Let's make 'grassing' cool

‘Grassing’ is good. No, honest, it’s good to be a ‘grass’. It’s only those who are doing something wrong that want you to believe that ‘grassing’ is not good. Think about it.

‘Grassing’ is the act of discreetly informing the relevant authorities (that could mean a parent, a teacher, an employer, or the police) about something that’s been done by somebody else towards a victim. It’s about helping the victim. It’s about getting the wrong-doer to stop doing wrong.

I mean, if you saw a young baby being punched and kicked, you’d want the person hurting the baby to stop, right? Would you really be happy to just let it carry on because you “ain’t a grass”? Would you?

Yet drilled into so many humans by the bullies in their community is the idea that to do anything to stop the bullies is to somehow break some weird code of conduct. The code of conduct is that you don’t ‘grass’ but you let the bullies get away with whatever they wish. How mad is this? Yet it’s accepted by so many communities because they can’t see how they’ve been manipulated by the criminals into thinking ‘grassing’ is wrong. No, no, no, no, ‘grassing’ is NOT wrong.

People will say, “I ain’t a grass” when asked for help to stop the bullies and perpetrators of crimes, which lets them carry on with their crime wave producing yet more victims. Victims of not only the bully but also the person who won’t ‘grass’. The person not ‘grassing’ is producing new victims. Are they happy to do this? It seems so. New victims of robbery, of assault, of bullying are being made every day because of this nonsense about not ‘grassing’. Indeed, people who do ‘grass’ are then themselves victimised with quite horrifying results to reinforce the ‘never grass’ message to others, such is the control by fear that the bullies have over communities.

However, and here’s the thing, the world would be a far better and safer place if ‘grassing’ was not only acceptable, but also cool. How’s about making it a crime and a stigma to not ‘grass’. Imagine communities hovering around a person goading them because they had NOT ‘grassed’. That’s where we should be if we really want safer communities with respect instilled into everybody rather than the current climate of fear.

Break free I say, reclaim your dignity and ‘grass’ away today.

Author: Christopher England

Why treat other criminals differently to kiddie fiddlers?

It is a general rule of societies in the ‘civilised’ world to despise and ostracise paedophiles. We want them castrated, branded, not living among us, and really, I suppose, we want them dead. If we can’t have them dead, we at least want them locked up and the key thrown away.

To me, this is perfectly acceptable treatment for somebody who has ruined another human’s life. The bit I don’t understand is why our desire to treat offenders against humanity in this way stops with those into child pornography and child abuse. Why aren’t we doing this with everybody?

I don’t mean to distract from the living hell that an abused child carries with them into adulthood and for the rest of their life, but surely a person who holds another captive and tortures and punches them about in order to get them to hand over their old age pension, or those who have murdered, should equally be cast out from our society. Some might argue that taking a life is a far worse sentence for a victim than sexually abusing them. Yet we don’t want to inflict the castration, branding, exclusion from living among us, or death on anybody but the paedophile.

Am I alone in not getting this?

I’m all for an ‘offenders’ register, and ‘offenders’ who have comitted crimes in which there were victims being treated the same as the paedophiles. This is what all offenders deserve instead of almost gaining kudos and notoriety as if they’d effectively done nothing but a cool thing.

Only when we treat all criminals with the same disdain and disgust that we treat paedophiles with will we actually start to make our homes and daily lives safer and cast this evil from us.

Author: Christopher England

The truth can't compete with old books

What’s the best way to inject a theory or a fact or information into the system?

Let me expand. Supposing you want to very swiftly make a lot of people believe something. It doesn’t have to be untrue, unusually for this day and age, it could be actually be true. However, you want to place this idea or information into society and to get it believed or supported. What medium should you use?

Probably your first thought is television. Wrong. Radio? Nope, but that comes second. Internet News services? Nope. Social networks? Nope. You need to be in print.

