Solving the world's overpopulation problems?

[joeblast]

dont got the time for a reply right now aaron, but that's missing most of my points. I dont have any degrees, only professional certifications of varying usefulness. school didnt do a hell of a lot for me, I got where I was because I put in time studying things on my own and had the good fortune to have someone established recognize it and give me an opportunity. these arent hard and fast rules and lots of times the individual interpretations vary, but if you are to broadly generalize, they are absolutely applicable.

[Everything]

You guys are talking about over-population problem. This is a problem that is caused by your level of consciousness, in my opinion. When everyone thinks in terms of scarcity, you have people shouting out "over-population!" This fear that is caused by the media. People keep saying "don't believe the media" but no one actually does it. Just believing that everything is scarce actually makes it so!

 

Where did you guys get the idea of overpopulation? Did you actually do research yourself for it? Or did you accept a conclusion based on a research based on the research based on the research of Mr. Nobody Reporter?

 

When everything in this world is run by politics, the media is included in that aswell. You must ask yourself why the kings of the world would want us to talk about overpopulation problems. Also ask yourself what the kings of the world would get out of it when they made food and shelter freely available for everyone. They'd get ignored and become absolute.

 

These problems don't exist. They are mind games, like a child throwing a ball at you. When you take the ball, they have the right to jump on you and rip your head off, because you joined the game. Do you really want to continue this politics conversation?

 

In science, currently the bottom-bitch of the economy, it is said with technological advancement, we coulden't possibly reach overpopulation, never ever. When the economy is sitting on top of scientific progress, it has no room to breath and grow. Infact, scientists are no longer worthy of the name. They have all become businessmen. Now, do you really think there is an overpopulation problem?

 

If you were the worlds largest food company that developed unhealthy cheap food, and you aimed for monopoly, would you market your food by putting up commercials? No, you'd simply finance media that brainwashes people enough to actually support your unhealthy cheap food production that causes all kinds of ill.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Everything

[thelerner]

You guys are talking about over-population problem. This is a problem that is caused by your level of consciousness, in my opinion. When everyone thinks in terms of scarcity, you have people shouting out "over-population!" This fear that is caused by the media. People keep saying "don't believe the media" but no one actually does it. Just believing that everything is scarce actually makes it so!

 

These problems don't exist. They are mind games, like a child throwing a ball at you. When you take the ball, they have the right to jump on you and rip your head off, because you joined the game. Do you really want to continue this politics conversation?

 

Hmnn, We're worried about over population because of we're unthinking and controlled by media. Do you have solutions beyond stating- there is no problem?

 

The reason its in the news is we just hit 7 billion. There are problems like starvation (millions starve each year, 10's of thousands a day, its a REAL PROBLEM http://www.worldometers.info/ ), there will be future problems of wars over shrinking resources. These aren't made up. You're right, new levels of consciousness might be needed come up with solutions, but you're awfully dismissive to people who are looking for answers.

 

There are intelligent solutions, but burying your head in conspiracy theory, and new ageisms aren't going to be part of it. You can philosphize that the problem doesn't exist, but we're damn lucky we're not the ones facing starvation.

 

Personally I like Heifer.org. Not a perfect solution, but something REAL we can contribute to, to help a little. And enough little can become a force for change.

Edited November 8, 2011 by thelerner

[Encephalon]

You guys are talking about over-population problem. This is a problem that is caused by your level of consciousness, in my opinion. When everyone thinks in terms of scarcity, you have people shouting out "over-population!" This fear that is caused by the media. People keep saying "don't believe the media" but no one actually does it. Just believing that everything is scarce actually makes it so!

 

Where did you guys get the idea of overpopulation? Did you actually do research yourself for it? Or did you accept a conclusion based on a research based on the research based on the research of Mr. Nobody Reporter?

 

When everything in this world is run by politics, the media is included in that aswell. You must ask yourself why the kings of the world would want us to talk about overpopulation problems. Also ask yourself what the kings of the world would get out of it when they made food and shelter freely available for everyone. They'd get ignored and become absolute.

 

These problems don't exist. They are mind games, like a child throwing a ball at you. When you take the ball, they have the right to jump on you and rip your head off, because you joined the game. Do you really want to continue this politics conversation?

