Thursday, October 1, 2009


So here i am. Writing a post. And i have no idea what to write about. Absolutely nothing. Not even ideas like writing about the colour of my socks.
Speaking of socks, my kittens' paws make them look like they're wearing socks.
Yes, i got kittens! (Yes, my post is going to be about my kittens! xD)
They're a month old. Mum found them when they were only a few days old! Our phoolwali told us that their mother had abandoned them and since then, she had been looking after them.
Simba's fur is grey and he looks like a tiger, somewhat. Pebbles is a white, royal, delicate-looking princess.
I have been a very anti-cat person since forever. Now i find myself petting every clean cat I see. It is absolutely weird. I never used to think of cats as graceful or royal or elegant. I used to think of them as catty. Mean. I still know they are. But i want to like them til they prove it to me.
Enough about cats.

Let's talk about poverty and population. Yes. People who take enough interest in politics to find out who won the election before their parents/relatives/people around them started talking about it should have something to say after reading this.

Eradication of poverty. I haven't thought this through, so SOMEbody might prove me wrong. Or not. it's a matter of opinion.
Most of mankind wants happiness and success/satisfaction. Most of it seems to think world peace is what will make give them happiness/success/satisfaction. So problems such as scarcity of resources, water, energy etc, crime, population, illiteracy and all are obstacles in the path to world peace.
My opinion is:
1. Very cruel
2. That people should do what they want how they want to. But only if you want to live life free of dependence on anything but nature and your ecosystem. Basically, if you want to live like Tarzan. Before he went to the city or whatever.
3. If you want to use the resources like those of a dwelling which has been recognised by a mass of people that pretend to rule over it, make the resources YOURSELF or follow the rules set by that mass of people (some places call it a government)
4. NEVER bother other people, unless they bother you. You give what you get. Not always. Only if you want to. It is wrong to expect people to give you anything positive. It is smart to expect people to give you negative.
Let me illustrate with an example.

Lets say person #27 decides to live like Tarzan(not the character, look at no.2!). Lets say many people have chosen to live like Tarzan.
Lets say person #6 decides to give #27 a bar of chocolate. #27 eats the bar of chocolate and enjoys it. And forgets about it. She realises that #6 has stolen her ostrich egg!
This entitles #27 to go and steal #6's peanut sack (assuming a peanut sack is as valuable to #6 as the ostrich egg is to #27).
Here, #27 should have expected danger from #6. And #6 should have expected no mercy from #27, because the bar of chocolate means NOTHING in this set-up. Only harm is recognized. Harm should be expected. If harmed, you are allowed to seek revenge. And if you don't, you cannot expect the harmer to feel any guilt.
Get it?

My other opinion is:
If world peace really IS the way, then out of all the problems like scarcity of resources, water, energy etc, crime, population, illiteracy, deterioration of the environment and all, population is the biggest one.
Everything revolves around population. If the population comes under control, every other problem will be much easier to solve. Because
1. There will be lesser people claiming the world's resources.
2. There will be lesser people polluting the earth.
3. Poverty will decrease.
4. Illiteracy will decrease.
5. And all.

And how do control the suffocatingly ever-multiplying population?
By controlling/eradicating poverty.
If you look at the problem objectively, you will agree that the best way to do this is by, ahem, removing all the poor. From the face of the earth. Something like the Nazis. I said if you look at it objectively!
I'm not saying KILL all the poor, but that if they're dying, LET them!
A lot of the poor don't show an interest in what we call development, i.e education, equal rights, proper economic status. This may be because they don't know the value of these things. So what they don't know can't tempt them, right?
What i'm saying is, there is no point wasting the country's resources on people who aren't going to be able to use them. If the poor want help, they should ask for it. It is wrong for the government to go around chasing them and teaching them the importance of education etc.
We all know that the poor NEED education to protect them from problems like constant indebtedness and all.
But the population increases because of the poor. They end up having many children and adding to the problem. Then they need even more resources and then those children end up being the reason for the hole in the Ozone layer getting a few millimetres bigger. I'm not saying don't help the poor. I'm saying help only those who can benefit and lead a HAPPY life because of the help given. People who cannot be helped shouldn't be helped, if there is someone who can benefit better from the same support.
Anyway. I will come back and edit this later. Maggi beckons. Au revoir!

I'm back! Many weeks later, but I'm back!

I was saying that people who can really benefit and be happy because of the support given to them should be helped and not those who are so desperately unhappy and helpless that the same support will just give them slightly lesser problems, but still leave them unhappy.
See, if we find a way to eradicate/control the poor, there will be only the middle class and the rich left in the country, and they can share all the resources and live happily ever after. if the population has to increase, let the upper classes' population increase. That way they can provide for all children and be happy, because at the most, their wealth will decrease and become that of the middle class or slightly poor, but at least it'll be manageable! And besides, the upper classes (mostly) are smart enough to know what a catastrophe a huge increase in population can cause, and to protect what they have, they will make wise decisions. Even if some idiots manage to make mistakes, it won't cause much harm. No?

Everyone HAS to die eventually. A lot of the poor die young, and while they're alive, their lives aren't very happy. If they're happy being poor, then there's no point trying to help them. Those who are UNhappy, shouldn't be helped and should be allowed diminish and disappear. Yes?

It may be unethical and all, but if ONE move can help build a better, happy future for the survivors, why let ethics stop it?
If one little lie can give courage and strength for someone to grow, it is the right thing to do.
Similarly, if one act (of eradicating poverty like THAT) can help build a happier, better future for the people of two centuries (or so) later, why don't we let it happen?


Comments (even if they disprove the effectiveness of my idea) are welcome :D