You are here

Home

Reframing discourse on the unmentionable


Disparate Strategic Possibilities Dangerously Neglected (Part #9)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

It could be considered remarkably curious that global civilization is faced with multiple crises -- now framed as a polycrisis -- with very little capacity to  envisage credible remedial strategies, or to explore their lack of credibility (Recognizing the Psychosocial Boundaries of Remedial Action, 2009). The conventional response to this condition mainly takes the form of blaming others for inhibiting the "will to change" -- whilst deriving benefit from the status quo.

More curious, and suspiciously so, is the remarkable extent to which discourse relies for its authenticity on the use of "fuck" and its derivatives as an expletive (Expletives as fundamental to a pattern of problematic "speech acts"? 2023). This is now a paradoxical feature of most private discourse, executive decision-making, and movies -- whilst being deprecated in formal public discourse as politically incorrect, as separately clarified (Mysterious Complementarity between Capitalism and Arsenalism, 2020).

Corresponding to this dynamic is the ever more explicit reference to intercourse and its many implications (and aberrations) as a primary objective or as evoking commentary of collective interest. It is framed as central to consummation of family life and values -- exemplifying individual freedom in an increasingly depressing context.

Any implication that reproduction might be beneficially constrained is conflated with a high degree of suspicion regarding a covert depopulation agenda of malign intent (The Shocking Truth about the Global Depopulation Agenda, The Burning Platform, 10 July 2022; Depopulation as a Policy Challenge in the context of Global Demographic Trends, UNDP, 20 October 2020). Consideration is further exacerbatedd by the intense controversy regarding pro-life versus abortion. Despite indications to the contrary, the assumption cultivated is that  planetary resources can (and should) be adapted to unconstrained population growth and families of whatever size desired. The ethical and natalist policies promoted by the Abrahamic religions are especially significant is that respect (Root Irresponsibility for Major World Problems, 2007).

Careful discourse on constraining population growth in any way is now virtually impossible within any institutional context or in the mainstream media. This is especially evident in the case of global consideration of resource and environmental constraints (Laudato Si' on Care of Our Common Home, 2015; Commentary on the Environment Encyclical, 2015). Curiously, if acknowledged, any concerns in that regard are reframed as issues of "overcrowding" and the measures appropriate to its constraint -- as is now frequently the case with mass tourism attracted by popular destinations (Local Reality of Overcrowding -- Global Unreality of Overpopulation, 2019).

Given the strategic reliance on scientific methodologies, especially curious is the manner in which these claim to engage in a form of root cause analysis which avoids identification of a seemingly obvious root cause, but with no explicit justification. This is exemplified by a current study of the Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) of the United Nations University (Interconnected Disaster Risks, 2023). The section on "root causes" notes:

Root causes are the underlying factors that create conditions for disasters to occur. If we think of a disaster as the tip of an iceberg, the visible part of a much larger structure that remains hidden under the waterâ-'s surface, root causes form the deeper structures that created conditions for the disaster to occur, and they are surprisingly similar for many seemingly unrelated events.

Noting that one of the root causes is "global demand pressures", this is described as:

Growing global demand for finite resources has the potential to increase disaster risk and the reaching of risk tipping points. Driven by a growing population and increasing development, the global demand pressures for food, water, energy, land and other materials foster practices that maximize production at the cost of our environmental and social systems.

However, whilst identifying "growing population" as driving that demand, such a "driver" is in no way recognized as a "root cause" in systemic terms. Artful strategic analysis of this kind merits caricature (Lipoproblems:Â Developing a Strategy Omitting a Key Problem, 2009). It invites the question as to which crises merit recognition (by more assiduous systemic analysis) as not being driven by "growing population".

Sensitivity on this unquestionable dimension can be variously and controversially highlighted -- following its early consideration by Paul Ehrlich and  Anne Ehrlich (The Population Bomb: population control or race to oblivision, 1968;  The Population Bomb Revisited,  The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development, 1, 2009, 3).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

For further updates on this site, subscribe here