Dr. Hitterdale,

I read your essay with great interest. I agree with your suggestion that climate change be placed atop the global agenda. However, my view is that there is an "the elephant in the room" regarding climate change (and indeed, all other environmental and resource questions) that no one wants to acknowledge. Human population has overshot the sustainable global carrying capacity, and the top item on the global agenda for the next several centuries should be how to decrease back to a sustainable level. You may be interested in reading my essay ("Just Too Many People: Towards a Sustainable Future Earth").

Alan Kadin

    Lawrence,

    I agree humanity appears to be at a crucial juncture in its history, but I think you are focusing on effects, rather than causes.

    We have been effectively expanding and growing since we first controlled fire and used sharpen stones as tools. Now we are at the limit of our ability to push our physical limits and if we wish to continue to advance, we have to learn to live within limits as a fundamental philosophy. To do that we need to first examine the premises on which this civilization is based and see if some of those assumptions driving us onward and upward might need reevaluating. This is the approach I take in my own entry.

    Regards,

    John Merryman

      Hi Laurence,

      A really interesting essay. I felt the ending was not as powerful as the rest of the essay because you seemed to talk yourself into doing something but not very much. There is a saying every little helps but I fear that it may not be enough given the enormity of the environmental problems. (Sorry we are supposed to be optimistic.) Good luck, Georgina

        Dear Laurence,

        I think your three strategies are certainly the most sensible in all of the essays in this competition, especially the idea that only "present humans" (with all of their defective qualities included) should be invoked in any 'steering solution'. My own essay drifted somewhat from this (but did attempt to use 'presently interveneable' human characteristics). I also agree with the idea of privileging disaster avoidance, despite its less savoury nature.

        I'm hoping your essay does very well.

        Best,

        Dean

          Hello Laurence,

          Great essay laying out the fork in front of us.I am in 100% agreement that the first thing we need to tackle is global catastrophic risks.

          One question your essay brought to my mind is why not a fourth option other than disaster, paradise, or business as usual. Why not a move away from complexity. This is what has always happened in the past e.g the Middle Ages. As Joseph Tainter pointed out in his The Collapse of Complex Societies, such periods of retrenchment are actually healthy adaptations for societies. Are there reasons you think such a retrenchment is impossible now?

          Best of luck!

          Rick Searle

            Laurence,

            A "Rope over the Abyss" is a good metaphor for working at a common good or cause, something I mention less figuratively. This is a well-constructed essay, clearly and deliberately approaching our problem.

            I also like your quote from "Tale of Two Cities," which perhaps aptly represents the polarization of many countries in cross purposes. Steering the Future in a world slowly approaching a precipice of ruin is a daunting task, but your effort is quite broad in its scope and complete in its description.

            Jim

              Laurence! Laurence! Sincere apologies; not Lawrence. I relied on another. GW

              Dear Doctor Hitterdale,

              Your abstraction filled essay was quite engrossing to read and I do hope that it does well in the competition. I only have one minor quibble about it, and I do hope you do not mind me mentioning it.

              You wrote: "According to some thinkers all of this is about to change. We human beings are within a few decades, or maybe a century or so at most, of something called "The Singularity".

              As I have gone to enormous lengths to explain in the clearest language possible that I employed in my splendid essay, REALITY, ONCE, Everything real and imagined in the real Universe is unique, once. It has always been singularity Doctor. It will always be singularity because only singularity is real.

              Glad to clear that up.

              Best regards,

              Joe Fisher

              We would all agree that humanity faces a number of global problems, and that the main problems are interrelated. Thus, it is a difficult to decide which issues to take as direct priorities so that we can make the most progress on the full set of critical problems. I reached my decision about prioritization by asking what needs to be done and what can be done in the future. My approach was to compare problems and to look at their relationships. From this perspective, it appears that we would make the most progress on the totality of issues, including population size, by taking one or two other issues as global priorities. Demographic statistics are complicated, but some recent trends are relevant and encouraging. Another way to say this: If the world's human population were now much less than it is, we would still need to address critical problems which we are not addressing. Regardless of what might have been done or what should have been done years ago, world population is how as large as it is, and in the near term it will increase somewhat. The feasible course for the future is to do what we would have to do anyway. Population might stabilize or even decline after 2050. The task before humanity in the next few decades is to reach 2050 safely.

              Rather than saying I am focusing on effects rather than causes, I think it might be more accurate to say that I am trying to identify the factors which are most likely to be effective in achieving a good outcome. These factors will admittedly not be ultimate causes, but rather factors located somewhere in long chains of cause-and-effect. Examining and then, where necessary, changing the basic premises of civilization would be helpful, if it could be made to work. Perhaps, however, we do not have time for a remedy like that. People might not be very likely to agree on what we ought to do here and now, but people will be far less likely to agree about philosophical reasons about what we ought to do. What we have to do will be difficult enough. We should not make it even more difficult by trying to get agreement about the deep reasons for what we need to do.

              I appreciate your encouraging remarks. As you say, I do believe that we can only rely on "present humans" to bring humanity through the next few decades. Any particular proposal for futuristic improvements might sketch something which is not even possible. Of the many such proposals, most will never happen. Surely, in the next few decades, none will happen in time. I shall comment on your essay on the Web page for your contest entry.

              Dear Laurence,

              You certainly grabbed my attention with your closing paragraph!

              First with this: "My first inclination would be to delete it."

              But then with the seeming 'uncertainty' in this: "When I suppose myself thinking this way, I conclude that I would read the message carefully, study it, make some changes, and send it on. I also conclude that then I would stand up and do what I can."

