Who Am I?  What qualifies me to make accurate statements and not just prophecies about nature and the human relationship to the environment?

 

© 2004 Joseph George Caldwell.  All rights reserved.  Posted at Internet web sites http://www.foundation.bw and http://www.foundationwebsite.org .  May be copied or reposted for non-commercial use, with attribution.  (18 October 2004)

 

What qualifies you?

 

A couple of weeks ago, a visitor to my website sent me an e-mail in which he posed the following question:

 

“…I understand that you have a PhD in statistics and have worked for the DOD and studied literature regarding your subject matter; however, what qualifies you to make accurate assessments and not just prophecies about nature and human[kind’]s relationship with the environment?  What were some of your specific positions/jobs, etc?”

 

My immediate reaction was that who I was and what I had done were irrelevant – that the assessment of the truth or worth or utility of my writing should be based solely on its own merits.  Perhaps this is because criticism of my views is often in the nature of ad hominem attacks (“racist, sexist, warmonger” etc.), rather than in the nature of reasoned arguments of why my views may be unfounded or incorrect.  Moreover, most of my writing is not concerned with prophecy at all – it is mainly concerned with strategy for accomplishing a desired type of planetary outcome.  I am not concerned with prediction of an unconditional future of some sort (i.e., an “average” prediction that is not premised on any particular conditions or set of assumptions), but with “playing the game of life” in such a fashion as to achieve a conditional future of a desired sort (e.g., a planet with an intact biosphere and an extant human race (the desired outcome), brought about by the actions of a synarchic planetary government (the condition)).  I am sufficiently optimistic that I believe that it is possible for someone (or some group) to counter the out-of-control economic system that is destroying the biosphere and causing mass extinctions, and, at the right time and under the right conditions (e.g., in the wake of a planetary catastrophe, such as the outbreak of global nuclear war), implement a quite different, long-term-sustainable system.  In short, I am much more interested in convincing people to work toward a desired planetary goal, than in simply conjecturing what the future might be in the absence of any assumptions about efforts that might be undertaken to modify or control it.  My interests lie more in strategies for planetary control than in prediction (or “prophecy”) of an uncontrolled system.

 

When I received the e-mail query, I was vacationing in Spain.  Although my initial reaction was that my credentials were not relevant, by the time I got back to Zambia I had tempered my views somewhat.  (This is not the first time that I have received enquiries about my credentials.)  While examination of a thesis on its own merits, independent of consideration of the author or source, is, in my view, the preferred means of establishing the truth or validity or utility of an argument, consideration of the source may be a useful way of quickly assessing the merits of a piece.  It is a little like accepting medical or health advice from someone based on his credentials – if the person is a recognized expert, such as a registered medical doctor with a good professional reputation, the likelihood that what he is saying is correct or reasonable is probably pretty high.

 

And so, I answered my correspondent’s question with a quick summary of my approach and my credentials.  Here, with considerable amplification, is my response.  While I can see the utility of relying on an ad hominem assessment as a quick and approximate surrogate for assessing the validity of someone’s work or assertions, it can never be the equivalent of a direct assessment of the work itself.  Although I have a PhD in a branch of mathematics, if you ask me what the sum of 37 and 47 is, and I (or Jesus Christ, or anyone else) tell you (inadvertently) that it is 74, the correct answer, the truth, is still 84 (even God cannot lie with mathematics).  While ad hominem arguments may be legitimately used to draw initial attention to someone’s work, they can never serve as a basis for establishing truth, validity, or utility.

 

Finally, I will emphasize that what is important in my work lies in the realm of strategic planning (and game theory and systems engineering, and whatever else is useful in assisting rational planetary management), rather than in prediction (“prophecy”) of what may occur in an uncontrolled world, and so it is my credentials in those areas that I address here.  I will, however, also include a few comments on my credentials relating to my “predictive” abilities.

 

Some preliminary remarks on my approach to planetary management

 

If you are asking whether I have some sort of formal certification or experience in “planetary management,” then, of course, I don’t have any (and neither does anyone else, since we are “playing this game for the first time”).  Mainly, I just use logic -- ratiocination.  And I read a lot.  I am not alone in my forecasts or predictions of what lies ahead.  M. King Hubbert published his seminal work in 1949 (see Kenneth S. Deffeyes' Hubbert's Peak, 2001).  Catton wrote his classic, Overshoot, in 1980.  Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen wrote The Entropy Law and the Economic Process in 1971.  Herman E. Daly wrote Beyond Growth in 1996.  The late René Thom did his work 0n catastrophe theory decades ago, as did Jay Forrester (on system dynamics, in which the tendency of dynamic systems to fail catastrophically if commonly observed).  Thomas F. Homer-Dixon wrote Environment, Scarcity and Violence in 1999 (based largely on earlier work).  Joseph Tainter wrote The Collapse of Complex Societies in 1988.  David and Marcia Pimentel wrote Food, Energy, and Society in 1979.  Richard Leakey wrote The Sixth Extinction in 1995.  Michael Klare wrote Resource Wars in 2001.  Liddell Hart wrote Strategy in 1929.  Machiavelli wrote The Prince and The Art of War five hundred years ago, and Sun Tsu wrote The Art of War in 500 BC.  The best overall source of information on the end of the petroleum age is Jay Hanson’s Dieoff website, http://www.dieoff.com , which has been online, I believe, for the better part of a decade.  My analysis of a situation includes a review of the facts, reading what many other people have to say on similar matters, technical analysis using the best appropriate tools, creativity, and common sense.  My qualifications to make accurate assessments are, to a degree, dependent on the validity of what many other people have to say (for example, state-of-the-world data, history, other knowledge, and methodologies).  If you reject their statements of fact or conclusions, then you may reject mine as well.