 

In science, currently the bottom-bitch of the economy, it is said with technological advancement, we coulden't possibly reach overpopulation, never ever. When the economy is sitting on top of scientific progress, it has no room to breath and grow. Infact, scientists are no longer worthy of the name. They have all become businessmen. Now, do you really think there is an overpopulation problem?

 

If you were the worlds largest food company that developed unhealthy cheap food, and you aimed for monopoly, would you market your food by putting up commercials? No, you'd simply finance media that brainwashes people enough to actually support your unhealthy cheap food production that causes all kinds of ill.

 

Wow. In terms of sheer volume of misinformation, half-baked premises and aggressive ignorance, this post wins awards up and down the spectrum. At least you had enough sense to frame it as your "opinion" rather than attempting to couch it in any factual support.

 

What had me scraping my jaw off the floor was where you asked if any of us had ever researched the subject. It's a bitter testament to the utter failure of public education that you could appeal to so many themes of modern life - media, politics, business - and still fail to even grasp some elementary truths about how many of your fellow human beings can actually live on a planet this size.

 

Yeah, Mr. Everything, some of us went to college and have an ecological education. College is a wonderful privilege, but you don't need a degree in order to read a scientifically-supported article on the state of the earth.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Encephalon

[ralis]

Wow. In terms of sheer volume of misinformation, half-baked premises and aggressive ignorance, this post wins awards up and down the spectrum. At least you had enough sense to frame it as your "opinion" rather than attempting to couch it in any factual support.

 

What had me scraping my jaw off the floor was where you asked if any of us had ever researched the subject. It's a bitter testament to the utter failure of public education that you could appeal to so many themes of modern life - media, politics, business - and still fail to even grasp some elementary truths about how many of your fellow human beings can actually live on a planet this size.

 

Yeah, Mr. Everything, some of us went to college and have an ecological education. College is a wonderful privilege, but you don't need a degree in order to read a scientifically-supported article on the state of the earth.

 

Yes! There is a current of antiscience and anti-intellectualism that pervades this culture. In general, most never challenge their precious preconceptions.

[ralis]

With an increasing world population, I submit that this may become more prevalent as local populations outgrow food supply, water and other basic needs. Part of this problem is caused by human insanity i.e, speculation on commodities by Wall Street that produce nothing and war. Yes, there are drought cycles in Africa. However, droughts may become a critical problem with global warming. Most don't comprehend the critical balance that the earth's climate needs in order to support life. Small changes in temperature, relative humidity and less light can shorten growing seasons, whereby certain crops will not grow or will produce well below average!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/27/somalia-africa-food-crisis-deadly-yet-quiet.html

Edited November 8, 2011 by ralis

[Jetsun]

In Europe the more advanced industrialised nations populations have stagnated which is why many of them are encouraging immigration,

"The total population of the continent of Europe (including Russia and other non-EU countries) already peaked around the year 2000 and as of 2004 is falling" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

This is also the case in countries like Japan and Singapore who are now paying families to have children, so it seems like when a country advances to a certain level it's population growth slows down and then even starts to decline, so maybe this over population problem you are scared about will never happen because as countries like China, India and Brazil advance economically there is every reason to believe that their populations will stagnate.

[Protector]

Humanity always had a way of controlling its population without their own knowing

and this method is called war

[Birch]

I haven't checked out the UN stuff.

What I'm wondering today is this thing about the terms of the problem. It looks (or is made to, I'm damned if I can reach total causality on this one) that "overpopulation" is the cause of all this awful poverty and hunger and violence but what if it were actually the reverse? As pointed to by some of what has been posted so far. Societies' populations drop once they reach some kind of level (is it financial?)

 

I agree that there is an "anti-thinking" tendency on this forum but i also think it's just not obvious (depending on what schooling one got - or despite it:-)) to go into discussions like these with the idea that one knows the answers. Hell, even knowing what questions to ask is hard.

[ralis]

In Europe the more advanced industrialised nations populations have stagnated which is why many of them are encouraging immigration,

"The total population of the continent of Europe (including Russia and other non-EU countries) already peaked around the year 2000 and as of 2004 is falling" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

This is also the case in countries like Japan and Singapore who are now paying families to have children, so it seems like when a country advances to a certain level it's population growth slows down and then even starts to decline, so maybe this over population problem you are scared about will never happen because as countries like China, India and Brazil advance economically there is every reason to believe that their populations will stagnate.

