A Rope over an Abyss by Laurence Hitterdale

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.

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.

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.

I agree that it is necessary to move from complexity to simpler systems. However, in terms of the logic of the situation, I don't see a move away from complexity as a fourth alternative. The three alternatives of getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same appear to exhaust the possibilities, although that exhaustiveness might be more definitional than informative. The unexpected news is that the middle ground of staying about the same is unlikely. That assertion does require evidence and argument, and I tried to argue for it. I would classify a move away from complexity as a strategy to achieve a desirable result, rather than as a result in itself. This classification does help us clarify our thinking, but more important is the need for greater simplicity. You and I agree on that main point. It is worth adding that we now depend so much on complex systems that any move to greater simplicity will be a complex task, not a simple one. This sounds somewhat paradoxical, and perhaps is so. But I agree that we have to reduce the risk. In some cases, simplification is one way to do that. Another strategy is the provision of redundant systems. If we are concerned about the failure of complex systems, we might need backup systems to replace the failed structures, if and when something goes wrong.