At Last!! What is Mabinogigiblog?

Ben from www.cutyourfootprint.com
says "...I'm not entirely sure what your blog name means?"


Thank you for asking, Ben. It means nothing, and I still find it hard to pronounce. There is an old Welsh Celtic book of folk lore called the Mabinogion. Nobody knows for certain what it means. I like reading mythology, especially Celtic myths, so I stuck blog on the end.

So. That's all clear then.

Social Contract on Food & Population

More abstracts from the GPEW population Social Contract email debate:

If "We the people" could have a contract with the planet, it would have to be "We promise to look after you in all ways so that you continue to feed and nurture us".

That contract itself implies that we to agree to put an end to both destructive economic growth and indefinite population growth , because even humans with the lightest footprint cannot grow indefinitely.

We are debating the idea of a contract between people and government, along the lines of "We the people agree not to reproduce above replacement rate if you agree to make sure we have enough to eat".


First an idea has to be conceived and weaned, then it needs to penetrate the consciousness of more and more people. Some ideas have viral (i.e. self-propagating) properties if they resonate with a social need.

Tim says: the Social Contract is a nice way to formalise a balance of rights and responsibilities and the principles of democracy, 

RL: Voila. We agree.

but it's hard to see how it could be more than a concept

RL: At the moment it is just that - a concept. It has just been conceived. (Post 19th century Catholics would have us believe that such a concept already has a soul, but we need not go there). The idea or concept may die here, or it may unfold into an embryo, to a baby, born to within the Green Party (and why not?) but eventually growing into a mainstream idea that persuades governments to adopt it.

Our job is to think through policies and concepts for the age we are in. To create mental maps. Einstein: "You do not solve problems with the mental frameworks that produced them in the first place" (Words to that effect).

For all we know, there may be others hatching up the same idea.

I realise that the purpose is not some sort of 'binding contract' where
third children will be left to starve, but as an educational tool. I do
agree that a lot can be done through education - children need to know the
truth about what lies ahead for humanity and the planet and they need to be
given the life skills to make appropriate choices in their lives. 

RL: agreed

But I think saying that the government will only guarantee to feed them if they don't have more than 2 children is going to far.

RL: Put it this way: The total sum of global authorities (i.e. the 193+ states on earth) CAN only feed all the aggregate of people if they DO not increase in numbers. That is the reality. (In fact, it is nigh impossible to sustainably feed the present world population, given the amunt of oil needed for food production).

Because this is the only possibility, governments would be lying if they said "We can feed you even if our numbers increase indefinitely". Undoubtedly many politicians will happily speak within the framework of that lie, but that is not our way. We must speak truth to power.

How about this formulation:

Social contract on food and population growth.

"We the people will do our best to limit our children to two, on condition that government does its best to feed us"

Admittedly, this lacks snappiness, but provides the flexibility that human behaviour needs. A phrase such as "(without taking food away from someone who needs it more)."
could go into the explanatory paragraphs.

Ultimately, I think the planet and humankind will only be saved by people
consciously deciding to live sustainable lives through their own free will,
not through coercion. 

RL: Agreed again!

I think the primary role of a Green government would therefore be to enable
and encourage more sustainable lifestyles.

RL: First, as a bit of an aside, we need to modify this "green government" tag. Nothing personal, lots of people use the phrase, but the political reality is that we will only get into government under PR, and PR usually requires coalition governments.

The lifestyle point; sure, that should be part of the policy of any government that has more than 2 neurons to think with, and is indeed happening *Carbon Trust &c). Alongside the CFL leaflets we need "Two is Fine" leaflets from a govt population education initiative, sure. Acting in the way I set out before, in schools and NHS.

1. We all realise we need some degree of self-restraint, aided by government
(my view)

RL: Agreed

2. Some of us vote green so that the government will restrain the others
(view held by some other members)

RL: Govt is very much, indeed centrally, about providing protection, usually calling for others (usually the powerful) to be restrained: Classically, protection against invasion and crime. Later comes protection against water pollution, poverty, unfit housing, and disease. Now we are beginning to install protection for minorities against bullying. Next, we need protection against anthropogenic global f*ck-up (to coin a prhase). It is just dawning on the world consciousness that the world needs protection against the effects of burning fossil fules. (A concept , by the way, that has passed though the stages of embryo and foetus, and is at present in the perinatal state, or maybe early infancy)

3. We all agree to have the government restrain us (social contract theory?)

RL: I do not think so. Primarily the govt is there to serve us, to protect us, not to restrain us. Not if we are not doing harm to others. If I do harm to others, I must expect to be restrained. In reality, the govt often restrains the wrong people (many of us, last year, at Faslane) and lets the powerful wrong 'uns go free.


