HUMANS: AN ENDANGERED SPECIES BY JASON G. BRENT
Copyright by Jason G. Brent
Jan. 1, 2008, Jan.1, 2009, and July 17, 2010
THERE CANNOT BE ANY PROCREATIVE “RIGHTS” IN AN OVERPOPULATED WORLD
Anyone who disagrees with the concept of limiting population and economic growth must take the position that both can grow infinitely large on the finite earth and that position cannot be logically defended—it cannot happen. Since both the economy and population must cease growth, we are left with two and only two questions—when and how will both cease. It is almost axiomatic that the larger the population and the larger the economy, the more difficult it will be to cease the growth of either or both. Growth tends to be self perpetuating and the longer growth continues the more difficult it will be to prevent the destruction of humankind. Anyone who believes that growth can continue without resource wars with weapons of mass destruction must be correct in his/her position forever. He/she cannot be wrong even once. Humanity cannot permit a single war with weapons of mass destruction as that war would probably result in the almost total annihilation of all of humanity and surely would result in the destruction of civilization as we know it. Humanity cannot afford the gamble. Since no one knows when population and economic growth must absolutely cease in order to prevent the destruction of humankind, the wise and intelligent position is to cease growth of both population and the economy of the world today. No! The wise and intelligent position is to immediately start a substantial reduction in population which will cause a contraction of the economy of the world which in turn will result in a decrease in the usage of the resources of the planet by humanity.
Let us now look at GWWP (Gross World-Wide Product) from a different point of view.
Annual GWWP must reach a maximum, if humanity wants to survive. If humanity uses, on an annual basis, more resources than the earth can replenish, if humanity draws down the capital of the earth, eventually the earth will be unable to supply the resources humanity needs to survive, notwithstanding the intelligence and genius of humankind. In all probability humanity has already exceeded the annual amount of resources the earth can provide in order for humanity to survive for any reasonable length of time. Yes, human intelligence can increase the annual GWWP by using the resources of the earth more efficiently either through environmentalism or new technologies. However, the intelligence of humanity cannot and will not permit humanity to forever increase the annual usage of resources and forever increase the GWWP.
When the maximum GWWP is reached a very simple formula explains what must happen to humanity. That formula is—GWWP equals the average standard of living times the human population of the world. Example—assume that GWWP is 10,000 units of economic production and assume further that the average person uses 10 units of economic production, then population must equal 1,000 people (10 times 1,000 =10,000). Now let us look at what happens if the average standard of living goes up such that the average person uses 20 units of economic production. If that were to occur the number of human beings that could be supported would be reduced to 500 (20 times 500= 10,000). In simple terms, once the maximum annual GWWP is reached, as the average standard of living goes up the number of people the earth can support must go down or humanity will not survive.
Some people will argue that the genius of humankind will be able to increase the amount of resources that can be used annually without causing the destruction of humankind and they will argue that humankind will use resources more efficiently such that fewer resources are needed per unit of production. Those arguments and many similar arguments are absolutely true, up to a certain point. However, those arguments will fail when humanity reaches the maximum GWWP that the earth can support. At some point in time humanity must understand that the maximum GWWP has been reached and that the formula set forth above applies to humanity. No matter what humanity does, GWWP requires resources. Since resources are limited by the fact the earth is finite, GWWP cannot continue to grow and become infinitely large. As set forth above, the intelligence of humanity cannot increase the number of atoms that make up the earth.
Humanity cannot afford to gamble that the formula set forth above will never apply to itself. To make the situation more horrible, assume that instead of going down population increases to 5,000, then the average standard of living must come down to two (two times 5,000=10,000). If the average standard of living appreciably decreases there will be wars and/or other major catastrophes which will violently reduce the human population by the billions.
The question should be, “What harm will all of humankind suffer and what harm will individuals suffer if all of humankind were divided into two groups—the reproducers and the non-reproducers– and if that determination were done in a moral and just manner, or at least as close to a moral and just manner as humanly possible”? Though it must be conceded that such a determination could never be entirely perfect or morally unblemished, refusing to make it will not prevent its being made according to the arbitrary criteria of nature. In pursuit of this point, let us assume that the only action taken to reduce population is to limit who can reproduce. Assume further that no other action is taken—no one is killed, raped, murdered, deprived of a job, deprived of any benefit of society, ostracized, placed in a concentration camp, limited to whom they can or cannot marry, or limited where they can live, and no one is harmed in any way so long as that person does not reproduce or attempt to have more children than he or she is allowed.
Relative to the harm inflicted by continuing population growth, the harm inflicted by the reasoned and deliberate designation of reproducers and non-reproducers would surely be minimal.
Assume that 20% of the population that should be permitted to reproduce is prevented from reproducing, what is the harm to the individuals and what is the harm to society? Another assumption–assume 15% of the population that should not have reproduced is allowed to produce, what is the harm to the individuals and what is the harm to society? In both cases, in the next few generations the errors will correct themselves as the determination as to who can and who cannot reproduce is made anew each generation, under the method of determining who can procreate which I will propose.