 

When I investigate something significant, I usually collect a lot of information about it, and I spend a lot of time thinking about it.  My major piece on population and the environment is Can America Survive?  I got the inspiration to write this book on a weekend visit in 1993 or 1994 to the Zomba Plateau in Malawi, where I was really distressed to see the clearcutting of virgin forest and replacement with tree plantations.  I actually rewrote the book two times, before I was satisfied with it.  Over the course of the next five years, while I worked on the book (in my spare time), I purchased about 600 books on population and the environment (and related subjects), and spent about $10,000 on these books and computer software (data and software to perform statistical analysis).  In 1998, I spent several months assembling tables and graphs for appendices to the book, and in November of 1998 I rewrote the text for the third and last time.  During the course of writing the book, I asked friends (several with advanced technical degrees) to review it, and I responded to their comments.

 

My record in prophecy

 

While much of my work is concerned with logical analysis of a problem and the application of the techniques of systems engineering and other methodologies to find a solution, there are some instances in which I state opinions and make predictions (e.g., that conservation is doomed, that the current global industrial system will likely collapse catastrophically, and that global nuclear war is likely).  There is a large body of knowledge concerned with this topic (including statistics, simulation and modeling, systems analysis, technological forecasting and content analysis).  One of the difficulties in assessing the abilities of someone working in this area is that predictions involve the future, and we often do not have an opportunity to objectively compare predictions to eventual outcomes.  The ancient Hebrews had a good test of a prophet – he was asked to make a prediction, and if it didn’t come true he was put to death.  Now, I’m not recommending that in my case, but I would like to point out several things.

 

First, as recommended by Sir Isaac Newton (in his classic book, Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 1991), I do not place specific dates on my predictions.  This practice alone is the single most important factor in enhancing the validity of a prediction or “prophecy.”  I am pretty sure, based on existing scientific knowledge, that the current global socioeconomic system will collapse catastrophically – I am just not very certain about the date.  (About the only time I have deviated from associating dates with my predictions is my conjecture that this decade (2001-2010) is the one in which Hubbert’s Peak is occurring.  I am not at all alone in this conjecture, and the recent rapid rise in the price of oil and the inability of the world’s producers to increase production seems to be bearing it out.)

 

Second, I do place dates on all of the articles that I write, so the reader is always aware when it was written (and that I am not making a prediction after the fact, as is done, e.g., in some instances in the Bible).  Third, I rarely revise my pieces, except in the week or so after I first post them (to improve wording, or add some explanation or amplification).  Fourth, consider the topics on which I have made observations or predictions, and assess whether my views have been on or off the mark.  I believe that you will see that I am generally on the mark.  I started writing Can America Survive? in 1993 or 1994, and published it in 1998.  Except for very minor updating (mostly repair of broken hyperlinks), I have not revised that work.  (I have little respect for someone (perhaps I should say “for the writings of someone,” to avoid making an ad hominem remark), like Ernesto (“Ché) Guevara (or Karl Marx), who keeps revising his work as he goes along.  This is a sure indication that the fellow has not thought things through very well, and does not have a comprehensive, stable, or robust theory that is useful for prediction.  This is not to say that I would not revise my observations or conclusions in the light of new evidence – but, like Einstein’s theories of relativity, a useful theory in any field should be able to stand the test of time and rarely have to be modified.)

 

Consider some of the predictions / observations / assessments that I have made.  On the matter of immigration, long ago I pointed out the folly of our porous borders and expressed my view is that it is rapidly changing (destroying is perhaps the better word) our American culture.  Last night I saw a CNN special on immigration (Immigrant Nation, Divided Country), in which it was estimated that there are now 7-20 million illegal aliens in our country.  (The current situation is absolutely incredible – the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security of the Department of Homeland Security, Asa Hutchinson, stated on the program that it just didn’t seem humane to deport an illegal alien family after they had two babies who were US citizens (under our “birthright” policy of granting citizenship to any baby born on US soil, regardless of circumstances).)  I wrote long ago that America’s absurd immigration and open-border policies, if continued, would destroy the country’s culture.  Many of the people interviewed on the CNN program simply didn’t see the harm in what was going on, and expressed the opinion that these people are just trying to improve themselves.  Little wonder!  After almost forty years of mass immigration (since the Immigration Act of 1965) and a massive amnesty of illegal aliens, many current Americans are recent immigrants, and many of them are illegal immigrants, or amnestied illegal immigrants, or the progeny of illegal immigrants or amnestied illegal immigrants.  A long time ago, I warned of the fact that immigration and the consequent population explosion would have dire consequences for our traditional culture.  (It has certainly devastated our environment – as the population has doubled over the last half-century, our national parks have become intensely crowded, the open spaces are mostly gone, you can no longer swim in rivers or creeks near most towns, and it is no longer possible for a man of average means to own a cottage on a lake near his home town.)  I cited works such as Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints, Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation and Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.’s The Disuniting of America.  The warnings of these and other authors have been ignored, and America, Canada, Australia, Britain, France, and other countries that have allowed mass immigration are now in the process of losing the very cultures that once made them strong.  I wrote of my dream as a child of the man feeding pigeons in the park (generous-to-a-fault, open-door America), who was eventually consumed by them (America destroyed by immigrants and terrorists).  Was I far off on this assessment?

