Chapter 4

The Age of Hypocrisy (3)

Under the serene, ripple-free pond beneath the noble blue moon, a drop of water fell, causing ripples under the cool moonlight.

The ripples spread in concentric circles, covering the entire pond.

However, being at the epicenter, there was no way to know how far they would spread.

***

As everyone had expected, *Soylent Green* caused an enormous shock upon its publication.

If it had been a work by an unknown author, it might have gone unnoticed, but since it was a new work by an author already at the top, countless people bought the book, and those who were shocked were innumerable.

In an era where many of the upper echelons were followers of the Malthusian Trap, *Soylent Green* legitimized their actions.

"At least childbirth should be limited! We can only survive in the predetermined future by reducing childbirth!"

"Absolutely not! Childbirth is a sacred right of women!"

"According to doctrine, the act of abortion is a mortal sin that automatically leads to excommunication. God has told us to multiply and thrive…."

"But overmultiplying is leading us all to death! History proves it!"

However, there was one unexpected aspect: *Soylent Green* did not reduce the shock waves of *The Final Problem*.

The reason was simple.

*Soylent Green* itself was not a huge hit.

Of course, it sold quite well, but it was hard to rival the success of the Sherlock Holmes series.

Moreover, Sherlock Holmes' main readers ranged from the upper to the lower classes, which was natural since it was originally a serialized magazine novel.

In other words, the aftermath of *The Final Problem* had to be dealt with as it was.

***

"Ouch, my head."

As I lay down, clutching my head, Laila awkwardly laughed.

"How long was I out?"

"Three hours."

"Three hours of non-stop anger is quite a feat."

I sighed and put the soup Laila brought into my mouth.

"But, is this a sin?"

"… Is writing a novel a sin?"

"Contraception is a sin according to Catholic standards. But did I tell you to use contraception?"

Contraception is a mortal sin at this point. All known methods of contraception are mortal sins, and even the rhythm method was a mortal sin until Pope Paul VI allowed it under the premise of "legitimate marital relations." The problem is that it will take another century for Paul VI to become pope.

"… I didn't make such a claim to the novel."

"Hmm, but if you push it, duels are also a mortal sin."

"Duels are not the only issue."

I chuckled and thought about all the things prohibited by the Catholic Church.

"If people followed religious doctrines as strictly as your mother wants, the world wouldn't be like this."

"Perhaps not…"

"Ha, anyway…"

"By the way, when will you write the next Sherlock Holmes? You can't go out freely now…."

"Is it that bad?"

"The city's atmosphere is tense. Thankfully, you've hidden your location, or there might have been a riot here."

"People are more interested in the Sherlock Holmes series than in my new work."

"Can't be helped, I guess."

Of course, the highest echelons of various countries are seriously discussing this issue… but it's something that happened in history, so it will happen again.

Anyway, nothing serious will happen.

Or maybe… not.

"So, I have a lot to do. I need to prepare a sequel to *Soylent Green* and the next Sherlock Holmes."

If I have to prioritize, *Soylent Green* is more urgent. Sherlock Holmes can wait a few years.

"I always say, coming up with a title is the hardest part."

It has to encapsulate the theme of the work.

"And it has to be intriguing."

"With your reputation, there will be demand just because it's your work."

"Maybe."

I scribbled with a pen and said,

"And it's a sequel to *Soylent Green*, so it will become famous. It needs to be convincing, and of course, it has to be entertaining."

What I want to do is use the form of a novel to spread my ideas.

Obviously, I have to write it purely with my own skills. *Soylent Green* doesn't have a sequel.

Of course, I can plagiarize the novels in my head to some extent, and I have accumulated some skill, and I have organized the story to some extent, but the first start is always the biggest problem.

If my name is remembered in history as a supporter of Malthus, it will severely damage my reputation, and I don't think I can handle my mother's pressure.

And for the comfortable life I dream of, I absolutely cannot ruin my reputation in high society.

In other words, I have to use all the tricks I've accumulated to create a work.

"Headache… really."

It feels like the sand in the hourglass is pouring out, but the words aren't coming, and I'm going crazy.

No, I should decide the title first?

"Laila, for the new work, do you have any good ideas? I need to decide the title."

"Hmm… the protagonist's symbol was the wolf, right?"

"The protagonist and his companions are all wolves."

"Then how about this: *The Wolf Does Not Cry at the Moon*!"

"If he doesn't cry at the moon, what does he cry at?"

"I didn't really think about that? But doesn't it sound plausible?"

"Hmm."

It seems plausible, but it also seems not.

"Well, since I don't have any better ideas, I'll use this as a working title and change it if I think of something better."

I wrote the title on the cover of the manuscript.

