Olympics, you looked better on the telly
By Mark Piggott
Monday, 13 August 2012 at 10:31 am
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/13/olympics-you-looked-better-on-the-telly/
Having spent much of the last fortnight watching the Olympics in a Gallic farmhouse, my family and I were relishing our visit to Stratford. Not for sporting reasons, admittedly; to my eyes the Games would be much better if they combined the events (synchronised swimming/taekwondo or the ten metre dive/javelin, anyone?) but simply to be A Part Of It All.
As Londoners there was a sense that we were somehow missing the party; no amount of video-montage highlights, slow-mo Hi-res repeats of Mo Farah being pushed along by the other runners from behind as if by repelling magnets, could compensate for being present: for being able to tell friends and future generations: “I was there”.
So it was that on Saturday we set out for Stratford, in order to soak up the ambience, be a part of this joyous celebration of modern, multi-culti Britannia; for our children, aged 8 and 5, to one day tell their own gilled grandchildren “I remember 2012…”
It’s probably safe to say that our kids won’t forget the 2012 Olympics; hopefully in future years they, like the country, will dwell more on the sunshine, the happy, mingling crowds, the fantastic achievements of the athletes and the stunning opening and closing ceremonies than any negative aspects to the occasion; nevertheless, while conceding this may seem rather curmudgeonly, it should be placed on record that attending Stratford wasn’t quite the triumph of humanity I had been led to expect from the telly highlights.
On arriving at the Park, we were filtered through airport-style security, manned by machine-gunned policemen, relaxed-looking army types and volunteers. I do get the reason there has to be security – really I do – but did they REALLY think we might have somehow poured flammable glycerine in our water bottle? And what did they really expect to find beneath my five-year-old son’s hat, a stick of TNT – or, worse, a Pepsi?
Worse even than the hard-nosed security was the prevalence of purple-clad volunteers, many of them sitting in high chairs, exhorting everyone to “SMILE!” After a while this, and the fact our kids were constantly being implored to give the foam-fingers of volunteers “high-fives!” (has a more empty, meaningless gesture ever been conceived?) began to take on sinister undertones.
Before attending the Olympic Park I found JG Ballard’s “Kingdom Come” slightly disappointing; too much fear of the masses, the football crowd and housing estate. But as we walked through the milling crowds, and orders to “have fun!” crackled through loud-speakers, the book didn’t seem so far-fetched.
Hockey has somehow always escaped my radar; when my wife announced she had tickets my brief moment of excitement dwindled when I realised it was for the men’s tournament, which meant no athletic ladies in short skirts; worse, our tickets weren’t for the final, nor even the third-place grudge-match play-off between the Brits and the Australians.
We would instead be watching the play-off to decide fifth and sixth place between Spain and Belgium, in a roofless stadium apparently designed purely to focus the sun’s rays down onto my hatless head and, in a misplaced attempt to liven up proceedings, music blared at every yellow card green card, and goal.
My son, Sean (5), being of Irish stock and allergic to direct sunlight, wisely decided to have a little snooze beneath the flip-seats as my wife, daughter and I attempted to comprehend the complexities of a “penalty corner”.
Unfortunately, the game itself being so one-sided (Belgium stuffed the Spanish 5-2, if you’re more interested than I was), a Mexican Wave started rolling round the arena. As the Wave approached, I exhorted our daughter Emma, eight, to jump up and down as it reached us: she did so; as she left her seat it shot up; Emma decided to sit back down; and of course the seat no longer being there she landed firmly on Sean’s sleeping head.
Suffice to say he was awoken. Rudely…
Sean bawling with the indignity of it all we left the hockey arena in search of refreshment and shade. My daughter and I being hatless, I purchased two luridly-decorated caps from a stall: twenty seven pounds. Then ice-cream (for the kiddies) and lager (for the grown-ups): just short of fifteen quid, “Visa Card ONLY”, thank you.
There were huge queues everywhere; all the tables were full and we found ourselves sitting on the concrete in the shade of some monument to the power of mammon. For all the well-earned sobriquets being heaped on “Team GB”, by far the biggest amassers of gold at these Games were the “retail team”.
The Games may indeed be inclusive – there were people of every race and religion, of all ages and abilities, every shape and size – but one group seemed conspicuous by their absence at the Park: the poor. Unless you were actually competing, the Olympic Park was as out of reach as that Martian crater.
Drained by the sun, the sponsors and the constant exhortations to “High Five!” we walked towards the distant exit. As we did so we came across poor Steve Redgrave, attempting to make his way through the park; like everyone else we asked for a photo, which he took in pretty good spirits (“I’ll never get where I’m going at this rate – walk with me”). My wife got her star-struck photo; whether Sir Steve ever made it out alive I have no idea.
