The Hardest Moral Dilemma of All

The Hardest Moral Dilemma of All

Global Population Speak Out

This blog is to fulfill my pledge to the GPSO effort to speak out in February regarding the overpopulation issue that many of us feel is at the heart of most of our global challenges. To see what many other scientists and citizens are doing for this effort, visit the GPSO Web site.

Damned If We Do and Damned If We Don't

If we don't limit global population there is a non-zero chance that all of humanity will go extinct! At the very least we can expect that human life will become mean and brutish as a consequence of unfettered reproduction leading to population sizes unsupportable by the resources of our finite planet. There is considerable evidence mounting that indicates that we humans have exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the planet for our species, given our resource usage patterns. We have come to rely on fossil fuel inputs to our food supply (see: the Green Revolution) and our industrial agriculture methods of modern farming. This has given the illusion (one that is fondly defended as reality by neoclassical economists) of increasing the carrying capacity of the planet. But, sadly, it is based entirely on the formerly abundant flows of high energy return on energy invested (EROI, also EROEI) fossil fuels, which have now begun to reach their peak of extraction (c.f. Peak Oil as an example).

After the peak of high powered energy production from fossil fuels, we can expect a long decline in net energy flows into the economy with constrictions being felt in the food supply. For example, as natural gas supplies suffer decline we will see the production of fertilizers decline as well. This is significant because many, perhaps most of our agricultural soils have been depleted of nutrients and absolutely require repeated applications of artificially manufactured fertilizers to maintain any semblance of productivity. Additionally, chemical pesticides and herbicides, which are synthesized from petroleum, are needed to maintain food production at these levels. Antibiotics, some of which are also based on petroleum, are needed to keep industrial production of animals sustained.

When oil goes into decline it will impact the production of all other forms of energy. For example, it takes a substantial amount of diesel fuel to extract and transport coal (used to produce electricity). Today all of manufacturing (with some exceptions in the Pacific Northwest where hydroelectric is still the predominant non-transportation energy source) is based on fossil fuel inputs. That means wind turbines and solar panels require fossil fuels to be built and installed (as well as maintained). Thus the carrying capacity, artificially elevated in the oil-rich age, is going to be brought back to what it was before the advent of our oil-based approach to agriculture.

All of this is by way of explaining an incredibly difficult moral dilemma that we, as a species, are soon going to face. The horns of this dilemma we are going to have to choose between are: certain starvation for huge segments of the population, or forced population control via sterilization. There will be no middle ground between these two, equally reprehensible choices. Less food will be produced as energy flows decline. Even if every man, woman, and child were to devote themselves to farming and/or hunter-gatherer lifestyles, there simply won't be enough land and bio-stock production possible to feed everybody. We have already depleted major fisheries (though it won't matter given that the fuel needed to run a fishing fleet will be so expensive no one would be able to afford fish as a source of protein). This means that we will no longer be able to support even the current population, let alone the 9+ billion individuals projected by the UN for the middle of this century if current trends were to continue. And the point is, those trends can't continue without sufficient energy!

This is difficult, actually nearly impossible, to consider. There is already ample denial going around, especially from politicians and neoclassical economists who are simply not capable of processing the factual data, building the models, doing the arithmetic, and interpreting the results. Most people are not able to fathom the predicament in terms of the scales involved. Even among those who do understand the basic nature of the problem there is a tendency to believe that just limiting ourselves to zero population growth (ZPG¹), with the usual nod to humane methods, should be enough to solve the problem. The more radical thinkers call for negative population growth (NPG) but still try to maintain that there are humane approaches to accomplishing this. Noting the demographic transition effect in Japan, Italy, and other OECD countries (though not the US!) many advocates of population control are hopeful that if we just supported economic development for the high birth rate countries, education and economic opportunities for women in these countries, that somehow everything would work out. The argument goes that when women have more control over their lives and more opportunity to choose careers other than motherhood, they tend to have fewer children. Who knows? Perhaps it might have worked this way if we had all the energy in the world to expand economic development in the way envisioned by the UN Millennium Development Goals. But we don't. And no amount and combination of technology, alternative energy sources, conservation and elimination of wastage, or efficiency gains will compensate for the loss of fossil fuel inputs². This too is an extremely hard pill to swallow and there is no dirth of denial on this front either. People want to believe in a future that is better than the present and they are unwilling to do the math to determine what the reality might be. Reality doesn't always match desires and sometimes you just have to give up those desires when they are not feasible.

