27 New Republic: Thoughts 01

Pericle(Last edited 20130717 at 16:29)

The new Republic should be a dream for participants, for citizens and so this dream should be communicated first to arouse anticipation and impatience.

It is necessary, therefore, that the team that intends to promote the initiative will join diligent to spread new ideas, not advocating organic laws but with concrete examples and understandable by all. They should evidence the underlying main principles.

Paraphrasing Hesiod, stroking those thoughts that still have never materialized but that in the mind of the honest man have always existed.

We could talk, for these reasons,  about deep things, revolutionary reasoning but we prefer to talk about very simple things that arouse immediate approval.

For example, the number of inhabitants in Italy. There is this eagerness of wanting to increase the number of inhabitants, no care for how much  it can cost. The main motivation (the first one) is as follows: being the average age of people projected towards longevity, if does not increase the population and do not increase young people, we will not be able to pay retirements in the future. This is the fundamental reason for wanting the population increase, maybe even extra-community. All those who have a minimum of mathematical knowledge know however that the formula describing the phenomenon, aebx, sooner or later would be destined to assume the characteristics of the quadratic equation, i.e. would inevitably destined to decline. Another reason (the second one) could be that of the millions of bayonets so dear to fascism: an increase in the population for war reasons that frankly has shown its limitations, not least for the technological evolution of weapons.

A third reason may be: more people = more consuming = more development of civilization (for consuming) = more industrial development in general.

I seem to be able to prove that the second point has no more reason to be taken into account (fascism and bayonets) while the third point(consumerism) is clearly in crisis, as the global economy, at least in our Western countries, is a substituting economy, an economy of spare parts. In fact, very few are the new freezers sold and sales of these depend on the old obsolete freezer replacements. These are a few, very few, and so applies to cars, televisions and for so-called semi-durable goods in general. The third point is therefore intended to be increasingly responsible for future crises in the Western world: just remove and devote resources to other activities, such as tourism.

In addition, the research must be developed because only factories that will produce new articles and not for replacement will do have a future. In essence, trying to support a car factory (not in a niche) seems just lunacy.

Strangely, the Italian government, perhaps to ruin the country, does not provide interesting policies for tourism and for research, which could solve the problem. Why? Or through ignorance or ulterior purposes.

Then the population increase is not reason to be most desired for either the second or the third of the aforementioned reasons.

The first one: a growing population can create more workers who pay contributions for pensions. Even in this case, it would be like chasing a mirage because in some years the population will have an even higher average age and the problem will become like that of the dog who tries to grab his tail. Therefore requires a system change, such that the population mean and the sense as reasonable and fair.

At this address you will find the detailed data like you might conceive a retirement system independent of the number of inhabitants. There are no other valid reasons to focus on population increase, except for psychological inertia unworthy.

Scientific estimates tell us that the ideal number for a country like Italy should be equivalent to 38 million people, as at the end of World War I. Being the Italy a territory of 300 thousand sq.km, it is concluded that the ideal number of inhabitants per sq.km should be equal to 126 and not 200, as we are now.

What would be the advantages from this population?

More land for each inhabitant, obviously, but above all more agricultural land, with more food to disposal.

Minor crowding the streets and cities.

Increased income for those who work by hand and therefore greater social redistribution. This was true, for example, after the black death of 1348, when manpower, decreased suddenly, could ask for higher wages.

Certainly it would be a development model different from the present one and there would be the opposition of a few that today are earning (and controlling the businesses).

In fact, the main purpose of these thoughts is to reflect on the fact that perhaps the possibility of intervention on the current situation are greater than what we can think.

Advertisements

Write a comment here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s