The main print media that people believe is a book. Next comes a newspaper. Yes, they'll read some of the wordy newspapers that have been written a bit like books and they may vaguely take on board what they read.  However, they are far more likely to question the contents than they are to question the contents of books.

Ok, here’s how it all works: It’s important to target the chattering middle classes. They are the ones who help shape consensus thinking. They always have been and always will be. What they think matters, regardless of whether millions of the lower and more gullible classes have opinions about anything beyond who should be voted out of the Big Brother house, or who should win the X Factor. The lower classes can’t actually do anything with real information, which is why they are given so much pointless information to fill their mainly vacant minds with, to keep them occupied and to stop them annoying the chattering classes.

It is the chattering classes that network and control and shape and decide what’s what. It is the chattering classes we must target with our information or ‘truth’.

Now, apart from obscure programmes on obscure TV channels like BBC4, the chattering classes don’t really watch TV.  Well, they might watch Newsnight if they feel a bit of very light trivial entertainment is in order.  They do also listen to the serious programmes on Radio 4, but they only trust people they hear on Radio 4 who’ve written books.

You may be able to Twitter or use the blogosphere to reach them, as a lot of them are sold on the non-Facebook aspects of social media, but like with TV’s Newsnight, they won’t think of your information as anything but trivia because the words you’ve written are not on paper.

The need the chattering classes have to only accept the pre-printed word as having any value originates at University.  Institutions of learning are not ever at the forefront of knowledge or forward radical thinking.  They tend instead to be bastions of tradition and ancient stability.  Knowledge to these institutions means books, especially old books.  Traditionally books were the tools of the intellectuals and scientists, hence why book burning was common in ancient times when the lower class peasants revolted and destroyed these things they’d not learned to read or to use, but instead feared because they appeared to give the gentry power over them.

Universities may well have embraced technology and tomes of information may well be stored electronically, but the server rooms are not as fiercely guarded and protected as their libraries.  Books even in this modern age still hold the power and ultimate knowledge.  The older the book, the more power it commands. That’s what is taught even if it not actually said.

It doesn’t even matter if what’s written in the book is proven to be completely wrong or in need of a rethink, it will still have power to smite even the most highly researched and presented tv documentary, because the chattering classes will favour its printed words over the words of a human speaking in front of them via a television.  Again, the older the book, the more power it has to smite the televisual presentation.

Remember, the chattering classes have been trained to think and believe this whilst they were at University, and they know no other reaction or ability to reason, and have no motivation to question their programming.

Indeed, the printed word is so important at University level that in order to prove themselves worthy of being labelled a Degree or above holder, the University attendee even has to produce their own printed words.  Failure to do so means, well, failure.

The book is never questioned.  It is the conch shell.

In other words, this entire article that I’ve written has been a waste of time, yet at the same time it will prove my point perfectly.  The chattering classes will neither consume nor consider these words even if they stumble upon them.

These words can’t and won’t be taken seriously by the chattering classes because these words are not printed words in an old book, so there is no way I can actually inject a new idea into their chatter is there?

Author: Christopher England

Can we de-program suicide bombers?

On Christmas Day yet another poor soul carried out his programming to blow himself up on an airliner and kill all its occupants in the name of a version of Islam. Luckily for the innocents on board he was unsuccessful in his bid to martyr himself, and was overpowered and arrested. Then earlier this month we had the episode with the fully loaded car bomb in New York, which again, purely due to incompetence and luck, didn't go off.

Yet, I still remain fascinated by the power of the hypnotism process which will convince people so young to want to blow themselves up in such a way.

I have long marvelled at the mind control shown on TV by people like my hero Derren Brown, yet supreme as his power is, he seems to be completely outshone by the hypnotic and suggestive powers of those who are controlling this dangerous version of Islam. Or maybe he isn’t. Maybe it’s exactly the same technique, but Derren Brown just doesn’t inject a command to kill and die because he’s got a moral code that says it’s wrong (or wouldn’t make for good telly!). But, maybe he could. I’d be interested to know if the whole process is the same or different.