The sad bottom line is that this planet will not be able to support the population at its current level in the not-too-distant future. Indeed, given the degree to which we have devoured and degraded resources like water, air, and soil, as well as general bio-diversity, it is possible that within a few generations we will find that the number of people actually supportable is even fewer than any of us are ready to believe!

Thus we are damned if we do nothing more proactive in population reduction than just hoping it will happen naturally with the demographic transition effect. And we are damned if we do what it will actually take to mitigate the impending disaster.

Our moral compasses point in an entirely different direction. From Wikipedia's page on Reproductive Rights:

The World Health Organization defines reproductive rights as follows:

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.

The operative terms have been highlighted.

The number of people who would question the notion that people have a natural right to reproduce as they see fit is probably very small. In general, the right to procreation is considered, universally, God given, or at least inalienable. Thus it would be morally reprehensible to consider any methods for population control that interfere with those rights.

At the same time, if the above projections of nature-forced population decline due to the effects of overshoot are correct, then the pain and suffering of literally billions of people is a certainty (see: Catton, William R., Jr. (1982). Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. and his latest book, Bottleneck: Humanity's Impending Impasse, Xlibris Corporation. See also my review of this last book).

Between the Proverbial "Rock and A Hard Place"

This, then, is our moral dilemma. If many others like Catton and I, are right, we are faced with making a choice that comes from understanding the true (and I suppose cruel) nature of this world. We can choose to allow billions of people to starve, dehydrate, or succumb to diseases from population density effects. They will live lives of squalor and despair until the end (mercifully) comes. The model for this is already at play in places like Darfur in Africa. Or we can choose to do something quite drastic in terms of proactive population control, such as mass sterilization. These two choices are extreme evils but I suspect they reflect the reality of the corner we've painted ourselves into. We failed to heed the warnings of people like Paul Ehrlich and the Meadows (see footnote 1 below). Most of our economists derided their warnings as the work of pessimists. Had we taken them more seriously back in the latter half of the 20^th century, we might have less of a problem today. But it probably wouldn't have been much less.

Of course I suspect that we will choose the former by choosing to do nothing but hope for the demographic transition. We've already essentially made that choice as we watch situations in Darfur play out. In actuality we watched something akin play out in New Orleans. Thousands of people died in that city because we (or one can argue the Bush administration) chose to do nothing. That may have been an economic/political calculation, but I suspect that is exactly what it will look like when we abandon formerly developing country after country just as we abandoned our own in this country and let the consequences play out as they will. You know, survival of the fittest!

Ironically, we actually know a great deal about the brain basis of moral choices today. Marc Hauser's book, Moral Minds, (2006, HarperCollins, New York), presents a clear story of how the brain (mind) deals with moral dilemmas. People do make choices in situations that appear on the surface to be between two equally bad actions. They do it by fooling themselves (subconsciously) into seeing one of the choices as less bad and therefore OK. It works even better when they think they can execute the choice with some intervening instrument so that it doesn't seem like it is them doing the bad thing. For those in the western world we probably thought it was a good thing when China implemented its one-child policy even though it was coercive. The Chinese government, not us, was responsible. We were just indirectly benefited since this would check the rapid growth of the Chinese population. We, in the west, would probably think similarly if India, or Indonesia, or Saudi Arabia were to implement something along these lines. But, of course, in the western world, where freedom is the watchword, this would be inappropriate (and the rationalizations for why will flood forth).

