User:Woodnot

subpage

These are my answers to the questionaire about the RfA.

A1 It could be countered by removing more personal questions.

A2 You could put more information about administration on the main page.

A3 I don't see a problem with co-nominations but if it's a problem a quota would be useful.

B1 One way that questions could be limited could be to reveiw there work on Wikipedia.

B2 Questions that should be off-limits should be be personal questions like; Age, Sex, Relationships.

B3 One way could be to stick to the administrators "policies" and nothing else.

B4 I beleive it should be based purely on votes and that non-editors should be allowed to take part.

B5 Certainly! But should't all editors have a go.

B6 I will repeat my answer to question B3, it should just be there policies there talking about in there adverts.

C1 Possibly by giving complex spelling and grammar courses for candidates.

C2 I think candidates should be mentored, and that is similar in both ideas.

D1 Possibly by stopping candidates who have abused Wikipedia from going through.

D2 That each Recall should have one question or more that is the same in all of them and I suppose it should be the responsibillity of the Bureacrats.

D3 The Recall should be made stronger and various Editors should be given the chance to become an administrator through messages.

D4 It could be a form of master peice such as correcting a highly un-obvious mistake , or writing a highly informative and accurate Document.

E1 My answer to A would be to come up with a question to find traces of being a vandal and B to ask more questions concerning the communitys ideals.

E2 I have not taken this examination conciously, so all ,y answers are in a way invalid, but I do think the personal elements should be removed.

Part 1, an introduction

I'm not going to give my identity or any clues as of yet, thats just common sense. However I will give bits of information on the way, as I voice my opinion on certain subjects. I have plans to enter politics, either in an existing party, or in a completely new party of my own founding. If would like you to (if you want to) to tell me through my talk page (which can be found on the discussion pages of Wild dogs and Tool use in animals) which ideologies this sounds like, whether their are any existing parties with opinions like this, and possibly a name for a party based around these principals.

Part 2, Why War must be permitted

Now I am going to talk mainly about how pacifism (particularly pacifism expressed through people who have not experienced war) has aspects that make it like a form of neo-imperialism. I am also going to talk about how War is useful, if not nessacary to the long term survival of the human race and why the alternatives to this are (in my opinion) less moral and ethical than actual war.

Pacifism is the beleif in absolute non-violence, an early pacifist being Jesus (although part of his arrest and crucifixtion was about inciting violence, which could imply he had other teachings that haven't been discovered yet) and an early pacifist organisation being the Quakers.

One thing that most pacifists have an emphasize on is submission. Their international colour is white, the colour of the peace flag, which is also the colour of the armistice flag (i.e. the same thing). One of Jesus' famous teachings was "when one neighbour hits you in the face, turn the other cheek", the most obvious interpretation of both of these facts is that these pacifists expect people (or at least followers) just to do whatever other people tell them to do in order to avoid conflict. Incidently, this is just the dream of imperialists, that the people they intend to rule over would just role over on their backs before them (metaphorically speaking). This is probably one of the reasons why great imperialists like Charlemaign chose Christianity to be their state religion. Ofcourse if "everyone" was like this then their probably wouldn't be any real imperialism, but as soon as "someone" decided not to be like this they would have a major imperial advantage over "everyone else". Also, not all pacifists are submissive, both Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King and their followers all stood up to the imperialists of their time, never submitting, and never using violence (well, many of their former followers got frustrated with the lack of results so broke of and formed millitant organisations, plus there was that moment at Selma where after a very bloody beating by the police when trying to cross the bridge the first time, the second time they just knelt down and prayed in front of the police (although this wasn't real submission, it was just a way of sticking there two fingers up at the authority)).

Another thing that pacifists often call for is unity for all of man kind, i.e. bending the swords into plowshares and spears into sickles and working the land together. Incidently, "unity" is usually the aim of "unification" which is often an act of imperialism. So heres an summise of unification; one country takes over other countries with something in common, which could be as tiny and insignificant as living within a certain area. This can be done through millitary force or by making agreements with that countries government or even its people through referendums. Once they take over, they get to the work of consolidating there power by making everything in their country the same. This usually means changing weights and measures, money, writing, language, religion and/or beleifs and other culture and customs to either that which the "unifier" is used to or to a composite of the various peoples ideas which is usually sterile by comparison to the idividual ones. Often only a few people actually benefit from this unification i.e. the rich. Often it doesn't even bring peace, because some of the people will begin to realize that they are different from the rest, that they are a nation, and will start to dream of their own nation state, and some of these people will be willing to fight for it. As a result these supposedly unified countries get overun by civil war.

