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

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

Alan, it is great to see a focus on one of the large invisible elephants sharing our living room. It goes unmentioned so often. The issue is also addressed in my essay by suggesting we shift to socioeconomic system that benefits both individuals and their community when birth rates are limited.

Population reduction is an essential issue. I've given a high score on my assessment.

Don Chisholm

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.

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.