We, too, will likely fool ourselves into believing the do-nothing option is the lesser evil. We will put out of our minds the impending tragedy of mass deaths, possibly rationalizing our choice by thinking that, after all, something miraculous might happen to save us.

It isn't certain that mass sterilization would even help at this late date. We do not, for example, yet have a scientific handle on the rate of energy flow decline that we face. We only know that that decline is certain. So if the decline rate is high enough, even sterilization would not suffice (though it might help lessen the pain a bit). In theory, sterilization of half of the population (along with a one-child policy for the non-sterilized half) could bring the population down rapidly without resorting to death panels. A sterilization approach doesn't involve deciding who will live and who will die (whereas a do-nothing approach does this by default), only who will procreate and who won't. How rapidly the decline would be would need to be modeled. But it is possible that the population would decline by half in 30-50 years or so. With fewer mouths to feed, the likelihood of feeding the remaining population increases, but is not assured. A core problem with this kind of scenario is that the remaining population would tend to be comprised of aging folk. Who would do all the work needed to support them?

A sterilization program brings with it so many imponderable choices that it boggles the mind to even think about it. Who would be sterilized? How many would be needed to have an effect? What would be the consequences of a shrinking population on all sorts of economic, political, and social dimensions? And, of course, who would decide? Any takers???? I thought not. Yet if the decline in energy is anything like we think it might be, either we will choose to do this, or nature will make the choices for us. I just don't see any other options given a) the reality of declining energy flow; and b) no apparent miracles on the horizon.

We are faced with a classic Catch-22. We are damned if we do nothing and we are damned if we do what is necessary to avoid massive suffering (because our moral compasses tell us this is wrong). I usually shy away from black-or-white scenarios. I don't like simplistic arguments. But for the life of me I cannot find a middle ground here that makes any sense. Not being a praying man I still find myself hoping and wishing for some kind of energy miracle that will obviate this whole mess. Believe me I am actively engaged in seeking such a miracle because I want desperately to be wrong. I'm old enough and well enough off, for the time being, that I could live out my life without worrying my head about such things. But I also suffer from a moral dilemma. If I think I see reality, am I not obligated to give voice to my vision? If my thoughts could help save even one human life, should I nevertheless be silent and pretend I don't see this?

Morality is such a bitch sometimes!

---

Footnotes

¹ To be clear about my own situation, I had a vasectomy after my second child was born. I have been an advocate of ZPG since reading Paul R. Ehrlich's, The Population Bomb and Dennis and Donnela Meadow's The Limits to Growth. That was back when I thought ZPG was the solution.

² Given all of the media hype and cheerleading ra-ras by the green crowd, it is really hard to get this case heard. Even formerly august media organs like Scientific American have fallen prey to unrealistic claims of late (c.f. A Solar Grand Plan - warning pay wall). The main line of evidence for why these alternative forms of energy will not cut the mustard is the generally low EROI that most of them have when all of the necessary energy inputs are taken into account. Most published EROI numbers have come from industry and green advocate groups. These 'studies' suggest EROI's in the teens and twenties (e.g. 20+ for wind). But on close examination most of these studies fail to include some of the more important energy inputs (up front costs) and so overstate EROI, perhaps by several times. A good case study on this problem is that of corn ethanol (CE). In the early years advocates produced studies that gave it a favorable (though not high) EROI and so, with impetus from the midwest agriculture lobby, the Congress saw fit to mandate CE be combined with gasoline (E10) everywhere in the US. The problem is that it is turning out that CE has an exceedingly low EROI (< 2) and some studies have shown less than one, meaning that it takes more total energy to produce than is in the ethanol itself. This produces a net negative energy gain which is totally unsustainable. Since EROI numbers for the alternatives (and nuclear as well when decommisioning and other relevant energy costs are included) are already very low (as compared with oil in its early years), bringing in additional relevant energy costs will only make them much less. Coupled with the sheer ramp-up scale (that will have to be subsidized by fossil fuels!) that would be required to even come close to 50% of todays energy consumption, this claim that we will be able to carry on with something like our current economy is no more than wishful thinking. For a really good summation and analysis of the alternative (renewable) energy problem see: Smil, Vaclav, (2008). Energy in Nature and Society: General Energetics of Complex Systems, The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

Comments

[George Mobus]

Igor,

Thanks again for the kind words.

