Books by A.O. Kime
"Metaphysical realities in America's politically-challenged democracy"
"A sagacious accounting of the Stone Age and the beginnings of civilization"
U.S. colleges and trade schools
Odd combination of directories you think? See 'faces'
A.O. Kime Articles:
Shoofly Village ruins
Stone Age history
Stone Age timelines
Stone Age tools
Dynamics of now
Evil (nature of)
Gift of life
Light (nature of)
Time (nature of)
Curse of science
Int'l Criminal Court
Rule of law
(1st edition - May 2013) by A.O. Kime
for information on 'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article
Of all the shortsightedness which is responsible for leading mankind to
the doorsteps of doomsday - threatening at least the end of
civilized societies if not the end of
human existence - it seems important to know which will be the trigger… the
first to cause an unstoppable spiral downwards... because, having reached
this point, the rest of the shortsightedness wouldn’t seem to matter.
The trigger probably can’t be clearly defined however. It might take a particular combination of shortsightedness… call it the “recipe for disaster”. Or, maybe it happens “when the roads of shortsightedness converge”.
While those in charge don’t seem to know what “unstoppable” means - in playing with fire like they do - the universe does… it’s a matter of physics. Even a hobo knows, although he might simply consider the whole matter a runaway freight train. To him, its derailing a forgone conclusion.
Whatever - shortsightedness is usually the road to ruin.
Yet this is nothing new - doomsday fears existed even in ancient times. There have always been situations which looked they could add up to a real disaster - effectively ’doomsday’. But to whatever degree it did… it’s always been “bad signs exploding“. Since nobody wants a disaster, it seems only prudent to continually assess the situation. Maybe doomsday can be avoided.
But what follows isn’t new either - being modern day fears which have gone unchecked for decades. While progress has been made in some areas, the situation has gotten worse in others. The same concerns remain. Perhaps the dangers haven’t been pointed out well enough? The guilty parties not shamed enough? Whatever the case, something must be lacking or missing. But maybe a different perspective will yield something not considered before. Or throws a brighter light. Since seemingly little has been said about the doomsday possibilities - at least not emphatically - let’s throw the light there.
So… are any of today’s concerns leading to doomsday? Well, lets see if the following adds up.
While the vortex of confluences began its swirling motion sometime
during the beginnings of the industrial revolution - or about 200 years
ago - born of an eddy here, an eddy there - spinning faster and faster
with each passing year - it is now on the verge of being unstoppable.
We’re now ever so close to being sucked down into some horrible abyss.
While any one of the following concerns could cause things to spin out of control, it should be helpful to know when it might happen as well. Are we talking about years, a couple decades or several centuries?
Well, some roads to ruin would take longer to traverse than others.
First, possibly factoring into the following doomsday scenarios
would be the chance implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 (UN
Agenda 21). The agenda addresses “sustainable development” and the
number “21“ refers to the 21st century. It’s about how to coexist with
the planet earth. Except… it would regulate almost every aspect of human
activity in order achieve this sustainability and that amounts to
It brings to mind George Orwell’s book “1984”.
And to varying degrees worldwide Agenda 21 is currently being implemented - at least partially, if not haphazardly. That includes in the U.S. on the federal, state, regional and local levels.
Of course, being so comprehensive there are a lot of steps required. It won’t happen overnight. It takes time to condition and herd 314 million people. Not so easy considering they’re Americans. And seven (7) billion if you count the world.
But the reason these steps have slowed, stopped, been tabled or never started in the United States is because there’s a ferocious outcry against its implementation coming from private citizens, small businesses and from organizations with patriotic leanings. At least from those who know about this clandestine operation. Of course, totalitarianism is being seen as worse even than socialism. It’s also a matter of American sovereignty.
This is how Wikipedia puts it:
"During the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the
United States at the local, state, and federal levels. The Republican
National Committee has adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the
Republican Party platform stated that "We strongly reject the U.N.
Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty". Several state and local
governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing
Agenda 21. Alabama became the first state to prohibit government
participation in Agenda 21, but Arizona rejected a similar bill.
Activists, some of whom have been associated with the Tea Party movement by the The New York Times and The Huffington Post, have said that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy by the United Nations to deprive individuals of property rights. Columnists in The Atlantic have linked opposition to Agenda 21 to the property rights movement in the United States. A poll of 1,300 United States voters by the American Planning Association found that 9% supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn't have enough information to form an opinion. Glenn Beck said it was a means of instituting "centralized control over all of human life on planet Earth", a notion which Media Matters dismissed as a conspiracy theory."
Update: on 3-21-13 the bill passed the Arizona Senate and has been sent to the House (apparently Wikipedia was referring to the attempt in 2012 but which was never actually voted on).