              So how about this gentle -- but very serious and like-minded -- prompting:

              Dear Laurence,

              I found an interesting message in your nice essay; it starts exactly like this:

              "What I have to say is unusual, and it may appear even strange. I ask, however, that you please take a little time to consider these thoughts. ..."

              Please read the message carefully, study it, maybe make some changes, and post it here; with conclusions about what you'll stand up for and what you will do.

              I, for one, look forward to your thoughtful response.

              For then we might all study it carefully --- and, who knows, we might all adopt it --- and we might all pass it on.

              With best regards; Gordon

              Thank you for your kind and helpful thoughts. I shall comment on your essay on the Web page for your contest entry. Here I reply only to your comment. I was trying to be realistic, rather than either optimistic or pessimistic. In my view, this respect for reality should extend to assessment of the problems, proposals for solutions on a global scale, and resolutions for personal action. Specifically with regard to what you say about the last section of my essay, I have two further thoughts. First, it is literally true that most of us can have little effect on the course of history. This is true for me, and it is also true for most, though perhaps not for all, people who might read our essays. I mentioned climate change in my essay. I do think it is a global problem of highest significance, but I do not believe that even this problem by itself amounts to a half or a quarter of the aggregate of difficulty that humanity faces. This estimate indicates something of the seriousness of the human predicament. When I think specifically about climate change, I recall Al Gore's efforts. So far, despite what he has done, little has happened. And he wrote a book on the subject, was Vice President of the United States, and received a Nobel Prize. Each of us might well ask whether we could have more of an effect, when Al Gore's effect has amounted to so little compared to what is need and compared to what he wanted. This brings me to the second of my two further thoughts. In a way, as you say, what I propose doing might seem to be not very much. But if you think again about my suggestion, I propose to plant a seed, which is all that I realistically can do. Moreover, if the seed really does take root and grow, the result just might be something of what is needed. I personally do not know President Obama. Nor do I know any other person of significant influence or stature at the global level. But perhaps I do know someone who does have that kind of access. If none of my acquaintances has access to decision makers, then perhaps one of their acquaintances might. You can see where this is going. That is the point I am making in the last section of the essay. One has to be personally committed to the need for serious changes in the way that the human global system is run. Many people have said this before; it is nothing new. What might be new is the idea of additional steps. One has to be personally committed to the need for getting other people also to have that commitment. Moreover, the commitment has to be iterated beyond that. One wants to convince others, who will convince others, who will convince others. . . . It might work. And I can start it; or if others have already started, I can continue the effort.

              Laurence -

              Thanks for the well crafted essay! Some in this contest are not so easy or enjoyable to read.

              I was amused to see that you and I both used the same quote from Martin Rees. There are other parallels between our essays and I hope you have a chance to read mine, The Tip of the Spear. I think we agree on the current risks and opportunities, and I would agree that avoiding catastrophe should be a first priority. But I also think there is a broader picture to be drawn from evolutionary and complexity theory - and a need to build consensus for a shared moral framework.

              Looking forward to additional exchanges! - George

                Lawrence,

                I guess the premise I'm operating on here is paradigm shift. When the old order breaks down, the population will be aroused from its current slumber. As I see it, the powers that be have been kicking the can down the road for a long time and the end result will only be that much more monumental, when it gets too big to kick anymore.

                The story goes that Paul Volcker cured inflation with higher interest rates, by the early '80's. Higher rates punish borrowers and reward savers and since inflation is due to loose money policies in the first place, how would what amount to higher prices cure an oversupply? It just so happened that with Reagan, the federal debt took off and by 1982, was about 200 billion a year, which was real money in those days. So the theory is the Fed cured inflation by selling Fed notes it was holding, to reduce the money supply, but coincidently the treasury was also selling enormous amounts of fresh debt. Think there may have been any connection? I suspect increased government borrowing was a big part of curing that oversupply of capital. Since then, they have managed to keep the excess out of the general economy, but flooded the investment world and those bubbles keep blowing up and popping. Eventually they won't be able to cure it with more low rates.

                Time will tell.

                Regards,

                John M

                Boy, this is a really nice piece of work, Laurence. You kill two birds with one stone: you submit a formidable essay to the essay contest; you provide a valuable document for all other contestants to forward to their email contacts! So you win no matter what happen . . .

                In this regard, perhaps you would take a friendly recommendation and send a copy of your essay to Charles Krauthammer, his friends at Forbes magazine, and the sole resident of Planet X, Freeman Dyson. Perhaps they would all benefit . . .

                With regards,

                Wes Hansen

                  Thanks for the very positive response. Because the topic is such a serious one, I am trying to stimulate people to take action. It doesn't matter whether a person writes a different message or uses mine as a template. Either way, the purposes are to connect people who are aware of the seriousness of the situation and to convince those with power and authority that action is imperative.

                  Thanks for the compliments on the writing. For purposes of dealing with the current human predicament, we obviously need a moral consensus that we need to avoid catastrophe. And we need consensus, both moral and intellectual, on the steps to take to achieve our goal. I don't think, however, that we should try right now to build a consensus on the ultimate or philosophical principles of morality. I don't think there is time for that, and people can often agree on what to do practically, even though they disagree on the deep reasons for what they do. If things work out as we hope, then there will be time to discuss deep principles, and perhaps then a consensus can be achieved.

                  I think we are in general agreement about the nature of the predicament and about what needs to be done about it. I appreciate your kind words about my attempt to describe the current situation.