 

It is easy to cite anomalies such as you have. However, one must view the totality of this world system and ask serious questions as to how population growth affects the world. The entire biosphere that we live in, can in no way be considered a linear system. Anyone that has studied non-linear systems can begin to observe the myriad variables that make up this biosphere. All variables impact on other variables. That is to say, that there is not a 1-1 correspondence between 2 variables. Each of those two variables can interact with more than one variable and so on. For more, here is a brief summary.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Edited November 8, 2011 by ralis

[ralis]

I haven't checked out the UN stuff.

What I'm wondering today is this thing about the terms of the problem. It looks (or is made to, I'm damned if I can reach total causality on this one) that "overpopulation" is the cause of all this awful poverty and hunger and violence but what if it were actually the reverse? As pointed to by some of what has been posted so far. Societies' populations drop once they reach some kind of level (is it financial?)

 

I agree that there is an "anti-thinking" tendency on this forum but i also think it's just not obvious (depending on what schooling one got - or despite it:-)) to go into discussions like these with the idea that one knows the answers. Hell, even knowing what questions to ask is hard.

 

Many are afraid to ask hard questions. They fear being wrong or fear the outcome of seeing problems as they truly are.

Edited November 8, 2011 by ralis

[ralis]

I haven't checked out the UN stuff.

What I'm wondering today is this thing about the terms of the problem. It looks (or is made to, I'm damned if I can reach total causality on this one) that "overpopulation" is the cause of all this awful poverty and hunger and violence but what if it were actually the reverse? As pointed to by some of what has been posted so far. Societies' populations drop once they reach some kind of level (is it financial?)

 

I agree that there is an "anti-thinking" tendency on this forum but i also think it's just not obvious (depending on what schooling one got - or despite it:-)) to go into discussions like these with the idea that one knows the answers. Hell, even knowing what questions to ask is hard.

 

There are several sunshine pumpers participating in this thread who value simplistic misguided notions as to how serious problems can be solved. Contained in that mindset, is the denial of problems that are glaringly obvious. One's who are critically influenced by ideology and demagoguery.

Edited November 8, 2011 by ralis

[Encephalon]

In Europe the more advanced industrialised nations populations have stagnated which is why many of them are encouraging immigration,

"The total population of the continent of Europe (including Russia and other non-EU countries) already peaked around the year 2000 and as of 2004 is falling" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

This is also the case in countries like Japan and Singapore who are now paying families to have children, so it seems like when a country advances to a certain level it's population growth slows down and then even starts to decline, so maybe this over population problem you are scared about will never happen because as countries like China, India and Brazil advance economically there is every reason to believe that their populations will stagnate.

 

I believe you are referring to what we geographers call Demographic Transition Model -

where a given pop. goes through periods of industrialization and urbanization and brith/death rates stabilize due to technological improvements in hygiene, health care, better diet, etc.

 

This is not a perfect model and is not applicable when taking into account a worldwide breach in the planet's carrying capacity. The impact of running out of our primary fuel to grow food - petroleum - is also not factored into your assessment.

 

The overpopulation problem that "scares" us is real and is already happening. Granted, the global consumer class could lower their eco-footprint a bit by driving less Hummers and eating less cattle, but the sheer number of people living in poverty (3+ billion living on the equivalent of $2/day) is a separate challenge.

[Encephalon]

There are several sunshine pumpers participating in this thread who value simplistic misguided notions as to how serious problems can be solved. Contained in that mindset, is the denial of problems that are glaringly obvious. One's who are critically influenced by ideology and demagoguery.

 

K does bring up a valid point, though. Aldo Leopold once said that "to live with an ecological education is to live in world of wounds." Not everyone gets a chance to filter certain truths through the prism of corporately-owned commercial media and propaganda. The threat of global ecological collapse is every bit as urgent as our economic collapse but the average consumer of commercial news would have no way of independently ascertaining the gravity of the problem.

 

I personally subscribe to the Buddhist philosopher David Loy who argues that in this age of global interdependency, to speak of pursuing enlightenment in the absence of ecological awareness is a failure of ethical imagination, but electronic propaganda can kill it in its tracks.