You said:
"What I would like to suggest instead is that we might expect some organic transition, a change triggered by not mere mechanical but creative forces."

Perhaps you would like to explain this in more detail, what kind of forces you have in mind? If you think it would be more extensive than could be handled within these comment threads, please feel free to e-mail me at George dot Mobus at gmail dot com. I would really like to know what you see as possible here.

George

[George Mobus]

Mark,

"The important thing when looking at the ability of the species to change is not that some have achieved sapience - it's that a critical mass (usually a majority) has achieved sapience."

Yes indeed. Well said. To be frank this is what I would think could be achieved by what I believe is the coming bottleneck event (see: http://questioneverything.typepad.com/question_everything/2009/11/humanitys-impending-impasse-.html if you haven't already). If sapient (supersapient) individuals are properly prepared and understand how to survive in the coming climate and energy declining world, then after the population has been decimated (by, as you say, the more probable outcome) the remaining population would have, hopefully, a critical mass of higher sapient individuals forming the predominant gene pool over which future selection can work.

I strongly feel that higher sapience will prove to provide greater long-term fitness for Homo than, say, brute force arising from devolution back to a more primitive form. Of course I don't know this. It is speculation. But it is something that we COULD possibly prepare for before the collapse (if we are both smart and wise!)

"I suppose this means that I think that our species can become sapient but will still be ruled by selfish choices most of the time."

Higher sapience, I think, leads to choices (judgments) that will promote sapience rather than mere selfishness for the sake of consumption. The latter is what drives our species current decision processing, but eusapience should result in behaviors that are more supportive for other eusapients and, possibly, wise enough to thwart competitors. If you understand group selection as a main mechanism for the evolution of human species (what I think is a strong contender for evolutionary explanations) then you should be able to see that a group of eusapients should be able to out-compete a group of merely sapient or sub-sapient groups. I strongly feel this will be especially the case in light of climate changes that need to be anticipated and adapted to in short order. The very forces that probably allowed Homo sapiens to out-compete Homo neanderthalis might very well be the forces that allow Homo eusapiens to out-compete Homo sapiens or conceivably lower species (e.g. Homo psuedo-sapiens!)

Unfortunately, we won't be here to see if my projection comes to pass!

Mark, thanks for the very stimulating dialogue.

George

[George Mobus]

Hi GaryA,

Yes, the default is likely to be the choice. See my comments to Mark above.

Thanks for the kind words.

ASFA: The limit of one child (which I agree will never obtain precisely because of my moral compass arguments in the post) would still not be sufficient if the latest research on energy and ecological footprints of the current population (plus consumption rates of the OECD) are to be believed.

In the end the human population will, I suspect, have to fall to exactly the level of bottleneck (the minimum population needed to recover the species range) because the damage we have already done to the ecosystems will need to have time to repair. We are probably talking millions of years after mankind has exited the scene!

AFA: Tobin tax and any other stop-gap mechanism to "solve" the problem I really have to say these are totally infeasible. First because the current population is spoiled beyond repair and second because it really doesn't matter. Energy flow restrictions will dominate all other attempts to "fix" things. I hope I'm wrong, but I bet I'm not (which is why I risk my reputation writing these blog posts!!!)

Thanks for the conversation. I always find your thoughts stimulating.

Regards

George

[George Mobus]

MacDonald,

Thank you.

"H. sapiens will go extinct. It is only a question of when and how. The issue for us today is that extinction in the very short term is now a very real possibility."

Indeed it is. The question is, can the genus Homo survive!

"Biological energy, if it involves agriculture – including wood growing – is not renewable on any time scale relevant to humans because of consequent degradation of the environment, especially soils."