If it’s more or less the same, then surely we need to start teaching people, especially young Muslims, how to resist the powers of auto-suggestion and mind control, or at least how to know when it’s likely to be happening so that they can protect themselves from being turned by others into human bombs.

Nobody in their ‘right mind’ truly wants to hurt and maim, or even kill themselves. Only by being in an ‘altered state’ is the logic defied and the need to commit cold and callous carnage switched on. Our trick must be to teach self-awareness and self-protection, not to mention self-respect and self-determination to somehow switch off the ‘altered state’ that’s been successfully planted and induced by Al-Qaeda or those who trade under similar aliases.

A program in the schools, colleges and universities of awareness and the teaching of the ‘antidote’ could be provided without any disrespect to Islam or its teachings, and could maybe be introduced to mosques and places of Muslim worship. To be able to ‘shield’ the minds of the poor souls from being controlled and used as bombs would be a major step forward in defusing the escalating situation.

We should implement this now in order to save all the innocents - the bombers and their victims.

Author: Christopher England

Scepticism is good

Quite a few decades ago when the thought-gods of environment were telling their drones what to believe about the evils of nuclear power back in the 1980s, I remember an ordinary guy called Ben.  He was completely hooked by the environmental religion of the time and on the different days I’d seen him would engage with me in the various discussions about how he was right and I was wrong in our respective world views.

Well, ok, it was really down to me provoking him after I’d seen the relevant anti-whatever badge he was wearing in with all his other anti-whatever badges.  So, I asked him what he knew about how nuclear power worked.  He told me it was something to do with radioactivity which was dangerous and would build up and explode killing millions and making the place uninhabitable for millennia to come.  I replied that I still wanted to know how nuclear power worked.  His response was that it was unnatural and unstable and that burning coal was far less dangerous.  His movement wanted an end to any nuclear power programme and the continuance of coal fired power stations.

Ironically, like most green drones, he probably won’t recall to this day that his environmental religion was so pro the burning of the same fossil fuels they’ve decided they now hate, and so anti the more cleaner ways of generating electricity 30 years ago.  Yep, his thought-gods were telling him to support doing all the things that his same environmental religion would some years later say shouldn’t be done and are behind the currently imagined ‘global warming’.  Anybody else notice this amusing complete about-turn by the environmental thought-gods?  But I thought the environmental thought-gods were always completely right about everything!  Maybe not, eh?

Anyway, I still wanted to know from Ben exactly how nuclear power created electricity.  After a long period of all the knee-jerk scare phrases he’d been programmed with about skin melting and slow deaths from radiation sickness he finally admitted he didn’t actually know.  He assumed some radiation somehow crossed over into the national grid from some weird ‘unnatural’ nuclear reaction.  In other words, he was anti and fearful of something he knew nothing about.

That puzzled me.  I think it’s the same mentality that makes people fear humans with different colour skin or a completely different religion if they’ve never encountered them before.  Those who protest the loudest usually know little of that which they fear and so they irrationally become anti it.  I’d imagine a space alien making first contact with humanity would be met with considerable fear because they are the ‘unknown’ and so a major reaction from the far greater number of the population would be to deal with the situation by just killing them.

A smaller number would want to learn more about them and get to know them.  They’d want to understand them, learn from them, get to know what they knew, and cautiously trust them until there was any real evidence that they couldn’t be trusted.

I fall into that camp.  And so when it came to nuclear power I’d looked into it and understood from a layman’s perspective how it worked.  There was a logic to it, although I was actually disappointed that it wasn’t more magical.  Electricity is generated by steam turbines.  The steam comes from boiling water.  You boil the water with a heat source.  Traditionally the heat was from burning coal or oil.  Setting up a natural nuclear reaction also created heat, which, exactly the same as with fossil fuel burning, heated up water to make steam.  Boring really.  And disappointing.  No magical radiation infusing itself into the national grid.  Yet, I knew how it worked whilst Ben didn’t despite him ‘knowing’ it was 'bad'.