So. I reckon we are pretty close here.

The population debate

There is a big debate on population taking place on Green Party lists.
This is my take:

The ideal of Social Contract has been pretty much a constant, in one form or another, in western philosophers since Locke. It means in essence that individuals give up one of their rights to their social community in exchange for a service provided by the community.

It is a reflection of democracy, in that all power of social authorities (governments &c) is ultimately given to them by the people.


RL: Real economics and politics means harmonising our needs with the needs of the web of life that ultimately sustains us. We have to stop human incursion into nature, e.g.  slashing down forests to grow food. Change to green technology is important, but even if every human on the planet had the minimum ecological footprint, we would still have to stop population growth, because it is impossible to expand forever into a finite space.

The present human population is 6 billion. Business as usual projections indicate that it will peak at 9 billion. The world can just about feed 6 billion. It follows that the trends indicate mass starvation for 1 in 3. This is not acceptable, therefore population growth is an urgent issue for the world.

The proposed social contract is an instrument, a lever, to bring about the radical change in global policy that is required. The contract is this:

We, the people, will undertake to have only 2 children per couple, and in exchange it is government's responsibility to make sure that we have enough to eat.

This is an entirely reasonable contract given the circumstances of mankind on planet earth in 2008. The present food crisis is the result of fluctuations in commodity markets, poor harvests probably due to climate change, 3W debt, WHO rules, EU subsidies, and a host of other factors leading right out to militarism; but is is not a flash in the pan. It is here to stay.

3% of the earths surface is low-lying, fertile deltas and flood plains, like that part of Burma just flooded by cyclone Nargis: that 3% produces 30% of the world's food. Sobering.

So the principle of the food/family social contract (FFSC) is rock solid.

The devil is in the detail.

First and foremost, Greens reject compulsion. Education, information and persuasion has to be the way. The role of FFSC is to flag up this approach. It will create global consciousness of the link between population growth and mass starvation.

It is controversial enough here, so when the UN starts discussing it, it will be headline news, and a big debate will ensue. We will be ready to lead that debate.

Our educative approach should be:
1 Schools. Teach the pop. graph big time. In maths, peach pop. in consideration of exponential growth. Major on it in biology. And  in sex education. And in citizenship classes. And in food tech...
2 Health contacts. GPs, nurses, midwives hand out leaflets on pop. at contraceptive checks. Midwives mention it. Most of all, mothers who have had their second child will have detailed counseling. All this will be clear, definite, but also sensitive, and not heavy or coercive. The health care personnel will be briefed on FAQs about human rights &c.


These measures will, over time, produce a shift in consciousness, similar to the shift in consciousness that has occurred with smoking. (For our younger readers, there was a time, back in the day, when smoking was a perfectly acceptable habit socially...)

This will produce voluntary agreement from the majority who are open to reason.

Which leaves us  with those who choose to ignore or are unable to comply with the contract.  There are 5 main groups:

1 Religions such as Islam and Catholicism.
2 Baby addicts such as the couple with 12 children in the Guardian may ~16
3 Accidents
4 Chaotic families


This is where things get tough.  The first 2 children in a family should get child benefit as of right, but the 3rd and subsequent children should receive an equivalent sum by other sources, or as the result of negotiating with the fund providers.

Religious communities should be legally required to provide for their 2+ families. That is eminently reasonable.


The other 4 classes should be funded on a separate basis, the funding being linked with compliance in more detailed education and training, therapy, and assistance.

Yes, it is tough. There will be losers, as indeed there are with all our policies.

But in the end, these measures are absolutely necessary to prevent mass starvation* in the future.

That's how I see it anyway. I would be delighted to be shown that I am wrong, and that there is some factor that I have overlooked that will enable us to expand forever into a finite space...