 

Long ago, I stated my opinion (“predicted”) that the environmental movement was doomed, that most conservation measures were a waste of time, and that the species extinction would continue unabated under the current system of planetary management.  It has.  Since I started writing on population and the environment (in 1993 or 1994), my view has been that industrial society is doomed – that all world leaders are striving for more and more industrial development and activity, regardless of the cost to the environment or the risk that it poses to future generations of mankind and other species.  Nothing has changed in this regard.

 

The most popular piece on my website at the present time is It’s the Oil, Stupid!. I wrote this article last August – September, i.e., over a year ago.  In the time since then, events have not diminished the validity of my views in the matter of Iraq (which, as I noted in my article, are simply applications of time-tested views of others, such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Napoleon, Liddell Hart and others).

 

I could cite other examples of my opinions / predictions and their over-time validity.  Some of my predictions have not yet had time to materialize (e.g., a suitcase nuclear bomb on an American city, or the catastrophic collapse of Western industrialized society).  The point that I am making is to look at my work as a whole, from the time that I started writing, and assess whether you agree that my views have stood the test of time.  This, perhaps, is the best available way of assessing “my ability to make accurate statements and not just prophecies about nature and the human relationship to the environment.”

 

My approach to planetary management

 

I should point out that, in addition to the occasional predictions that I have presented on my website, I have a great deal of experience in statistical forecasting.  In 1970, before the publication of G. E. P. Box’ and Gwilym M. Jenkins’ classic text, Time Series Analysis, Forecasting and Control, I developed and marketed the first commercially available general-purpose Box-Jenkins forecasting computer program package.

 

As a statistician who has worked much in time-series analysis, forecasting, and game theory, I am often involved in making predictions, none of which will come true exactly.  The best that can be done in many real-world situations is to estimate the likelihood of alternative futures, e.g., by specifying a probability distribution over a set of possible outcomes.  As a person who has spent much of his life dealing with uncertainty, inference, estimation, and the development of strategies, I am well aware that, in significant areas, the future is unlikely ever to come true exactly as anyone predicts, especially in an uncontrolled environment.  It is very important to realize that we are involved in a game – the game of life – and that this game has many players with many different value systems and objectives.  Prediction of outcomes is more appropriate in non-game contexts.  In game contexts, it is important to recognize that the outcome may be very difficult to predict (it will depend on who “wins” the game), and the best that can be done is to identify a good goal (relative to one’s value system) and to develop a strategy that is likely to work well to achieve that goal.  This is the approach used in my book, Can America Survive?  In that book, I addressed mainly the issue of identifying a useful goal.  I did not (in the book) go so far as to formulate the problem as a mathematical game, but I did employ a decision-theoretic criterion as the basis for my proposal that a “minimal-regret” population be considered as a desirable goal.  In that book, I did not present material on how to “play the game” to achieve the goal of bringing about a minimal-regret population (I am still working on that, now!).

 

In my view, it is very important to view the Earth as a controllable system.  At the present time, the actions of world leaders are directed toward destroying its biosphere and increasing the likelihood of human extinction.  The point is that human activity is making macroscopic changes in the planet’s biosphere (mass extinction of species, killing of lakes and seas, global warming (e.g., melting of ice packs), deforestation, desertification, destocking of seas).  One thing to keep in mind, however, is that Earth is a natural biological system, and mankind is totally incompetent to assert active control over it.  The best that man can do is to “back off,” and let Nature do its work, i.e., he can assert passive control.  That is, the best method of control of the natural environment is to maintain such a low profile in the environment that Nature can do its amazing work the way it always has.  (I have made this point many times in the past.  Recently, it was emphasized on a website that summarized Can America Survive?.  On its front page for October 17, The Deconsumption Reading Room wrote: “Here is the most extensive and well-referenced treatise I’ve found on the coming ‘population adjustment.’  In fact, it’s a whole book really, with an index and several appendices.  … From my own viewpoint, our world leaders haven’t shown much responsibility or competence in the growth of our modern civilization, so I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that they would be any more capable in ‘reducing’ it.  … If I had my druthers, I’d prefer to see them forced to take a back seat, and let Nature take the wheel from here.”  Right on!)