One of the fascinating things about those who fear whatever they’ve been told to fear (Remember only 50 years ago it was a nuclear war they were convinced was about to happen.  This got replaced by the fear that we were entering a new ice age.  Then it was how all the earth’s resources were running out.  Then the ozone layer.  After that it was ‘global warming’.  That’s recently been re-branded as ‘climate change’.  Who knows how many other imaginary bogey-men they’ll have been terrified of over the next 50 years!) is that they close their minds to reason or logic.  Theirs is a blind faith.  I’ve rightly called it a religion.

In opposition to faith, science actually works by constantly remaining sceptical and testing and re-testing a theory, and maybe fine-tuning that theory or even discarding it when it can’t be proven.

However, faith sees ‘scepticism’ as an enemy.  Today’s sceptics over ‘climate change’ are called ‘deniers’ by those blindly following the current environmental faith.  It’s a way of associating them with those who deny that the Holocaust ever happened, to make sceptics evil and the idea of asking questions or challenging the thinking or re-examining the ‘science’ a bad thing.

Let’s just consider that.  A world in which it is wrong to challenge excepted truths or explore alternative ideas and concepts?  Well, that’s the world the environmental faith wants.  If it was up to these people then ‘knowledge’ would still claim that the earth is flat and the sun moves across the sky.

Scepticism is good.  We need sceptics.  And we need the data behind any conclusions those with ‘faith’ adopt and close their minds to discussion about.  We need to see the ‘working out’ so that we can arrive at the same conclusions.

However, the environmental faith withholds this data from the sceptics.  It loses and destroys it.  Instead it shouts angrily that the newly declared truth is the only truth and anybody not accepting it is the enemy of the world and should be hounded and silenced.

Not far off what was said by the faith of the day when sceptics were starting to learn that the world was round.  Will we ever learn?

Author: Christopher England

Your child abuse must stop!

As if with one voice we condemn child abuse. But, we think of acts of cruelty against children as being the more obvious acts that cause physical pain or discomfort, or the awful starving or torturing to death we hear stories of from time to time. Most ‘ordinary’ parents don’t think of themselves as committing acts of cruelty against their children.

However, these are the parents who are probably quite happy to commit acts of physical as well as mental abuse against their own children without even realising what they are doing. They’ll probably abuse their child because their parents abused them.

On the physical side, without consultation or the permission of the child, parents will arrange for a circumcision. This means, for reasons that have no basis in medicine or science, the parents decide to remove a part of the penis. Jews and Muslims will do this because an ancient religion they never question tells them to. It’s crossed over to other religions as a ‘trendy’ modern form of abuse against a baby.

Far less dramatic, yet still a physical abuse is the habit of piercing the ears of a baby. This abuse is because the parents have decided that their child will wear jewellery. Again, the baby is far too young to be consulted. Instead, the parents have imposed their view on the innocent child. Indeed, before the child even understands what they are, it will have had studs stapled through the wounds imposed into its ears.

The greater form of child abuse practised by parents is the mental one.

A child gives its parents unconditional love. It knows nothing else, and it looks to its parents to be its guardians and to guide its understanding of all this newness that surrounds it. Making sense of things is so difficult. Yet rather than really help, the first thing a lot of parents will do is subject their child to the ritual abuse handed down over the years; the abuse of distorting reality.

The first abusive distortion of reality is the lie about Father Christmas. Instead of putting across the fun of Father Christmas as they would with any other childhood fun, parents will indoctrinate the child into believing that Santa is real. They don’t do this with Disney characters or cartoons, but they do it about Father Christmas. How can this be anything but the abuse of an innocent and trusting child?

As the child gets older they are told lies about the tooth fairy. It’s the parents’ fun little joke and the child is again the victim of the abuse. They trust unconditionally and know no better. They aren’t able to understand that their parents find this cruelty hilarious.