Mac (may I call you Mac?), what about permaculture? There are a large number of projects now that demonstrate that it is possible to build up the soil as long as the population pressures don't cause over-usage. Jared Diamond points out that several past cultures, e.g. the highland farmers of New Guinea, have successfully maintained soil quality for thousands of years. Is there a flaw here?

"If we could develop anything close to the politics required for forced mass sterilizations, then we could also establish the politics for other systems of control that would be less apparently coercive yet at least as effective."

The key issue here is the "at least as effective" argument. On what basis do you claim that something less coercive than sterilization would actually be as effective? The development of politics part I get. But that latter claim needs support. Given the population size, the ecological footprint of mankind (at least 1 1/2 earths required!) and the aspirations of developing world populations the rate of degradation would be far greater than any demographic effect could counter -- that is my main point in the post. Please provide details and mechanisms here.

"Furthermore, I doubt that mass sterilizations could be effectively accomplished at a reasonable cost, even utilizing the antibiotic method."

This is a potentially cogent argument (if there were any political feasibility of actually doing it) but you express it as only a doubt. Could you provide evidence for the basis of this doubt (note I suspect you may be right but I would like to see you justify the claim -- its the professor in me!)

"That the “right” to breed willy-nilly is unassailable at any level is as patently absurd as is the right to commit fraud under protection of the “right” to free speech."

I agree with some of what you say above after this claim (the reasoning part). But your premise is that it is "patently" absurd. I suspect, no, I know, that a large segment of the world's population will disagree with the patently part. It is incumbent upon you to explain why it is patently absurd. Your reasons may be correct, but I suspect you will find that argument too weak to convince others. And this is exactly why, as other commentators have noted, the do-nothing option is the one most likely to be chosen.

"...and there are far too few who are saying regulate before it’s too late."

And precisely because in their minds it is NOT patently absurd! And they are not saying this because of their biologically programmed moral compass (read Marcus' work!)

"The problem of deciding who gets to breed was addressed all too briefly. The location of any moral dilemma we might face can be found in this process – any central panel, or group of panels, so empowered will be inherently corrupt and unfair. A system that can find its own equilibrium for the distribution of breeding rights will be far more tolerable and is not terribly difficult to design. There would still be complaints about unfairness, but they would be minimized."

This is a giant claim. Mechanisms please. My own take on breeding rights begins with definitive evidence of eusapient mentality (similar to choosing for superior intelligence, but based on the notion of sapience -- wisdom potential -- as opposed to cleverness). Such a criteria, if it can be objectively verified, is unassailable. Who would argue that we shouldn't breed for higher wisdom capacity???? I suppose there would always be those voices who would question it simply because they are clever enough to recognize the implications but failed the eusapience test themselves. But, in general, would you argue that if someone were proved to be of superior sapience they should not be entitled to breeding rights? Would you protest against increasing the average wisdom of the species??? Some would. But it would be a really stupid argument. Nevertheless, the moral compass issue remains. No one will want to be sterilized even in light of an objective test for the highest quality of human cognition. It simply runs against the grain of biological (forgive me) determinism.

Your arguments re: population size are more cogent, and I basically agree with your logic. A population size that is sustainable depends on agricultural sustainability and there are objective ways to determine that. The numbers may vary, esp. given my previously stated concerns for recovery of natural ecosystems unburdened by human agricultural pressures.

"There are perfectly feasible ways to manage population size that do not involve discrimination or favoritism. "

I think you need to unpack this statement before I or any other readers are going to see what you mean. Feasibility depends on your objective function and the requirements and constraints. Some such functions are inherently infeasible so you need to support that claim.

Good comments and stimulation though! Thanks

George

[Igor Topilsky]

(Correction to the previous comment: these forces, not this, sorry.)

Please give me some time, I will send you a message as soon as possible.

[Florifulgurator]

To switch mood from desperate to more "optimistic", listen to how the great old James Lovelock sees it.