But there’s also "Democrats Against UN Agenda 21". As their website put’s it:
"UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world."
Although the doomsday dates for the following ‘doomsday makers’ are just
rough guesses - having no scientific basis - in predicting doomsday
one expects a date attached. Yet, there’s an upside if dates are
contestable. If one believes a date doesn’t fit the realities they are
thus driven to venture their own estimate (at least in their own mind).
As a result, the matter is then front and center.
It should be stressed that these ‘guesses’ (dates) are not serious ’predictions’ but sufficient to serve as a platform from which to speak of doomsday, or the possibility of doomsday.
But, figuratively speaking, whether it is doomsday one sees or the date, all along it’s hard to trust what one sees from their perch in the tree. Nonetheless, our perspectives, whatever they are, always demand we become their spokesman.
While humanity as a whole probably won’t die off anytime soon due to the over-abundance of strewn garbage, trash heaps and ‘dumping’ in general - although the die off process has already begun in the poverty-stricken nations - it seems clear it will eventually happen. It begins with diseases (squalid conditions) and due to the irreversible environmental damage the last phase would be widespread starvation. Contaminated water tables will decimate the farms.
If nothing more done - doomsday 2120 (for the vast majority)
Short term remedy - more extensive recycling (gain of 80 years - doomsday extended to 2200)
Long term remedy - eliminate from the marketplace any product which has the potential to threaten the environment plus stop the marketing of ’disposables’ (gain of 300 years - doomsday extended to 2420)
It’s all so obvious… even the best efforts to control the usage of
hazardous products (the current method) will ultimately fail. Accidents
and errant disposals are inevitable and the negative effects will mount
up. Controls will only slow the rate of degradation.
But the above dates don’t necessarily spell “the end” as there will be survivors - a few to several million - but doomsday nonetheless for the vast majority (death due largely to urban anarchy). Of course, 'survivors' mean there will be survivable ’pockets’ (land areas) from which to rebuild... wilderness areas for example, the mountains and deserts.
At present, nuclear devastation poses the greatest danger in that this road could be shortened in an instant. One might call it “the road with quantum leap capabilities“.
If nothing more done - doomsday anytime between today and 2020*
Short term remedy - expanded nonproliferation efforts, heightened diplomacy (gain of 75 years on the outside - doomsday anytime between today and 2095*)
Long term remedy - except for prayer, none - the technology is here to stay
* this is assuming an unchecked nuclear war. If nuclear exchanges are forever to be limited then this road won’t necessarily lead to doomsday (seemingly would always stop short).
No comment on this looming doomsday… like nuclear devastation it could happen anytime.
Although the collapse of a state for any reason would cause chaos -
enough to call it ‘doomsday’ - so far, there has always been some kind of
a ‘civil recovery‘. Thus, these doomsdays have always been of a
temporary nature. This will no longer always be true.
Being intolerable, police states usually end in revolutions and, unfailingly, all nations become police states. They either take the direct route (dictatorships, military juntas, Nazism, Stalinism, Fascism) or get there through socialism since most aspects of socialism equate to a police state. The same goes for communism (the cousin of socialism). But societies could degrade even further. It seems fated the public will finally tire of institutions - being invariably wicked (self serving) - and will toss them aside as an ideal. Of course, this would amount to a great change in the structure of civilized societies - and surely an improvement. After all, anarchists would still want to be 'civilized' (at least in social graces).
Of course, not all police states around the world will collapse at once and any recovery (as a state again) would vary in substance. A great improvement for America would be an ironclad constitution which, among other things, specifies term limits, broadly defines treasonous acts and forbids sovereign immunity.
Note: while this would be a great improvement, it was
recently pointed out to me that it still wasn't the 'ideal' (and
I quote)-"the ideal for America is to remain a
constitutional republic, as we see now the damage that democratization has
done." (underline added)
If nothing more done about the failings in law and law enforcement -
Short term remedy - eliminate the blue laws (victimless ‘crimes‘) as a gesture of good will (gain of 100 years - doomsday extended to 2150)
Long term remedy - eliminate the blue laws, undo shotgun rule in criminal law, reduce incarceration times, stop martial law tactics and hold prosecutors accountable for their errant prosecutions (this would have the effect of discouraging their desire to ’win’ cases which is often at the expense of justice) (gain of 150 years - doomsday extended to 2200 *)
* this is not extended any longer because of the inevitability of socialist agendas (financial collapse) and the likelihood nothing will be done about controlling the growth of the population (addressed next).
Overpopulation is a looming threat largely because it will accelerate
most other doomsday scenarios. In this respect then it is
the ‘progenitor’ (the mother of doomsdays) . Except for nuclear war and
financial collapse, most all other threats to mankind are relative to the
population numbers. The larger the population the sooner the threat.
