by Terry Morgan
are all, each and every one of them, scientifically illiterate status seekers who cannot make vital decisions but merely dance on a stage, smile at cameras and try to show sympathy whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that it is their sympathy that got us into the predicament in the first place."
"Some people say the leaders are too afraid to act. But I do not think they are afraid."
"So why do you think they do not act?"
"Because there is no longer a solution. It is too late."
The older man took a deep breath. He walked away, stopped and merely shook his head.
"It is exactly what you forecast, grandfather," his grandson said. "But you were ignored just as all the others had been since Thomas Malthus. You said that hopeful talk of better education on birth control and granting more power to women would never take effect quickly enough and demand for basic food, clean water, electricity and gas would increase so much that there would never be sufficient to meet demand.
"I have read your written words and watched videos of your old speeches. You said that over dependence and reliance on fuel and energy was, what you called the 'fault line' and that fuel and energy would become unaffordable to many, even in western societies, because there were not enough jobs and too few were contributing to the creation of wealth. That, in your words, 'the vast majority would be increasingly reliant on the few' and that this was unsustainable. You said that living space in places where basic essentials were still available and affordable would become less and less and that conflict caused by living conditions and overcrowding would erupt. You disagreed with the assurances from some who said the world was a big place and there was no need to worry because man was clever and resourceful. You forecast localised conflict because the scarcity of resources and jobs would force people to live in already overcrowded areas. You called it 'the water-hole effect' and you said that vast areas of the world would become uninhabited leaving to even greater overcrowding in certain areas."
The old man nodded.
"And do you recall that I also wrote that I believed those brought up in Western society would not be content with just basic food and water. That simple, cheap commodities would no longer be acceptable because they had been brought up in a society that offered too much choice and tolerated over indulgence and unhealthy acceptance of excess. I said that these people had, within little more than two generations, evolved into animals totally unsuited to a life of shortage and austerity.
"But where were the politicians and religious leaders to speak out, to denounce it as unaffordable gluttony and to point out the evidence from the downfall of previous societies. They were nowhere to be seen because to have said something and then done something would have been seen as like taking candy away from babies. Even suggesting it lead to me being accused of unkindness, cruelty, brutality, of being uncharitable and of lacking any pity or compassion. My opinions were totally unacceptable for a politician who must be seen only to give. A politician must never, ever, suggest taking away what has already been given. It is political suicide."
The younger man nodded again.
"I have heard the old people tell of hypermarkets with shelves overfilled with huge choices, of people filling trolleys of packaged and processed food every day. It is not like that now. Even fresh vegetables from places like Africa and Asia are in short supply because their farmers can no longer get the prices they need to survive."
"Exactly. Because consumers in affluent countries had already lost all sense of the true cost of what they were consuming. They were taking food from developing countries but refused to acknowledge that they were taking out far more than they were putting back. To take out and put back in equal proportions is a basic law of sustainability, a word that leaders love to mention at every opportunity but rarely understand. Arguably, there were pressures on them from businesses to buy goods, pressures to spend on non essentials in order to appear affluent, subversive pressures from governments to spend to create jobs.
"Just look around here at what was once the meadow of grass and buttercups. Did the government even stick to agreements never to build on green spaces once designated as more important for environmental sustainability and quality of life? No. Again, they surrendered to the cries about increased suffering, poverty and destitution and the need for more houses, more jobs, more hospitals and more schools without once stopping to ask themselves why there was this constant need for more and more.
"And, of course, when the people from outside, the so-called newcomers, who knew a bit about hardship watched their satellite TVs they saw a land of opportunity - a country that provided houses, schools, education, healthcare, safety nets and security in abundance. They saw fresh green grass and opportunities for raising families."
The old man held out his arms.
"And I am the last to blame people for coming. I fully understand it. After all, human instinct, as with all animals, is to ignore the risks and migrate towards abundance and greener pastures. But talk like that was once enough to tarnish a politician for life. Little wonder, then, that such talk never happened."
He sighed.
"So what, now, is the top priority of ordinary people in the crowded streets down there."
His grandson appeared to laugh. "To receive a food bank voucher, grandfather. It is like a competition. Self pride has gone. They claim poverty but still believe it is their right to eat three times a day and to complain about what is put in the food boxes. They become angry."
"Ah yes, the food banks," the older man said, shaking his head. "The only help these people needed was education in preparing nutritious meals using inexpensive, basic ingredients and in budgeting their tax payer subsidised lives accordingly. They did not need subsidised food but they took it because it was free. "
"And saying things like didn't help your other arguments, grandfather. Some would say you were being extreme."
"Yes, of course, and I knew at the time I was being controversial. But I was not courting popularity like the others. I was putting a view that for many was exactly what they thought but were too frightened to say. I admit it was strong language, but it was deliberate to illustrate my point about society having lost all sense of the true cost of what it was consuming and about society taking out more than it was putting in. Poverty was said to be striking at the very heart of society. It was highly emotive and, in itself, just as controversial. If it was true, then the question was why. Those wanting someone to blame said it was the cost of living, the low state benefits and pensions. Others were, at last, starting to see the truth - that too many people were unemployed, not paying taxes and not contributing but still expecting relief from hardship? So I caused yet another outrage by spelling it out only for it to be pointed out to me in one private meeting that politicians were supposed to shield the public from reality, not expose them to it.
"But my argument would always return to that one basic cause of all economic and social problems - far too many unproductive people living off wealth created by too few. To see into the future and to force through essential adjustments to society, however unpopular and seemingly unjust - that is a sign of true compassion and real leadership.
"And they cannot plead ignorance because the trends were obvious even to the scientifically illiterate. Warnings about uncontrolled population growth have been made for centuries although many sought to dispute it saying we would always find a solution. Others refused to face the facts. But even in 2014 when more than 15% of the world's population of seven billion people lived in extreme poverty and hunger and ecosystems were rapidly losing their ability to regenerate, what did they do? They deliberately diverted the debate onto claims that the climate was changing due to too much burning of fossil fuel. And why were we using more and more much fossil fuel? Because there were too many people using it and many more millions still wanting it, demanding it.
"Already in 2014 one billion people lived in severely diminished or depleted areas and faced hunger. Hundreds o
f millions were living on one dollar a day but being told that their living standards would soon rise because governments understood their suffering. Meanwhile they were still breeding, demand for food was forecast to increase by 70 to 100 percent by 2050 and the percentage of people living in water stressed areas was expected to increase up to fivefold. And here we are, half way through the twenty first century, and we're bang on target with all those old forecasts.
"We knew that meeting food and water demands would be impossible. We knew that the supply of freshwater was fixed and that 70% of the water was needed for agriculture. We knew that agricultural expansion was limited by suitable land and that the shift into growing more profitable fuel crops would add to the problem. We knew that supplying water to even developed countries would become more difficult because of cost and infrastructure and that increasing agricultural output was becoming more and more difficult. And we knew that other non-renewable resources like metals, fuels and minerals were also becoming scarce because demand outstripped supply. And we knew that deforestation and habitat loss would lead to mass extinctions of animals.
"The root cause of the problem was so obvious but no-one - no-one in any position of