[lazy cloud]

Poverty apparently fuels higher birth rates. 99% (not an exaggeration!) of population growth occurs in the developing world. The 48 countries identified as the least

developed expect to triple in population by 2050.

[joeblast]

"Glaringly obvious" - another form of confirmation bias. Simply put, we truly have no idea to what extent the population may eventually be supported here. That doesnt mean that need can't outstrip resource or capacity for generation of such. The infrastructure of the U.S. can support vastly more than the infrastructure of Africa - how is that factored into the total number of people on the planet? (Of course a major interruption would have more catastrophic consequences here as opposed to there - that is something glaringly obvious.)

 

I was wondering how long it was going to be before the AGW straw man was introduced. Trusting predictions 25, 50, 100+ years out from models which rely on relatively arbitrary values of certain coefficients and are incessantly tweaked and re-calibrated to reality more often than some people change their underwear is quite a dubious path to bet the farm on. Proclaiming the relative absence of efficacy of such models doesnt mean one thinks man as a whole has utterly no impact on the environment in which he participates.

 

Nor does it mean he thinks subsidy in any way, shape, or form should not even exist - it obviously has some level of benefit - but like Taomeow's example of Cake, there is a dynamically appropriate range of such; beyond that, yang surges whilst yin is in veritable collapse - before long, they no longer mutually support - that is the gist of my referring to oversubsidization of college degrees, homeownership, welfare, poverty assistance for third world countries, "green" energy, profit, industrial activity...you name it.

Edited November 8, 2011 by joeblast

[ralis]

"Glaringly obvious" - another form of confirmation bias.

 

That is to say that anyone with the capacity to open their eyes and observe without preconceptions. FYI, I spend a good deal of my life outdoors in the deserts and mountains. NM, Colorado, Arizona among others. Have you spent time in the western U.S.? If you ever do, you may eventually understand my point in terms of the obvious. Of course your state of CT is not exactly pristine to say the least.

 

I was wondering how long it was going to be before the AGW straw man was introduced. Trusting predictions 25, 50, 100+ years out from models which rely on relatively arbitrary values of certain coefficients and are incessantly tweaked and re-calibrated to reality more often than some people change their underwear is quite a dubious path to bet the farm on. Proclaiming the relative absence of efficacy of such models doesnt mean one thinks man as a whole has utterly no impact on the environment in which he participates.

 

Nor does it mean he thinks subsidy in any way, shape, or form should not even exist - it obviously has some level of benefit - but like Taomeow's example of Cake, there is a dynamically appropriate range of such; beyond that, yang surges whilst yin is in veritable collapse - before long, they no longer mutually support - that is the gist of my referring to oversubsidization of college degrees, homeownership, welfare, poverty assistance for third world countries, "green" energy, profit, industrial activity...you name it.

 

You and your global warming deniers including the TV weatherman that you so idolize, do not have access to the computing power to create a comprehensive model of global warming. Only labs such as Los Alamos have the computational power to analyze the myriad variables that are part of the biosphere. Therefor, your so called rigorous analysis is not rigorous and only is a critique of partial data. Unless of course you have a computer that can operate in the teraflop range with all the data accumulated to date. I rather doubt it!

 

Even with my math background, which includes utility theory (800 level), I would be a fool to postulate a critique of the current model. However, there are a number of purveyors of pseudoscience that have no academic qualifications that deceive the gullible public with partial truth's and lies i.e, your TV weatherman.

 

 

As far as your analogy of applying yang and yin to your dislikes, the Tao has everything to do with nature being in balance. The Tao is not on your or anyone's side. The Tao is not a magical fairy that you can make a procurement as if it were a business transaction. Further, the Tao will not sprinkle magical fairy dust on the human species before the ship sinks!

Edited November 9, 2011 by ralis

[Aaron]

In regards to the reduced risk of energy problems I mentioned earlier in this thread, I made this decision based on the knowledge that there are trillions of gallons of oil waiting to be tapped within the U.S. alone, once we're able to reach them in an economically viable fashion. Also we're already tapping the Bakken Play, which holds an estimated 100 billion gallons of oil. That oil should make it to market in 5 years or so. My estimates regarding how (un-)dire the situation is, comes from listening to both sides and determining whose agenda seems more nefarious.

