remembering fountains

''Parents aren't stupid.''

Are they not? That's a relief. Remember, children, don't be stupid; have kids!

I don't know much but surely someone has to be responsible for the mess we're in: 60 billion and rising. I saw a middle-aged man in a suit waiting for train, drinking a can of ''Red Bull''. His fly was undone. Not that I'm in the habit of observing a man's crotch but on this occasion it was all too obvious: part of his blue shirt was clearly poking through the hole. By chance I had notice him leaving the gents before entering the station shop. Despite his open disclosure, there wasn't sufficient evidence he'd fathered children but why wouldn't he?

I remember drinking fountains in parks - and in school playgrounds. They were refreshing. Especially during long summer days, I remember how cold like brass the water sometimes was. We learnt the knack of sucking from the vertical spurt without letting it dribble down our chin. In parks, there was even a little trough near the ground for dogs.

Things appeared more civilised then. Now, evidently, we prefer Coca-cola, Red Bull (I don't even know what that is), and much worse. Consumerism. Choice. Stupid, we are.

on growth

Yesterday I met up with some old friends I don't get to see that often. We get talking and I'm sometimes shocked at how much our views have diverged during the absence. I don't like arguing when I haven't seen them in a long while, and I don't argue well after a few drinks - I'm not that lucid sober come to mention it - and I forget my facts.

This time everyone, apart from me, was in agreement that there was ''plenty of petrol'', and, to put it into some context, we'll all still be driving [petrol or diesel] cars in our 80s. I could have said something more but didn't. If it wasn't about fuel, it'd be about pensions and financial growth, increased affluence etc. Business as usual stuff. Growth ad infinitum.

Back home, I reassure myself of a few facts - after all, they could be right, couldn't they? But, of course, they're wrong. In my search I found this lecture on the mathematics of growth by Dr. Albert Bartlett. While I'd come across the story of the King's chessboard before, I've not seen it applied to so many real world situations, like population and peak oil. It's as simple as it is awesome, and simply awful that so many intelligent people don't appear to get it.



Due to the limits of Youtube clips, the lecture is divided into 8 parts. Be sure to view them all.

putting away childish things

I've been reading James Lovelock's latest, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning (from the library, of course, part of my ongoing curb the consumerist in me project). Boy, the future looks grim. If I understand it correctly, ''saving the planet'' is futile and we should instead adapt and survive. I'm all in favour of that, far more than saving stuff. This is a book I will recommend to everyone.

Part of the message is the future scarcity of land for food production. Is it a coincidence that there is now an increase in home food production? Apparently, in some urban parts, allotments and smallholdings are in such demand, there's now a ten year waiting list for plots. As the climate heats up and the population increases, food will become increasingly expensive due to demand and the reduction in food imports. Home produce will probably become even more significant to feed the predicted 100 million people in the UK.

This morning we walked the dog along the lane which leads up to Ciren. Park, the Earl Bathurst's estate. It takes you past several polo fields sometimes used, I believe, by our royal princes. There's several of these fields and they cover quite a big acreage of perfect, flat turf. I'm afraid all this will have to go under the spade, I joked, before realising it might not be far from the truth. I wondered if they still had polo fields during the war and the ''Dig For Victory'' effort. A different age, though. Every dog has its day.

town & country

I have to say, half-way through and Small is Beautiful isn't as good a read as I thought it would be. I think the overall spirit of the book is sound but the message often suffers from emotional and wayward composition. Maybe it's because it was written over 36 years ago - hmm, not a great while ago - or maybe it's just me.

However, every now and then a familiar truth will stand out. I'm more certain than ever now why I had to get away from London, and why, when I eventually settled down to family life, we chose Hertfordshire, and why that wasn't far enough and we eventually moved to rural Wiltshire, and why now, living in Ciren, even though we live closer to the open countryside than the town centre, and it's a small town, a pleasant town, it reminds me too much of suburbia and I ache to move again.

Schumacher says the spirit of man is not meant for urban living and yet James Lovelock, in Revenge of Gaia, says 90% of us now live in urban environments. Both say we have problems because man has divorced himself from nature, and from the Earth. Towns are the problem, the countryside is the solution, I believe that.

on the future

Listen to James Lovelock talking to Oliver Norton of Nature.

This is the first occasion I've heard his voice. I don't know why, he must have been on YouTube before. I suppose, generally, I would only check out the dubious loons I come across in print, and their manner in person, on video, usually supports this first impression. It didn't apply to Lovelock when I read him and hearing him speak now confirms that opinion. And he seems like a real nice guy to boot, despite his message.

a junk food future

Further to the thoughts on the population crisis, I've just read Lovelock's idea (Revenge of Gaia) that 9 billion people could just possibly be sustained on synthetic food, a industrial concoction of essential nutrients in a suitable base, like junk food. This will relieve the burden of the biosphere to provide agriculturally sourced food, farmland which would be allowed to revert back to nature and return to Gaia's regulatory system.

I get the point: we adapt with sacrifices or perish. But such a relationship with our food is too much sacrifice for me to contemplate and I'm glad I won't have to. It is a bitter irony that those who choose to eat as naturally as possible will contribute to the stress on the natural environment but there it is. Can we afford to make individual choices on global matters? Not with these numbers.

the crowd

Lovelock's, Revenge Of Gaia, introduced me to a new word yesterday, iatrogenic. I shall endeavour to use it obsessively before it slips from memory. If there's one thing I've gotten from reading this book it's clarity and affirmation of what I felt for a while. Basically, human development, though done mainly with good intents, has been a catalogue of mistakes, the worst of which has evolved into an intractable compound of serious errors.

Most of the fears we hear about now - climate change, peak oil, economic failure, disease, poverty, and famine etc. - are all a result of one fundamental cause - the vast and increasing human population. Currently there are about 6 billion human inhabitants on Earth and before this century ends, the projected figure is estimated at 9 billion - half as much again. It doesn't take much imagination to see this as a serious burden both on the planet's ability to sustain that level of human life, and mankind's conscientious drive to ensure prosperity, equality of lifestyle, extended longevity, and growth for each citizen of Earth. We improve our lot to our detriment, it seems.

It can't be the easiest thing to work out but some have come up with the optimum population for a sustainable human existence on a pleasant Earth. Lovelock, for instance, mentions a figure of 1 billion. The Optimum Population Trust gives several figures based on different ''biocapacity'' criteria and further breaks these figures down into different global regions. At a glance, these values are much higher than Lovelock's 1 billion but still much, much lower than present trends. With their new patron, Sir David Attenborough, they have launched a campaign to stabilise the UK population under the slogan, Stop At Two. I don't know why, perhaps it's political correctness, but I can't help thinking it should be, Stop At One. Or even, We Can't Handle No More Kids! Given that the majority of people will ignore this campaign, and even if say 90% went along with it, the population will stay at its current level which is about 4 times their calculated optimum for sustainability. Therefore the campaign appears to favour unsustainability even if enough people take notice and go along with it. Which they won't. Better to stir it up and just say NO.