All the world's a stage and at any time there are only so many actors upon it. The few make way for the many and the many make way for the millions and billions.
For many, each man is worth less at face value when the world stage offers so many of them with no sign of slowing down. The quality of each of these men is also a question. Does mass production cheapen the single man? Or worse - is mass production actually responsible for producing lower quality men?
The science of eugenics was big about this same period in the last century. Laws were appearing throughout the US to make sure partners who would marry were "fit" to marry. "Imbeciles" and venereal diseases were running rampant in some parts and everyone knew that this was due to inbred relations and that criminals seemed to beget criminals. So the laws were the ways a century and a quarter old America was coming to grips with what appeared to be a very real threat of human devolution.
In science stories of Hugo Gernsback of the same period, and slightly later, the serious question of human evolution, selective breeding and such made its first serious appearances, made more palatable and able to probe deeper by being merely "fiction" and thus less threatening to those who feared that they might run afoul of some eugenicists idea of what a human should or could be.
A century later we realize that the nations that have employed selective/intelligent breeding are being over-run. The nations of Europe and the USA are mute testimony to the power of unchecked/unplanned/unwanted births. By all standards this seems to stand logic on its head. After all, shouldn't intelligent procreation be naturally superior to unintelligent procreation?
That's a question that I'm going to address today. The self-evident truth that the west now faces is that the very same birth control which created a greater quality of man, with a richer abundance and environment to live in, is now a detrimental factor that threatens his very existence. Again, this seems impossible, but the statistics and firsthand exploration of the world verifies this sword of Damocles that now hangs over all western nations and even as I write these words, the thread that holds it is wearing thinner with each passing moment.
If, by default, the majority of men achieve at best a stifling mediocrity and only a few rise above to create and shape the world for the rest, then logically the more men you have, the more of these exceptional types should be present. However despite these billions and an ever larger quantity of men, progress moves more slowly now than half a century ago and it appears to be grinding to a virtual halt with each passing decade and no significant improvements.
It appears mankind has peaked. Or is it that mankind can not function as efficiently when there are too many men? Does the bumping, crowded masses make it impossible for those few to escape the crowds and lead? Has the Earth become a mob? Do the masses now crush and destroy those same ones who would lead them to a vastly brighter, more wonderful life?
Taking a look at India, China or anywhere where man lives in record numbers, the evidence of this self-defeating principle is now a part of history. Only after adopting western technologies and inventions can these human addled regions create a semblance of order, control disease or live somewhat technocratic lives. The west has created a model for living and it is being applied, as best as possible, to the rest of the world by those who realize its superiority.
And as the west become human-addled, its progress grinds to a halt. It is easy to predict that it will not simply halt but will begin to devolve. Human devolution is already evident enough for anyone who wants to look closely and honestly enough at their neighborhoods and their country.
The future is one of declining virtues. The human body has become a canvas for needles and a waste bin for toxins. A world of addicts, of one sort or another, being pandered to and exploited.
What do they want?
What do you want?
What do I want?
What stands between them, you or me and the great devolving motion that influence the the crowded world stage today?