Leaving the Olympic Park was a relentlessly grim experience; the overall feeling was: “we’ve got your money – now get lost”. We were channelled through huge corridors of shops and bars, rather like being in an airport, as people on high chairs barked orders through mikes: “No taking photos on the steps – the reasons will be obvious!” (Umm – not to me, they weren’t). “High five! High five!”
Finally, my son Sean gave in: as yet another pleasant dimwit stuck out a mitt and commanded him to “high-five” he reluctantly did so. As we walked down the platform to our train he looked up at me and explained:
“I had no choice”.
Prince Philip, In His Own Words: We Need To ‘Cull’ The Surplus Population
Prison Planet| June 10 2004
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/100604_prince_philip.html
Here is a re-cap of some of the things “HIS ROYAL VIRUS”, Prince Philip has said in public concerning “culling the population”
Reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988.
In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.
Prince Philip, in his Foreward to If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.
I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist…. I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.
Press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the “Caring for Creation” conference of the North American Conference on Religion and Ecology, May 18, 1990.
It is now apparent that the ecological pragmatism of the so-called pagan religions, such as that of the American Indians, the Polynesians, and the Australian Aborigines, was a great deal more realistic in terms of conservation ethics than the more intellectual monotheistic philosophies of the revealed religions.
Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.
For example, the World Health Organization Project, designed to eradicate malaria from Sri Lanka in the postwar years, achieved its purpose. But the problem today is that Sri Lanka must feed three times as many mouths, find three times as many jobs, provide three times the housing, energy, schools, hospitals and land for settlement in order to maintain the same standards. Little wonder the natural environment and wildlife in Sri Lanka has suffered. The fact [is] … that the best-intentioned aid programs are at least partially responsible for the problems.
Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988, p.|8.
I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the “cull” to the size of the surplus population.
Lecture to the European Council of International Schools. Montreaux, Switzerland, Nov. 14, 1986.
The great difficulty about “life” is that we humans are part of it, and it is therefore almost impossible to study objectively…. It therefore tends to be anthropocentric and gives scant attention to the welfare of all the other life-forms which share this planet with us.
…|When the Bible says that man shall have “dominion” over God’s creation, the choice is between understanding dominion as in “having power over,” or dominion as “having responsibility for.”
“Conflict Between Instinct and Reason”
Fawley Foundation Lecture. Southampton University, Nov. 24, 1967.
The conflict between instinct and reason has reached a critical stage in man’s affairs, largely because the explosion of facts has revealed the instincts for what they are and at the same time it has undermined traditional philosophies and ideologies. The explosion of facts has effectively altered mankind’s physical and intellectual environment and when any environment changes, the process of natural selection is brutal and merciless. “Adapt or die” is as true today as it was in the beginning.
Introduction to “Exploitation of the Natural System” section of Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.
It took about three and a half billion years for life on earth to reach the state of complexity and diversity that our ancestors knew as recently as 200 years ago. It has only taken industrial and scientific man those 200 years to put at risk the whole of the world’s natural system. It has been estimated that by the year 2000, some 300,000 species of plants and animals will have become extinct, and that the natural economy, upon which all life depends, will have been seriously disrupted.
The paradox is that this will have been achieved with the best possible intentions. The human population must be properly fed, human life must be preserved and human existence must be made safer and more comfortable. All these things are obviously highly desirable, but if their achievement means putting the survival of future generations at risk, then there is a pressing obligation on present generations to apply some measure of self-restraint.
Address to Edinburgh University Union, Nov. 24 1969.
We talk about over- and underdeveloped countries; I think a more exact division might be between underdeveloped and overpopulated. The more people there are, the more industry and more waste and the more sewage there is, and therefore the more pollution.
The Fairfield Osborne Lecture, New York, Oct. 1 1980.
If the world pollution situation is not critical at the moment, it is as certain as anything can be that the situation will become increasingly intolerable within a very short time. The situation can be controlled, and even reversed; but it demands cooperation on a scale and intensity beyond anything achieved so far.
I realize that there are vital causes to be fought for, and I sympathize with people who work up a passionate concern about the all too many examples of inhumanity, injustice, and unfairness; but behind all this hangs a deadly cloud. Still largely unnoticed and unrecognized, the process of destroying our natural environment is gathering speed and momentum. If we fail to cope with the challenge, the other problems will pale into insignificance.
Introduction to “The Population Factor” section of Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.
What has been described as the “balance of nature” is simply nature’s system of self-limitation. Fertility and breeding success create the surpluses after allowing for the replacement of the losses. Predation, climatic variation, disease, starvation–and in the case of the inappropriately named Homo sapiens, wars and terrorism–are the principal means by which population numbers are kept under some sort of control.
Viewed dispassionately, it must be obvious that the world’s human population has grown to such a size that it is threatening its own habitat; and it has already succeeded in causing the extinction of large numbers of wild plant and animal species. Some have simply been killed off. Others have quietly disappeared, as their habitats have been taken over or disturbed by human activities.