And now get ready for the most provocative portion of the book! I believe that it will take years before humanity agrees on a value neutral, moral and just method to determine how to divide human beings into two groups. I have a few suggestions as to how that goal can be achieved which I will set forth below. However, they are only my suggestions and I am sure that there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of other suggestions and proposals. However, humanity cannot wait many years to commence the reduction of human population. Steps must be taken today which will reduce population growth to a negative number. Steps must be taken today which will reduce the human population below the current 6.7 billion who live on this planet. The survival of our species depends on action today. As set forth above, the division into two groups will have to wait until population is substantially reduced by limiting everyone to one and only one child as described in the paragraphs below.
The action I am initially proposing is value neutral and does not favor or harm any individual or group. The action I am proposing will be applied to every person or group without favoring anyone. The action is very simple—limit the right of any male to father only one live child and limit the right of every woman to one live birth. In simple terms a couple is limited to one and only one child—not one child for the male and one child for the female.
These limitations would be applied to every single human being without regard to race, religion, national origin or anything else and it would be absolute, no exceptions. It would be applied without regard for wealth, or the lack of wealth, and it would be applied without regard for the country of birth or residence of either the male or female. It would be applied without regard to intelligence, or the lack thereof, and without regard of the ability of the male or female to function in society. (At a later date when a method was agreed upon relating to dividing human beings into two groups, the ability to function in society would be considered in relation to who could or could not reproduce.) The right to either father a child or for a female to give birth could not be sold or transferred; it would be personal to the individual. If a live child were born with a birth defect or with some other disability it would not permit either the father or mother to produce another child. Each couple would have the right to have all appropriate pre-natal tests to determine if the child in the womb would be born with a birth or genetic defect and if the chance existed that the child would be born with such a defect to have an abortion.
Since survival of our species depends on the one child rule, under my proposal any attempt to evade the rule would result in death of the evader and of any second child. The rule to be fair must be absolute, without a single exception. If the female cannot or refuses to provide the name of the father she and the child shall be immediately executed. All of the ideas set forth in this paragraph may be considered horrible and inhumane. However, since they will be applied equally, no individual or group is harmed except to the extent that an individual cannot either father or give birth to a second child. The harm caused to the individual and the harm caused to all of humanity by enforcing the one child rule set forth above is miniscule compared to the harm which all of humanity would suffer if population were not reduced.
Since the birth of a child is very hard to hide, there must be communal responsibility and accountability for any attempt to do so. Those who knowingly failed to report the birth of a second or any higher number of children would themselves be subject to the very same severe punishment that would be meted out to the parents of the second or higher numbered child—no religious, cultural or ethnic exemptions would obtain. Humanity cannot consider the evasion of the single child rule a game to be played with a minor penalty, if caught. No group or individual could be permitted any evasion of the one child rule a that would lead to a disparity among groups and among individuals causing irreparable harm to the entire system established to reduce population. Should this sanction seem barbaric or draconian, it is surely less draconian in its effects than the merciless verdict of nature upon a species that refuses to contain its expansion.
In order for this proposal to be fair, equitable and workable, society and governments would be required to take action today to provide the means for every human being to control his or her fertility, to give everyone on the face of the earth the ability to limit birth to a single child. Governments would be required to devote a whatever portion of their Gross Domestic Product is necessary to the provision of artificial birth control devices of any and all types including sterilization, at low or no cost as appropriate, to their citizens, no matter the age of the citizens once a citizen reaches the age he/she can physically reproduce. This would also include instruction as how to use the devices. This would also include education of both males and females that the birth of a second child would result in the execution of the father and mother as well as the child. Governments would be required to provide safe, as much as any medical procedure can be safe, and low cost or free access to abortion. If any person, either male or female, had more than two failures of birth control devices, it would be conclusively presumed that the person was unable to use birth control devices and the person would be physically and permanently sterilized.
If poor nations were unable to devote the necessary funds to accomplish the one child rule in five years, the rich nations of the world would be required to assist the poor nations, after an evaluation that the poor nations were doing the best they could under some reasonable standard. Since survival of our species depends on reducing population below the current 6.7 billion humans now alive, the necessary funds to establish the system to control population must be made available. It should be emphasized that a “One-Child-Per-Family” (OCPF) law that is almost completely effective will not suffice. It must be totally and universally effective. After a five year preparation period, the rule must be enforced. The reduction in population would continue under the one child rule until all of humanity agreed upon the method and criteria necessary to implement the two group solution described herein. Population would continue to be reduced pursuant to the method and criteria of the two group solution until it reached 300 million or some other lower number agreed upon by humanity. The number finally agreed upon would be based on the ability of the earth to provide resources for humanity to maintain an acceptable standard of living for a minimum of 25,000 years. And 25,000 years is infinitely small when compared to the 160 million years the dinosaurs ruled the earth.