At the moment, most peoples culture is in some way affected by the main imperial power of today, America. In Britain (where I come from) American culture is highly common to an extent that some people say that Britain is a cheap version of America. This is due to the fact that we are highly dependent on America for trade, and sice America has the higher GDP, they ultimately call the shots. But theres no need to worry, for us at least, because American culture is mainly a composite of Germanic culture (German, Dutch, Belge, Nordic and Icelandic, English and Lowland Scot etc) and Celtic culture (Highland Scot and Irish etc) plus a sprinkling of other cultures such as West African, Russian, Mexican, Chinese etc. All of which when composed together are then warped by into their current form by two things, Capitalism and Consumerism. Ofcourse since America has no desire to take over the world (Although American multi-nationals (along with most other multi-nationals) certainly want to milk it) they will ultimately never realy damage world culture unreparibly, and there are still plenty of things that are distinctly British (such as the "steam" "train" which although badly damaged as an industry in Britain is still in use in Britain and the globe).

However their is a force that could be much more damaging, the EU. Currently, the EU can be thought of as a super-state, in that it has all the qualitys of a state, a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and even the ability to interact with other states outside its own borders. At the same time, all the member states have exactly all of these qualitys. It also acts as an imperial state, it tries to get more people to join, through diplomacy and referendums rather than force, it tries to take more power from the member states governments, it tries to make everything the same, at the moment that includes spreading the metric system, the euro and even its own language (a composite language that suposedly anyone can understand), it also passes laws that help wealthy businessmen and trade unions, which can often damage culture (see the Hairy Bikers when they have a meal in Loraine with a British MEP.) Soon they may try and spread their own beleifs around its member states. What will it be, catholicism, aetheism, European nationalism A.K.A white supremacy theory. It will probably be whatevers the most profitable. Because their are in practically no borders between EU members, many people praise the EU for making it easier to experience the culture' of Europe, but the EU will (if unchecked) destroy the culture' of Europe. What it it will be replaced by will be essentially French culture (France essentially being the owners of the EU) that has been warped by the forces of Capitalism and Consumerism. I say French because, according to people who can remember times before Britain joined the EU in 1974, that people in Britain like to eat outside more, and drink more wine than beer, things that are distinctly Romance, and France I believe is the most powerful Romance country in Europe (plus it owns the EU).

But how did this organisation come about, and how did it come to effectively rule Britain (although Britain, probably because of it's ties with America, hasn't given itself up as other countries in Europe have.)Well it came about as a result of the Treaty of Rome and its main aims where and are, economic stability and incidently, peace in Europe (possibly for the first time since the collapse of the Roman empire.) Britain joined in 1974 after a yes vote for a referendum, so the British people chose to join the EU. Why, not for economic stability, but for peace in europe. They could of course remember the second and first world wars, which were distinctly horrible. So here we have an example of how a desire for peace and a fear of future war ultimately created an as of yet semi-imperial force. If left unchecked, the EU could become a new Roman Empire, with all it's wealth, power and evil.

Ofcourse, most of what I'm telling you isn't really hurting pacifism, it's simply hurting the politicians who use the promise of peace to gain an advantage. Usually, politicians are much worse at being passive than actual passifist are, for example, here are some comments on the policy of appeasement of Adolf Hitler between 1933-38. If the LON (later the British and French governments) had completely ignored Hitler, there may have never been a war in the west, but there probably still would have been that very bloody war in the east. If they had declared war on Germany as soon as Adolf Hitler started rearming Germany, it would have probably been over almost instantly. If they had declared war on Germany at any time between 1933-38, the subsequent war would have been less bad than the ultimate World war II (by 1938 the weirmark had become so powerful that if we went straight into war with Germany then we would have lost). But by dragging out the time, trying to avoid war, then wasting time going to and from Bavaria, meeting Hitler, giving him permission to do certain things then asking him to promise not to do certain things, promises he would almost certainly break, they ultimately allowed a force that was almost unbeatible (were it not for a variety of things) to emerge. It has of course been suggested that the apeasement policys during the Sudetenland crisis were merely a clever ploy to allow Britain and France to rearm, which makes sense. Of course, if they just ignored Hitler after that there still may never have been a war in the west (although after awhile he would be after eupen and malady, both of which in the west). Ofcourse the war in the east which would have happened was also the place the holocaust predominately took place. This is an example polticians try to be pacifists and end up making a mess.Of course there was a major pacifist movement during the policy of appeasement, with people desperate to avoid a repeat of World war I, so they in part are to blame for this.

