Implementing Rapid Population Decline with a Vote   

Most individuals cannot coerce themselves to limit their families to one child per family (OCPF) even if it produces the rapid population decline (RPD) that avoids horrendous future conditions.

Growing a new generation with cognitive abilities that can, appreciate the human predicament,  do the analysis that shows which behavior solves it, and  create the motivation to take that behavior, has been my work for 35 years.

While I still think that raising the cognition norm is required for the viability of the human experiment, that experiment is so close to total collapse with so little chance of recovery, I now feel that rapid population decline (RPD,) the kind produced by "everyone fathering or mothering at most one child (OCPF), must be implemented by more expedient means. People must be coerced. Below I present thoughts of "creating this coercion" in a democratic system.

Individuals perceive different present conditions, future conditions, causality, and morality. These views (mixed with genetic drives) produce a range of personal behaviors. However, in a democracy, these individuals coerce each other to adopt a bounded range of these behaviors. For example, a wide range of possible driving behaviors are bounded by traffic laws.

Implementing rapid population decline (RPD) to solve the human predicament might be a candidate for one of these group-coercions or "range boundings." That is humankind might create a law that coerces everyone to have at most one child per family (OCPF).

Enacting such a law requires majority approval. To create this majority, a group of people, who presently don't see a human predicament, and do see that the OCPF law will take away a previously held personal freedom will have to be persuaded to vote for it.

One might think building this constituency is impossible. However, there is precedent. Notice that in implementing traffic laws similar perceptions of a liability were changed and limitations of personal freedom were accepted.     

Not every voter for the OCPF law will have to go through a rational transformation. However, those that do will have to develop:
     a new view of future liabilities,
     a new view of causality that shows RPD
          as the strongest way to avoid these liabilities, and
     a new belief that a one child per family law
          (even though it is an additional constraint on
          personal freedom) is justified and powerful enough
          to implement the required rate of RPD to limit injury.

To facilitate these transformations each candidate must be led by a recruiter/teacher through a process that takes the candidate, using his or her unique knowledge of the social and physical world and cognitive capabilities, to these new perceptions, understandings of causality, and bias for behavior.

These paths will be shaped by how the candidate thinks (gathers, processes, and values information.) Which
beliefs in causality are already resident. Which behaviors he or she already approves. The community in which the candidate is immersed; specifically the candidate's attachment/isolation to this community. The candidates satisfaction/discomfort with conditions including trends. And the candidate's space and time horizons.

The paths to create this majority has some strategic considerations. The most important is to stay focused on efforts to change the beliefs of the candidate in terms of a OCPF max vote and not his or her procreative behavior.

In terms of building the majority the best candidates are ones that will turn into the best recruiters. These candidates will have the least internal conflicts between the OCPF max concept and what they want to do. People with raging hormones, ticking biological clocks, no value for the future, or are released from responsibility for the future by their spiritual beliefs are lower probability of success candidates than those without.

Strategically a candidate should not be considered inappropriate because of previous behavior. The person with six kids and many grandchildren can still support RPD and OCPF. He or she is not different than the guy who smokes telling his kids not to smoke. A candidate should not be ejected because they are too young to vote, they can still be a great recruiter.

It is part of this "strategy to save the human experiment" to separate the change in belief from the change in behavior. Change in belief is done by one on one recruiting. Change in behavior is accomplished by coercion -- democratically created.
Coercion can be penalties for flaunting the law, rewards for OCPF behavior, or hopefully a robust contraceptive, for example a contraception through vaccination at birth with state controlled options to allow pregnancy.

Our recruiting system must be strategic. We should focus on candidates that have the largest benefits to reap and the least penalties to pay. This group includes grand parents and parents that are done having children.

People who are entering their child bearing years are the toughest candidates. Stressed by their hormones and biological clocks, approaching them would be like going to the race-track to recruit people to vote for stricter speed limit laws on public roads. Complying with speed laws is something they will probably have to be coerced to do.

Other groups who will be hard to convert (and will have to be coerced by a law) will be people that give no value to the future, or believe the future is controlled by a deity.

All versions of the recruiting process will include, trying to get people to understand the mostly unseen human predicament. We have to help them see that many people are living very poorly. The number is growing. As more people slide into harsher and harsher lives more will starve. The starvation will increase social violence. And increasing social violence will lead to genocide. We have to get them to see that these processes are not limited to the third world. If current trends continue, they are gong to happen in their neighborhoods.

After we succeed in getting a candidate to appreciate the projected unpleasant future conditions, the process will have to help them understand that a continuous rapid population decline will inhibit the worst of these terrible events. That the only way, short of intentional or unintentional genocide is "One child per family" behaviors.

In summary, most humans will not by themselves choose one child per family from what they have learned through processes to which they have been exposed. Our task is to create new processes that will make OCPF law appear to them as the best possible action.


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

  (more details)