No doubt any proposal that would recommend capital punishment for transgressors of the One-Child-Per-Family law presently evokes immediate revulsion and rejection. Outside the context of an imminent die-off, given our heritage of moral, religious and cultural programming, I would be surprised if it didn’t. An example which shows that morality changes when circumstances change follows. Any Londoner who proposed in August 1938 that the Royal Air Force should one day bomb German cites with women and children in them would be summarily dismissed as a callous barbarian. But just two years later Londoners were clamoring for that action. Reality has a way of effecting abrupt ethical changes. What is not presently comprehended by almost all of humanity is that we are now in an emergency. Our species is on the brink of an unparalleled catastrophe—our destruction and the destruction of our civilization. It is a matter of complete indifference to me that many, if not all, readers will find the execution of anyone having a second child to be horrible and against every moral precept they learned or understood was applicable to humanity. The problem is not that my prescriptions are immoral or horrible. Rather the problem is that the situation humanity finds itself in is horrible. I will now remind the readers that under the law I propose every individual would be well aware of the consequences of flouting the law. Which of the two evils is worse— a) executing anyone who knowingly violates the one child rule; or b) not reducing population such that the vast majority or probably all of humanity is destroyed? Under this system fertility drugs would not be permitted or if they were permitted and used, only one child would be permitted to be born alive or the rest would be destroyed at birth, if more than one were born alive. If a women gave birth to more than one child and fertility drugs or any other actions to increase fertility or the number of children born were not the cause, those children would be permitted to live. Each individual will have a very clear choice—execution or birth control or sterilization or abortion or abstinence.
Let us examine the concept in another way—if someone believes that the earth can support the current population of 6.7 billion or a larger population and that person is incorrect in his belief, the result would probably be the destruction of humanity and the destruction of civilization. Billions of men, women and children would die! If I am incorrect and the earth can support a level of population of 6.7 billion or larger, the only harm my philosophy would cause is to limit the right of reproduction to only one child. If we compare the risk/benefit ratios of both choices, I believe my choice is the best for humanity.
I challenge anyone reading this book to present logical and defensible arguments supported by facts, and not hopes or desires, for or against some or all of the following propositions or statements:
- Against the proposition that the earth is finite and for the proposition that the earth is infinite.
- For the proposition that the earth has an infinite amount of resources that can be used by humanity.
- For the proposition that the earth can support an infinitely large population.
- For the proposition that the earth can support 10 billion, 20 billion, 30 billion, 50 billion, 100 billion, 500 billion humans for at least 5,000 years—you pick whatever number you desire and then defend that number.
- Against the proposition that human population grows in a compound manner.
- Against the proposition that the social order will collapse, if population continues to grow.
- Against the proposition that population will continue to grow unless all of humanity uses artificial birth control.
- Against the proposition that if population continues to grow there is a strong probability that resources wars—wars about the lack of resources—will occur in the very near future.
- Against the proposition that if population continues to grow humanity will exhaust one or more resources needed for the continuation of modern civilization.
- Against the proposition that if wars (multiple wars over an extended period of time) happen, at some point in time weapons of mass destruction will be used in one or more of those wars.
- Against the proposition/mathematical fact that if something/anything were to grow at the compound rate of one-tenth of one percent (0.0010) per year it would double in about 700 years, quadruple in about 1,400 years and increase by a factor of eight in about 2,100 years.
- Against the proposition that evolution has applied to every living thing (plant or animal, large or small, complex or simple) that ever existed on the earth.
- Against the proposition that evolution has always required that the population of a species be divided into two groups—those that survive to reproduce and those that do not survive to reproduce—when the maximum number of individuals in the niche occupied by the species was reached.
- Against the proposition that evolution for every species has always been controlled and guided by the environmental niche occupied by the species—example, if a plant needed two inches of water to survive and reproduce and if the environment changed such that only one inch of water was available, the genetic composition of the plant would have to change such that one inch of water would permit the plant to survive and reproduce or that plant species died out.
- For the proposition that evolution will never apply to the human species.
- For the proposition that the gene pool of humanity will never change no matter how the environmental niche occupied by the human species changes.
- For the proposition that the gene pool of humanity will never change no matter how human society changes and no matter what skills are needed to function in society.
- For the proposition that population growth of the human species will be voluntarily reduced to zero by the year 2100.
- For the proposition that if humanity were to reduce voluntarily population growth to zero by the year 2100, it would remain at zero for the next 2,000 years.
- For the proposition that humanity could obtain resources from other celestial bodies in sufficient amount and within the time necessary to prevent the destruction of humanity, if humanity were to continue to grow at the compound rate of one-tenth of one percent (0.0010) per year for the next 2,100 years
- For the proposition that our species could export humans to other celestial bodies which could not be supported by the resources of the earth in sufficient amount and within the time necessary to prevent a major catastrophe to humankind.
- Against the proposition that humanity has weapons of mass destruction that are able to destroy all or almost all of humanity.
- Against the proposition that weapons of mass destruction are presently available to between eight and 10 nations.
- Against the proposition that it is highly likely that additional nations and non-nations will within the next 50 years obtain weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver them.
- Against the proposition that population will continue to grow unless low cost or zero cost and medically safe (as safe as medicine can make them) abortions are made available to all of humanity. For the purpose of this sub-paragraph abortion shall be defined as the termination of a pregnancy prior to the full term birth of a live child by surgical, chemical or hormonal means.
- For the proposition that it is in the best interest of humankind to assume that population growth will voluntarily cease at a level below 9.5 billion and to take no action, overt or otherwise, to insure that happening.
- For the proposition that it is in the best interest of humanity to assume that population growth will voluntarily cease prior to the year 2100 and to take no action, overt or otherwise, to insure that happening.
- Against the proposition that if the current Arab population of Gaza (assumed to be 1.4 million) continues to grow at its current compound rate of 4.7% per year for the next 60 years, without sizeable emigration, it is highly likely that war with weapons of mass destruction will occur between Israel and the Arabs.
