Fundamental Concepts for changing our Kid's Future


Three sets of fundamental concepts effect my child’s future.

SET 1 - Existence that does not injure

No one on the international space station has died of not enough food clothing shelter, healthcare, disenfranchisement, or boredom. That is what I want for my son and his kids. So for me the fundamentals have to do with how many people can live on earth and have a life as good as the astronauts.

I calculated such a number in a video — its — 50 million  (The number seems low but that is the number after the end of non renewable like fossil and uranium fuels.

Let’s assume that people live to an age of 100. 50 million would be 100 cohorts of 500,000. Which means that nominally, in this civilization, there would be 500,000 births each year,

If we let natural inclinations determine birth choices a woman will be able to choose numbers between 0-8. Some will have zero, Some will have only one some will have only 2 and some will have a number between 3-8. The civilization remains viable
as long as there are 500,000 births a year

When for some reason the actual number of births resulting from these personal choices is lower or higher that 500,000 there will have to be some civil adjustment
up or down in these natural choices.

Also if there was unexpected causes of death, (plague, violence) or unexpected multiple births the system would expand or contract the 500,000 births; keeping the total population near 50 million.

These are the fundamental concepts of maintaining a stable and sustainable population on earth.

SET 2 - The transition to that existence

Now let’s investigate the fundamental concepts that make the transition
            the 7 billion person fossil fueled human experiment of today
            the 50 million hydro powered human experiment in 2100

We might not be able to get from here to there (given the expected time table of contracting supporting resources) using business as usual plans. For example:  a) muddling through. b) strongest survive c) devil take the hind most. d) let the chips fall where they may.

We might not be left with a world that can support 50 million living at high tech standards. We might end up with 500 million subsistence farmers distributed in the world’s river valleys or 10 million nomadic hunter and gathers. We might find ourselves trapped at some low tech existence, because the remaining supporting resources,are too little to rebuild a high tech society. Which means we had a chance to have an even greater civilization but we blue it.

People have contemplated contracting the human footprint faster than supporting resources decline. And they have considered (may still be considering) global genocide (Kurt Dahl’s “The Eden Proposition) global forced sterility (Dan Brown’s inferno)

I have proposed a civil-consensus-mandated-birth-lottery of 500,000 permits a year, which, produces a 80 year-long rapid population decline to 50 million and at the same time creates the 100 cohorts that make population size maintenance viable going into the future.

I have suggested creating a consensus that creates a civil law that constrains all members equally.
      (everyone is made sterile (ala genetic engineering)
      (a lottery ticket winner is allowed to have a child.)

When all permits are not used in a given year, that is all the women together do not what to have the 500,000 babies then civil law will give incentives, pay for service rendered to civilization to have an extra baby.

This incentive program will be funded by either fertile woman and men who have elected to not parent 2 children or everyone equally through some flat tax. Because the human experiment, as designed, cannot survive without having all the permits used.

The number I propose are not the comm among popuation activitists. The numbers I present are not the ones most people want to use use to influence procreative behavior. For example, more than 2 is embarrassing bad behavior, because it means
(in a society in balance with its supports) the extra child means some other child starves to death.

However, let me give you some other sobering numbers about people who will starve to death or die in conflict resulting from individuals avoiding three children per family starting today. A plan that is recommend by a lot of good people (John Seanger’s, and Bill Ryerson's, and Malcolm Potts’,…) who just are not calculating the impacts of the plan.

If my data, also David Pimentel’s and, Paul Ehrlich’s , Andrew Ferguson’s, and many others is correct and our ability to support people on this earth is less than a billion,
then this century will serve up starvation and conflict deaths to 6.5 billion people. The 6.5 billion is actually an under estimate, because its just the overshoot adjustment. Births during the interval of population decline are in addition to the 6.5 billion. and these extra deaths are dependent on your greater than 2 calculation not immediately being accepted.

In my own education about the fundamentals of overpopulation a TFR of 2 became unimportant about 1976. And the 1 birth per family (OCPF) became unimportant about 2000. After 2000 my calculations did not include the fundamental concept of fertility rate or number of children per family.

Instead I calculated:
      1) how many people could the world support in 2100
      2) given the present population
            what numbers explained arriving at it
                  without killing 6.5 billion plus people.

Only after I made these calculations did it occur to me what they implied in terms of
getting the required birthing behaviors of an adequate number of individuals.

For example, the required population decline could only happen if I could convince an extra billion women every decade to have almost no children. Equally difficult would be the task of changing at least some of these woman who were successfully train to have no children, that now it was OK, sometimes necessary to more than 2 and even up to 8 or 9.

Creating a good civilization for our children to live in 100 years is based on some fundamentals that most of us have not even considered let alone advocate.

SET 3 - maintenance of that existence

I have developed an understanding of the relationship between
      evolving human nature and
      evolving cognition.

I have come to believe through gadanken experiments imperfect and affected by bias as they are) that the genetic component of human bias does not have iron clad control of perception, analysis, and valuation. Most of the recent work in behavioral economics and evolutionary biology measure existing behavior, which is reflections of this bias. The research sheds little light on how that bias has changed or is changing or to what advanced state it could attain.

Cognition (processing of data , values produced from abstraction, and even a change in sensitivities in perception) probably evolve. This leaves open the an opportunity for a bias shift to play a new role is in understanding and unwinding the human predicament.

In conclusion, in my efforts to create a good world for my kids, these three sets of concepts play the dominant role:
      1) earth’s sustainable population (50 million)
      2) Transition to that population this century (RPD lottery)
      3) maintenance of that civilization after we create it.
                  (cognition dominating predisposition)


Jack Alpert (Bio)     mail to:     (homepage)      position papers

  (more details)