 

Systems engineering Is the most important tool

 

The most important tool in planetary management is systems engineering.  Systems engineering is the discipline concerned with the development (design and implementation) of systems for performing specified functions or accomplishing specified goals.  The major components of a systems engineering project are needs analysis; development of an operational concept; technology review; requirements analysis; functional analysis; specification of evaluation criteria; synthesis of alternative system designs; evaluation of alternatives with respect to the criteria; selection of a preferred alternative; top-level design; detailed design; prototyping; optimization; implementation; and test.  The truly creative part of systems engineering is the synthesis of alternatives.  Some people have a lot of talent in this area, others do not.  Creative skill can be enhanced by experience, practice, discussion with others, contemplation, meditation, autosuggestion, and reading.  The design and development of the system may embrace a wide range of disciplines, including all of the basic sciences and engineering fields as well as specialized technical skills such as statistics (e.g., simulation and modeling; estimation, prediction and control of stochastic processes; experimental design; evolutionary operation; statistical decision theory); operations research (e.g., optimization, game theory, artificial intelligence, fuzzy logic), and control theory (system identification; system control).  Systems engineering may be applied to any field.  As an example of a systems engineering application, see my book, The Value-Added Tax, where I used systems engineering to develop a new tax system for the United States.

 

In systems engineering, knowledge of many fields is important

 

In order to develop a good strategy for controlling any system, it is necessary to know a lot about the system.  The Earth’s biosphere is a complex system – too complex to be amenable to control by physical man.  What is feasible to control, however, is the human population.  In order to do so effectively, it is necessary to have knowledge of many fields, spanning all bodies of knowledge – including both the ‘hard’ (objective-oriented) sciences and the ‘soft’ (subjective-oriented, social) sciences.   The hard sciences include mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and many combinations of these, such as agriculture, geology, computer science, communications, oceanography and the like.  The soft / social sciences include history, politics, economics, philosophy, metaphysics, sociology, education, psychology and the like.  And, of course, there are many application areas that combine elements from both hard and soft sciences, such as all types of engineering, military science, information technology, “business,” and medicine.

 

In my own case, I have experience in a broad range of technical and nontechnical fields, and a wide variety of applications areas.  I have a BS in mathematics and a PhD in mathematical statistics (dissertation in information theory / coding theory).  I have formal education in all of the basic hard sciences (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology) and a number of social sciences (economics, psychology, philosophy, languages).  Much of my professional career has been spent as a statistician and an operations researcher / systems analyst.  My lifetime career has exposed me to a wide variety of technical (analytical) methodologies and substantive (application) areas.  In my career, I have worked in a wide range of application areas, including defense; health; education; welfare; economics; economic development; civil rights; international trade; public finance; tax policy analysis; agriculture; banking (commercial banking and central banking); information technology; vocational rehabilitation; transportation; planning, evaluation and analysis of public programs; industry; commerce; textiles; pharmaceuticals; test and evaluation of military communication systems; information theory and coding theory; research; teaching (professor of statistics); consulting; and management.

 

Two fields that are particularly important with respect to achieving a desired planetary management system are education and psychology.

 

The development of anything new will always build on previous knowledge.  Apart from tapping in to the universal consciousness, there are four main ways of acquiring knowledge: formal education; informal study (including private study and short courses); experience (including life experience, vocational experience, and learning from others); and reading.  I place a tremendous value on formal education, and strove to get the best education that I possibly could.  My BS degree in mathematics is from a fine university – Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh.  My PhD degree is from the oldest and largest department of mathematical statistics in the world – the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  In my doctoral program, I studied under Professor Raj Chandra Bose, the “father” of experimental design, and developer of the Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenguem (BCH) error-correcting codes.  Among his other distinctions, Prof. Bose solved one of Euler’s long-standing conjectures.  In my doctoral program, I specialized in experimental design / Galois fields / finite geometries, and in my doctoral dissertation, I developed what are still the best class of codes for correcting both additive and synchronization errors in noisy communication channels.

 

By means of informal study, I have expanded my knowledge far beyond my formal education.  This has enabled me to work as a consultant and researcher in many fields.  My knowledge of game theory, lagrangian optimization, sample survey design and analysis, time series analysis, database design, systems and software engineering, public finance, Spanish, and the guitar were all acquired after I completed my formal education.

 

I am a voracious reader.  I have a personal library of thousands of books on a wide variety of technical and nontechnical subjects.  Whenever I become involved in a new subject, I usually purchase dozens of books (sometimes hundreds of books) on the subject.  (I make some use of libraries, particularly if I am near a major university, but generally I find that large bookstores and Internet bookstores such as Amazon and Barnes and Noble have a vastly larger variety of sources on most subjects that I am interested in.)