***

Buckingham Palace, London, Great Britain and Ireland.

George IV, the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Kingdom of Hanover, frowned.

"I hear Parliament and the press are noisy."

"I apologize."

"Isn't it more rational to reduce the number of mouths to feed rather than increase food production? It's much easier, after all. If we could just get rid of those slums, things would be much simpler."

At George IV's words, the Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington, and the Duke of Clarence and St. Andrews, Prince William, stiffened.

Prince William was the closest person to the British throne. George IV's only daughter, Charlotte, died in childbirth, and her child was stillborn, leaving George IV with no descendants. His second brother, Prince Frederick, died three years ago, making William the third in line.

Of course, Prince William could not pass the throne to his own children. Despite having five legitimate children, all of them died young, and the next in line for the throne was the 11-year-old only daughter of the Duke of Kent and Strathearn, Edward, who died of pneumonia 10 years ago, Princess Alexandrina Victoria.

In any case, George IV, who had shocked the next king and the Prime Minister, said irritably,

"Dr. Malthus is right. We must reduce the population, even if it means war. Otherwise, the world will be nothing but thorns."

"Hem, that is…"

"Still, killing people is a bit much, so we'll prevent more from being born, but that's also met with fierce opposition. What are they trying to do? Prime Minister?"

Wellington cleared his throat.

"Many members of Parliament are still opposing the Poor Increase Prevention Act."

The contraception methods of this era were problematic in various ways.

So, why not reduce the population by offering government subsidies in exchange for infertility?

That's the essence of the Poor Increase Prevention Act. In simpler terms, it's about giving money and performing sterilization.

Obviously, those who need the money will be the poor, and wealth is naturally passed down, so this would control the number of poor people.

Castration was not unheard of in the West. Without even mentioning the Islamic world in the Middle Ages, the castrati in Italy were castrated boys.

So, if castration is a fairly public act, why is it a problem to formalize it as a policy? After all, the poor are just expendable, living and dying pointlessly.

If they can't leave descendants, it will prevent future food shortages, and a little pain is negligible.

Isn't this utilitarianism? The greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Whether maximizing pleasure or minimizing pain should take precedence is debatable, but in any case, this is for the greatest happiness of the majority.

If the future generations, who will be far more numerous than us, will be much happier if we don't take this action, then it's worth the current generation enduring a little unhappiness.

In other words, the Poor Increase Prevention Act is moral. It only causes pain to the individuals, but it's a much better thing for the children of the poor, who will live in the same misery.

This is the essence of those who advocate for the Poor Increase Prevention Act.

Of course, there are many who oppose it.

In the original history, when the Poor Law was abolished in 1834, William IV, who approved it, expressed his aversion, and the religious community also rose up.

Not only the Catholic Church but also the Anglican Church opposed it. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury criticized it in public.

It's a natural stance for those who follow the Bible and are religious, regardless of denomination, to never openly support such actions.

The Whig Party was entirely opposed, and a significant number of the Conservative Party were also opposed. Although he did not publicly state his position due to concerns about party division, Prime Minister Wellington was also opposed.

Even the author of *Soylent Green*, which sparked the Malthusian Trap debate, the Earl of Gentian, who wrote the Sherlock Holmes series, published an editorial in major newspapers stating that food shortages should be solved through the cultivation of barren lands and technological development, not by killing people or castration. He clearly opposed the Poor Increase Prevention Act, stating that while it would certainly reduce the number of poor, it would not produce positive results and could never be morally justified.

He strongly criticized the Poor Increase Prevention Act, emphasizing that the intention of his novel was not to reduce the population but to cultivate abandoned lands and continuously develop technology to prepare for population growth.

Many other celebrities also opposed it.

Of course, there were some supporters, but they were often criticized.

Of course, this did not break their pride.

They were convinced that it was a necessary action and saw themselves as pioneers. They had a belief, not just a simple argument.

And precisely because of this, it was a difficult issue to resolve.

If it were a matter of money or interests, they would change their stance as soon as the situation changed, but the most difficult to persuade are those who act based on such beliefs.

There is no one harder to persuade than someone who believes they are right.

"Your Majesty, surely you don't…"

Wellington's eyes trembled. The prince also had a bitter expression, but the king paid no attention.

"Is there any reason not to implement the Poor Increase Prevention Act? The world is progressing, not regressing. Do we still follow the laws of the Old Testament just because we believe in God? Do people today not use butter when roasting steak?"

The Old Testament has a law that forbids cooking a young animal in its mother's milk.

In other words, it prohibits using dairy products to cook beef or using goat's milk to cook goat meat.

But how many people don't use butter when roasting meat? This means, why should we be bound by past morals and not choose the obvious progress?