E.g. here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUvZDSY2D0
Interviewer: "You are the first person I've ever met who at the same time believes in the most terrible scenario imaginable and at the same time is an optimist. Isn't it possible?". Lovelock: "It is. Because it's a hell of a future" (smiling).

One of his favorite example is the Great Oxygenation Catastrophe. Or, what he likes to tell about the mood in WWII Britain: First, 1939 everybody depressed and scared shitless, but then when the war got going life was the most interesting and active ever.

Or, take Lovelocks's general evolutionistic view: Young species tend to make mistakes first. Calamity needs to happen for calamitous species to evolve into something more benign.

So, rejoice. The end is near. But quite probably not the end to hominids at large, but to depressing millenia of human stupidity and sophisticated barbarism. We need to learn - and if things aren't lost already no we need the cataclysm to get our asses off and learn. Perhaps we will indeed learn.

[Florifulgurator]

oops typy: "lost already noW"

[George Mobus]

Hi Flor. Welcome back.

Lovelock is one of my favorite sapients! It takes a lot to be able to get the really big picture. It is thanks to people like Lovelock that I am prompted to ask questions about conventional wisdom.

George

[Macdonald, C.]

Sorry to be slow responding to your good response to my original response to your original blog post. I interspersed quotes without Me-You attributions: I hope the back and forth is clear enough.

"Biological energy, if it involves agriculture – including wood growing – is not renewable on any time scale relevant to humans because of consequent degradation of the environment, especially soils."

“Jared Diamond points out that several past cultures, e.g. the highland farmers of New Guinea, have successfully maintained soil quality for thousands of years. Is there a flaw here?”

I was imprecise – I meant using agricultural production particularly as a replacement for fossil fuels, as fossil fuels are now used.

I do agree most heartily that we can build the breadth and depth of soils – over 40 years on my family’s asparagus patch and it’s more productive than ever! But I’m not sure it is appropriate to view permaculture as a variety of agriculture. There’s a danger of sinking into pedantry and other quibbling here, but the concepts and methods of permaculture are so different from what is generally understood as agriculture that I think there is reason to maintain a distinction. Is horticulture a variety of agriculture? Is maintaining a maple sugar bush agriculture or gathering and hunting?

But the flaw in pre-European New Guinea, on the angle of that location, may not have been degradation of soils, as Diamond pointed out, but in the competition that developed between villages, as Tim Flannery pointed out. Even permaculture has been applied (where it has been applied) as a dodge to allow maximum population size. Regardless of the technology being applied, if the goal is to maximize population size, then at some point unpleasant forms of competition will arise between different factions within the population. The probability of violence is very high. I remain pessimistic that any likely level of improved sapience will be proof against violence so long as the goal of population size choice is maximization.

“[...] other systems of control that would be less apparently coercive yet at least as effective."

“The key issue here is the "at least as effective" argument. On what basis do you claim that something less coercive than sterilization would actually be as effective?”

I take the above to be, “What do you propose?” Well, I generally agree with Herman Daly that the best approach is a cap and trade system. A cap would be set on annual births – say 1 Megabirth/yr to start. Partial licenses would be distributed to all women applying for them equally. If 1 Gigawoman applied, each one gets 1/1000 of a license – or one millilicense, to be consistent in unit names. The licenses could then be traded until a woman succeeded in acquiring a full license at which point a birth would be allowed and financially supported.

Note that I said “apparently less coercive.” Coercion is very often a matter of perception. It would be very difficult to impose mass sterilizations without generating a great sense of imposition and injustice. If every women felt there was an equal chance of getting a license it would give the appearance of equality and equal chance to satisfy any aspirations to breed.

It would, in fact, have to be very coercive. The crime of unlicensed birth would have to be severely and unswervingly punished. Each such birth would have to be deducted from the following year’s cap. Undoubtedly some breeders would feel put upon. But if any such program – mass sterilizations, birth caps, group suicide, lottery or whatever – were to achieve implementation, then the attitude toward breeding would have to undergo a radical change from the current mood.