Without intervention it is inevitable… largely because the more dense the
population, the more ’controls’ can be expected (the prime irritant).
Note (updated): The UN also recognizes the dangers of overpopulation and stresses the need for a “sustainable population”. However, Chapter 5.16 states " To do this, all countries will have to improve their own capacities to assess the environment and development implications of their demographic trends and factors. They will also need to formulate and implement policies and action programmes where appropriate. Policies should be designed to address the consequences of population growth built into population momentum, while at the same time incorporating measures to bring about demographic transition." Of course, this amounts to 'herding' and is a policy from hell (link to the entire text of UN Agenda 21 below). There is a simpler and better way - for America at least - to obtain and maintain a sustainable population and it wouldn't involve the federal, state or local governments. Although cooperation would be needed, how it can be managed by the people will be addressed shortly.
While death from starvation would be one threat overpopulation can create, at some point, and for a short period of time, the population would stabilize. To whatever level it does suggests there are only so many people the earth can support. Only a house of cards can support more (the current setup). But for how long? Of course too, there’s ‘supporting’ and then there’s ‘ideally supporting’.
Whatever the ideal, the key to sustainability is ‘balance’. Overcrowded conditions affects justice, the quality of life and countless other things including the threat to wildlife. A nation’s natural resources must also be taken into account. With balance at hand, there is no need for complex remedies or totalitarianism (UN Agenda 21). And, from almost every standpoint - from cost to red tape - government 'remedies' are always a can of worms.
Although the world population is the greatest concern - having already exceeded a sustainable balance - the UN has no authority to mandate population controls. Each country has been left to decide on their own. The danger is that chaos (doomsday) due to the overcrowded conditions in one country could spill over to the next.
India, for example, has no interest in population controls… soon to overtake China as the most populous country. Seemingly no other country has shown any interest either (except China). This can only lead to a tsunami of troubles… spillover upon spillover.
This is another downside of globalization - all the eggs being in one basket. A country’s only chance for survival is isolationism… dependence to be its Achilles heel. Of course, that entails disengaging from the world community in time. The chance exists a wrong move by a single country could sink everyone... and the world can't depend on isolating the problem every time. If that isn't enough, outsourcing saps a nation's strength (slave wages is the poison poor countries administer to the rich). Globalization only benefits the transnationalists (global marketers).
If nothing more done - doomsday 2080 (for the vast majority)
Short term remedy - further promotion of birth controls (gain of 70 years - doomsday extended to 2150)
Long term remedy - ban foreign trade (adopt isolationism) and implement something similar to the China policy of one child per couple - more on this further below (gain of 300 years - doomsday extended to 2380 *)
* This gain of 300 years applies only to proactive countries and assumes chaos doesn’t spread from those who aren‘t proactive. It is also subject to other doomsday threats being eliminated.
But why only 300 years if a nation has isolated itself, its population
is ‘balanced’ and the other threats are eliminated? Well, it’s due to
the likelihood of other shortsightedness. But for many countries it's too
late - some won’t last another 100 years. Maybe not 50. Whatever the
cause for collapse - and it may be due to a combination of factors
including a pandemic and sectarian violence - they‘d be on their own.
The rest of the world couldn’t help… not for long.
Note: if to believe population controls ‘unnatural’, ’insensitive’ or ‘cruel‘, nature’s way of handling “too many” are pandemics. Call it ‘tough love’.
It is assured, there will be disastrous consequences from the world's mushrooming population. After all, the negative effects from too many people are blatantly obvious even now. Of course, it didn’t seem a problem until recent times. For certain when the world population reached three (3) billion in 1960 (but probably raising eyebrows was two (2) billion in 1927). Today, however, it’s seven (7) billion and there is something insane about the topic not being in the forefront.
Well, no wonder no alarm was sounded... an expanding population serves both business (more customers) and governments (a growing tax base). That includes city and county governments. Those bureaucrats want more people too (more federal aid). It’s a kickback of sorts. The only ones that don’t want more people are people.
It is agonizing to suggest restricting child births however. It’s an
affront to freedom. Can it be rationalized? Isn’t it sometimes necessary
to rationalize the distasteful? Perhaps looking at it in different ways
might help. One way is comparing it to the socially acceptable law
against polygamy… so why not also ’only one’ child?
Would it swallow if it was made voluntary? We’ll see if that might work shortly.
While these are the major roads leading to doomsday - a police state
estimated to be the quickest way - they all have their beginnings in the
concept of ’civilized’ societies. We must admit, if not for becoming
civilized these roads wouldn’t exist. Certainly the Stone
Age posed no threat. While it could be argued that becoming
civilized was inevitable, nonetheless it is the root cause for these
looming threats. We can also blame ‘progress’ (alchemy in particular).
