, , , , , , , , ,

Currently I am studying a subject in demography (the study of the structure of human populations using statistics relating to births, deaths, wealth, disease, etc.) called “population development” and basically it consists of three components; mortality, fertility and migration which is then studied, often to give prognoses on where a society is heading. Although it was interesting to see the graphs and spikes and how a change in a single law regarding divorce, would change the entire demography setting of a population, the subject itself is also utterly absurd. Basically a large amount of people are educated to study numbers that are generated every time people are born, die or move from one region or country to another. They then try to predict how the future will be, based on these data and optimally utilize data to prevent demographic, physical and economic catastrophes from happening through being able to create policies that will effect the demographic s of a country or a group. So the “art” of demography is to look at people from a view so far up high that each individual becomes a tiny dot on a graph and to guess where the dots will move next. This is then done with the development of the AIDS pandemic in Africa, the fertility rates in Europe or China and the migration of refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously some form of demographic research is relevant or useful, considering an actual mathematical overview of what works or not in a society – but to watch millions of people die from famine or casually measuring how many children die from infancy mortality from the safe distance of a welfare country is not only absurd, but also a form of spitefulness and abuse. Consider how much money is posted into demographics departments around the world’s universities, where students make careers in ‘scientific speculation’ and write PhD’s on research that is not relevant for anyone but the university and the students themselves. This is obviously not only in demography that this is happening – it is happening in all academic areas where money and resources could be spent on what is best for all – on coming up with solutions to the problems that we face on earth, not only theoretically but more importantly: practically as well. The scientists and scholars will say that even if they want to, they’re not able to do this due to policy makers having the power and control over what research gets funding. A cure for a well-known disease might be created but impossible to get to those actually sick, because it might not fit into a specific policy-scheme or election period. This does however not mean that the scientists and scholars is not equally responsible for what is here and that their research should be devoted to change our world so that everyone can live dignified and without suffering or abuse. It is actually possible – but because everyone abdicates self-responsibility, the “ball” is constantly being shifted and pushed around. What we don’t realize is, that as much as we wash them, we’ve still got blood on our hands and that it will not stop until we stop spilling the blood of the earth, the animals and each other. Demography can be used in an Equal Money System, where what is best for all is the overall principle of policy-making , to measure that what we are doing IS in deed working and to ensure that it is always the best solutions that are considered and decided upon. We will not look down on Earth or ourselves from a safe distance of an academic justification, but will instead see each dot that connects the map as a valuable and dignified expression of life that is entitled to an equally dignified life.