There are other lies the parents like to torture their children with, ranging from the bogeyman living in the wardrobe to the monster under the bed. Then, of course the biggest lie of all will be forcing the innocent child to believe that there is a god, and, depending on the religious choice of the parents, all the peripheral characters of the religion they have chosen.

A child never chooses to believe in a god, its parents force it upon them, along with all the other lies that seem obligatory for childhood.

As a child gets older and starts to work things out for itself, it soon realises with quite an awful sadness that Santa doesn’t really exist. Sadly, the parents usually laugh and are high with glee when the child has the revelation. It’s a revelation that usually accompanies what should be the happy and innocent time of Christmas and the Holiday season, but mars it and scars the child for life. The child gets shouted at for being so soft and for not appreciating the hilarity of the wind-up they have been the victim of.

As the child progresses, other abusive lies are revealed, and it’s not long before the tooth fairy can be dismissed as another bit of parental cruelty.

However, long into adulthood the fear of the dark and the monster under the bed that the parents indoctrinated the child with remains, such is the victory of the cruelty.

Likewise the religious mumbo-jumbo that parents have fed their children. That is very hard for a child to break free from. Although more and more are breaking free as humanity progresses, there are still adults with a belief in a god and the surrounding structure of the particular religion their parents forced on them from birth. Like with the fear of the dark, religion is quite a hard one to grow out of because it’s designed to not allow the mind to break free.

It can be a lot easier to submit to and not question the religion that parents forced upon a child than to break free from it. Indeed, part of the ritual structure of the religion is designed to re-self-hypnotise and to keep the mind from free thinking or questioning the logic. The same mind that questioned and worked out the lie about Santa and the lie about the Tooth Fairy is not allowed to question the lie of the religion. Anybody questioning is of course going to be subject to terrible punishment later in life, or, in death. It’s very hard to break free when surrounded by the constant reinforcement of the abuse, and so quite often a child will develop Stockholm syndrome with regard to the religion being practised around them. It takes a strong mind to break away from this constant and ritual mental abuse.

I don’t believe children should be abused in the way they are. I don’t believe they should have bits cut off of holes punched in them, or their minds filled with any of the ritual lies I’ve described.

It’s about time that parents found committing any of these acts of abuse were prosecuted and punished.

Author: Christopher England

Why aren't there any revolutionary pirate radio stations?

Broadcasting radio without a licence can be fun, although of course you shouldn’t try this at home.  As long as technically your transmissions are not causing anybody any grief, as in, you aren’t causing maydays from aircraft to go unheard or the little old lady next door to not be able to watch Corrie, then what’s the problem?  Nothing.  But it is against the law and you can be very heavily fined or go to prison for far longer than if you’d decided to systematically torture and kill a child.

Today there remain up to a hundred radio pirates around the UK, and in all cases they are using their transmitters for the subversive purpose of, erm, playing music.

Hmmm.  Now, this is the bit I don’t really get.  Ok, for those currently producing the next big thing, pirate radio is the only way to get said next big thing to the people, assuming that radio is still the method of delivery to the masses (There’s an argument that it no longer is).  Legal radio, with the possible exception of the BBC’s digital only station 1Xtra, refuses to ‘break’ the new and unsafe.  Definitely this is the case with the commercial sector. The next big thing has to already be the now big thing before commercial radio will touch it.  The only exception of course being anything produced via one of Simon Cowell’s hour long pop promotional TV commercials like the X Factor.

Most of today’s pirate radio is in the hands of da yoof, and those most likely to be producing the next best thing.  However, excitingly, there are a tiny handful of old folk who have being playing at piracy for decades.  What wise and alternative radio can we expect from these fellows (it’s always men, never women) in their 40s and 50s?  Will they use their hijacking of the airwaves to bring down the Government or to say “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take this any more!” as they orchestrate the revolution?

