Harebrained Schemes 4

There's been a major change in society's view of homosexuality. Perhaps it should become the cultural norm – especially in overpopulated nations. There's a lot to be said for lowering the birthrate. China has tried it, but they missed an obvious solution while antagonizing their citizens by punishing them for having children. Instead of repressing the natural wishes of much of their population they should have encouraged that part of their number that would not produce children, and might wind up as happier and more compliant members of a society that supported them.

And for all nations it should not be ignored that the cost of homosexual unions would probably be lower, because prejudice still exists and there would be fewer people at the receptions. In fact, subsidization or such ceremonies should offered by the governments of enlightened countries. While there would be an initial expense, the savings in other programs (like Social Security and health care) would more than make up for it. And what liberal thinker could oppose such an advancement in the relationships of members of their society, especially one that lowered unemployment rates, and promoted an increase in the need for immigration of workers? All we need to do is get rid of those Bible-thumping bigots.

Sounds like win-win to me.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Isn't it time we legalized narcotics as we do cigarettes and liquor. It's already being done in terms of cannabis in several states – for medical and therapeutic use as well as recreationally. At the same time there are numerous advertisements for programs which claim to be able to rid people of their addictions – specifically those caused by prescribed opioids. And until now people – Americans and citizens of other countries – are making fortunes off drugs while addicts, their families, and their communities suffer and die because of the drug trade.

Think of the benefits to our economy if the government received the profits from drugs and the states were free to tax them. The purity of the drugs could be better managed and some of the money obtained through drug sales could be used for treatment programs. And if drugs were legal, the traffic in illegal drugs would be eliminated and the gigantic cost associated with fighting “the war on drugs” would disappear as well. And, incidentally, the cost of the drugs could be decreased, lessening the crime associated with the current situation, when addicts rob and kill others to support their habits. Not only that, but those who take up a “forbidden pleasure” would have less incentive.

Addiction isn't something that can be viewed as good, but it exists. We've learned that the prohibition of alcohol doesn't work, and now we tax it while our citizens use it legally. We can't eliminate smoking, but we recognize that taxing tobacco products can be quite profitable. Additionally, a country that permits lotteries and other forms of gambling is in no position to proclaim the morality of an anti-drug position. (Indeed, prostitution laws should be reconsidered. The courts are making very liberal interpretations of what sexual practices are permitted by the Constitution – although those who wrote the original document might be confused by such interpretations.) And if we have no moral basis for prohibiting drugs, it is reasonable to wonder if we're not tilting windmills. And paying the price for it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C. Northcote Parkinson, one of the twentieth century's most significant thinkers was, in fact, a polymath. He published many books as a naval historian, but his thinking far transcended his field of interest. His most famous accomplishment was the publication of “Parkinson's Law,” whose primary premise was that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." The work, whose subtitle was “The Pursuit of Progress,” not only documented the workings of the British civil service, but earned for Professor Parkinson recognition as an expert on administration. Indeed, he published further on the subject of the operation of administrative bodies, most notably “Parkinson's Law of Triviality,” which discussed in detail the “bike-shed effect.” His work inspired many others to examine the subject, and corollaries are numerous.

Not discussed, however, was the phenomenon I have noted personally. When reading anything – and that includes the professor's works – I tend to nod off. The time of the event is irrelevant as is the length of time available for sleep. The same happens when I'm just sitting quietly. It seems that sleep expands as well. And there is no time of its completion so there is plenty of room for expansion. Which raises the question: Can sleep expand to fill in for waking time?

There was a time when I thought this was my problem alone, but I find that many elderly retired individuals – especially men – have noticed the same thing. With more time available, increased sleeping has affected lots of these people. There is too much unoccupied time that could be put to good use. Hence I propose that society subsidize positions for the elderly, like walking the monsters under their grandchildren's beds, so as to contract the time available for sleep. Sleep, as we all know, is contrary to society's interests because those involved are not out supporting the economy.

And that's what it's all about. Professor Parkinson wanted to evaluate the amount of time wasted by those who were working to the clock. I want to be sure that as many as possible – both those currently employed but struggling to complete their assignments in the allotted time, and citizens reemployed following retirement – spend their earnings and not sleep away the time available to do this. Time is money. Sleep is wasted time.

In Praise Of Homosexuality

Homosexualityⁱ is the answer.

What, you ask, is the question? Fair enough. But let's begin with some facts. No. First comes disclosure. I'm heterosexual. I blush to admit it since it's not fashionable at the present, but I have to place Truth above my embarrassment. OK. Now that's out of the way.

Facts:

There's a lot of homosexuality in the world. Conservative estimates place the number at between one and two percent. So that means that there probably are at least 100 million individualsⁱⁱ who would so identify themselves. That doesn't include the bisexual and trans-sexual population – but who's counting.

Same sex bonding, moreover, is not limited to humans. According to Wikipedia,

“Homosexual behavior in animals is sexual behavior among non-human species that is interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include sexual activity, courship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs. Research indicates that various forms of this are found throughout the animal kingdom. As of 1999, nearly 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors; this is well documented in about 500 species.”

We're not alone.