- For the proposition that the economic output of the planet can expand by a factor of two, can expand by a factor of four, can expand by a factor of 20, can expand by a factor of 50, can expand to become infinite, if humanity desires to survive for a period of 5,000 years—you set forth how large the economic output of the earth can become and then defend your choice.
- Against the proposition that an economy cannot grow over time unless the economy uses something physical.
- For the proposition that recycling can be 100% efficient.
- Against the proposition that there are two and only two ways population growth can be reduced to zero—violently and non-violently.
- Against the proposition that non-violently (as set forth in ff above) can be sub-divided into two and only two sub-categories—by the voluntary action of all of humanity or by coercive population control.
- Against the proposition that if any country faced massive social unrest leading to revolution and the collapse of the social order caused by starvation or any lack of resources that the government of that country would lash out (start a war) against their neighbors or others in an attempt to obtain the food or other resources which curb or eliminate the massive social unrest and/or the collapse of the social order.
- Against the proposition that current H-bombs have the equivalent destructive power of 12-15 million tons of TNT.
- Against the proposition that humanity generally has used the richest and most accessible resources that the earth can provide and that in the future it will be harder and more expensive to obtain the resources necessary to support the expanding human population and the resources necessary to keep a modern industrial society functioning.
- Against the proposition that even if every nation, religion, group, family and individual reduced their population growth today to replacement level, population would continue to grow for a substantial number of years (about 70 or more years) and would not stabilize until a level 50% greater than the starting level.
- Against the proposition that reproduction is skewed in favor of an increasing population—a man can father almost an infinite number of children and a woman can have 9, 10 or more children—neither can have minus children.
- For the proposition that the rhythm method of birth control demanded by the Catholic Church is an effective method of controlling population growth.
- Against the proposition that a substantial number of American women had one or more unplanned pregnancies and a substantial number had one or more abortions.
- Against the proposition that a substantial number of the women in the world had one or more unplanned pregnancies and one or more abortions
- For the proposition that new technologies and/or environmentalism (no matter how defined) and/or recycling will permit the earth to support 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 billion human (you pick whichever number you want and defend that number) beings for just 5,000 years without causing resource wars with weapons of mass destruction or other major catastrophes causing the violent deaths of billions of humans.
- For the proposition that the earth could support the present human population of about 6.7 billion without the resources of North and South America
- For the proposition that there are new undiscovered land masses on the planet that can provide additional resources for humanity.
- Against the proposition that there is substantial over fishing and a number of fisheries used for human food have collapsed such that those fisheries no longer can provide food for humanity and that an additional number of fisheries are close to collapse and probably will collapse in the near future such that they likewise will no longer be able to provide food for the human species..
- Against the proposition that a number of aquifers which are being used to grow food crops in the US, China and other countries are being severely depleted.
- Against the proposition that irrigation can and does lead to soil salinization which reduces and/or destroys the ability of the soil to produce food crops.
- Against the proposition that a portion of the increased food supply of the last century has been due to the use of increased irrigation.
- Against the proposition that in order for human population to be stabilized there has to been a one to one relationship between births and deaths—if more people are born than die population will increase.
- Against the proposition that fossil fuels are finite and at some point in time they will be exhausted as defined herein.
- Against the proposition that when oil is exhausted (including oil made from other fossil fuels) all or all most all aviation will no longer be possible.
- Against the proposition that when all fossil fuels are exhausted that international trade will substantially decrease.
- Against the proposition that medical science by extending the average life span of human beings has caused a compound effect—more people live longer and due to the fact that more people live longer more people are alive.
- Against the proposition that the average human being’s standard of living has gone up over the last 50 years and, therefore, the per capita usage of resources has increased over the last 50 years.
- Against the proposition that the per capita increase in usage of resources has had a further compounding effect when combined with aaa above.
- For the proposition that humanity will voluntarily reduce the birth rate on a world wide basis such that population growth is reduced to zero (or made negative, if that is necessary) before weapons of mass destruction are used and will remain at zero as long as humanity inhabits the earth.
- Against the proposition that the average per capita usage of resources will continue to increase on a world-wide basis for the foreseeable future
- Against the proposition that humanity now has weapons of mass destruction which probably could eliminate our species in a few short moments of time or, in the alternative, could destroy modern civilization in a few very short moments of time.
- Against the proposition that there are many, many present signs that humankind is destroying the biosphere, thereby putting into peril the future existence of the human species.
- Against the proposition that over the long term environmentalism does more harm than good to humankind by permitting population to grow, rather than forcing humanity to confront the population problem today.
- Against the proposition that global warming, as that term is generally understood, does exist. It doesn’t matter for your argument what is causing global warming, merely that the earth appears to be getting warmer and that there is every indication that the warming will continue.
- Against the proposition that if global warming exists and if it continues, there is a strong probability that it will adversely affect the biosphere and thereby reduce humankind’s chances of survival.
- For the proposition that evolution, natural selection, (commonly known as survival of the fittest or Darwinism) is not applicable to humankind and never will apply to humanity.
- Against the proposition that artificial birth control methods sometimes fail either because they are not used properly or for other reasons.
- Against the proposition that many artificial birth control methods presently in use are effective after the human female egg has been fertilized.
