Essay Abstract

Our modern civilization is built on cheap energy from fossil fuels, which produces carbon dioxide, which produces global warming. The only way to avoid catastrophe is to shift away from fossil fuels to solar and nuclear energy, well before all fossil fuel reserves have been burned. But this transition cannot be achieved with a projected global population of 10 billion (10B); we need to return to a level of 100 to 200 years ago, when the population was ~1-2B. A peaceful transition is possible only if humanity collectively takes ownership of the problem.

Author Bio

Alan M. Kadin is an applied physicist (PhD Harvard 1979), who has worked in both industry and academia, and is now living in Princeton Junction, New Jersey, USA. Dr. Kadin's primary research field has been superconducting devices, but he also has longstanding interests in the foundations of physics and in futurology. He submitted two essays to previous FQXi contests: fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1601 and fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1296.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Doctor Kadin,

I found your essay quite an interesting read. May I make a comment about something you seem to have overlooked?

Man is a life form. Man is not the only form of life. Indeed, man is the worst form of life for the only thing man has done is to destroy life. It seems to have escaped your attention completely that the only way any form of life can continue to exist is by consuming life. Life is immortal. There may be 7 billion humans presently alive. How many blades of grass are there? How many insects? How many gargantuan creatures lurking in the depths? What should happen after a man dies? Well of course he is supposed to be eaten up by the maggots and recycled. Natural immortal continuation was not good enough for man. Instead man has resorted to poisoning all of the waters, and all of the land, and all of the air with chemicals. Now he is busy building robots with artificial brains, which man thinks will be able to survive the toxic milieu he has created. Fortunately, nature is unique. Nature will soon easily produce a "new" life form that will probably get rid of man as we know him, and replace him with a life form a bit less stupidly destructive.

    Joe,

    I'm afraid I can't agree with your comment that "man is the worst form of life".

    Just because I am arguing for a reduced human population does not mean that I object to people, or that I object to children when I suggest fewer of them. On the contrary, humans are unquestionably the dominant life form on this planet, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. As the dominant life form, it is our responsibility to take better care of this planet; it is the only one we have. While I am pessimistic for the near term, I am optimistic about the long-term survival of a thriving human civilization, together with a representative sampling of other animals, plants, and microorganisms.

    Alan Kadin

    Alan,

    Recently, anonymous commanders of the United States Navy, and The Russian Navy parked several atomic powered submarines under both the Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves for several months. Indeed, the submarines may still be patrolling those areas regularly. Surprise! The ice caps are melting. Big Military has no conscience.

    Dear Alan,

    You wrote: "Is there any hope for a sharp reduction in the birth rate?

    I believe that there is, given that such reductions in fertility follow on population trajectories that are already present in many developed countries. Historically, women married young and started having children immediately. Now the trend is for women to delay marriage and child-bearing while they pursue education and establish careers. Previously, children provided the primary system of old-age retirement and care. This is transitioning to a system of government-provided pensions and elder care. Small apartments in expensive cities favor few children, or none at all. Childlessness is becoming more socially acceptable than it used to be. These trends are likely to continue, and need to be supported by governments."

    The primary system you are calling previous is unfortunately still considered the basis of their power as a group by sunnits, shiits, catholics, and other important religions. The Christan doctrine "be fertile and get more" is not far from the Mutterkreuz awarded by the nazis for mothers with at least four children. Unlimited growth of population is even anchored in less archaic principles of humanism. "Earth has room for all" is definitely a lie if women have ten ore more children as presently in the developing countries. That's why you may here expect much less support than those who are lacking conscience and cleverly evade the issue.

    I appreciate not just your intention but also the scientific style of your essay and your answer to Joe.

    Maybe, it is tactically imprudent to demand a reduction of world population by a factor of ten. I would prefer recognizing China's one-child-policy as a contribution that partially avoids otherwise even worse problems.

    Moreover, I would prefer dealing not just with future overpopulation but also with not immediately related ongoing questions like unemployment, terror attacks, "religious" wars, slums, mounting risky waste, locally lacking water, etc. There is a lot to steer, and this needs to answer foundational ethical questions anew.