 

Other useful skills: game theory, education, strategic planning, and psychology

 

The main point of the articles posted on my website is to motivate and create an enabling environment for rational (sane) planetary management.  The goal of rational planetary management is to control Earth’s biosphere (or, more correctly, assure that we do not interfere with its normal operation) so as to preserve it and keep the likelihood of mankind’s untimely extinction extremely low.  The central focus of my activities is the development of strategies to bring this about.  My view (conceptualization, abstraction, idealized representation) of the world is a very large game (many players over a long time) or control system, and my goal is to develop strategies for ensuring that the game moves to a configuration (state) that I desire (viz., a long-term-sustainable system, with a stable, largely preserved biosphere and extant human population).  Given my focus and viewpoint / perspective, the most important area of my qualification, apart from systems engineering, is game theory (and related areas such as statistical decision theory, optimization and control).  Other important areas are education (a primary purpose of my website), strategic analysis and planning, and psychology (used in a broad sense, to include a wide range of intellectual, mental, emotional and spiritual areas).  Given the importance of this area, scrutiny of my qualifications should focus on my capabilities in game theory, education, psychology and related areas.

 

My skills in game theory

 

In the field of game theory, I have some significant accomplishments.  This includes the development of optimal procedures for waging large-scale missile warfare, and the development of practical (numerical) procedures for solving general-sum (nonzero-sum) games.  My paper, Subtractive Overlapping-Island Defense with Imperfect Interceptors, develops a strategy for waging large-scale missile warfare.  With respect to the problem of solving general-sum games, I will note the following.  The theory of nonzero-sum games was developed mainly by Professor John Nash, the subject of the book and movie, A Beautiful Mind.  Nash developed an elegant solution to nonzero-sum games.  It is called the “bargaining solution,” or the “Nash equilibrium.”  The only problem with Nash’s solution is that it is not explicit – his proposed solution is “nonconstructive.”  He describes the properties of a good solution, but he does not tell how to actually find it.  It is similar to the problem in zero-sum (or constant-sum) games – the optimal solution is known to be at a “saddle point,” but the main difficulty is actually finding that point.  The problem is complicated very much when constraints (such as resource constraints) are added to it.  In my paper, Conflict, Negotiation and General-Sum Game Theory, I develop an approximate methodology for determining explicit solutions for Nash’s bargaining solution.

 

On the practical side, I might add, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that I enjoy playing games very much.  In high school, I was a creditable chess player.  While a member of the Lambda poker club (successor to the IDA/WSEG poker club), I held my own against some of the best technical minds in the world (e.g., Hugh Everett), at one time winning for thirteen games (monthly meetings) in a row.

 

My skills in education

 

In the realm of education, I will note that, in my graduate education I was trained to be a researcher and professor.  The Statistics Department at Chapel Hill was theoretical.  I selected this department (out of the 21 statistics departments that existed in the US in 1961, when I was looking at graduate schools) because I have a strong desire for mathematical rigor – I want to understand what I am doing as deeply as I can.  I did well in my graduate studies, and was the first in my “class” of 1962 to be awarded the PhD degree (in 1966).  Although I enjoy mathematical rigor very much, and was trained to be a professor, this vocation never really appealed to me.  To be very competent in a technical field, it is necessary to specialize in it and devote most of your time to it.  I enjoyed information theory, coding theory, and mathematical statistics very much, but I did not envision myself spending my life as a researcher in these fields (or any other single, specialized field).  For this reason I left academia as soon as I completed my PhD program, and entered the world of consulting.

 

At one point in my professional career, however, I did some teaching, serving as an adjunct professor of statistics at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona.  At the risk of being immodest, I did quite well at it.  One of the courses that I taught was the required undergraduate statistics course for all students of business, public administration, and management information systems (the other was a graduate course in sample survey design and analysis).  The classes were quite large – I taught two sessions of 250 students each (I gave the lectures and set the examinations; I had five teaching assistants who discussed homework in small classes).  At the U of A, all professors are evaluated by their students at the end of each semester.  An overwhelming percentage of my students rated me as “One of the best,” “Excellent,” or “Good.”  Following are a sample of written comments from students, on the evaluation forms:

Dr. Caldwell is an excellent lecturer.

Very well prepared.  I liked the way he summarized what we did in the previous class at the beginning of each class.

Caldwell gave very good examples; he made a hard course easier to understand.

Always prepared.  Very thorough examinations.  Summary at beginning of class.

Instructor was very clear and cared about his teaching..

He understood and explained material well.

Very fluent and he was well prepared for class meetings, reasonable reviews.

Gave good examples which prepared me very well for tests.

Very well prepared, always on time.  Very good, organized teacher.

Did a good job in explaining and presenting his lecture.

Instructor was always prepared for calss and gives very good explanations about the subject.

Well prepared, easy to understand (good speaking voice and delivery).

Organized, brings material across very well.  One of the best instructors at the U of A.

The instructor is very good.  He is easy to understand and gives good examples of the concepts.

Mr. Caldwell gives clear explanations to the problems.  I feel as though he is an excellent instructor.  He is also very polite.

He was always enthusiastic about teaching.  Gave clear lectures of difficult-to-understand material.

The instructor had a well organized presentation.

