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

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

Hello Allan

You've picked an aspect of the problem from which most steer away.

And handled it very well in my opinion.

I believe that one of the many problems compounding our judgements about, well, everything is that we don't have a a rigorously established adaptive profile for our species, or more simply, what's 'normal' for us.

As I agree with you that our 'normal' numbers are only a fraction of what they are now (& likely soon to be) this particular agreement between us only inspired me to respect your essay even more.

Thank you.

As I have figured out what I consider to be 'our own human norm' as drawn from evolutionary first principles together with the raw data all around us (which species' specific adapted profile includes our 'normal' means of population control - which 'control' has a lot to do with women's position in society, surprise! surprise !) I would value you reading & rating my essay which stands second in the 'submissions date' time line.

Cheers,

Margriet Anne O'Regan

For several months, unnamed American and Russian naval commanders stationed several nuclear-powered submarines under the Antarctic and Arctic ice shelves. The submarines may still be regularly patrolling those areas. Surprise! It is melting the ice caps. Big Military lacks morality.

I've determined what I consider to be "our own human norm" based on evolutionary first principles and the raw data present all around us (which species' specific adapted profile includes our "normal" means of population control -- which, surprise, surprise!, has a lot to do with women's position in society!) I would appreciate it if you will read and rate my article, which is listed second in the timeline under "submissions date.

I have determined what I consider to be "our own human norm" based on evolutionary first principles and the raw data present all around us (which species' specific adapted profile includes our "normal" means of population control -- which, surprise, surprise!, has a lot to do with women's position in society!) My article, which is second in the timeline under "submissions date," would appreciate your reading it and giving it a rating.

Lesternixon Reconnecting with the Contemplative and Reflective Modes of Being ?

The Depopulation Bomb: Stephen J. Shaw

A few nuclear-powered submarines were stationed under the Antarctic and Cold ice racks for a considerable amount of time by unnamed American and Russian naval officials. The submarines may already be regularly scanning certain areas. Shock! The ice covers are melting due to this. A large military needs moral character.

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?

How many monstrous monsters dwell below the depths? What happens after a man dies? Of course, he's intended to be devoured by maggots and recycled.
Natural everlasting continuance was insufficient for man. Instead, man has resorted to chemically polluting all of the waterways, all of the land, and all of the air.

A couple of atomic fueled submarines were positioned under the Antarctic and Cold ice racks for a lot of time by anonymous American and Russian maritime authorities. The submarines may as of now be routinely filtering specific regions. Shock! The ice covers are dissolving because of this. A huge military necessities moral person.