 

Now maybe I'm wrong and maybe it will be unfeasible to reach these oil reserves, but even then, I don't think we're without alternatives and considering what Ralis and others have pointed out, the continued use of fossil fuels may have a dramatic effect on the ecology of the planet which could also contribute to the lack of resources.

 

With these factors in play, I think it is all the more important for society as a whole to come up with a viable solution that will prevent the possible mass extinction that could take effect if nothing is done. I think dealing with the population growth is perhaps the most serious, but also one of the most difficult to come to terms with, because it involves some hard truths, not only in looking at our own (the wealthy countries of the world) part in the massive poverty that nearly a third of the world is living in, but also how we can stop this growth in a humane way.

 

I know many think my idea of enforcing a limit on children seems cruel, but remember it is only cruel in the sense that it prevents people from having the number of children they want, in fact to the children that are saved from a life of poverty and death and disease, it is much more kind.

 

Compassion isn't always allowing people to do what they want, sometimes it's preventing them from harming themselves. I would never propose that this should be enforced without the majority's consent either, rather it should only be implemented if there was a final consensus and most people saw the need and decided it was the only viable solution.

 

I hope before it's too late people are educated and come to an intelligent and compassionate decision on their own. In the meantime we shouldn't allow this problem to divert us from other problems that will only exacerbate it, the ones mentioned in this thread as well as others, such as nuclear proliferation and chemical and biological weapons, and the possibility of further ecological disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukashima. As an example, if a nuclear reactor melted down in the North American heartland, it could prevent the agricultural use of that land for decades.

 

In that respect I think this thread is great, because many of us do see how these things are related (and I'm learning more about this relation as a result), but in learning about these things, it's also important to take action before these things can happen.

 

Aaron

Edited November 9, 2011 by Twinner

[Birch]

Well, aside from my egoistic overjoy that I actually 'got a point' somewhere in a discussion I know nothing about (that's very bad of me, but scr*w it, I'm feeling generous with myself:-)) my further point was that posing the problem itself was an issue. What I mean is its very definition conditions the conditions of its resolution (if there is to be one). So in other words, defining it as 'a problem' in the first place is already setting it up. How and why and when could people (aka 'population') ever be a problem? And if so, a problem to who exactly?

[Aaron]

Well, aside from my egoistic overjoy that I actually 'got a point' somewhere in a discussion I know nothing about (that's very bad of me, but scr*w it, I'm feeling generous with myself:-)) my further point was that posing the problem itself was an issue. What I mean is its very definition conditions the conditions of its resolution (if there is to be one). So in other words, defining it as 'a problem' in the first place is already setting it up. How and why and when could people (aka 'population') ever be a problem? And if so, a problem to who exactly?

 

Well look at my example of a certain species entering an area which isn't their natural habitat, they can have dire and catastrophic consequences on the native population. What we do when that happens is cull the invading population, in most cases as humanely as possible. For instance there is a species of tree frogs in Florida that are threatening the native frog populations. The local wildlife groups advocate capturing them and freezing them then disposing of them. It's the most painless way apparently. Now don't suddenly gasp and say, are you insinuating that we should do this to humans, because I'm not, but rather I'm pointing out that we're actually seeing that the rise in population is causing a detrimental effect on the ecology of the world. This, again, isn't debated, but a fact that most scientists agree on.

 

If we know this is happening, then people obviously are becoming a problem. That doesn't diminish the value of a human life though, rather it is a warning sign that we need to find a humane and compassionate solution (one that does not involve freezing people) that will allow us to diminish this detrimental effect.

 

Anyways, you're right people aren't problems, but the behavior that comes along with over population, and the effects this over population will have, is. Denying there is a problem because we see it as being hurtful to the notion of people may not be the best way to view this, but rather to look at the potential problem and solve this.

 

Aaron

[Birch]

Aaron, I promise I won't scream or get squeamish or anything

 

Still, I'm apt to disagree with you on the comparison. People are not frogs - or mice or ants or lizards for that matter (which makes me wonder how they get adopted as models for people, but I digress:-)). So defining the problem in that way doesn't seem to me to be a good idea unless we can really get sufficient, provable alignment with any given model. It really does (to me) mean a very scientific approach that takes everything into account (and not just any one 'branch' of science like economics or ecology).

 

So to start it, one would have to immediately become multi-disciplined. IMO. Hence the 'education' problem.