Going back to Ghandi and Martin Luther King, one of the reasons they never really showed the traits that I have described, is because pacifism wasn't really there ideology, it was more there political tactic i.e. they felt the violent revolutions of the past had acheived little or nothing so they felt a "peaceful" revolution may make more of a permanent difference. Mahatma Ghandi was against "old-imperialism" and how the British Empire unfairly treated the Indian people. Martin Luther King was against racial inequality and segregation, and can almost certainly be called a "Christian Communists." As far as I know, he never really caused much damage, apart from a general amnosity amongst the white racists who lost out which would lead in part to most of racist the post 1965 racist attacks and organisations, all of which are small compared to the days of the Ku Klux Klan. Mahatma Ghandi, however, who did have pacifism as one of his ideologys, did cause some damage. Why, because he was very significant in the partition of India, an act that the "perpatrators" thought it would keep the radical muslims and radical hindus apart and subsequently bring some peace and stability. However, it ultimately led to many a war between India and the new Pakistan, which led to even more amnosity between hindus and muslims in India, to a point in which muslims and hindus started hating each other in places they had never done before. Once again, here is an example of how politicians trying to bring peace have actually caused more of a problem, or at least altered the appearence of the problem.

If you haven't beleived me so far, I am now going to look at one of the most blind pacifists (or at least anti-war supporter) of them all, John Lennon (or should I say, John Lenin). He was a person who had an immense disregard to the establishment, to a point that it was almost sickening. At the moment, I'm just sounding like some pro-authoritarian granny, but I am now going to analyse the song IMAGINE, a song that has been banned and altered by many a group of people (most notably the various Churches). I will analyse each of these verses.

Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky "magine all the people Living for today

Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one

1. The concept of living for today is also the main ideology in headonism, the moral pursuit of pleasure. In my opinion, the idea of people living so that they can try to be happy is okay. However, there is a problem if it is uncontrolled, which is usually what headonist suggest. Imagine if Drug addicts or sex sadists were allowed to try and fufil there desires, unregulated. Doesn't really seem good, really. Also, if your too busy enjoying "today", it can cause allot of problems for "tomorrow" i.e. hangovers, debt, pollution etc. If heaven and hell doesn't exist, the concept of them does serve the moral purpose of getting people to think about tommorow, and how there actions today affect that. Also it serves the moral purpose of convincing people that things that are good, but are difficult to see how there good, are good. There are probably more convincing ways of doing this, but its a start (plus there is the possibility that heaven and hell do exist, but probably not in the sense most people think about them.) Either way, most headonists are counter-morality, which can't be good, can it.

2. Incidently, a world with no countries, and a world with 1 massive countrie, is usually the same thing, if you were to look at it on a map, the whole world would be just one colour. This can be interpreted as a desire for unification, which we have already described as being a form of imperialism. Of course, he could have confused country with sovereign state. In which case, a world with no countries could be a world with no government or ruling elite, which is quite different to unification.

The things that people kill and die for, or at least, the things people "choose" to kill and die for, are usually the things they live for. So Lennon is "implying" that he would like to get rid of the things people live for if it causes problems, which is a very imperial thing to do. 'Say old bean, the native boy shot old coloniel, why did he do thathe said he was doing it for his and his wifes dignity because old cloniel was going to rape herwell we'd better get rid of her then.' That little scene is the saught of thing the old imperialists would say and do, but the principal will probably be the same for these neo-imperialists.

With the old-imperialists, they usually tried to get rid of the "locals" original beleifs and religions and replace them with their own. However, the communists introduced the idea of the aetheist state, in which no worship of god or gods would be allowed, although they often had/have a near religous worship of there political leaders or ex political leaders, such as the cult of, gues what, Lenin. This was based mainly around Karl Marx' teaching "religion is the opium of the masses." Think of people in a gospel church, they sing, they dance, there probably feeling happy, they will probably do whatever the preacher tells them to do without question, and if they have one of those religious experiences, they'll probably fall over. All of these things are also associated with taking psychedelic drugs. However, Karl Mark was really criticising beleif without question A.K.A. faith, which religion was the bastion of at his time and now. Incidently, even though the various communists (or should I say Leninists and Stalinists) had no religion, they did have beleifs which they imposed on people whom disagreed with them, so they weren't much better. Another thing, religion, or any ideology, has never started a major war, it simply created and creates a state of amnosity, at most, wars only really start whens theres an economic insentive, but more on that later.

