Not too close, but I found it a fun read. Walk on the wild side and maybe right off the edge.
Given the seeming insurmountable problems and crises such as, wars and more wars, environmental calamities and climate change, gross and growing income and wealth disparities, creeping secular and sectarian authoritarianism, nuclear and biologic weapons proliferation and the host of other problems that accompanies humanities death march to Armageddon, there appears to me to be a root cause and a simple solution to the conundrum we find ourselves in.
The cause of our current predicament is that we have too many men in the world today and the solution is to have far fewer of them.
* Trenz Pruca’s diary :: ::
*
Think about it for a moment. Is there any evolutionary purpose served today, outside of transporting and contributing half of the DNA strand to new individuals, of having hanging around a great number of individuals whose sole evolutionary function is to protect the cave from predators (mostly other men) and collecting food while the female of the species is birthing and raising the next generation?
Given that recent human evolution is social and technological, except for the DNA transport function (and even that is presently questionable ) the other functions of the male are mostly well taken care of today (with the possible exception of protection from men themselves).
There are about six or seven billion humans abroad in the world today, about three to three and a half billion are men. That is far too many just to provide for survival of the species and actually may be inimical to that survival. I would guess that we need at most only about one percent of that number, if that much, for species success and genetic diversity.
In a science fiction series the writer cj cherryh posited a community run entirely by women, with the few men there were, like the male lions in a pride, kept in splendid isolation as being to too dangerous and insane to be let loose on the rest of society. This culture worked quite well, with a lot of co-operation among all concerned.
Other writers, mostly men. imagining similar female dominated societies, often pictured them as being ripped apart over conflicts for the few remaining men. (Why do male writers so often picture women as men in dresses with deficient upper body strength? Women are not lesser men.)
Come now, does anyone really believe that woman as a whole would take up arms against one another over a man. Imagine if the “face that launched a thousand ships” were that of Brad Pitt instead of Helen of Troy would the women of Greece take to their boats? I for one find no reason to believe they would be that stupid, after all each of the poor evolutionary irrelevant male creatures provides enough genetic material for hundreds if not thousands of progeny.
Imagine, in such a world the hydrocarbon emission problem would virtually disappear. The sexual sublimation of adolescent boys and young men with cars would be replaced with transportation only needs. Would a woman really need to drill a hole in the ocean a mile below the surface? Not even the metaphor succeeds.
Population pressure will recede. No one can rationally maintain that it is solely women’s thirst for more and more children that lies at the root cause of the population explosion.
And what about meat? The reduction in the consumption of Big Macs, BBQ ribs and steak would plummet, freeing the world environment from the ravages of the inefficient production of meat protein. The reduction of methane production alone from fewer cows as well as men can only be interpreted as environmentally and aesthetically beneficial.
Yes, some will suffer like beer distillers and owners of sports teams and perhaps the porn and sex industries and the like but I am sure that is a small price to pay for the enormity of the benefits.
Does anyone believe that woman in general have wet dreams at night about the glories of social and economic inequality? Would they really have interpreted Darwin’s theories as survival of the fittest? (I suspect Prince Kropotkin rather that Spengler would have been more appealing). Would modern economic theory be more or less Keynesian if it were written by women for women? (We cannot lose sight of the fact that traditional economic theory was for the most part written by men for men)
Think about wars, invented by men to keep down the competition for sexual access and to acquire resources from those who actually produced them (usually woman). Would women really find a need to dress up in uncomfortable military costumes only to mess them up killing one another to prove their sexual attractiveness? They are not so dumb. Don’t you think that even the crazies among the female sex, would resist sending out other women to fight and kill or be killed for a few more acres of land or another barrel of oil or for that matter because we do not like their opponents skin color or the face of their god?
What about the creeping theocratic lunacy afflicting the world today? Imagine say the meeting at a street crossing in old Jerusalem among a group of burka covered muslim woman, a few babushka clad Israeli immigrant woman from the pale and a covey of Irish nuns. Does anyone really see them grabbing knives and guns and killing one another? Insults shouted, maybe a little pushing and shoving, but killing no, and it would soon be over because they all have more important things to do than shout at each other on a street corner.
What about gay men? Would not this society be unfair to them? Given the fact that gay men are still men and historically not above the testicular induced madness to kill one another for no good reason (e.g. Alexander), I have come to the conclusion that we should adopt the system practiced by the american indian as a good solution. That would have the gay men willing to do so going off and living as women in every way feasible. That would also have the practical advantage of immediately reducing the number of the male hormonal addled by ten or fifteen percent. Then the rest of us, straight and gay alike. can go off and live in splendid isolation and save the rest of the world from the plague of our testosterone.
Can anyone out there in the blog-o-sphere think of one crises afflicting the world today that cannot be better handled by women in a world with far fewer men?
