Just Too Many People: Towards a Sustainable Future Earth by Alan M. Kadin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Das ist genau das, was schon ist.

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

Dear Alan,

I found your essay very informative. I agree on the necessity of reducing the earth's population. Humanity taking ownership of the problem, unfortunately, is not even the first step.(Who knows, this contest may be the first step?!) I wish, however, that you had provided a more detailed prescription.

Let me bring to your attention reference 4 to my essay: "A Minimal Model for Human and Nature Interaction." I think you will find it very interesting. (And of course, I hope you will read and enjoy my essay.)

Good luck in the competition.

Charles Gregory St Pierre

Alan, I think your diagnosis is essentially correct. And yes, we will IMHO probably need some nuclear power for awhile (already use it of course, my own power comes from a nearby plant.) Unfortunately, it is unrealistic in practice to expect humanity to reduce population to 1-2 billion, so we are pragmatically faced with managing a situation closer to the current population, for awhile at least. My own essay deals with possible improvements to the human mind, in advance of particular objective policy ideas. Perhaps one application of the willpower training I advocate will be smaller families, as well as less consumption.

PS: No big deal, but as a cute observation, my spell checker flagged IIMO to be "IMHO" - they got that web slang in there, LOL (which did NOT make it ...)

Dear Alan

Your work is well written and informative. I do agree that population is a problem although I am not sure for how long the planet can sustain the current population; I guess this would require a deep study about natural resources for the future. I'm not sure if reducing the population to 1B or 2B is a long term solution because as far as I know the current food productivity is enough to feed three times the current population. So, in principle, the planet can sustain at least 21 Billion people (but for how long?) and according to predictions the population for the rest of the century will stabilize to around 12 B. By then, we will improve our technology to cope with the problems we have now.

So, I think the problem is not productivity but a balanced distribution of resources. Developed countries waste a lot resources, whereas some developing countries are suffering from famine, etc.

Another point is that I don't have clear what would be your specific proposal. Do you propose that governments impose laws restricting the number of children per family, similar to China? I do not think people will be happy with a restriction like this. In my view, the population will reduce by `natural' processes.

Best Regards

Israel

I just tried in vain to rate the essay 10 because it dared to address a taboo, while I am nonetheless disappointed because some reiteration of old wrong criticism against main arguments was perhaps not consequently enough rejected by Alan Kadin.

Eckard

Alan,

I still don't manage getting my vote confirmed. Perhaps this doesn't matter much because too many possible voters are indoctrinated. They know that the prediction by Malthus did not fulfill so far. And they fear you will come close to eugenics, the study of how to improve the human race by carefully selecting parents who will produce stronger children. What narrow-minded nonsense!

Is there nobody in position to realize what a truly foundational questions is? Definitely it is impossible to escape from the consequences of being narrow-minded unless questioning whether traditional religious, national, humanitarian, or currently accepted as scientific values are really basic ones. Is it really a humanitarian freedom to have as many children as possible?

In my essays I reminded of Galileo Galilei, Claude Shannon and Alfred Nobel who would perhaps not agree much with all those who are in this contest on top.

Well, we might disagree about some details. For instance, I doubt that nuclear fission is a responsible solution, and I see neither tokamak nor Wendelstein promising principles for nuclear fusion and cold fusion an obvious illusion.

However, you Alan are certainly correct: Unlimited growth of the world's population is impossible. There is an optimal size of population. Discoveries, inventions and other contributions to worldwide progress rather than well-meant suggestions presented in our essays are steering this optimum. Most essayists failed to realize this in their essay and in their vote too.

Eckard

Hi Alan,

I second Peter's opinion: Great essay, much needed, very well done. Your present score is an injustice.

I personally believe that solar and wind is going to get a big boost via really large flow batteries. However, all your points are valid, and population is definitely in the mix.

Time to help remedy the injustice.

Don Limuti