Adapting takes place also in the ecological domain. If people pollute food with chemical substances and they pollute the air, there must be a process of adapting to this pollution, which however weakens people in all aspects. It is debatable whether this process has any hope. The quantities of this process are: 1. Speed and scale of changes, 2. Ability of people to adapt. Hope therefore lies in lowering the speed and scale of changes (which is exactly what ecologists try to achieve) and in strengthening the ability of people to adapt, which is ensured mostly by the law of natural selection (regarding human imperfectness, the selection cannot be done by people directly). When there are enough individuals, it is possible to select the better-adapted ones, as it always used to be in similar cases of changes of environment. The more changed the environment is, the bigger is the “garbage” of inadaptable and for maintaining reproduction it becomes necessary that there are more individuals selected by the existential environment. This is true even the other way round and the ontic hope is then completely dependent on the number of individuals, which is its main parameter. In an unpolluted environment a certain number of individuals would be enough for reproduction, in a polluted environment this number has to be significantly higher. In developing countries, where there is a higher number of individuals and undisturbed selection (without interference of a health care system) there is a better ontic hope.
I would not like to make an impression that we are allowed to pollute the environment because we will adapt to it. Adaption is possible only to a certain level of pollution; there are substances and poisons that can completely exterminate all humans. Also I do not think, that anyone would want only one out of ten people to survive. Such natural selection is not natural anymore. Currently the biggest problem of developed countries is that there are not enough individuals (children). Unsuitable social conditions for natural selection is another, less important circumstance – if there are enough individuals, it is possible to pass the problem on to another generation. Increasing pollution and devastation are other adverse factors. All circumstances fuse into the current decadent state. It is necessary to keep in mind that more emancipated nations degrade biologically too, not only physically but also spiritually. It is given by the well-known fact that in an advanced nation, which is driven by unnatural agendas, intelligent people have fewer children and more and more children come into families that do not even have working habits and live on social support. This usually shows after a few generations, after it has been covered by increased efforts in the area of education. Usually we suddenly find out that immigrants from a less developed country are more intelligent than these citizens.
Overpopulation of developing countries without the possibility of expansion is an adverse factor for natural environment, but also for the community itself. People are poor, there are no resources and they get sick. Despite this, it is only a question of emancipation, technical means, medicine and social order that the overpopulation be solved and what is unacceptable for a dying country can be temporarily beneficial for an overpopulated country. Therefore it is not possible to unify the world and set the same ethical values for all the nations. Let us not forget that most of these countries have not crossed the “point of unnaturalness” in terms of their history, however they have crossed it in terms of ecology and therefore different rules must be set to overcome an adverse situation. I do not deal with their problems in detail in this book, I will just point out that solutions suitable for these nations are completely different from those suitable for European civilization. Therefore it is necessary to ensure a certain level of political and cultural isolation so that the country can figure out the right solution. It is really hard to talk about the results of the competition between advanced dying and overpopulated developing countries. Certain inspiration for using the other can be found in both. Population stability of advanced countries and slow dying out of overpopulated countries having no resources is maybe the optimum solution. Mutual learning and not enforcing anything by violence is probably the best challenge. Underdeveloped nations can even be roles models for the advanced ones in terms of overcoming anthropologic decadence (family solidarity) and also in terms of specific behaviour patterns in a new paradigm of post-materialism. (I use the term “underdeveloped” because it is well known and I do not want to introduce new vocabulary. It can actually be only technical and emancipatory underdevelopment; culturally the level can be approximately the same.) Someone can say that dying out of Europeans and the rise of other races is a process of natural selection. Europeans simply did not win the fight over their life space. This is true, but why does it have to be like this? Europeans are not substantially generationally burdened by physical degrading and their decline is due to wrong values and life rules. With the arrival of new ethnicities a new civilization would be formed in Europe, which is against the ideal of a diversified world. However ethnical disputes can be solved and substituted with humanistic competitions, the imitation system is the best.
Here I would like to point out that for the right evolution of the whole mankind to be successful it is necessary to have cultural diversity of communities, not unification. Letting the European civilization die and indoctrinate is obviously worse than losing a species. Individual civilizations should compete, ideally peacefully with a system of imitating mutual information and if this is impossible, then with the help of military equilibrium. The most suitable lifestyle will always find a way, which we could see for example in the fall of Communism. The worst thing is ethnical expansion, which has always been a cause of wars. If overpopulated civilizations do not have anywhere to expand, they will have to find their own solutions and not exporting their problems elsewhere. Slightly dying out and stable civilizations will make an example for the overpopulated ones. This will be an example, which would not be created in an indoctrinating environment, expansion would be imminent because overpopulated nations would have no model of how to solve their situation at home and nothing would make them look for one.
Defence of the borders in order to maintain ethnical and cultural diversity is a method of maintaining the sociocultural evolution. Sociocultural uniformity that the EU is trying to enforce by universal enforcing of relativist idea concepts (multiculturalism, feminism) is again an effort to destroy the diversity of civilizational regimes and create adverse conditions for adapting the European nations to the environmental changes and world challenges.
I remind you that multiculturalism (see 17, 52, 53) as it is understood in today’s modernistic world, is a mixture of cultures in one location and it does not ensure the diversity of communities because actually individual cultures do not create an individual community with its own mechanisms in order to prove their value in a competition with the others.
I do not share the pessimistic view concerning the future of mankind, usually declared by ecologists, who are too fascinated with the evolutionary theories applying to the nature. Man does not need to extinct, as it happened to many other species in the past. Man has the gift of intellect and can resist this unnatural evolution in a way, because he is able to change his environment. However he must not forget that if he is to survive, he needs to change and maintain biologically too. Catastrophic visions concerning the mankind are usually continuations of a thought that people are not biologically able to evolve (in the Darwinist sense) or they are not able to supply enough individuals for the natural selection. Natural selection in human society is limited today but as a cosmic principle it exists for every living creature and it is a necessary part of naturalness. Within this people can cease to exist as living creatures that did not adapt to cosmic rules and therefore lost the competition with other creatures on our planet that will survive this all. But if there are enough individuals and at least a harmless environment, man will not extinct, there will always be mutations with the ability to survive. Therefore I would like to explain at least one important thing about the law of natural selection (see 10): Enough human offspring.