Nope, damn it. They’ll play nice safe pop and rock records from over 30 years ago.  The same safe records that the commercial sector plays.  Some of these granddad pirates will even go through all the expense and danger of putting on a transmitter in order to play recordings of entire radio broadcasts made over 30 years ago.

They’ll do this not because it’s a rousing speech or landmark revelation that was broadcast 30 years ago and we need it to re-educate the population or give them hope, but because it’s something safe and bland and represents some imagined safe and bland childhood they think they may have had.  Bizarrely, all that the recording contains is a safe radio station of the day playing safe records that were current when the tape was recorded but are now 30 years old and even safer.  Surely this is the behaviour of people with a mental condition you may suggest.

Who knows.  It’s certainly not radical behaviour.  It is the behaviour of old and pointless pirates.  It is a waste of the potential power to empower that truly free radio should have.

Look.  We have a confused country limping its way into becoming a third world nation.  We have fearful futures with the undead like Tony Blair and his New World Order about to take control of us from a central command centre in Europe.  We have global warming or destruction or whatever else we can find to be paranoid about.  We have whole sectors of the population feeling disenfranchised, frightened, troubled, angry and suspicious of each other and everything around them. We want to be free.  We are fed up with being so overcrowded, so alienated, so used and so abused.  We want to hear people who sympathise with us being as mad as hell and not wanting to take it any more.

So what do the pirate radio stations run by the old people do?  They put their fingers in their ears and play Devil Gate Drive by Suzi Quatro.  Jeez.

We have racial disharmony, homophobic attacks, anger, guns, drugs out of control, confusion and fear.  The old people are wise.  They can call for calm or call for revolution.  They can speak of solutions that the politicians daren’t speak of, or don’t want us to consider or know exist. These are our needs.  So the old pirates give us Popcorn by Hot Butter.

It is time that the grass roots rebelled instead of being so compliant.  It is time that pirate radio meant wise words showing us how to think freely and outside of the corporate politically correct box.  But, we get Una Paloma Blanka.

Pirate radio operators from the older generations should be absolutely ashamed.

Author: Christopher England

Tie means a lie so you buy

Body language is a funny thing. Through it, you can supposedly tell all you want to know about a person. But there are some people who are a little too confused to pick up on body language. For these people, the tie was invented.

It’s called a tie, because it rhymes with ‘lie’ and also ‘buy’.

Broadly speaking, the people you meet who are wearing a tie have something they want you to buy. To get you to buy it they will probably lie.

Nature has kindly provided this tool of identification for potential victims who are unable to read the more subtle body language such as the huge insincere smile. The crazy thing about nature’s trick is that the wearers of ties don’t realise that it is the equivalent of a huge flashing neon sign saying “Con man approaching”; they just wear it obliviously.

Some men try to outsell each other, and so they will enter into battle armed with ties. The most expensive tie will battle the cheaper tie, and use as intimidation the fact that they cost more. A group of men wearing ties and sitting around a table at a meeting are all trying to lie to each other and sell their lie. Yet, nobody at the meeting will realise that they’ve all given themselves away by wearing ties in the first place.

Honest people don’t wear ties. They are happy to be open (necked) and to tell the truth, even if they are trying to sell something. They aren’t trying to rip you off.

Men are far too stupid to finally confine the tie to history and start to wear more relaxed and complimentary attire. But in the meantime at least we all know. If he’s wearing a tie he ain’t a high flyer – just another liar.

Author: Christopher England

Time keeps on slipping slipping slipping into....

The Passage of Time: Time and time again I hear people discussing how fast time seems to be going. They have a whole range of theories as to why this seems to be happening, from the speeding up of the general exploding outwards that is the Universe, to end of the world alien intervention.

Years and years ago I remember my granny saying, "Oh Christopher, just look at you. Haven't you grown! My, it only seems like yesterday that I stood you in the sink and washed you down. I can't believe you're out of nappies and such a grown man." I used to think she was a stupid old biddy, plot to remove her vocal chords, and I've no idea why she eventually went missing presumed dead, honestly officer.