- Against the proposition that a reduction in world-wide population growth requires the support of the USA.
- Against the proposition that the position of many of the world’s largest and most important religions presently make it very difficult to reduce population growth to zero.
- Against the proposition that except for the energy of the sun reaching our plant, our planet is a “closed system”.
- Against the proposition that in a closed system if one aspect of the system increases a different aspect of the system must decrease.
- Against the proposition that humanity has used the most accessible resources and in the future it will be more difficult and expensive to obtain and use the resources the earth provides.
- Against the proposition that if the aquifers under the central USA and Northern China are depleted such that they can no longer provide the necessary irrigation water to grow crops in those areas there will be a substantial decrease in the world’s food supply.
- Against the proposition that the price of resources will increase, if population continues to grow.
- Against the proposition that in order for humanity to survive at the average current usage of resources for 2,000 years the population has to be substantially reduced below the current 6.7 billion
- For the proposition that the USA will be able to construct the necessary infrastructure and desalinization facilities to desalinate sea water and transport that water to the grain producing areas of the Midwest prior to the aquifers that presently supply the water to grow crops in that area running out of water.
- For the proposition that the Catholic Church will change its position on artificial birth control and abortion prior to a major catastrophe caused by the explosive population growth.
- For the proposition that the religions presently opposed to abortion will change their position prior to a major catastrophe caused by the explosive population growth.
- Against the proposition that there is a relationship between standard of living and the usage of resources—the higher the standard of living of an individual on average the more resources provided by the earth are used by that individual.
- Against the position that the economy of China is rapidly expanding and that China will use an expanding proportion of the resources produced by the earth.
- Against the proposition that the population of India is rapidly expanding.
- Against the proposition that the economy of India is rapidly expanding and that India will use an expanding proportion of the resources produced by the earth.
- Against the proposition that the number of automobiles, trucks, planes, ocean going vessels and other items that use fossil fuels used by humanity will substantially increase in the next 50 years increasing the demand for oil and other fossil fuels.
- Against the proposition that humans are born with genetic differences.
- Against the proposition that genetic differences are one factor which determines the ability of an individual human being to function in society.
- Against the proposition that it is highly likely that international trade will substantially decrease when fossil fuels are exhausted.
- Against the proposition that in order for humanity to survive on this planet for 5,000 years the population of humankind must be reduced below the current level of 6.7 billion.
- Against the proposition that if international trade were substantially reduced it would be very harmful for humanity.
- Against the proposition that if medical science increased the average human life span in good health to 150 years, the only way humanity could survive for any reasonable length of time would be to reduce the number of humans who live on the earth.
- Against the proposition that the average per capita usage of resources will increase from 2008 to 2050
- Against the proposition that the average life expectancy will increase during the period from 2008 to 2050
- Against the proposition that the population of humanity will continue to increase during the period 2008 to 2050.
- Against the proposition that the increase in population combined with the increase in average life expectancy combined with the increase in per capita usage of resources during the period 2008 to 2050 will very substantially increase the burden humanity places on the ability of the earth to provide the resources necessary for humanity to survive on the earth for a reasonable length of time.
- Against the proposition that if on average every couple had three children who survived to reproduce and in the next generation each couple had three children who survived to reproduce and if this birth/survival rate continued for just 700 years the population of humanity would exceed the ability of the earth to provide humanity with the resources needed for humanity to survive on this planet.
- Against the proposition that if on average each couple had 2.4 children who survived to reproduce and in the next generation each couple had 2.4 children who survived to reproduce and if this birth/survival rate continued for a few hundred years resource wars would occur resulting in the deaths of billions of human beings.
- Against the proposition that the combined Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have enough ice which if completely melted would cause a very substantial increase in the level of the oceans requiring a massive relocation of hundreds of million of people who would be forced to move to higher ground.
- Against the proposition that it takes energy to produce electricity and hydrogen.
- Against the proposition that China intends to obtain a substantial portion of its future energy needs by building a significant number of coal fired power plants.
- Against the proposition that carbon dioxide produced any place on the planet affects every human being on the planet.
- Against the proposition that continued population growth will always offset the benefits of any and all environmental actions taken by humanity.
- Against the proposition that the harm caused to humanity by a one child policy will be less than the harm to humanity if population and/or economic growth were permitted to continue.
I could go on listing additional propositions for you to consider. However, the purpose for the list above is to require anyone who disagrees with what I have written to be very specific as to the disagreements and to require that person to set forth facts and logic and not unfounded statements as to why he disagrees. I want this book to be challenged, but challenged on facts and logic and not on flights of fancy. I am including my e-mail address so that any logical reader will be able to contact me — firstname.lastname@example.org. Hate mail not wanted.
Many cogent arguments have been made on behalf of population stabilization and reduction. But few, if any, advocates have stepped forward with concrete proposals on how that vitally necessary goal can be achieved. And fewer still have taken on organized religion as of the fatal impediments to that cause. What makes this book and the arguments contained in it different, is that those arguments set forth a method by which the goal of population stabilization and reduction can and will be achieved. The fact that the arguments and method will be discarded by many as cruel and/or unacceptable is less important than the fact that something must be done today to reduce population growth to zero or make it negative if humanity is to survive for just a very few years.