But the root cause for guaranteeing doomsday over the trash situation will be resistance to the long term remedies. Knowing the relationship between businesses and politicians, it will only take a spoonful of resistance. And we can be assured most will lobby hard against stabilizing or slowing the growth of the population. As said, businesses want an ever-expanding marketplace. Only the mom and pop stores would be content with a status quo… assuming of course the status quo will quit shopping in China.
Of course, guaranteeing a police state are the legislative ‘control freaks’ who make the laws. But further defining a police state are control freaks within law enforcement and their parade-style ’exhibitions‘ (i.e., excessive show of force, unnecessary martial law tactics).The response to the Boston marathon incident is the latest example. Yet, it's the hand law enforcement feels forced to play due to the rising threats (due in turn to 'more people'). Except, the expanded police powers then becomes largely the cause for the rising threats... ratcheting up the pressure also ratchets up the resistance. It then becomes a war between the police and the people.
The lowest possible police profile is the answer... not a higher one.
So, what are the politics of allowing, if not encouraging, the
population to expand beyond the limits of sanity? Well, again, aside
from governments pacifying themselves, it’s obviously to pacify
‘business‘… primarily the transnationalists who largely control the
marketplace. Unfortunately, population controls have been commonly
promoted as being either an affront to God or akin to communism -
Business and political interests then, and not the will of the people, are responsible. It is utterly bizarre these interests would subvert the best interests of humanity. It's the torpedoing of one's own ship. Might as well be antimatter.
While sustainability is a good idea - certainly a way to preserve the earth for future generations - but aside from UN Agenda 21 being totalitarianism it is also shortsighted… just as shortsighted as the shortsightedness it claims to target. Totalitarianism will create even bigger problems… riots, revolts and revolutions for instance. Crime and terrorism will become more prevalent. As a means of ’escape’ certainly more alcoholism and drug use will be the result. Suicides will become more common. And, it will create a society of rats.
Of course, these things are already happening… testimony to the current state of affairs. UN Agenda 21 would be like a shot to the head after being poisoned.
But whatever the remedies there’s the job market to consider. For example, the widespread banning of potentially hazardous products will reduce the number of jobs available. On the other hand, success in reducing growth would reduce the number of job seekers. Of course, millions of jobs would be created in America by simply stopping the practice of outsourcing. Job killers are also the NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT treaties.
While something resembling China’s ‘one child’ policy is obviously necessary... people should take on the task, not government. It should be handled as an ‘ideal’ rather than through ‘policy’ (law).
Being voluntary it could be promoted as being the right thing to do for
both the country and humanity. At least it should work better than the
efforts to get people to stop smoking or lose weight. Those have a
busybody quality (and thus largely ignored) whereas the ’one child’ has
a patriotic quality. Even a spiritual quality (mirrors nature's standard
policy of 'tough love').
The TV ads could show a bunch of rats running around all acting goofy, weird. John B. Calhoun (1917–1995), an American ethologist and behavioral researcher, once compared the habits of rodents in overcrowded conditions to the future of the human race. It wouldn't be a pretty sight.
But governments could help. Perhaps free schooling for one child only? Welfare penalties for more than one? Whatever the best way is, this ‘threat creator’ must be brought under control. In military alert readiness lingo, we should be at DEFCON 1 (most severe threat).
Perhaps the Democrat’s “Planned Parenthood” would be a starter?
Perhaps this view is not shared but it is bizarre the Republican party is against Planned Parenthood. It runs counter to their professed desire to protect freedoms. If anything, the Republican party should be more for it than the Democrats (one would think). Democrats, after all, aren’t known for promoting freedoms… yet, strangely (but rightly), they believe in a woman‘s right to choose. Perhaps this curiosity exists because Planned Parenthood is both socialistic and freedom-oriented at the same time.
So does that mean the Republican party is against Planned Parenthood in order to accommodate the desire of big business for an ever-expanding marketplace? Well, their track record would say “yes“. But whatever their reasoning… surely being against abortions ISN’T about accommodating voters in the Bible Belt. They also 'appear' to be against birth controls (so little is said in favor).
Whatever the case, there is something odd about being
against abortions and being
for birth controls at the same time. To call
one 'killing' and the other 'preventing' is splitting hairs.
Both amount to the same thing... the 'denial of life'. Abortions are
a far more disgusting way to go about it however.
Of course, in order to help keep the population in check would require greatly reducing immigration quotas. We shouldn’t let our sympathies and compassionate nature get the best of us - yielding to these ‘better angels’ will endanger our own survival.
Sometimes our better angels don’t think things through.
So there you have it... the view from my perch in the tree. While the
Tea Party may not see everything I see, I can see most everything they
see. Maybe I contributed something, maybe not.
"A State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly it has preferred to banish." John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
Last modified: 03/10/16