    Sincerely,

    Eckard

      Eckard,

      Thank you for your comments. My intention in my essay is to suggest that there is hope for the future, but not that the transition will be easy. Modern industrial civilization was built on multiplying human power using cheap fossil fuels, increasing the population and making global warming inevitable. We need to develop inexpensive alternative energy sources, without jeopardizing our food supply. These and other global problems will be more tractable if the global population is smaller rather than larger. This may seem obvious, but most people just don't think about it. That needs to change.

      Alan

      Alan,

      My essay is not yet finished. I am sure it will be even less welcome than yours because I was born in Berlin in 1942, faced the bankrupt of various ideologies, and am now in position to address what I consider fallacies. What religion, what state do you expect preaching to have less than two children?

      Eckard

      a month later

      Dear Alan,

      You write that "In conclusion, global warming and resource limitations make it imperative that the global population be decreased as soon as possible". I'm not sure there are many that would disagree with this (it's presumably amongst the premises on which this essay topic was based), but the question is: how should that happen? What process could bring it about that people alter their ways to such an extent that rather the 10Billion we get down to 1Billion? And what grounds do you have for being optimistic in the long-term? What is that belief based in?

      Best,

      Dean

        Dean,

        Thank you for your interest in my essay. I agree that the need for decreasing population is obvious, but most of the world does not agree that this is the case. Furthermore, there is a broad unwillingness even to talk about the issue, perhaps for fear of sounding like discredited concepts of eugenics.

        Why am I optimistic in the long term? Worldwide urbanization has already led to sharply reduced fertility rates. In the developed countries, native-born populations are already decreasing. What is needed is the universal recognition that such population decreases are essential for the foreseeable future, if humanity is to have a future. Notwithstanding widespread irrational behavior in the past and present, I believe that human societies have the capacity for rational behavior.

        Alan

        Dear Dean,

        I asked Alan: "What religion, what state do you expect preaching to have less than two children?" Why did he not yet reply? Why did you in principle reiterate my question?

        Well, a honest consequent answer might presumably be amongst the premises on which this essay topic was based. Do you, did those who formulated that premise expect a miracle? If so you may believe in cold fusion or in 100 billion people getting happy after moving to elsewhere in our universe or even in parallel anti-worlds. I wonder if FQXi is really just interested in pure fiction.

        My essay is now [link:www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2021] readable [\link]. While I anticipate almost nobody spontaneously agreeing with those from which I borrowed my perhaps compelling but extremely hurting arguments, e.g. Albert Michelson, Alfred Nobel, Archimedes, Aristotle, Claude Shannon, Euclid, Galileo Galilei, Heraklit, Isaac Newton, Karl Popper, and Otto de Guericke, I do also not expect you in position to refute at least the most important ones.

        Sorry for being blunt.

        Sincerely,

        Eckard

        Dear all,

        I am also optimistic about a decreasing population in the long term, not much for the capacity of rational behavior of human societies, but for a number of self-regulatory mechanisms that (will) emerge in the complex system of humanity. You gave already good examples, such as the evolving life-styles in densely populated urban areas. I would also add the increased acceptance of families formed by couples of the same sex. Of course, the adjustments to a better demographic regime may imply humanitarian crises, massive death, etc. But events that appear catastrophic from the perspective of individual persons or communities, appear minor physiological adjustments when looking at humanity as a whole super-organism.

        Having said this, I tend to believe that in the VERY, VERY LONG term, the fate will be to keep growing, and to spread out of this planet. Thus, I agree with the nice essay by Ashworth that, out of three possible scenarios (`return to a preindustrial state, continuation of growth, or halting of growth at close to its present level`) selects the continuation of growth as the most realistic.

        Tommaso

        9 days later

        I enjoyed reading your essay. I have one question, though. How does your view on population growth reconcile with life extension technologies?

          Iona,

          Thank you for your interest in my essay.

          In response to your question, if people were to live forever, the population would never decrease. However, my expectation is that life extension will soon be approaching practical limits, and will not have a major impact on world population. The elderly do not have significant numbers of children.