No one has the right to use his penis or her womb to destroy all of humanity. There is not a God given right to reproduce or to reproduce in a manner which results in the total and complete destruction of our species.
The choice is between resource wars with weapons of mass destruction and coercive population control and the failure of the leaders of humanity to understand that simple fact will lead to the total annihilation of humankind. Yes, humanity must strive to make coercive population fair, just and moral. However, there cannot be a guarantee that coercive population control will be fair in every instance and in every application of the principle and humanity must understand that fact. However, that must not stop humanity from enforcing coercive population control as the choice is simple—annihilation of our species or doing the best humanity can to make coercive population fair, just and moral. The cowardice of those concerned with overpopulation and the future of humanity to demand coercive population control is inexcusable. Every single person who has written about the ever expanding human population is betting on the hope that humanity will voluntarily reduce population growth to zero before a tipping point will be reached which will lead to the inevitable destruction of humankind. As set forth above, even if there is a 95% chance that humanity will voluntarily reduce population growth to zero in time to prevent the destruction of our species, the five percent chance that population growth will not be voluntarily reduced to zero in time to prevent the destruction must not be taken. No that is wrong! Even if there is a one percent chance that population growth will not voluntarily be reduced to zero in time to prevent the destruction of humanity, that chance must not be taken.
Every single author who has written about overpopulation or the growing population and the future of humanity who has not endorsed or demanded coercive population control is gambling the survival of all of humanity on the chance, and it is only a chance, that all of humanity will voluntarily reduce population growth to zero before the tipping point is reached. Remember the power of A-bombs and H-bombs and remember the likelihood that many nations, non-national groups and fanatics will soon have those weapons and the ability to deliver them to any place on the globe.
Let there be no mistake, when growth stops, as it must, a substantial number of people will be hurt. Let there be no mistake, the termination of growth is the most profound and troubling revolution that humankind has confronted in the past or will ever confront in the future. Since humanity evolved from the ape, everything humankind has done has been to foster and further growth—more people at a higher standard of living, a longer life, greater usage of natural resources, etc. Suddenly human beings are confronted with devising a moral, just and fair system to exist on this planet for a reasonable length of time without growth. A system without growth requires the change in every aspect of society –what is moral, how government functions, can democracy survive, what is the function of charity, how will the economy of the world function, who can vote, what is the definition of murder, what is the place of religion, how will medicine affect humanity in the future, and other aspects too numerous to mention— and that requirement has come about in only the last 50 or so years, a very, very short period of time.
A PROPOSAL AS TO HOW TO DETERMINE WHO CAN AND WHO CANNOT REPRODUCE.
Now to the hard part—to propose a method or to propose criteria by which those who will be permitted to reproduce will be determined. First, any proposal made by me or any other person cannot be value neutral. Any decision made by any human cannot be value neutral. Even asking a question or establishing criteria cannot be value neutral. Everything a human being does, says or writes cannot be value neutral. Second, any proposal I set forth herein is just that, a proposal. There should be and there will be many people that disagree with my proposal. I urge those individuals to present intelligent alternative proposals. I ask those individuals to state why they disagree with my proposal and what facts and logic make their proposals better for humankind.
With the understanding that nothing created by a human being can be value neutral, I will propose a method to divide humanity into two groups, the reproducers and the non-reproducers. That proposal is as value neutral and as fair and just as I can think of. As indicated previously, the division into the two groups will not be made for many years. As indicated previously, the first step is to limit reproduction for everyone to one child. Only after population has been substantially reduced will the remaining population be divided into the two mentioned groups.
Among the criteria I considered are:
- The method should not change at any time in the future, since such a change would subject to human whim.
- The method should be simple—easy to understand.
- The method should be realistic—one that has a chance of working.
- The method should be self correcting—if a person without the skills to function is permitted to reproduce in this generation and his offspring do not have the skills to function in the next generation, then the system should prevent their reproduction in the next generation.
- The determination of who has the skills necessary to function in society should not be made by a human being or by any group of humans—it should be determined automatically.
- The method should attempt to cover the situation in which the necessary skills change, and they do change, so that those that were permitted to reproduce under one set of skills are no longer permitted to reproduce under a different of skills.
- The method must take into consideration that in some cases the children of able men/women do not have the skills of their parents and should not be permitted to procreate. And yet, it must be understood that there is a genetic component to almost all skills and to almost every aspect of the human condition.
- The determination cannot be made by any test created by a human being or group of humans such as an Intelligence Test (IQ test).
- The method must take into account that a myriad of factors determine who has the necessary skills to function.
- The method must take into account that the skills necessary to function vary according to the local society in which the skills and individual exists and that there are many local societies on this planet and yet in many ways there is one global society.
Let me make it absolutely clear that the concept of dividing humanity into two groups is not a scheme to establish the “master race” based on race, religion, national origin, language or anything of that type. The reader must understand that the concept of dividing humanity into two groups is a concept which I detest and goes against every democratic principle known to humankind. However, for the reasons set forth in this book it is absolutely necessary to divide humanity into the two groups in order for species to survive.
