world had the same moral values, then we could have a world government. Moral values he dubbed 'oughts', what we ought or ought not to do. Today's moral values, he opined, were based on the words of glorified tribal leaders, rather than objectively verifiable facts. By deriving the 'ought' from the 'is' of reality, we could derive a scientific, universal morality. I read, as I recall, his 7 books elaborating on this subject. Then I clobbered his thesis in the second half of mine, by simply illustrating the fact that people have never agreed about 'reality' or what 'is' in the first place. Even Western scientists cannot agree about 'reality' in such disciplines as physics, chemistry and biology. Can 'education' tell a man that he is not hungry or horney? Can it tell him that he has no 'right' to invade another's land or seize unwilling women? His own brain tells him what he needs, and immediate needs always take precedence over 'possible' future rewards, in this life or in some afterlife. That is how real people govern their affairs. That is why certain areas of the world are man-made deserts, like central Spain and North Africa, once "the breadbasket of the Roman Empire." Anthropoids still deforest and overgraze and the Sahara and Kalahari Deserts continue to advance. Since 'man' will not change his ways, the only remedy for the preservation of the biosphere is the drastic elimination of the featherless biped population.
To think that 'education' can cure human folly assumes that 'man' will give up his follies willingly. No amount of 'education' can confer intelligence on the stupid or wisdom to fools. Assuming, then, that our environmentally friendly world MUST be created, then someone must MAKE the masses of asses reduce their numbers and consumption of depleted resources. This behaviour can only be imposed by a dictatorship (composed of which group of 'enlightened' ones(?). The Eco-Emperor (I nominate Ming of Mongo!) would have to eliminate all infinite creeds, which are those giving moral justification to infinite population growth and infinite exploitation of resources for the making of infinite profits. Hence, such philosophies as Christianity and capitalism must go. Once that is achieved, another basis of economic production and distribution will be needed. WHAT will be produced and HOW MUCH must be decided, along with WHO GETS WHAT. I know from historical research that other societies addressed these matters, such as the ancient Spartans. Of course, all pre-industrial societies had slaves in one form or another, so the new regime would have to decide just how much de-industrialisation should occur. The Morgenthau Genocide Plan which the U.S. was to impose upon post World War II Germany was designed to eliminate the entire German population. Morgenthau judged that two-thirds of the German population would die off from forced de-industrialisation. The survivors of child-bearing age could be sterilised. Allied and Israeli greed prevented the total depopulation of Germany when it was discovered that the Germans would work hard for their conquerors. Instead, the German population is being replaced by non-European immigrants. In any case, the result will be 'no more Germans', nor other Europeans, for that matter, unless Germans rise up again, on behalf of their biological imperative: to be or not to be.
American environmentalists are like rich people who made theirs from environmentally destructive practices, and who now wish to stop newcomers from making their riches the same way. As they say in Japan, "rots of ruck!"
I will excuse the sophomoric dribble, but there is no excuse for not researching what one writes. By this, I do not mean that one should quote some "authority" who, more than likely, is full of crap anyway, but resort to some calculated attempt to examine what one says. Take, for example – and I have written about this before – the shrieks which erupt at the mention of 'greenhouse gases', the main culprit being carbon dioxide. From this springs the 'global warming' scare message without one mention that the flora simply would not exist without carbon dioxide.
Instead of blaming the automobile, and other devices, for the Frankensteinian volumes of carbon dioxide being emitted, one should perhaps recall his high school chemistry, that is, if one ever bothered to pay attention.
Carbon dioxide is produced when any carbon compound undergoes reaction with the oxygen in the air – and this includes carbohydrates – the stuff animals eat. If you exhale, you expire carbon dioxide and thus are a part of the 'greenhouse gas' problem. An average hooman bean exhales carbon dioxide equivalent to the burning of 40 gallons of gasoline in one year. (Grab a handbook of Chemistry and Physics and check it out for yourself.) Thus, it is easily shown that the American automobile 'gasses' up our planet to the same extent as the population of China does by simply breathing. When one adds the unwashed hordes of the subcontinent India, the numbers get more impressive. No, dear essay writers, we simply have too many hairless apes already and plugging up the exhaust pipes of our Buicks simply won't help much.
The unchecked turd-world population growth is a direct result of the 'haves' being forced to share – Marx is smiling – their wealth with those who choose to ignore their woes by diverting their minds – if they had any in the first place – by spending most of their time screwing. We feed. They breed.