So the "slant-eyes" got it right?

I have somewhat mixed views regarding our Royal Family. While from a Leftist meritocratic point of view I naturally find their positions absolutely impossible to justify, I am nevertheless quite fond of them. Though hard for me to pick a favourate, at the moment Prince Phillip seems to be doing it for me. A television interview this week shows how he believes overpopulation has put too many pressures on the world (Times article). This is something i have long belived in.

Call me a neo-Malthusian if you like, but to me it doesn't take a genius to work out that this Earth of ours can only hold so many people. Yes, we can use technology to increase that number and cram more and more of us on this rock (actual quality of life being another thing entirely) but ultimatly there has to be limits to growth.

World population has rocketed in the last 50 years for the simple fact that people are still being born, but seem to be dying less often. Thats why there are (at time of writing) around 6,757,871,300 of us. That's 6.7 billion to be approximate., and rising rapidly - an extra 200 since I wrote the line above.

And when we reach the limit? A huge population crash, more devestating than any other man- made disaster, and it's likely we'll take the global ecosystem with us. So it's endangered? So what, i'm hungry. That's what it'll boil down to in the end. Since I first started reading about demographics, I have firmly believed that as a species we need to control our own fertility. The Chinese one-child policy is not a nice way for any nation to deal with the problem of too many people, but it is a necessary evil. I for one would be happy to see it rolled out across the whole African continent - the place where the population explosion is most horrific. Should that be successful, it could be rolled out across Latin America and the Middle East (excluding Israel obviously), possibly southern Asia too. With luck we could eventually see global population at 1900 levels.

Of course, it probably won't happen. No government in Africa is anywhere near strong or stable enough to implement such a policy. To have it forced upon the underdeveloped world by the developed nations - despite being entirely for their own good - would probably cause incredible PR problems such that no nation on Earth has the sheer guts to do it. The best we can probably hope for is a plateau at 9 billion in 2050. Though what sort of world it'll be, i shudder to think.

In the course up reading up on this subjuct, I stumbled upon the site of the Optimum Population Trust. Apparently, world population now stands at 6,757,874,151.

And before everything gets too serious, heres an old Duke of Edinburgh related clip from the classic that was Spitting Image.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IAGOIGVC_VU

Potential Swing Voter

Less than 24 hours after losing the Crewe bye-election, Gordon Brown has been involved in talks with Tibetan leader-in-exile, the Dalai Lama. One has to ask if maybe our Prime Minister is considering the pro-Tibet protesters as possible swing-voters.

I for one see know reason why such a meeting should take place. Admittedly from an idealist point of view it would be fantastic if our Dear Leader could facilitate a gradual handover of power to the Tibetan people by acting as an intermediary with their masters in Beijing. Hey presto, la la la la la, free Tibet, etc, etc. This clearly isn't going to happen. Any Tibetan independence will happen long after Gordon has left office (so ......next week?).

Why therefore, knowing the futility of such a plan, would he consider meeting the Dalai Lama worthwhile. I'm not entirely cynical (not yet), and would like to think that GB has at least a little sympathy with the Tibetan cause - he made a distinct decision not to touch the Olympic torch as it passed by Number 10 in April. Maybe like me, he has a genuine hope for a long-term solution to the problem. Or maybe it was just opportunistic electioneering.

Tibet was occupied by the People's Republic of China in 1950. There was no Chinese miliatary presence before this date, quiete a lot afterwards. There was also what could lightly be described as 'significant regime change'. To suggest that Tibet has always been an integral part of China is like suggesting that Iraq has always been a US state. Since that date, ties have been made increasingly strong between the himalayan kingdom and the PRC - continental scale railways for mineral extraction, colonisation by Han Chinese, cultural marginalisation, etc.

And nobody quite knows what to do now; 'Free Tibet' groups demand full indepence, the Dalai Lama himself wishes for only autonomy, and Beijing continues the 'always here, always will be' line. China would like to keep occupying the nation for all manner of reasons - economic, strategic, political- and there would seem to be little ground for negotiation or resolution.

So what was Gordon up to? If anything he was irritating our friends in China. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang was quoted yesterday as saying:

"This is interference in China's internal affairs and also seriously hurts the feelings of the Chinese people"

Well well, we wouldn't want that would we. Interfering in the internal affairs of another nation? cough.. Zimbabwe... cough... arms.... Yes. Lets bear in mind that many Tibetans consider the Dalai Lama their spiritual leader and natural head of state and government... hmm... I'm not a big fan of theocracy but nevertheless, the one thing i'd expect a head of government to be doing is taking some interest in internal affairs. As for hurting people's feelings??

To steal a catchphrase from that vile creature Richard Littlejohn, 'you couldn't make it up'

Having your feelings hurt - PRC style

Truth be told, there's absolutely sod-all Mr Brown can do for Tibet. Any remotely pro-Tibet foreign policy wouldn't go down too well in Beijing; young Milliband would get a less than gratious reception. Even if a united EU and US agreed to take a pro-Tibet stance, it would have little effect. Such is the economic power of the PRC that it doesn't have to care what the world thinks of it. So we boycott their products? There are plenty who wouldn't. Also, selfish though it may seem, your average Brit probabably prefers to have a job, income, and new fridge, to Tibetan independance. Such are the unfortunate realities of a world with an authoritarian superpower.

Besides which, it might spoil the Olympics.

'Ciderite'

(I note that my source for this, BBC news, is treading a very thin tightrope on this issue. Short of a single quote - 'cultural genocide' - from the Dalai Lama, it avoids mentioning any alledged Chinese atrocities. It is also interesting to note that a certain news website was recently unblocked in China for the first time since its inception 18 years ago)