          Alan

          Dear Alan,

          I read your in-depth analytical essay with great interest. I agree with most of the conclusions. Requires deep expert assessment of global existential risks, their wide-ranging, discussion and creation of programs to minimize them. It requires common efforts of the public, governments and businesses . I think that optimism about the population can give especially wide education and creation of modern pension systems. Schools should prepare not workers and professionals, but creative individuals. Internet and new information technologies provide new opportunities for all Humanity more reliable steer spaceship named "Earth" .

          I wish you good luck!

          All the Best,

          Vladimir

          • [deleted]

          • Post #15

          Hi Alan,

          a very informative and easy to read essay. You have very clearly set out the many issues but spent less time on giving solutions.I absolutely agree that population is one of the biggest problems. So it is good that you picked that one for particular attention.

          Re. The one child policy, there is an alternative worth considering. Not all people have the same drive to bear and raise children.Some people make better parents than others. There are many unwanted children brought into the world. Wouldn't a better solution be to give people the choice to be parents or not but if they choose parenting they must be deemed physically and mentally suitable and undergo training. The population could be temporarily sterilized until an application is accepted. Perhaps they must also pay for reversal of their sterilization, as another deterrent. All children will then be raised by parents who want them, who can carry out effective nurturing and socialization of the children. The population will decline as many never apply for procreation and do not get their sterilization reversed. Admittedly a one child policy is more easily implemented and we know it works from China's experience. Though with that policy there will be heartbreak for those who would desperately like more children, while others may only have one child because they are allowed one child.

          A very well written essay. Good luck, Georgina

          6 days later

          A few nuclear submarines parked under the polar ice melted them?

          Can you estimate the number of BTUs required, compared to the number of BTUs released by nuclear subs?

          Did they do the same thing back in

          1962 too?

          Dear Alan,

          If Malthus has been wrong for 200 years, what evidence is there that he will suddenly become correct? In his 1970s book, Erlich predicted food riots in the USA by the 1980s; plus he lost his bet with Simon over metal prices. Why do people keep pushing fatally incorrect theories?

          It's because they can't imagine exactly how we'll get past fossil fuels. Understandable, but even a Saudi oil minister observed that "the Stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones, neither will the oil age end when we run out of oil."

          Take a look at Ray Kurzweil's observation regarding solar power, which has been doubling capacity for the last two decades, and approaching cost parity. Within five years, we will be marking the obvious beginning of the end of the oil age. By 2030 almost all of the world's energy will be met by solar. See Surging Solar

          Much of the problem is because ecologists don't understand economists (and vice versa). Interestingly, there was a recent article in the WSJ about exactly this subject, written by someone who has lived in both camps. See The World's Resources Aren't Running Out

          As I pointed out in my essay Three Crucial Technologies , nanotechnology, extraterrestrial development, and artificial wisdom must be fully developed for us to survive. The first two solve all the problems you brought up in your essay. The last technology will be the most difficult to achieve--by far.

          Dear Alan M. Kadin

          I read with great interest your essay, because it refers to the inevitability of Global warming although in a very different point of view. I like that you use the persuasiveness of statistics i.e. numbers for the defense of your thesis namely the necessity to decrease the human population in future. I like the way you propose to solve the problem - in a long term and relatively harmless manner. I also support your idea of introducing new alternative energy sources which is essential to be made a priority. I think that the proof that you introduce and so elegantly upgrade is an expression of a deep study which deserves attention and assessment.

          Petio Hristov

          Dear Alan,

          That was a very well argued representation of that case. The only think it missed was instructions to the helmsman of how to achieve it, wherein lies the tricky bit. However Judy Nabb addressed that quite bravely and well considering eugenics, and you used the space limit well for what you did cover.

          I am however intrigued as to whether you would favour any particular solutions? The China model has exposed many problems and now been relaxed as I understand it.

          I must admit, the option of 'virtual children' came to mind (available in non nappy soiling variants!)

          I also suspect a good argument could be made for technology continuing to keep pace for some time. Just a bit of climate change, improve food chain, desalination and solar pv efficiency and 10bn people could easily fit into the empty quarter of Saudi Arabia, the Australian outback or Antarctica at moderate density!

          But really I agree with your argument. We must recognise some limit as we really don't know what might tip the balance, as I argue myself.

          Great essay, much needed, very well done. Your present score is an injustice. You must have been zapped by the trolls as I first was. What comes down must go up...

          Peter