Homosexual behavior has existed as long as people have. Longer when you consider its presence in other species. It was prominent in ancient societies and must have been sufficiently influential a few millennia ago that the Bible had to spend a lot of time excoriating its practitioners. And the disrepute resulting from theological sources, as well as the psychological reactions of non-participants, resulted in widespread condemnation by the governments of societies around the world. In some placesⁱⁱⁱ sodomy merits the death penalty – even today. In many lands it is simply ignored, although some cultures celebrate it. It's unlikely that you'll get through an evening of television or the movies without seeing homosexual characters or hearing homosexual themes – usually in an approving manner. Yet it wasn't until 2003^iv that the United States Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws, and the battle over same-sex marriage is still going on. (Back to disclosure. As I said in a previous essay,^v I'm opposed to homosexuality because of the hijacking of the language. “Marriage,” “gay,” and “partner,” for example have been twisted into words with very different meanings from the past, though the use of new words with more specific meanings could have preserved past definitions in a recognizable way. The practice itself is of no interest to me and I have enough problems of my own without involving myself in those of its adherents.)

However it doesn't make sense to me. I don't mean to judge the specific behavior of members of the LGBTQ community. It's the biology that confuses me. I've learned that it's nature, not nurture, that is the background of homosexuality, and that it's not a disease but a normal condition. But what is its origin?

If it's an inborn characteristic as current teaching tells us, it is governed by genetics. And beyond that, it should be ruled by the precepts of evolution. That means that the characteristic is heritable, and its persistence suggests that it is beneficial to the continuation of our species.^vi Which doesn't make all that much sense. Homosexual unions are un(re)productive, and if the behavior is not taught, it is unclear how it can be transmitted. It should be self-limited, and it should have disappeared a long time ago. But it didn't.

Is that proof that evolution doesn't work? That it is an intriguing, but false, concept? Does it prove that homosexuality is part of a Divine Plan? That the Creator wants homosexuality to persist? Or perhaps it indicates that there are mutations that occur frequently enough to keep the number of homosexuals constant. Whatever.

If it is part of a Divine Plan, however, it's one we might consider imitating.  As I've noted before,^vii we should be encouraging homosexuality and homosexual unions because they are of benefit to the world. One of the major problems we face is the threat of overpopulation and one solution is obvious – sterile unions. Same-sex unions, or whatever else you want to call them. Whether we can relate to their “life-style” or not, they are clearly doing a service for the rest of us, and for that we should be grateful. We may have a question, but we also have an answer.  The question is about the past.  The answer is about the future.

Next episode: “The Tenth Amendment And “ … all the other Acts and Things … ” --  You know what I mean.





 

i         When I use the term I'm referring to all the variants of same-sex bonding, gender dysphoria, and the like. It's just easier to use a single word, even though I realize that the varieties have many differences.

ii        Give or take a few tens or hundreds of millions.

iii       For example countries ruled by Sharia law.

iv       Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

v        “It Goes Without Saying,” November 28, 2010

vi       That's what natural selection is all about.

vii      “The New Paradigm,” July 27, 2014. Actually, much of what I'm saying here I've said before. But I never considered the place of evolution in the equation, though its role is uncertain. Nor have I considered mutation as a cause of homosexuality.

The New Paradigm

I mentioned, last week, that I didn't care for people. Nothing new. I've said it before. There are just too many of them. At the moment there are about 7.175 billion. That's too many.ⁱ

The Chinese noticed that also. They decided to limit births – to make it a crime to have more than one child. While the penalty is primarily a fine, the Chinese people have accepted the philosophy, with relatively few opting to have additional children even though the rules have been relaxed and a second child is permitted to many of them.

It's a good start – the limitation, that isⁱⁱ – but I suspect that that method probably wouldn't work here. Our culture and political parties would make its implementation impossible. But we recognize the problem. So we toyed with the idea of zero population growth (ZPG) for a while and, to a degree, still favor methods that would limit births.ⁱⁱⁱ We are the world's third most populous society^iv and have a responsibility to lead the way.^v

One of our responses to the problem has been to encourage the increased production of food. “The Green Revolution,” which earned Norman Borlaug a Nobel Peace Prize, has been supported in large part by American expertise and technology. By the use of hybrid^vi grains and modern techniques and equipment, a marked increase in farm production was achieved and it is estimated that over a billion lives were saved.

The problem with which Borlaug was dealing was clear: too many people and not enough food. From his perspective the solution was self-evident – increase the food supply. And it worked. But it can only succeed for so long. Sooner or later we won't be able to keep up. Sooner or later we'll run out of space and other resources for all the world's people. So we have to think about the other side of the equation – those people. Forget the food. How can we stop population growth? Better still, how can we reduce the world's population?

Working within the limits of American society,^vii the answer seems obvious. Besides the emphasis on sex, a main preoccupation of our society is the LGBTQ movement. More and more members of these groups are appearing out of the woodwork and coming out of the closet, and they're becoming mainstream features of our lives and our culture. Unfortunately we're expending all our efforts in a fight over whether they should exist. Rather than encouraging their participation in American life, we're stifling their development – an act which is not only harmful to them, but to us. They can help us if we let them. Homosexuality should be encouraged.^viii It should become the norm.