 

Edit: typo. and spelling. sorry

Edited November 9, 2011 by -K-

[ralis]

 

Nor does it mean he thinks subsidy in any way, shape, or form should not even exist - it obviously has some level of benefit - but like Taomeow's example of Cake, there is a dynamically appropriate range of such; beyond that, yang surges whilst yin is in veritable collapse - before long, they no longer mutually support - that is the gist of my referring to oversubsidization of college degrees, homeownership, welfare, poverty assistance for third world countries, "green" energy, profit, industrial activity...you name it.

 

You indicated in a previous post that you didn't attend college. Do you have personal issues with college graduates?

[Aaron]

Aaron, I promise I won't scream or get squeamish or anything

 

Still, I'm apt to disagree with you on the comparison. People are not frogs - or mice or ants or lizards for that matter (which makes me wonder how they get adopted as models for people, but I digress:-)). So defining the problem in that way doesn't seem to me to be a good idea unless we can really get sufficient, provable alignment with any given model. It really does (to me) mean a very scientific approach that takes everything into account (and not just any one 'branch' of science like economics or ecology).

 

So to start it, one would have to immediately become multi-disciplined. IMO. Hence the 'education' problem.

 

Edit: typo. and spelling. sorry

 

I understand, even if I don't necessarily agree. You have every right to your opinion and my comparison was simply meant to illustrate that we have to do distasteful things sometimes in order to solve problems that involve the ecology. That's one of the reason I made the point of not freezing humans multiple times, because I know some people might take that comment and say, "so you're proposing killing humans?" Again, for anyone else that might come along, I am not proposing that. I don't advocate any solution that involves harming people, including abortion. I am merely saying that in order to solve problems, we sometimes have to do things that we don't feel comfortable with. I have a very hard time with the frog thing, but if it means that I can save the frogs that are indigenous to this area, then I will do it.

 

One of the things I try to advocate to people who are thinking about having children, is to adopt. There are millions of children around the world that need homes, and it's certainly a proactive solution. If you already have a child and are thinking of having a second, then that's even better.

 

Sigh... Now I really regret the frog comment.

 

Aaron

Edited November 9, 2011 by Twinner

[Encephalon]

So to start it, one would have to immediately become multi-disciplined. IMO. Hence the 'education' problem.

 

Might I humbly suggest an alternative? Geography is the study of the earth. It also happens to be one of most hyphenated sciences out there - physcial, cultural, population, environmental, marxist, feminist... you name it. Modern geographical studies borrows and steals from virtually every other academic subject to answer specific questions such as "Why is This happening Here? What accounts for the location of this phenomena?" But it also makes use of Global Studies and human ecology to study the earth as a whole. It's an elegant subject, with vast explanatory power, very Buddhist/Taoist in its Systems Theory approach, and it doesn't take a Phd to enjoy it. Even lower-division classes at the local junior college are enough to blow your mind at just how comprehensible the world can be, depending on the professor, of course.

 

"In regards to the reduced risk of energy problems I mentioned earlier in this thread, I made this decision based on the knowledge that there are trillions of gallons of oil waiting to be tapped within the U.S. alone, once we're able to reach them in an economically viable fashion. Also we're already tapping the Bakken Play, which holds an estimated 100 billion gallons of oil. That oil should make it to market in 5 years or so. My estimates regarding how (un-)dire the situation is, comes from listening to both sides and determining whose agenda seems more nefarious."

 

I don't know how you managed to scrounge up this data, Aaron, but it's grossly in error. The amount of energy required to release oil from shale requires an amount of energy equal to or greater than the energy you'd end up with, not to mention having to drain Lake superior to get enough fresh water to steam clean the oil out of the sand. The only reason this story continues to have viability is because the oil companies are positioning themselves for the go ahead... as long as the extraction costs are borne by the public treasury. The profits, of course would be privatized.

 

http://www.theoildrum.com/

Oildrum

Edited November 9, 2011 by Encephalon

[Birch]

Sounds good! Although all I seemed to have learned in geo class was how long it would take me to die if I was in the centre of a nuclear explosion, a few things about marshes vs stone and which countries on the globe (at the time) were pink vs blue.

 

What level does one have to get through before all the stuff you mention kicks in?

 

Edit: it's uncannily like Taoist alchemical practices :-)

Edited November 9, 2011 by -K-