Humans are the Greatest Threat to Survival
Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People Dec. 21, 1981 titled “Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.”
Q: What do you consider the leading threat to the environment?
A: Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed–not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.
Address to the Joint Meeting of the All-Party Group on Population and Development and the All-Party Conservation Committee in London, March 11, 1987.
I do believe … that human population pressure–the sheer number of people on this planet–is the single most important cause of the degradation of the natural environment, of the progressive extinction of wild species of plants and animals, and of the destabilization of the world’s climatic and atmospheric systems.
The simple fact is that the human population of the world is consuming natural renewable resources faster than it can regenerate, and the process of exploitation is causing even further damage. If this is already happening with a population of 4 billion, I ask you to imagine what things will be like when the population reaches six and then 10 billion…. All this has been made possible by the industrial revolution and the scientific explosion and it is spread around the world by the new economic religion of development.
Address at the Salford University Degree Ceremony, July 16, 1973.
There may be disagreements about the time scale, but in principle there can be little doubt that the population cannot go on increasing indefinitely. Resources presently being used will not last for ever and pollution in its broadest sense, unless severely checked, is bound to increase with population and industrial activity.
Address to All-Party Conservation Committee in London, Feb. 18, 1981.
I suspect that the single most important gift of progress to conservation has been the development of human contraception techniques.
The survival of the “most important”
Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People magazine, Dec. 21, 1981 titled “Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.
Q: Is birth control part of the solution?
A: Yes, but you can’t legislate these problems away. You’ve got to get people to understand the need for it: the more important people, the ones who have responsibilities have got to do it because they’re at the receiving end. They’ve got to accept the measures.
The Chancellor’s Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.
As long ago as 1798, Malthus explained what happens when the factors limiting the increase in any population are removed. One of the factors noticed by Darwin was that all species are capable of producing vastly greater populations than can be sustained by existing resources; populations did not increase at the rate at which they are capable was the basis for his theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
The relevance to natural selection of this capacity for overproduction is that as each individual is slightly different to all the others it is probable that under natural conditions those individuals which happen to be best adapted to the prevailing circumstances have a better chance of survival. Well, so what? Well, take a look at the figures for the human population of this world. One hundred fifty years ago it stood at about 1,000 million or in common parlance today, 1 billion. It then took about a 100 years to double to 2 billion. It took 30 years to add the third billion and 15 years to reach today’s total of 4.4 billion. With a present world average rate of growth of 1.8%, the total population by the year 2000 will have increased to an estimated 6 billion and in that and in subsequent years 100 million people will be added to the world population each year. In fact it could be as much as 16 billion by 2045. As a consequence the demand on resources of land alone will mean a third less farm land available and the destruction of half of the present area of productive tropical forest. Bearing in mind the constant reduction of non-renewable resources, there is a strong possibility of growing scarcity and reduction of standards. More people consume more resources. It is as simple as that; and transferring resources and standards from the richer to the poorer countries can only have a marginal effect in the face of this massive increase in the world population.
Speech at the Margaret Pyke Memorial Trust Dinner in London, Dec. 14 1983.
So long as they [birth control methods] … remained taboo subjects the chances of making any impression on the human population explosion were that much more remote.
In the introduction to the IUCN Red Data Books which list all animals and plants under threat of extinction, it says that virtually everywhere the major threat to a wild species is loss of habitat to a rapidly increasing human population requiring more space in order to build villages and cities and grow more food. But starvation and poverty cannot be eradicated solely by increased food and resources at the expense of what remains of the natural world. Any increase in the provision of food and resources must be accompanied by a drastic reduction in the rate of increase in the human population.
Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.
The industrial revolution sparked the scientific revolution and brought in its wake better public hygiene, better medical care and yet more efficient agriculture. The consequence was a population explosion which still continues today.
The sad fact is that, instead of the same number of people being very much better off, more than twice as many people are just as badly off as they were before. Unfortunately all this well-intentioned development has resulted in an ecological disaster of immense proportions.
The Chancellor’s Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.
The object of the WWF is to “conserve” the system as a whole; not to prevent the killing of individual animals. Those who are concerned about their conservation of nature accept that all species are prey to some other species. They accept that most species produce a surplus that is capable of being culled without in any way threatening the survival of the species as a whole.
A Question of Balance by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Michael Russel (Publishing) Ltd., 1982.
It is curious how many philosophers from Plato to Keynes’ time have believed in and advocated the control of society by “philosopher kings.” According to Plato, “its kings must be those who have shown the greatest ability in philosophy,” but–realistically–he added, “and the greatest aptitude for war.” Such people may exist in the imagination and occasionally someone with the necessary qualities may briefly dominate the stage of history, but it is a naive appreciation of human nature to imagine that such processed paragons can be invested with the necessary powers and not be tempted to take advantage of their situation.
CLUB OF ROME DEPOPULATION OF HUMAN BEINGS FROM EARTH [Video]
http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress/?p=27462