Daveosaurus (southerndave) wrote,

  • Location:
  • Mood:
  • Music:

Rant time again

I am pissed off. I don't know if it's that I've had to Not Say Anything to discussions on my friends page twice in the last two days because I don't like starting flame wars on other people's blogs, if it's because someone at work yesterday evening tried to tell me that some thug who closed-fist punched a four year old boy in the face wasn't a child abuser, or if it's because I just found out earlier this evening that my refrigerator had died some time during the week and taken a small freezer compartment worth of emergency edibles with it. I'm pissed off enough that I can't be arsed figuring that out. So I'm going to take this opportunity to probably offend two thirds of the people who read on any further.

So, it was on the radio this morning that the Aussies are starting up the "gay marriage" debate again. Whatever. The issue doesn't affect me personally, although my opinion on the subject hasn't changed from what I recall it was the last time the subject got brought up; which, for the record, is: The public have to decide whether marriage is a religious institution or whether it is a State institution. It cannot be both without getting religion interfering in the apparatus of the State where it should not be (even though that this country is a de jure theocracy, it is still best to limit any cross-over between the two). If marriage is to be a religious institution, then whoever marries whom should be of no business to anyone but the presiding minister or priest of whoever, and such marital status should confer no benefit whatsoever from any action of the State. If marriage is to be a State institution, then it should be freely available to any consenting adults without hindrance from anyone's religious beliefs.

But this isn't the angle I'm going to discuss tonight. I'm going to take issue with the traditional "but it's unnatural" whine I read or hear from the same sort of people who think that Jimmy Mason is some sort of hero, or who think that Barack Obama is a deep cover agent for the Soviet Union. Absolute lunatic wingnuts, in other words.

Simply put: it ain't unnatural. It happens in nature. I have personally witnessed it happening in nature. (Not that I had any ulterior motive in seeking it out, but it's fairly bloody hard to tie to survey pegs across a paddock full of steers without having to wait for the bloody things to finish trying to do something that steers are no longer equipped to do, and then get the hell out of the road, so that the surveyor could get a distance off my reflector.)

The next question that tends to be asked is why is all this sort of carry on (in the human population, I hasten to add, not the steer population) is a lot more "visible" than it was sixty or eighty years ago or whenever it was that These People were themselves young. The obvious answer to that one is "because there's more of them. Duh." But I think there'd be more to it than just that.

It's overpopulation.

And before anyone trots out the old one about how the world doesn't have a population problem but a distribution problem, they should reflect upon: who it was who said it in the first place and what the world's population was when that person died; and whether they think that a world, in which the sole remaining "superpower" is still so morbidly scared of anything resembling "socialism" (in the Fox News sense of the word) that they're still tiptoeing cautiously around the edges of developing a 20th century (let alone 21st century) public health system, is even capable of fixing the distribution problem in the first place.

Back to the subject at hand. I've read, not really all that long ago, but I forget where (and I've already gone and looked it up in the prime suspect in my shelves: no luck) that some species, in the wild, when populations get too high, cut down on how many of the next generation they produce. Breeding females have fewer young, or none at all. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this not having of young was in direct response to the environmental or social contraints of having too high a population.

I reckon that's what's going on in the world today. I've even got a number of friends (mainly on-line, but still friends for all that) who don't fit anywhere on the old-fashioned straight/gay scale. No, I'm not going to name them, that would be interfering in their business. Anyway, my point is that all of this is a natural reaction to this world's overpopulation problem. Not just the non-conformist orientations, but other matters that have been under discussion lately, such as all this stuff about how the average bloke is producing much fewer and lower quality sperm than they ever used to. I'd reckon that, somehow, somewhere unconsciously, the problem of the overpopulation of the world is beginning to be sorted out.

If the busybodies could just get their sticky beaks out of other people's lives, that is.
Tags: politics, rant
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.