He did a good job explaining difficult concepts.

I liked this course!  Very interesting.

Mr. Caldwell was very prepared and understandable.  I would recommend other students to have him as a teacher.

 

In addition to university teaching, I developed and marketed a popular commercial short-course entitled, Sample Survey Design and Analysis, which I presented in various cities and to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the US Bureau of the Census.

 

In summary, I have demonstrated skills in education – a primary ingredient in the mission of preparing the planet for a minimal-regret population.

 

My skills in strategic planning

 

I have spent a considerable portion of my career in the area of strategic planning.  Much of this was in the area of ballistic missile warfare.  In this application area, my approach was to develop a mathematical representation, or model, of the real world, and derive strategies that were optimal with respect to the model.  More specifically, I formulated missile warfare as a resource-constrained game (zero-sum or general-sum, depending on the application), and used the Everett-Pugh Generalized Lagrange Multiplier (GLM) methodology to determine a solution.

 

In most realistic games, the players employ randomized strategies.  They are aware of the resources available to the enemy, but not of his strategy for employment or deployment of his resources.

 

In addition to strategic planning, I have directed projects in modeling of tactical warfare (e.g., tactical air warfare in theater-level operations).  I have also developed and exercised war-game models, and participated in war gaming exercises (at the Naval War College).

 

My skills in psychology (in the broad sense)

 

One of the important areas in effecting change from our current planetary management system to a rational one is that of psychology.  As I indicated above, I use this term loosely to include a wide range of intellectual, mental, emotional, and spiritual areas.  If the global population is to be mobilized to support a move to a minimal-regret population (or other) system, it will be necessary not only to educate them in the benefits of this approach, but to motivate them to act to bring it about and maintain it.  As a professional teacher (professor), I have demonstrated skills in education and in motivating students to learn.  With respect to the motivation of global populations to change, I have essentially no direct experience.  I have fairly wide knowledge of many areas dealing with the mind, such as motivation, religion, meditation, philosophy, and spirituality, but I am not a political or religious leader.

 

Given the stranglehold that the current global economic system has on the world, and the hypnotic attraction of most people to increased material welfare and more industrial production, it will take a considerable effort in the area of mass psychology to bring about meaningful change on a large scale.  We are currently engaged in a massive program of psychological warfare; to prevail in this struggle, it will be necessary to engage the enemy fully.  The world’s population has been convinced that improvements in material welfare are all that matters.  But, under the current system of planetary management, more people live in squalor, poverty and disease every year.  They are being told that their standard of living can be improved.  But this requires living space and a healthy biosphere, and for six billion people (Earth’s current population), a massive increase in the amount of commercial energy.  Be we have run out of space, our biosphere is being destroyed, and we are about to run out of oil.  The standard of living for the world’s masses, as bad as it presently is, is about to fall drastically in the very near future.

 

With the advent of a war of terror, people are kept in a constant state of fear and insecurity.  They are in the process of trading their freedom for a promise of restored security, safety, and survival and they will soon have none of these.  The situation is exactly as described by George Orwell in his prophetic 1948 novel, 1984, with daily television broadcasts of violence and war at the gates of the empire.  See, in particular, section entitled The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, by the fictional author Emmanuel Goldstein, which closes with the following paragraph:

 

“The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three super-states, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed for ever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: War is Peace.”  (For the complete text of The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, see the SynEarth website for 9 September 2004, http://solutions.synearth.net/2004/09/09 .

 

The people are being told that the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization will solve the world’s economic and social problems, and bring freedom from want and disease – even prosperity – for all.  But these agencies have accomplished nothing.  Compared to fifty years ago, when they began their missions in earnest, billions more people have lost their freedom, their land, their health, and their livelihoods, and they are living meaningless, desperate lives in squalor and disease.  In order to achieve a rational planetary management system, it will be necessary to expose all of these lies for what they are, and show people the way to a better, healthier planet and a better life for mankind.

 

A global mind-shift, or “paradigm-shift,” such as a religious reawakening or global transcendental experience, may well be required.  This is unlikely to happen by itself, but rather as the result of a catastrophic event – or a committed, focused and persistent effort to bring about meaningful change.  This I will leave to others – my primary role is analysis and education, not organization, mobilization and implementation.

 

My current activities

 

In my view, the solution to the world’s environmental crisis will involve spirituality and religion, as well as specialized knowledge, will, desire, and action.  To this end, I have at times contemplated direct action in politics and religion, but these efforts have not “gotten off the ground.”  I established the Church of Nature (http://www.churchofnature.com (or http://www.foundationwebsite.org/indexCN.htm )) dedicated to resolution of the environmental problem, and on two occasions contemplated going into politics in the US (but abandoning these plans on both occasions when I accepted overseas assignments – see http://www.foundationwebsite.org/indexAIM.htm (2001 platform) or http://www.foundationwebsite.org/PositionStatement.htm  (2003 platform) for my domestic political views (archived versions with modified hyperlinks)).  (The main problem that I have at present is lack of time.  I do not really lack resources – I have never asked for or received financial contributions from anyone to underwrite my planetary management work, and I do all of it my spare time, using my own resources.)  At the present time, it appears that my efforts will continue to be restricted to educational efforts on my Internet website, rather than in direct political, religious or spiritual action of some sort, or in traditional education or research and development via a brick-and-mortar institution of some kind.  (As long as my efforts are restricted to the Internet, negligible expense is involved.  I have been asked more than once, however, to produce my works in hardcopy, in order to reach a larger audience.  If and when I see that I am no longer able to be effective using solely the internet, I may do so, and at that time I may have a need to tap additional resources.)