3 and 5. Here you can get a sense of John Lennon being an evangelist, which is okay, but it can be annoying to some people. Also, evangelists are notable for being highly intolerent of those with different beleifs to themselves, but enough of that. In stating that "the world can be as one" he is stating a clear desire for unification, which we have already described as being bad.

4. Everything in this verse shouts "Communist! Communist!" In case you don't know, here is a breif guide to Marxism. Karl Marx (His friend Freidrich Engels took part in an uprising)said that one day, poor working people of the world would rise up against the wealthy and take all their wealth in a revolution, this he called "Socialism", then, after a series of social changes, people would work as hard as they could but only take what they need, giving the rest to those less able, to a point that everybody would be equal, this he called "Communism". This part sounds okay, but Marx does have some slightly stranger ideas. He says (what was a common buzz word amongst left wing revolutionaries of his day) "All property is theft". The opposite to this theft would be to put everything into a imaginery pot and giving the contents of this pot to everyone in equal amounts, with no one actually owning anything. This is not really that good, surely people should be allowed to own something, something reflective of them perhaps, something of sentimental value? Noticing the correlation between wealth and power, also wanted an end to ruling bodies, with everyone having equal say. This is where we have a problem, because for some reason, most people have a desire for power or the things associated with it (wealth, knowledge, "groupies"). This makes it impossible for there to be absolute equality on a large scale because some one will always aim for (and ultimately get) some what more power and/or more wealth. This can be explained by evolution and sexuel selection. In most social animals, the most powerful individual in the group gets to have the most sex with the opposite gender in that group. After a time of sexuel selection and concious reasoning, most advanced social animals (including humans) began to develop this desire for power. For this and other reasons (such as the various democratic and violent revolutions happening out of line with Karl Mark' predictions) other, more imperialistic ideas came out of Marxism.

A) Leninism, based around the teachings and actions of Lenin, it states that the only way to acheive economic equality is to have all the power concentrated in a few, responsible people i.e. him. Ultimately his/there main aim was/is to make there country a good place to live. (see War Communism and NEP)

B) Stalinism, based around the actions of Stalin, there main aim was/is to acheive absolute power, often purely for the sake of having power, with absolute equality being a little thing to do in there spare time, which is often ignored. (see Stalin)

C) Maoism, based around the teachings and actions of Chairman Mao, it states an almost insane beleif that everyone "is" equal and using there power to try and deny that one person is better at something than another. (see the Cultural Revolution and look up ping pong in China)

These ideas, along with Marxism, form most communist thought to this day (there is also Freidrich Engels teachings, which are much like "60s hippy beleifs). Just to point out, Lenin killed nearly 5.3 million people (5 million through war communism based famine and 300,000 through Cheka, his secret police), Stalin killed between 25-27 million people (20 million through famine (mainly Ukrainians) the rest through secret police and his purges) and Mao killed nearly 70 million people (the exact statistics I do not know). In total, Communism has killed nearly 100 million people (although Nationalism (A.K.A. Facism) will have killed a higher percentage of people, since they usually target a group of people whom they feel are "unter-menschen" or a similar word in their own language). They also have a habit of trying to dismantle the culture of the countries they take over. Most of the trouble is caused by economic stagnation, caused by certain aspects of communism that discourage people from working. I do however agree that the government should have some control over wealth, but I beleive that wealth should be devided up in proportion to how hard people work and how much "output" they produce, I look down on deliberately long termed unemployed and those who get rich on inheritence (left wing partys tend to harm the later but often encourage the previous). Of course, this is 2009, not 1968, so alot of what I'm saying is irelevent.

So there you have it, an analysis of the bad aspects of "Imagine"' lyrics, it is also important to point out that while John Lennon criticises capitalism yet he thrived on "consumers" buying his albums. Also, I heard recently that most "right on" "60s hippies ("Imagine" being the ultimate left-wing hippy song) were actually quite posh, with most people (including wannabe hippies) just carried on there day to day lives.