How is this possible? Instead of forcing them to stay hidden and to wed members of the opposite sex, we'd be better off with more homosexual unions.^ix The more sterile family units the better, and two homosexuals, whatever the label of their bond, are certain to contribute to that goal. An even surer guarantee of childlessness would be surgery^x that eliminates the possibility of begetting, or bearing a new life. No room for slip-ups, even if one of the participants^xi strays.^xii

That's not to say that they can't rear children. I'm not sure it's such a good idea, but I leave that judgment to the psychologists. There are plenty of children available for adoption (preferably American children – we should solve our own problems before everyone else's) resulting from rapes^xiii and other unplanned (by the mother) events.

We can't ignore the rest of the world entirely, however. Many countries have begun recognizing homosexuality and according increased honor, rights and privileges to its adherents. What the world needs is more homosexuality^xiv in order to lower birth rates in those countries.

As for those lands that continue, in their ignorance, to forbid such practices, we should encourage war and honor killings. And because education appears to be associated with a decreased birth rate, learning programs should be beamed to the recalcitrant nations by both the internet and radio. While it is likely that this will lead to the killings of some of the women who seek education, that will, itself, contribute to the cause. They will be martyrs.

But, as I mentioned earlier, although it is our obligation to lead, we have to start at home. We must keep up with the times and promote forward-thinking programs and movements.^xv Most of our citizens have already accepted the idea that, contrary both to Creationism and Darwinism,^xvi homosexuality is the wave of the future.^xvii It's chic, and we're all sophisticated and sensitive. But more important, the LGBTQ movement is our greatest hope for a nation with a smaller, and more caring society; a country of brotherly – and sisterly – love. But no incest. At least, no heterosexual incest.

Next episode: “I Was Wrong” – Who woulda believed it?

I        Those who see additional children as workers on the farm or elsewhere, and those who desire children to help make up for lives lost during the Holocaust, are doing our species a disservice.

ii       The more recent changes which allow additional children are a mistake.

iii     Our culture also glorifies sex in our movies, television shows, games, and stories. Everything we do – as opposed to what we say – promotes procreation, while we ring our hands over the problems it has caused. But we are “concerned” society, not necessarily a logical or consistent one.

iv       India and China are way ahead of us, but they're not as advanced as we are, and we can only lead them to wisdom. We can't force them to see the light.

v       To reducing the population, not to being the most populous. So here's one approach. Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” and one of the gurus of ZPG, said “The mother of the year should be a sterilized woman with two adopted children.” That was his view of women. I don't know what he said about men.

vi       That sounds suspiciously like genetic engineering which we all know is “wrong.” Whether it works or not, and whether it's dangerous or not, it's immoral and not worth the risks.

vii      Eating children, Jonathan Swift notwithstanding, is unlikely to be accepted as a solution.

viii     We should consider providing free or reduced-price weddings and receptions in these cases.

ix       I prefer something other than “marriage” even though that's the term being bandied around right now. That word has centuries of use with the connotation of the union of members of opposite sexes. A new designation would seem to be preferable to muddying the meaning of the old – perhaps a univalent bond.

x        Christine Jorgensen and Lorena Bobbitt were pioneers in this field.

xi      I hesitate to say “partners.” A few days ago I heard, on the radio, that the “partner” of a murder victim had testified against the individual accused of the killing. The victim was a policeman and I was uncertain whether the witness shared a patrol car or a bed with him. Or maybe they played bridge together. It's another example of the danger to the language of adapting old terms to new situations.

xii      Consideration should be given to tax exemptions for childlessness, rather than for children. Expenses for child-rearing should never be deductible. Indeed, the government should assess a tax on college education so as to make it more expensive to have children. (Sex education should be given at a much earlier age.)

xiii     Interestingly, there are more than twice as many rapes of men as of women according to the Justice Department. According to the Daily Mail, a British publication, “More men are raped in the U.S. than woman, according to figures that include sexual abuse in prisons. In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 [male] inmates were assaulted while serving time, according to the [American] Department of Justice figures. That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison [a little more than 90% of whom are women].” Presumably the numbers are much closer since many (most?) rapes are not reported. The figures, however, suggest that we should consider an increase in incarceration to inure inmates to homosexuality and, perhaps, cure some of them of their heterosexual tendencies.

xiv      And bestiality as well. Satyrs, mermaids, and centaurs don't reproduce all that well. The status of sirens and harpies is a matter of opinion.

xv        We should provide birth-control clinics at home and around the world. And we should emphasize the value of hysterectomy and vasectomy which we might promote as procedures which would allow sex at all times without concern about pregnancy which will require abortion or child support. Good for the participant and good for society.

xvi      Whatever the origin of our species, we're increasing like rabbits. “Survival of the fittest” is a poor paradigm for a slimmed-down and efficient future. Childless unions should be the goal.

xvii     Actually it's the wave of the present – a fact easily discernible by watching TV or going to the movies or a play. If you're not queer, you're strange, and divorced from the new American ethos.