As to costs for either sterilization or cap or something else, well, it’d be a guess of course. I might – if I had lots of time and a handy grant to pay qualified analysts – create a model for determining what the total costs would be, but otherwise I just have to trust my gut. Or go with a plausible sounding hypothesis, depending on the wording you like. The actual monetized cost might be negligible in any case – it is the externalities that concern me far more. To establish any system without the support of the population will, I think, incur massive costs in social disruption, ethical damage, and hostility to the whole public enterprise/social contract concept. I argue that such support, in an atmosphere of egalitarianism, will be far less expensive.

"That the “right” to breed willy-nilly is unassailable at any level is as patently absurd [as is the assertion that any other right is unassailable at any level]”

“But your premise is that it is "patently" absurd. I suspect, no, I know, that a large segment of the world's population will disagree with the patently part.”

Most resist the idea of limits on the right to breed, yet most would agree that the “right” to arms in the US does not include over the counter nuclear weapons at the local hardware store. Neither does the “right” to pursue happiness include molesting school boys. Likewise the “right” of religious freedom doesn’t include virgin sacrifices. Most *would* agree that “rights” do not give carte blanche privilege to do whatever the hell you want. Except when it comes to the “right” to breed. Why the exception? I stand by my argument that it is patently absurd to make such an exception – even if the majority of the world chooses to deny it because it conflicts with belief.

“Mechanisms please.”

A very rough outline of one mechanism was sketched above. Of course many checks would have to be established to ensure a level playing field. Yes, I agree that we persistently allow the playing field to be built impossibly steep and that there is nothing to now suggest it is practicable to make it level. Of course, neither is it practicable to force mass sterilizations.

“My own take on breeding rights begins with definitive evidence of eusapient mentality (similar to choosing for superior intelligence, but based on the notion of sapience -- wisdom potential -- as opposed to cleverness). Such a criteria, if it can be objectively verified, is unassailable.”

Indeed: IF it can be objectively verified! Although I’m not at all against the application of eugenics to humans, I am against a defined and unitary goal for eugenics – even when it is so noble a thing as sapience. And, touche, what will be the mechanism? How do you keep the clever boys, if the goal is centralized, from gaming the system?

Eugenics for humans has a bad name – not made any better by what has been done to many domestic dogs, etc. If it is to be used for humans, what I suggest, albeit not satisfying to anyone who hopes everybody will conform to a single standard, is to allow people to create a multiplicity of independent breeding clubs, each with clear and explicit goals, objectives, standards and methods. Regulation would be necessary to make sure they strictly adhere to their chosen standards and methods. To encourage participation, lower the license and/or financial thresholds somewhat for women who are looking to breed and who commit to the breeding clubs requirements. Of course, this stuff is even more abhorrent to the majority than the concept of population size choice, and I am not convinced at all that it is a necessary addition.

“A population size that is sustainable depends on agricultural sustainability and there are objective ways to determine that. The numbers may vary, esp. given my previously stated concerns for recovery of natural ecosystems unburdened by human agricultural pressures.”

This wording again suggests that maximization of population size is the goal. Again, I ask why? What is the goal? Why does having any more people than just enough make sense? I agree that “just enough” is open to debate, yet no one seems interested in determining, let alone achieving, the low number. This tendency is why I find organic/permaculture visions less than convincing. There will always be pressure to say we can easily support a few million more. Right up until we’re breathing heavily, gun in hand, as the Other comes over the ridge looking for a piece of firewood or some clean water.

"There are perfectly feasible ways to manage population size that do not involve discrimination or favoritism."

“I think you need to unpack this statement […]”

If the criterion for “feasible” is “immediately achievable with no serious restructuring of our social, economic and political worldview” then I eat my words. However, I have sketched out, very roughly of course, a tentative approach that might serve.