 

Although progress, on a part-time level-of-effort, is slow, it has been steady.  The Foundation website now receives thousands of visitors and hits every month, and traffic to the site continues to grow year by year.  I don’t get a lot of e-mail from readers, but all that I do is either sincere inquiry or very positive commentary.

 

One of the advantages of working overseas, as I have been doing for much of the last decade or so, is that I have much more time to work on planetary management than if I were back in the US.  While the pace of my work may be slow, it takes time to consider things well, and develop good plans.  The past ten years, since 1993-4 when I began to work in this area, have moved slowly, but they have moved well.  I often reflect that even if I could devote myself full-time to planetary management, I could probably not think things out much faster, or accomplish more.

 

The move to rational planetary management will not occur until conditions are right.  In 1950, no one was interested in the least in rational planetary management – the global environmental crisis was just beginning to manifest.  At the present time, prior to sliding down the back side of Hubbert’s Curve, the planet is in the stranglehold of a powerful global economic / industrial system.  But this system thrives on the energy from oil, and global oil production is about to peak.  (There is a lot more coal, but coal is a poor substitute, in today’s modern industrial society, for versatile oil.)  Very soon, things will begin to change drastically, and for the worse, and the world will be receptive to change.

 

Things will probably not “start to pop” until Hubbert’s Peak is clearly manifest, and global oil production begins a noticeable decline – that’s really when all hell breaks loose.  (The Peak will probably not be well-defined, but rather “fuzzy,” because of random fluctuations in supply and demand.  The Peak was not expected to occur in 1993-4, when I began work on planetary management.  It is expected to occur in this decade.  It is probably occurring right now (i.e., we are likely in the middle of the part of Hubbert’s Curve which, when “smoothed” a few years from now, will clearly be seen to be the Peak.)  Our times, over the next few years, are going to be the most exciting in the history of the world.

 

A note on character, independence and motivation

 

In examining the characteristics of a person as a quick means of conducting an ad hominem assessment of his views or works, it is important to consider his character, independence and motivation.  (This reveals further the problem with ad hominem appeals – your can never actually prove anything about the truth of the person’s assertions, no matter how much you know about the person.  More is never enough.  Knowledge of the condition or nature or abilities of the man will never be a substitute for a scientific assessment of the validity of what he says.  While testimony from expert witnesses may be accepted in courts of law, it can never serve as a satisfactory means of assessing the truth in something that really matters (like the fate of mankind and the biosphere).)  From a legal viewpoint, my reputation is sound – I have never been convicted of any crime.  With respect to the independence of my views, I will comment that I have worked almost my entire career as a consultant.  Early in my career I worked with large consulting firms, such as Research Triangle Institute, Planning Research Corporation, Lambda Corporation / General Research Corporation, and Bell Technical Operations.  Mid-career, I either ran my own contract research firm (Vista Research Corporation) or served as an independent (freelance) consultant for a number of clients.  Since 1991 (the past 13 years) I have served as a freelance independent consultant , working for clients such as the Bank of Botswana, the US Agency for International Development, and Canada Trust, either as a direct-contract employee (such as the Bank of Botswana) or a consulting-firm intermediary (such as my current USAID work through the consultancy Academy for Educational Development).  I once served as an expert witness (statistician) for a law firm in a trial in Tucson, Arizona, dealing with prices received by Mexican farmers for their produce sold in the United States.

 

While I am not independently wealthy and therefore unable to work on planetary management full time, I make a good living, and I have been able to work at it for extensive periods of time between long-term consulting assignments.  I have never received a grant to work on planetary management, and so I am beholden to no on for my views.  I should note that no one is funding “my kind” of rational planetary management (a global “minimal-regret” population of ten million people, consisting of a single-nation high-technology population of five million and a geographically dispersed (globally distributed) primitive (hunter-gatherer) population of five million).  Since my view is that it is large human numbers and industrial activity that is destroying the biosphere, it is unlikely that I will ever receive substantial funding.  Hardly anyone would consider spending the profits derived from an industrial system to point out the evils of that system and work toward its replacement.  Also, given my extreme views in the matter, and my “racist, sexist, warmonger” reputation (whether deserved or not), it is probably unlikely that any environmental or other group would wish to hire me or fund me – I would probably flunk their course on gender / ethnic sensitivity!

 

Since my consulting practice pays me adequately, and I take pride in the independence of my views, I have no incentives to tailor my views to suit any vested interests.