If a child or anyone were permitted to inherit or receive gifts it would mean that the right to procreate would not be based on the individual’s ability to function, but would be based, in part, on the ability of that individual’s parents or benefactors to function. No matter the method chosen to determine who could procreate, a child of Bill Gates, if he/she were permitted to inherit or receive gifts, would always have an advantage over a child of the ghetto or a child from the slums of India, even though the child of the ghetto or the child from the slums of India had better skills to function.
The permits would be issued to those who paid the highest amount of money for the right to procreate—a bidding process. At this point I am sure that you, the reader, are starting to scream that the author is a crazy, immoral madman. How dare the author take the position that money is to be the factor which determines the future of humanity? The answer is quite simple—generally those that are the most productive, the most able to function in society make the most money. Of course, I know that there are thousands, if not millions, of exceptions to the general rule. However, there is a correlation between the ability of the individual to function in society and a correlation between the benefits an individual brings to society and the money earned by that individual. I know that using money as the factor which determines the future of humanity is unfair to those who live in the poorest countries. Hopefully by the time humanity needs to be divided into two groups the economic differences between the affluent West and the rest of the world will be reduced.
How about Mike Tyson, the fighter who made more money in one fight than most intelligent and able people will make in their entire lives? In this generation he would have the right to reproduce. However, the system is self correcting and in the next generation and/or in future generations, hopefully, the sport of boxing would be less attended and the fighters would earn less money so that their reproduction rate would decrease. If the people continued to attend the sport of boxing so that the future Mike Tysons made the most money, then society in its wisdom would have made the choice of who can and who cannot reproduce. Let us look at the opposite side of the coin. Most composers of symphonies aren’t well paid and would not reproduce under the bidding system. If humanity wanted beautiful symphonies it would have to pay the composers more—the decision would be made by society as a whole. If humanity wanted better teachers and professors it would have to pay them more. To put it in simple terms—humanity/society would determine its future by its acts and hopefully those acts would be made on a rational basis.
The method which I am proposing is based on the assumption that there is a genetic component to the ability to function in society and a genetic component to the ability to provide benefits to society. Since life began on the earth there always has been a genetic component to survival and reproduction of every living thing. However, as indicated above I am aware that many men/women of genius and greatness had fools and incompetents for children. I am also aware that many fools and incompetents had geniuses for children. And lastly, I am aware that it takes nature many, many, generations to determine the fittest within a species. Since the method proposed is self correcting, those incompetents will not be able to reproduce in the next generation. The entire system must be constructed such that reproduction is determined based on the ability of the individual no one else. The right to reproduce cannot be based on the ability of parents, grandparents, friends or anyone else. The process will be continuous and never ending—as the skills needed to function in society change, those that are permitted to reproduce will change.
Admittedly the method cannot and will not be 100% fair even if a child cannot receive gifts or inherit. For example—a ten year old child of wealthy parents could travel with his parents around the world and he would, therefore, have an advantage over a child of poor parents. Another example—a child of a professional couple would hear his/her parents talk at home and that fact alone would give that child an advantage over another child. Access to education would have to be determined by the individual’s ability and nothing else.
An important question which must be considered—why would a person of ability/genius work and create and thereby produce benefits for society as a whole, when that person could not leave the assets he/she acquired to his/her child? Another very important question—why would a wealthy parent in the industrialized world permit a system to exist which requires his child to compete with a child from the slums of India for the right to reproduce? In reality there aren’t any satisfactory answers to those two questions. And yet the ultimate fact is that population growth must be made negative, if humanity wants to survive and a method or system must be created which permits and causes that to happen. I will try to provide answers to the two questions I set forth above. A person of ability will work and create because he/she must—it is a part of his/her nature. If a wealthy person does not agree to a system which requires his/her child to compete with a child from the slums of India, Africa or anywhere else, eventually the slum child who is more competent will become a revolutionary and attack and kill the less competent child of the wealthy person. Any attempt by the wealthy to forever keep in chains and bondage the competent children of the ghettos and slums of the world is doomed to failure.
Professor David Pimental, of Cornell University and his wife, Marcia Pimental, also of Cornell University, in an article they wrote in 2003 reached exactly the same conclusion that is reached in this book in so far as it describes the results of the growing human population—“if the human population continues to increase and exhaust the earth’s natural resources, nature will control our numbers by disease, hunger, malnutrition and violent conflicts over resources. The difficult decisions are ours to be made to prevent the imbalance between human numbers and food security from further escalating.” I don’t want to mislead the reader—in the article referred to above and in their other writings they never referred to coercive population control or dividing humanity into two groups,
To repeat what is written above, there are three and only three ways population growth will be made negative such there is a reduction in the number of humans on the earth—a) death and destruction caused by resource wars using weapons of mass destruction or regular weapons and the other horrors set forth herein; b) the voluntary action of all of humanity, by the voluntary action every group, religion, nation, family,, etc, and this voluntary action must last as long as the human species inhabits the earth; and c) by coercive population control.
Humanity cannot permit the first manner of limiting population growth to occur—it will probably destroy our entire species and/or destroy civilization. The second choice will not be achieved by humankind. Not everyone will agree to voluntary control and even if they did, the action of all of humanity will not last as long as our species inhabits this planet. The only way we can save ourselves is to have population control imposed on humanity.