So lets have a little description of pacifists according to this article "They who intend people to lie on there backs in submission, as they diplomatically take over there land, destroy there culture and replace it with a highly sterile one, with only a few people benefitting, who try to end amnosity but end up causing more, who want to end morality, are evangelical, who beleive that everyone should be treated equally (even though they ultimately are not), and cause economic stagnation because a load of people feel there not going to make, grow or do allot because there not going to be rewarded for it in any way." That does not sound good at all, even most pacifists would hate the thought of that, yet these are the vibes that some pacifists give off.

There are other people who don't like war. Feminists don't like it because of it's immense male orientation and see it as a bad by product of patriarchy. Enviromentalists don't like it because of how it can destroy the natural landscape. Both of these ideologys I will criticise in later articles. But worst of all are the mini-pacifists, who incidently are also mini-imperialists. "It would be great if everyone liked the same things and spoke the same language" "Yeh, you'd have more friends" this is probably the sought of thing a suprising number of young people my age would come out with. They are probably the original reason I chose to do this article.

Now that I've shown the bad side to pacifism, I'm going to show the beneficial side to war. So why do wars happen, well, as I have already said, the main reason one source of power declares war on another is always economic. You might say that it could also be for power, but due to the correlation between power and wealth, it is still essentially economic. However, what sought of economic situation varies. It could be a fight for survival, one side may have to defend a field so they can grow enough food to feed there people, and another may need to capture that field so they can grow enough to feed there people. However, nowadays it is usually just pure greed, one side wants to defend an oil field to preserve its inflated income and another wants to capture it to inflate theres. There is also the tolerence levels, some power sources will go to war over the smallest economic advantage, and will ultimately make massive defeceits, others will only go to war if there is a large economic advantage, and will ultimately back out as soon as they begin to make a defeceit, and others will never go to war but will sell weapons to the highest bidder, and will often make a massive profit but will for the larger part be forgotten to the annuls of history. Everything else; religion, language, culture and law purely create a sense of anmosity, at most. This doesn't make war sound good, but there is a more abstract reason to its benefits.

Population growth, some people see it as a good thing, a sign that people are more caring, that there is enough food for everyone etc. Some people see it as a bad thing, but for differnet reasons. Some people beleive that if the population of humans continues to grow, there will soon be not enough food to feed everyone and that there will be mass starvation, others see it as a disgrace and a sign of there being too much sex and/or patriarchy. Others feel that in order to feed and house this growing population, it will cause damage to the world eco-system and that when it subsequently collapses, we will go down with it. Then there are those who love the natural world and don't like the idea of it's beauty being spoiled, even if it is to help there fellow man. I call these people "naturephiles" or to be more precise, "Anti-humans". One thing, however, is that these people talk about the consequenses of population growth, but not the causes. So here is a list of the dates that world population has doubled. (see world population estimates for a more acurate idea)

10,000 B.C.-5,000,000

3,500 B.C.-10,000,000

2,725 B.C.-20,000,000

1,500 B.C.-40,000,000

700 B.C. or 975 B.C.-80,000,000

1 A.D. or 775 B.C.-160,000,000

1000 A.D or 375 B.C.-320,000,000

1700 A.D.-640,000,000

1860 A.D.-1,280,000,000

1950 A.D.-2,560,000,000

1985 A.D.-5,120,000,000

Everything written here before 1860 is completely inacurate, so I may have to do this again, either way, please imagine a "circa" next to everything. Using this inacurate measure, I will now display the time it took to double each time.

6,500 years

775 years

1,225 years

800 or 525 years

700 or 200 years

1000 or 400 years

700 or 2075 years

160 years

90 years

35 years

So lets analyse these figures, shall we. The first time the growth rate slows down is roughly between 2,725 B.C. to 1,500 B.C.. Incidently, this is also the time when the first empires of the world really began to take off, and warfare bagan to become far more organised than it had been before.

The time that really seems to be of interest is 1500 B.C. to 1700 A.D., a period of about 3,200 years. The significance is that between this time is the "dark ages" when not only did the Roman empire collapse, but also the Han dynasty (which was followed by lots of shorter lasting dynastys) and an early Indian empire. The reason for the "ors" is because some people say that the world population continued to grow through the dark ages whilst others say that it declined.