 

Cultural background

 

With respect to cultural background, I was raised a Christian (Baptist / Presbyterian), and I subscribe to the philosophical views of Christianity as an ideal system of morality and social behavior (for individuals – no state could continue to exist if it “turned the other cheek”).  I was born in Canada, and my family emigrated from Canada to the United States in 1953, when I was ten years old and in seventh grade.  We moved to Florida for a short time (a few months) and then lived in Delaware for three years, where I attended junior-senior high school (grades 8-10).  My extracurricular activity was music (trombone in high-school band and fire department band), friends, and the Boy Scouts.  In 1956, we moved to South Carolina, where I attended high school (grades 11-12), and my mother still lives (father deceased).  I have a younger sister (living in South Carolina) and brother (living in Atlanta).  My dad was a tool-and-die maker early in his career, then a supervisor of an industrial production facility, and then a teacher of industrial arts.  My mother stayed at home, and was always there for us.  My childhood was varied, interesting, educational, secure from want or anxiety, and filled with love (parents, relatives, siblings).  I can’t say that my childhood was exceptionally exciting, but I view that as good – just growing up is excitement enough for any child, in my view.

 

In 1958 I received a full scholarship (General Motors College Scholarship) to attend Carnegie-Mellon University, and in 1962 I received a generous NASA fellowship to attend the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  In college, I majored in mathematics – there was never any question about that.  My summer jobs in college included working in a shoe store, a machine shop, and the research department of a textile firm, where I worked for a statistician, where I realized immediately that the field of mathematical statistics was the one for me.

 

I worked most of my early career in the US, with some overseas work in Haiti in 1975-76 and in the Philippines in 1978-81.  In 1991, I started doing much more overseas work.  I have worked long-term in Egypt, Malawi, Botswana and Zambia (current location), and short-term in Canada, Ghana, and Bangladesh (with some time back in the US).  I have traveled to a number of countries in the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania.  I speak Spanish and French, and know a little Arabic and German, so I can “move around” easily in many foreign countries.

 

My professional career has been very interesting and rewarding, and, from my viewpoint, very successful.  It has provided me with the freedom and wherewithal to do virtually anything that I wanted to do (although not everything – I would need several more lifetimes for that!), and to engage in a very wide variety of experiences.  From a technical viewpoint, I was able to work on and solve very challenging problems.  I have had the opportunity to work with some of the world’s greatest scientists, including Hugh Everett III (one of the world’s great physicists, developer of the parallel-universe concept in physics and of the Generalized Lagrange Multiplier optimization method) and Raj Chandra Bose (one of the world’s great mathematicians, “father” of the mathematical theory of experimental design, inventor of the Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenguem error-correcting codes, and solver of one of Euler’s conjectures).  In my overseas consulting career, I have had the opportunity to consult at the highest levels of government, working closely with governors of a central bank and participating in meetings with cabinet ministers and a president.

 

In brief, my culture is white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, with substantial exposure to foreign cultures.  It was during my posting in Malawi that I became sensitized to the complete destruction of the environment by large human numbers and industrialization, and decided to do something about it.

 

I married early and had three children.  We had a rich family life, but some severe blows as well (wife dying of cancer, son paralyzed in an auto accident, another son with serious legal difficulties).  My children are all grown now, and I am in a second happy marriage.  Outside of work, while the children were growing up, we spent many happy vacations.  I served as a scoutmaster of our church Boy Scout troop for 11 years, and occasionally participated in a community band (baritone horn).  While my children were young, most of my spare time was dedicated to family activities (lawn and house care on the weekends; soccer games, track meets, swim meets and other school events; scouting; picnics and other family outings; visits to the relatives; family vacations, church activities; croquet and badminton in the back yard; gardening).  Outside of family life, social life was somewhat restricted in those days, including things such as an occasional Lambda square dance and stage plays in Washington, DC.  In addition to reading and writing, I “dabbled” in a variety of recreational activities, including martial arts (fencing, judo, jiu-jitsu, Tae Kwon Do) and guitar.  I was a cross-country runner in college, and, for the rest of my life, every spring, I would run for about six weeks to get back in shape (until my hips started causing me trouble a few years ago).  As a family, we took up snow skiing, and spent a number of winter vacations in this activity.  We had fabulous vacations, at great resorts (e.g., Stowe, Killington, Jay Peak, Smugglers’ Notch, Sugarbush, Snowshoe, Vail, Snowbird, Park City, White Mountains, Flagstaff, Reno, Tahoe) and beautiful settings (Montego Bay, Jamaica; San Juan, Puerto Rico; St. Thomas and St. John, US Virgin Islands; the Philippines; Canada; Florida; Shenandoah Mountains; Myrtle Beach).  At one time I owned a white-water canoe (17-foot Grumman shoe-keel), and I have canoed famous wild rivers in Virginia, Maryland and West Virginia.  I have hiked and camped the 184 miles of the C&O Canal and countless other sites of stunning scenic beauty in the Shenandoah Mountains.  I have white-water rafted down the Zambezi River