The primary purpose of my initial response was to reinforce the message that our population size is desperately too large, that we *can* exercise population size choice, and that there *are* potential methods which might be a little less ugly sounding than forcing mass sterilization of degenerates. And I know that although you and I are eusapient enough to make the right choice of breeders in the eugenics program, can we trust the Other to be on the panel, too?

And oh yeah! Sure, call me Mac, call me anything, but late for dinner.

[George Mobus]

Hi Mac.

"...but the concepts and methods of permaculture are so different from what is generally understood as agriculture that I think there is reason to maintain a distinction."

Point well made. I agree. My latest post puts all the emphasis on permaculture. Semantics are important.

"I remain pessimistic that any likely level of improved sapience will be proof against violence so long as the goal of population size choice is maximization."

And you should. But in my musings about a sapient society in the future, one in which the members of the tribe are 'eusapient' rather than merely pseudosapient, as is generally the case today, there would be an a priori understanding that the objective was NOT to increase the population size, but to live in a sustainable condition consistent with the capacity of the environment to support.

RE: Population control mechanisms and cap-and-trade approaches.

Under circumstances of historical normality, i.e. when there was a growing supply of net energy and a seemingly stable pattern of living, such a scheme, especially started early enough, might actually make sense. The problem I see is that there will be a major breakdown in large-scale governance in the not-too-distant future such that administering any such scheme will become impossible.

Quite honestly, though I wish it looked differently, I strongly suspect that population control is going to come down to die-off and a bottleneck situation. Nature is the ultimate governance when it comes to such matters. I have just not been able to find any feasible scenario in which civilization will power down by adapting to seriously lower energy flows. Our overshoot is based on high powered oil, gas, and coal. And there is nothing even remotely able to deliver that much power (energy per unit time) on the horizon. Given that modern OECD and most developing nations' populations are so dependent on FF that their withdrawal (which BTW I don't think will be as gradual as many other authors seem to think) will have devastating effects on the vast majority of people.

BTW: Your breeding clubs would be the de facto situation in the future - tribes undergoing group selection!!!

"...that we *can* exercise population size choice, and that there *are* potential methods which might be a little less ugly sounding than forcing mass sterilization of degenerates."

The emphasis on "can" suggests you believe that current Homo sapiens (caladus) actually has the capacity for this kind of decision. That is what I question the most. Is it logically possible? Of course. Is it psychologically possible? Doubtful. Is it politically possible? Likelihood vanishingly small (IMO).

Ouch on the last sentence. Did I suggest sterilizing degenerates? I put sterilization up as a feasible solution to the problem, but only to demonstrate the moral dilemma, not to advocate it. If I were to go down that route at all it would be to sterilize anyone who can't be shown to have superior sapience (genetically or by test) which would be nearly everyone since eusapience is not normally distributed -- selecting for a trait, not against one. But don't think that is what I advocate. As I explained above, I think nature will do the work. If anything I would advocate (wait a minute - I do advocate) founding a protectable colony of eusapients (by objective measures) and letting nature take its course. Bottleneck. Job done. Does this sound harsh?

It is a way to turn the eugenics problem on its head. The founders of this colony (or rather colonies for safety sake) would be volunteers. If they are indeed eusapient (in the sense of highly sapient and possibly an incipient predecessor species?!?) then they will grasp what it is about and why they are there. Then we can only hope. Too bad neither of us would be around to see the outcome!

George

[coach handbags]

We are all in the position of the farmer. If we plant a good seed, we reap a good harvest. If our seed is poor and full of weeds, we reap a useless crop. If we plant nothing at all, we harvest nothing at all.

[Gidon Gerber]

I could think of some measures that don't involve mass sterilisation. First of all, start by reducing the population of farm animals and switching to a vegetarian diet. This will go a long way towards reducing energy and land use. Then give all woman free access to birth control and voluntary abortions. This will dramatically lower the number of "unwanted" children. Third, instead of giving tax benefits or other subsidies to families with children, impose a tax on all families with more than one child, and let the tax rise progressively for each additional child.