The foregoing arguments will be met with horror because while the horrors of famine, war, disease, societal and ecological collapse have started they have not registered in the collective psyche of humanity. Not only will religious dogmatists, zealots and anti-abortionists be horrified by what is written in this book, it is highly likely that those in favor of reducing population growth to zero will also be horrified because they will believe what is contained herein is too radical and will bring the entire population control movement into disrepute. I can only challenge them to cast aside their emotional reactions and respond with a reasoned refutation. I would ask—“Precisely what misstatement of fact or fallacy of logic can you locate in my arguments?” Does any conclusion or statement contained herein not logically follow from the facts contained herein? If anyone opposed to the conclusions reached in this book or any reviewer or other reader cannot point to a factual error or failure of logic, then the conclusions reached herein are not radical, but merely they are disagreeable to convention and the current view of morality and justice.
If you, the reader, are interested in the future of humanity, you have three intellectual choices;
- Show that the human population can continue to grow forever.
- Show that all of humanity will voluntarily reduce population growth to zero or make it negative and then stabilize population at a level that the earth can support for an extended period of time.
- Establish a method of coercive population control which will prevent the destruction of humanity caused by the growing population or even a stabilized population.
There are no other choices. If you cannot defend choices numbered 1 or 2 then you must accept choice number 3. If you don’t like the method I have set forth above to control population by coercion, propose an alternative method.
Let me summarize the problem facing humankind in a slightly different manner. What will happen when humanity exceeds the carrying capacity of the earth? Something must happen –by definition if the carrying capacity of the earth is 100 human beings and there are 250 human beings on the earth something must happen. How will society function when the population equals or exceeds the carrying capacity of the earth? What action must humanity take today to prevent the destruction of humanity when the human population exceeds the carrying capacity of the earth? These questions would not have to be answered by humanity if the human population never, repeat never, exceeds the carrying capacity of the earth. These questions will have to be answered today or sometime in the future when humanity exceeds the carrying capacity of the earth.
There are two and only two ways that the number of human beings will never exceed the carrying capacity of the earth—a) if the carrying capacity of the earth is infinitely large; or b) if humanity forever keeps the population of humanity below the carrying capacity of the earth. And the carrying capacity of the earth cannot be infinitely large. The earth cannot support an infinitely large human population no matter what humanity does and no matter the intelligence of humanity. In effect, there is only one way for humanity to never exceed the carrying capacity of the earth and that is to control population growth and there are only two ways to do that—by the voluntary action of all of humanity forever or to have the growth of population controlled by some mechanism which enforces limits on reproduction. If you are an intellectually honest reader, no matter how much you disagree with what I have written or detest my proposals, you must answer the questions set forth in this paragraph or show that the analysis set forth in this paragraph is incorrect. Since voluntary population control will not prevent humanity from exceeding the carrying capacity of our planet, humanity must face the horrible choice and face it today, not tomorrow, —–coercive/imposed population control or the destruction of our species.
THE LEADERS OF HUMANITY BY THEIR INACTION WILL KILL BILLIONS OF HUMANS
Since not one single leader of humanity has ever stated that economic growth must cease and taken steps to stop economic growth, humanity is doomed to destruction. Once economic growth ceases, population growth must cease. Population growth cannot continue for even a short period of time without economic growth. Since every leader of humanity (without a single exception) has refused to embrace coercive population control, every leader of humanity is gambling that voluntary population control will prevent the destruction of humanity. No leader of humanity has ever prepared a detailed analysis of the risks and benefits of voluntary population control versus the risks and benefits of coercive population control. Every leader is making that gamble without an intelligent analysis of the risks of that gamble. Every successful businessman, every successful military leader and every intelligent human being attempts to look into the future to evaluate and plan for contingencies that the future may hold. Not one leader of humanity has ever considered the possibility/contingency that the earth cannot provide the resources for the current level of population to exist for even a very short period of time. No leader of humanity has ever prepared contingency plans as to how his government/society or all of humanity would function if the level of economic activity would have to be reduced to order for humanity to survive for even a short period of time. Any leader who believes such evaluation and planning is absolutely unnecessary is failing in his duty. The failure to prepare such contingency plans is an act of criminal negligence and every leader has committed and is presently committing criminal negligence. No leader of humanity has ever understood the fact that economic and population growth must cease and when it ceases every aspect of society must and will change—the concepts of charity, religion, government, morality, justice and many others will change.
In simple terms, the purpose of this book is to cause you the reader to become an independent thinker and to pressure the leaders of humanity to take the necessary steps to prevent the horrible destruction of our species. You have three choices:
- Present credible evidence that the facts, math and logic presented in the book are wrong. Present credible evidence that the conclusions and proposals set forth is this book are not supported by the math, facts and logic or present different conclusions and one or more different proposals (your proposals) as how to reduce population growth to zero and/or make it negative. In effect, present credible evidence that the author is just plain wrong and has no knowledge of the problems facing humanity and their solutions.
- If you are unable to present credible evidence that the author is wrong, then you are obligated to come to the same conclusions as the author and to implement his proposals as how to reduce population.
- If you are unable to present credible evidence that the author is wrong or present a very strong argument that the conclusions of the author are not supported by the evidence he presented or present a strong argument for a different method of controlling population and you are unwilling to adopt his proposals for controlling population, then you must be prepared to accept the consequences—massive and horrible deaths of billions of living breathing human beings.
There are no other choices!