In many respects it is unfair to call this time the dark ages, the Roman culture was replaced by a large part by the equally amazing Germanic culture, our alphabet is more like there runes than the latin alphabet, plus native culturial practices that had been surpressed by the Romans, re-emerged and were in practice once again.

Incidently, this was a time of war, when massive movements of people (such as the vikings) caused major turmoil, often with "need" based warfare rather than "greed" based warfare in later years.

There are other reasons for the population slow down, it was an age of disease, when plagues came and created situations where there were more dead people than living, most notably the black death, but also smallpox, and possibly ebola and anthrax. These plagues subsequently brought about famines, with people unable to work properly because they were ill.

Either way, there is a theme. The accelaration of population growth increases, then the growth rate crashes, then it starts accelarating again at an even faster rate. There is a simple psychological reason for this, when an "age of death" comes to an end, the people that have survived it never want such a thing to happen again, so get to work discovering medecine, improving agriculture, and discouraging people from fighting. As a result, the population of humans increases, reaches an unsustainable level, then an even worse "age of death" begins.

During the second modern "age of death", known to most as the middle ages, a certain process took place. This was a time before family planning (what a nasty, clinical word, heh) when a women could be expected to have 18 children more or less. Most of these children died from famine or plague,and the birth and death rate remained about equal. Say there was then an improvement in agriculture or an effective treatment for disease was discovered, that balance would then tip, but it would be tipped back into balance by going to war. The more people that survived from plague and famine, the more advanced warfare became, so more people died in battle.

So how did the second age of death come to an end. Well, there were ,major improvements in health care, such as inoculation, vacination and later various "magic bullets" for treating bacterial disease, these include lead oxide and penicillin. In Britain, there was the introduction of the NHS. There were also improvements in agriculture, such as the steel plow, and fertillising fields by hand rather than by a cows anus used in crop rotation.

However, a fear of war was just as important. Firstly came the final stages of the Anglo-French conflict, a war that had started when the French conquered Normady, and those Normans with power sailed to there little colony known as England to be there knew seat of power. Ultimately other sovreign states got dragged into it.By this stage early mass media had come into existance in the form of painting stories (rather than just portraits) and newspapers. Soon people became aware of the realities of war, such as the mass shootings of supposed French supporting geurillas and their famillies. As a result, the government became more reluctant to go to war, only going if they thought they could win.

Then came the Crimean War, this time Britain and France fought on the same side (by now the sanctity of alliances and blood libels were being thrown aside for simply going with those who are useful and against those who are an economic threat). By now, decent censorship was being used, but the truth still came out. People were horrified by the immense incompetence of the British generals, of the squalid conditions at millitary hospitols like Skutari, and how the French seemed so much better at fighting the war against Russia. As a result, the British government tried to stay out of European conflicts, concerning its self with the British empire, where they nearly always won (although often it was very close, such as the Zulu wars, and towards the end they were even losing, such as the Boer wars.)

Then came the biggest two of them all, World War I and II. People were so shocked by the horrors of trench warfare, it created the situation described earlier (the policy of appeasement) and the horrors of carpet bombing and Nuclear holocaust scared people even more.

Subsequently, the cold war was a war fought through proxies, and the current wars are essentially the same (Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jorden etc. harbour far more extremism than Iraq and Afganistan but because of there economic importance as oil providers and the fact that Pakistan and Iran may have nuclear weapons means that they will probably be ignored). Also, there are very few deaths in comparison to earlier wars, the exception being the collective conflicts in Africa.

At the moment, the rate of growth has gone down considerably, there are currently close to 7 billion people, when there could already be 10 billion (we are expected to reach that by 2050). This is down predominately to two things connected by sex, birth control and HIV. Remember when I mentioned it being common for a women to have 18 children more or less, well not any more. In developing countries, more couples are choosing to have 2-4 children, and in developed countires it is closer to 0-2. In my fantasy world, this would be down to condoms and other sheaths, to others it would be abstinace and celibacy. The truth is, its down to birth control pills and terminations, some what less morally apealing to some. The birth control pill was invented by scientists, and popularized by the "free love" movement amongst hippies. The legalisation of termination in most developed countries, was mainly due to campaigns by feminists and because of difficulty keeping it under control, (for those that are opposed to termination, heres a reason to dislike feminism). As a result of these things, there was an event that hadn't really happened before, it to be accepted for women to be promiscuous.