Anyway, here I am a number of years later, and what can I say. I met up with someone I'd not seen for over 10 years, and they had a 12 year old son. I immediately found myself thinking, "God, doesn't time fly. I can't believe you're out of nappies and such a grown man." Luckily I was able to hold my tongue so this evil statement didn't slip out to prove that I was a nerdy old person in the eyes of this poor fella.

But it got me thinking, didn't it. Why does time seem to go so fast the older you get? Being your planet's most intelligent item meant that it wasn't long before I came up with the answer. So, if anybody ever engages you in this conversation about time flying, tell them this:-

Your mind has a finite depth. Imagine it is a piece of A4 paper. It has a fixed length and width. Imagine that it takes 10 seconds to scan and read everything on that piece of A4 paper. Regardless of what's on it, it takes 10 seconds to scan from one side to the other.

Now, as soon as you are born, or maybe even before that, all of your experiences fill that piece of A4 paper. There are never any gaps, the paper is always completely full. There are no empty bits waiting to be filled. It doesn't work like that. One day's worth of experiences, if that's all you've had, will fill the entire paper. One century's worth of experiences, if that's what you've had, will fill the entire paper. As more experiences are added, the size of the space being taken up by the previous experiences reduces in size to accommodate the recording of the additional experiences. Existing experiences are always reducing in size to allow the new experiences in.

So, you get the idea that the size of the container stays the same, but the concentrate within the container increases. Looking at the piece of A4 paper concept, right, it still takes 10 seconds to completely scan from one side to the other. That scanning speed can't alter. However, far more information will have sped past during that 10 seconds if the paper contains a century's worth of experiences than if it only contains a day's worth. Thus, the perception will be that the same 10 second scan from one side to the other will be faster the more experience that's recorded there. The perception will be that time has moved faster the fuller that page is of information, when comparing a 10 second scan taken when you are a day old to a 10 second scan when you are a hundred years old. So, it's the comparison between how much information you used to pick up during the 10 second scan, compared to the huge amount more you pick up nowadays, that makes you think time seems to be getting faster.

I've cracked it. Time isn't moving faster, I'm just getting a whole lot older!

Damn.

Author: Christopher England

Our over-eating over-population

We are coming to the end. The world has become over-infested by the human species and we have broken it. The planet has no option but to see us slowly fade and die, as all infestations surely do. I don't think we'll be happy about it though and will die screaming.

You'll have seen films of soldier ants or swarms of locusts slowly but steadfastly devouring the landscape leaving nothing but baron earth in their wake. We humans are no different. We have raped this planet, gorged on its fruit and over-populated it to a point where there isn't even enough space left to produce the food we need.

Every human-being consumes food. To produce that food we need space on the Earth for it to grow or graze. There is a formula that suggests that each human needs a set number of hectares of space just producing the food for their consumption. We've run out of space.

If we all lived like the average Rwandan, the Earth could support 18 billion people. If we all lived like the average Indian the Earth could support 15 billion. But if we want to enjoy the living standards of the average American, then the Earth can only support 1.5 billion. Right now there are 7 billion of us across the world, and we are running out of food resources to use to keep us alive and to keep feeding the ever increasing population. Eventually it will all run out and the amount of people starving to death won't just be confined to the desserts of Africa, but to the wealthier West. Europe and America won't be able to produce enough food, there will be riots and fighting and death as chaos descends on all nations.

There is nothing that can be done. We will continue to reproduce at a phenomenal rate and we will enter a period of time when we will have a level of hardship and poverty never experienced before, and that's when we will truly turn on each other.

There will be survivors, true.  The world has seen the over-population of humans before, and they too have been wiped out leaving the mysteries and wonders for the descendants of the more isolated survivors to eventually behold.

For the majority of us, we are less than a decade away from our end.

We only have ourselves to blame.

Author: Simon Chadwick