In truth, humans only have two options:
#1. Be managed like domestic pets.
#2. Dieoff like wild animals.
>>Jay:
>> This particular planet -- Earth -- already has too many people working.
>From: Douglas P. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>By how many, Jay? How much MORE unemployment do you want? 10%, 20%
>maybe? We all know you think the earth is overpopulated, but putting
>people out of work isn't going to solve that, unless they kill themselves
You misunderstand the concept of carrying capacity. Putting people out of
work WILL help solve the overpopulation problem -- here's how:
Ecologists define carrying capacity in terms of the "load" on the biosystem:
"An environment's carrying capacity is its maximum persistently supportable
load (Catton 1986)." [ http://dieoff.com/page110.htm ]
The "load" on the biosystem is defined as the per-capita load multiplied by
the number of people. If the product is greater than carrying capacity, a
region is "overpopulated".
The ecologist's "overpopulation" is, by definition, a temporary condition.
In nature, "overpopulation" is followed by "dieoff". Theoretically, humans
could increase carrying capacity by reducing the per-capita load -- by
reducing GDP. We also must introduce draconian birth control measures so
the next generation won't dieoff in spite of our efforts.
My new post-consumer society would only require a fraction of the
resources -- it would be able to "carry" many more people:
===================
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Sustainable development both improves quality of
life and retains continuity with physical conditions. To do both requires
that social systems be equitable and physical systems circular.
COMMONS: "A commons is any resource treated as though it belongs to all.
When anyone can claim a resource simply on the grounds that he wants or
needs to use it, one has a commons." [ Virginia Abernethy, POPULATION AND
ENVIRONMENT, Vol. 18, No. 1, Sept 1996. cited in CCN's FOCUS, Vol. 2, No.2,
p. 20. ]
COERCION: To "coerce" is to compel one to act in a certain way -- either by
promise of reward or threat of punishment.
POLITICS: One coercing another.
AUTHORITY: I use this word in the sense that goals (or ideals) are NOT
produced by a consensus of the governed. For example, physical goals for
sustainable development must come from "scientific authority" -- because no
one else knows what they must be.
Examples of "authoritarian" political systems include corporations,
Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and churches.
An obvious example of extremely successful "authoritarian, systems politics"
is a corporation.
GLOBAL PROBLEMATIC: Global tragedy of the commons because people are
genetically programmed to more-than-reproduce themselves and make the best
use of their environments.
THE ONE-AND-ONLY SOLUTION: Global coercion.
...
POST-CONSUMER SOCIETY
We already live under a coercive, global religio-political system called
"Capitalism". The sine qua non of Capitalism is the conversion of our
life-support system into commodities. Thus, Capitalism WILL end --
one way or another. There is no a priori reason a new coercive system
would need to be anywhere near a brutal as our present one.
In reality, the current development paradigm is nothing but a grotesque --
energy gulping -- Rube Goldberg machine to deliver "needs" to people.
Today, people still "need" the same things that hunter-gatherers "needed"
35,000 years ago: community, shelter, health care, clean water, clean air,
and about 3,000 calories a day of nutritious food. But each of those three
million hunter-gatherers used the same amount of energy as a common
dolphin, whereas each of today's 269 million Americans uses as much
energy as a sperm whale.
Step one is to break out of the money/market/advertising/consumption death
grip. A new society would NOT be based on money because it's inherently
unsustainable. It would be based on something like Hubbert's energy
certificates. [ See It's the Money, Stupid! at
http://dieoff.com/page149.htm
The key to the new society is to find meaning and happiness in
non-consumptive activities such as religion and the arts. With modern
technology, probably less than 5% of the population could produce all the
goods we really "need".
A certain number of "producers" could be drafted and trained by society to
produce for two years. The rest can stay home and sing, dance, paint, read,
write, pray, play, and practice birth control.
Highest priority would be to establish a global government of some sort with
police powers that are capable of protecting the global commons -- our
life-support system -- as well as protecting individual human rights (as
yet, undefined). Within the global framework, I believe a great deal of
freedom is possible -- in fact, far more than we have now.
Any number of cultural, ethnic or religious communities could be established
by popular vote. Religious people could have public prayer in their schools,
prohibit booze, allow no television to corrupt their kids, wear uniforms,
whatever. Communities of writers or painters could be established in which
bad taste would be against the law. Ethnic communities could be established
to preserve language and customs. If someone didn't like the rules in a
particular community, they could move to another religious, cultural, or
ethnic community of their choosing.
In short, the one big freedom that people would be giving-up would be the
freedom to destroy the commons (in its broadest sense). And in return, they
would be given a guaranteed income and the freedom to live the kind of life
they choose.
Jay
-------------------------
COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU!
http://dieoff.com/page1.htm
