This website is presented in order to point out the obvious fact of overpopulation. Clarity is not politically oriented. It does not support or encourage, among other ideas: socialism, anti-Semitism, Islam, terrorism, Nazism whether old or neo, communism, dictatorship, tyranny, diversity, racism, multiculturalism, belligerent nationalism, sexual obsession, gender wrangling, feminism, so-called 'far right politics,' police states, fanaticism, etc. Any comments found on it that might superficially seem political should be understood as merely momentary opinion and criticism offered from a point of view probably quite different from that of the then observer, given that no two persons can occupy exactly the same space simultaneously.

Clarity is totally harmless. It cannot be construed as a 'hate crime.' Unlikely to be looked at by more than a handful of equally harmless readers it is even more unlikely to influence them or anyone else in the slightest.

Hidden in the words of the website is the solution to mankind's endless troubles, but it comes with a screen that forbids entry to states of stupefaction brought about by confusion and conflict within and without—and that of course rules out most of humanity.

Highly recommended: do read the whole publication. It is written and read entirely in presence!


In an earlier look at the status quo, we talked about the taboo against acknowledgement of overpopulation. Obviously, there is widespread awareness of the negative effects of excessive numbers of people, but no proper acknowledgement. Career politicians, and therefore governments, would dread to take personal responsibility for mentioning something so serious. There are any number of wives to consider. Anyway, maybe the situation has gone too far? That again would be difficult to accept, implying as it would that humanity is, or soon will be, a flop. It is generally felt better to ignore that kind of honesty and look to humanity's immense powers of adaptation. Or, like the hardworking majority, and illegal immigrants, simply to get on with one's life. There's no stopping now.

To look on the bright side, however, it is well to briefly consider the benefits of increasing numbers of people. The benefits to business and to technology in general are clearly enormous, regardless of environmental cost. Immense, ceaseless pressure keeps everyone motivated. Entertainers can draw bigger audiences and sell more media products. More children bring hope and freshness to the dull grind of repetitive living, helping their NHS-dependent elders to relive their youth vicariously. The presence of people everywhere ensures that no-one is left out. There may be more death and sickness, but at least more men and women get to qualify as doctors.

Fig. 1  A Woman
Romance conditioning urges reproduction regardless of context and consequences. Everyone is urged to get involved in sex as early as possible and, the genitalia being blind, the observer awakens in a world where there are far too many people for anyone's good. Consider the protesting crowds in the cities, the hordes of starving people in Africa, the blockages and queues at airports and on roads— everywhere full up, and yet we're still turning 'em out. Here in Britain, some parents think nothing of having huge families, even if they have to be supported by the State. Enormously obese people waddle through the supermarkets. Take the overview and all this doesn't seem too bright, does it?

So if nothing can be done to save the situation, as seems to be the case, it looks as if we shall be waiting and half-hoping for natural causes of one kind or another to take an interest in our collective dilemma. Because although we are arguably the most intelligent form of life ever to strut the planet, this is one problem we can't even face, apparently, let alone begin to solve. Is it possible that we're not so clever after all?

There are specialists who have studied how to measure intelligence. They can work out your IQ from the presumably dizzying heights of their own. But seriously, to spend time measuring intelligence is surely a most unintelligent thing to do?  Who on earth could be qualified to measure the scope of intelligence? Please consider the question.

No comments: