Chapter I. Introduction and Summary

Can America Survive? The answer is “no.”

Everything in the modern world is dependent on energy – massive amounts of it. The major energy source is fossil fuels: petroleum (oil), natural gas, and coal. Fossil fuels will deplete worldwide in about 50 years for oil and gas, somewhat later for coal. Except for nuclear energy, alternative sources of energy (e.g., solar) can support only a few hundred million people on the planet.

Nuclear power can provide the energy for a high-population industrial world, but only if fast-breeder reactors, which produce plutonium, are used. A small amount (a few kilograms) of plutonium can be used to make an atomic bomb. With fast-breeder reactors around the world, terrorists will have ready access to large amounts of plutonium. The choice is clear: a low population based on solar energy, or nuclear war. Either way, the world’s human population will drop dramatically within just a few years, to a fraction of its current size.

This book describes the current situation and its predicted course. For the US – and any other overpopulated, multicultural, high-energy-use country -- the future is one of war, social fragmentation, and dramatic population reductions. Power will consolidate in a single dominant ethnic group; others will be eliminated or reduced to slavery or serfdom.

The organization of this book follows a logical progression, starting with a description of the current state of the planet and human population. Current trends in human population growth are identified. The relationship of human welfare to energy availability is described, and the future availability of energy is discussed. The role of economics to population growth is examined. Policies for determining what the human population size should be are identified. A new approach to population policy is introduced; it is called the “minimal-regret” approach. The likelihood of nuclear war is considered, and the damage that would result from a limited nuclear war is estimated. The impact of this war is assessed for the United States, Canada, and other countries. An assessment is made of the likelihood that the United States and various other countries will prevail after a nuclear war. The relationship of the minimal-regret approach to nuclear war strategies and the postattack environment is discussed in detail.

Chapter II. The Current State of the World

Economic State of the World. Less than a sixth of the world’s population enjoys a high standard of living. The rich are getting richer, and the number of people in dire poverty is exploding. Provision of a high standard of living requires an energy consumption of about 2,500 kilograms of oil equivalent per person per year. The world’s energy resources are not sufficient to provide a high standard of living to its current population, or even support a population of this size for very long.

Environmental State of the World. Industrialization and human overpopulation are destroying the planet’s air, land, water, and ecology. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are continuing to mount as forests are cleared and fossil fuels are burned. Chlorofluorocarbons and other industrial gasses continue to destroy the ozone layer protecting the planet’s plant and animal life. The average temperature at the Earth’s surface has increased by almost a degree (Celsius) in the last 150 years and by almost half a degree in the last thirty years. Changes of this magnitude are sufficient to cause very large changes in the world’s weather, sea levels, and flora and fauna.

Over the last century the world has lost half its original forest area, and much so-called “reforestation” is simply replacing ecologically diverse forest with monoculture tree plantations. Each year, mankind destroys another 16 million hectares of ecologically diverse forest. In the past 20 years, forests have disappeared in 25 countries, and over 95% of the forests have disappeared in 18 countries.

Chemically toxic and radioactive industrial wastes poison more and more of our finite land resources every year. Runoff from agricultural chemical has devastated coastal wetlands and fishing areas.

Overpopulation and industrialization is causing tremendous destruction of the planet’s biodiversity: the greatest mass extinction of species since the time of the dinosaurs. An estimated 50-100 species become extinct each day from wildlife habitat destruction.

Nuclear-Warfare State of the World. The world’s industrialized nations have lost control of fissionable material, such as plutonium (used to make nuclear bombs). The number of nations possessing nuclear weapons has increased from five to seven (with the addition of India and Pakistan). Rogue nations and terrorist groups are advertising for plutonium. Any “rogue nation” or dedicated terrorist group can construct a suitcase-sized atomic bomb. Such bombs may be simply carried to their targets: it is unnecessary to use airplanes or missiles to deliver them. Russia is producing large amounts of plutonium, and its nuclear scientists are unpaid and underpaid. With the amount of “lost” plutonium, hundreds of nuclear bombs can be produced.

Chapter III. Human Population Growth

The root cause of all of the environmental and ecological problems facing the planet is twofold: the very large human population, and the extraordinarily high levels of toxic waste produced by human industrial activity.

In evolutionary terms, human population growth has occurred in “surges” -- a surge when mankind invented weapons and tools about three million years ago, one when mankind invented agriculture about ten thousand years ago, and one when the industrial revolution began, about five hundred years ago. The three levels of human population were approximately 2-20 million during the preagricultural Stone Age, 200-300 million in the preindustrial agricultural age, and the present time, at six billion and counting.

The population surge for the present time has not yet leveled off, but it will, very soon. The reason why human population will level off soon is that it is literally exploding, and explosions do not last very long. When mankind began to tap the energy storehouse of fossil fuel about the year 1500, human population began to grow steadily, at about one half of one percent per year. In this century, the rate of growth has increased to over one percent per year. The present human population of six billion is increasing at a rate of about 1.3 percent per year, or about 80 million per year, or about a billion every twelve years. If current demographic trends continue, the global human population is projected to increase to a level of between nine and twelve billion by the year 2050.

This explosive human population growth cannot continue for much longer. Moreover, even the current human population level of six billion is not sustainable. The industrial activity of this large population is poisoning the planet and destroying the balance of nature on which mankind’s very existence depends.

Chapter IV. Population Projections

Many demographic organizations make population projections, which are estimates of future population size under various assumptions about fertility and mortality levels (and to a limited extent, immigration). The most widely cited global populations are those prepared by the United Nations and the World Bank.

Under the fertility and mortality assumptions of the United Nations, world population is projected to be between 8 and 12 billion by the year 2050, and between 4 and 28 billion in the year 2150 (1994 projections).

Under the fertility and mortality assumptions of the World Bank, world population is projected to be between 8 and 10 billion by the year 2050 and between 10 and 13 billion in the year 2150 (1994 projections).

Based on historical data, the population growth rate for industrialized nations as a whole does not fall below .5 percent. If this behavior continues then the human population is projected to be about 8.5 billion in the year 2050 and about 13.5 billion in the year 2150.

Population projections are not forecasts, since they do not take into account the many social, economic, biological and environmental factors that affect population, such as war, famine and disease. They simply show what the population size will be under stated assumptions about human fertility and mortality. If current demographic trends continue, then global population will continue to soar, to about 9 billion by the middle of the next century and about 12 billion (double its present size) by the year 2025.

In view of the tremendous stress that an industrial human population of about a billion is placing on the world environment and ecology, it is difficult to imagine that global human population will ever reach the higher levels suggested by the projections, or even that the size of the industrialized human population (about a billion) can be maintained. Nevertheless, population projections are useful because they show how rapidly and how large human population will grow under various demographic assumptions, if other factors do not come into play. They illustrate vividly how serious the human population explosion is.

Chapter V. Carrying Capacity Estimates

Population projections are of limited value because they do not take into account the many factors that affect fertility and mortality, such as social, economic, biological, and environmental factors. Carrying capacity estimates are estimates of the global human population taking into account planetary resource constraints, such as size, amount of arable land, and amount of water. The (human) carrying capacity of Earth is an estimate of the maximum number of human beings the planet can continue to support indefinitely. Consideration may also be given to quality of life, in which case the issue is how many people at what standard of living.

David and Marcia Pimentel and their colleagues have produced much useful research on the subject of human carrying capacity in their book, Food, Energy, and Society. They estimate that Earth may be able to support about 10-15 billion people living in poverty and malnourishment, or about one to two billion people at a good standard of living, for the near future.

David Willey of The Optimum Population Trust also estimates the planetary carrying capacity at about one to two billion people.

Chapter VI. Planetary Forecasts

Population projections and carrying capacity estimates are not predictions, or forecasts of the future human population of Earth. Population projections are simply estimates of future size conditional on specified values of demographic parameters, ignoring planetary resource constraints (land, water, energy). Carrying capacity estimates take resource constraints into account, but they do not address the issue of what population sizes are most likely. Projections and carrying capacity estimates are of interest, but they are of limited scope and value. Forecasts take into account both of these and all other factors (e.g., political, religious, ethical, sociological, ecological) as well.

This book forecasts that the human population of Earth will be on the order of a few tens of millions, and no more that a few hundred million, within just a few years. The following chapters explain why.

Chapter VII. The Relationship of Population and Quality of Life to Energy Consumption

The achievement of a high standard of living requires the expenditure of large amounts of energy – about 2,500 kilograms of oil equivalent (kgoe) per person per year. For all of the standard measures of quality of life, a high level is achieved only when energy consumption reaches this level. These measures include life expectancy at birth, infant mortality rate, access to safe water, access to sanitation, and illiteracy, as well as composite measures such as the United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Index, Gender-Related Development Index, Gender Empowerment Measure, and Human Poverty Index.

The problem facing the world’s nations is that to provide an energy consumption of 2,500 kgoe per capita per annum would require about twice as much commercial energy as the world currently produces. When the world population reaches nine or twelve billion, the amount of energy required will be about three or four times current production, or about six times the total amount available from solar energy. Just for China and India to provide 2.5 tons of oil equivalent per person per year would require their use of all of the energy available from solar energy, over the entire planet.

The implication of these observations is that when fossil fuel supplies are exhausted in a few decades, the standard of living will be extremely low for most people on the planet, or there will have to be a tremendous increase in the utilization of nuclear power.

Chapter VII. Energy Sources

The major source of energy for mankind at the present time is fossil fuel. The planet’s oil reserves are about half used up, and are expected to last for about another fifty years. At current rates of utilization, there is sufficient coal to last about 200 years. If underdeveloped countries like China and India want to substantially increase the standard of living of their citizens, utilization rates would have to increase substantially.

The world’s coal is distributed very unevenly – 70% of the recoverable coal reserves is located in just three countries (China, USA, and Russia).

Two of the best sources of information on global energy supplies are Food, Energy, and Society by David and Marcia Pimentel, eds., and Energy for Tomorrow’s World by the World Energy Council.

Mankind is currently utilizing about half of all the solar energy captured by plant photosynthesis, and even this is not sufficient to cover its food, forest products, and energy consumption. Worldwide, only about one-sixth of man’s total energy use is from solar sources (hydropower, biomass), and about five-sixths is from fossil fuels. As fossil fuels deplete over the next century, mankind will have to look to other sources of energy. The major alternative sources are nuclear power and solar power.

Much solar energy is low-grade energy (e.g., heat, not electricity). Furthermore, many solar energy devices have an “energy yield” of less than one, i.e., they require more energy to produce than they ever generate. Moreover, they often produce only low-grade energy, while the energy required to produce them is high grade (e.g., a solar water heater). When fossil fuels run out, mankind will be forced either to reduce its standard of living dramatically, or reduce its total population size dramatically, or turn to sources of energy other than solar.

Nonsolar energy sources of renewable energy include tides (lunar energy), geothermal (from the internal heat of the Earth), and nuclear energy (from uranium). Tides and geothermal can produce only limited amounts of energy in a few locations.

There are two basic types of nuclear energy: fusion and fission. Today’s nuclear reactors are all fission reactors, i.e., they generate energy by splitting atoms. Fusion nuclear energy is generated by joining together, or fusing, hydrogen atoms into helium atoms. Despite the expenditure of billions of dollars and decades of time, it is not clear that a commercial fusion reactor will ever be developed.

There are two main types of fission reactors: the thermal, or “once-through” reactor and the “fast breeder” reactor. The world’s reserves of uranium are sufficient to provide about 100 years of nuclear power using thermal reactors. Using the fast breeder reactor, however, the world’s reserves of uranium are sufficient to produce power for hundreds of thousands of years. In view of mankind’s insatiable demand for energy, use of the fast breeder reactor is inevitable.

The problem with the fast breeder reactor is that it produces plutonium. Whereas it is difficult and costly to use the fuel of a thermal reactor to make a nuclear bomb, it is relatively easy to make a nuclear bomb from plutonium. And once the world moves to using fast breeder reactors on a large scale, there will be breeder reactors everywhere. That is, plutonium will be everywhere. And that means that everywhere there is power, there is a ready supply of plutonium for nuclear bombs.

If the world turns to breeder reactors, it will in essence have hundreds or thousands of plutonium factories around the world. In view of the total inability of mankind to get along, it would be just a matter of time until one group or another assembled a few hundred or a few thousand suitcase bombs and proceeded to blow up all of the major cities of the world.

Waste Considerations

In addition to the issue of energy availability, another crucial issue facing industrial civilization is the issue of waste generation.

Prior to the industrial revolution, the planet’s ecosystem, while changing somewhat in composition because of the agriculturalization of the world, was in balance. That is, all of the waste generated by each species was used as food by other species. That is no longer true today. Industrial activity produces many “synthetic” products that are not assimilable at all by living creatures. The 8,000 kgoe per year in energy used on average by each person in the US is used to produce a wide variety of toxic and nonbiodegradable products.

Having an adequate energy supply is just half of the problem. The other half of the problem is what to do about the waste. In the natural ecosystem, energy is obtained from the sun each day, and continuously converted by living creatures into waste that is completely consumed by other living creatures. Mankind, however, uses energy to produce waste that cannot be consumed by living creatures. For industrial man to continue to survive, i.e., to be sustainable, it is necessary (although not sufficient) for him to eliminate all of the waste that his industrial activity produces. Present day man does not do this. He simply dumps most of the waste – toxic, radioactive, or other – into the environment. In order for man to survive in the ecosystem as we know it, it must be the case that all of his waste is reprocessed. Otherwise there is no balance of nature. Biological creatures do not have to worry about reprocessing their waste; evolution and the balance of nature have taken care of that. Industrial creatures such as man must worry very much about this, or they will “soil their nest” and make it unlivable. For every joule of energy that is used by man, he must insure that the waste produced by it is reprocessed (completely). This requires substantial energy.

Summary

The message of this chapter is that the large increase in human population over the past 500 years has been made possible by tapping the energy in fossil fuels. When that source of energy disappears in the next century, the human population will either drop right back to the preindustrial levels supported by solar energy (e.g., a few hundred million), or other forms of energy must be found to substitute for fossil fuels. At the present time, fast breeder fission reactors are the only feasible alternative, and they have a serious drawback of producing plutonium, which can readily be used to make atomic bombs.

The basic approach to the energy problem (i.e., the depletion of fossil fuels in a few decades) by the world governments is to ignore it. There is much talk of alternatives to fossil fuels and fission nuclear energy, such as solar energy and fusion energy, but it is just talk. Despite much investment and research, alternative technologies have not been developed.

Clearly, mankind is facing some difficult decisions. Either reduce global population size to a level that is supportable by the annual budget of solar energy, or use nuclear fission to generate energy, thereby producing long-lasting radioactive waste and the material used to produce nuclear bombs. Since no steps are being taken by world governments to accomplish the former (i.e., a human population of size that can be supported by solar energy), it is pretty clear where we are headed: more people and more nuclear energy.

Human population will continue to expand, and mankind will continue to use nuclear energy and generate nuclear waste. Industrial man will not be denied energy, or he will cease to exist. The fact that nuclear reactors generate radioactive waste and waste heat will not deter mankind in the least from using them. But the fact that the most promising type of nuclear reactor – the fast breeder reactor – generates large amounts of plutonium will have a significant impact on man’s future. The availability of large amounts of plutonium significantly increases the likelihood of nuclear war.

Chapter IX. The Role of Economics

Economics is a main force underlying population growth. Because of man’s greed, he is constantly striving for more…more of everything. More material possessions, more power, more knowledge, more security, more comfort, better health, longer life, more variety, more freedom. The standard measure of material well-being is the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Recently, a number of other indicators of well-being have received attention, such as the UNDP’s Human Development Index, but these additional indicators are strictly “second string” measures of standard of living. The indicator that matters to the people in charge – politicians and industrialists – is the gross domestic product.

The people in charge – politicians and industrialists – want to increase both GDP and GDP per capita. A country with twice the economic output per capita as another country having the same population is twice as rich, and probably twice as powerful. A country with twice the population as another country having the same GDP per capita is probably twice as powerful in the world community, and probably has twice as many millionaires.

The people in charge also want economic growth, which can be achieved either by increasing the population size (by natural increase or immigration) or increasing the industrial output per person. Increased economic growth means more opportunities to generate wealth, by building new houses, automobiles, appliances, buildings, roads, and other infrastructure.

If the world population doubles from six to twelve billion, the world will need twice as many basic necessities such as pots, pans, fans, and air conditioners. This translates roughly into twice as much economic activity, twice as many industrial jobs, twice as much earnings, twice as much profit, twice as much economic wealth.

So what is wrong with this picture? Who is against high standards of living? What is wrong is that the attention of the people in charge (politicians, industrialists) is centered on the promotion of economic growth irrespective of the damage to the planet’s ecology. Millions of species live in the world’s tropical forests. While it is not really known how many species are eliminated for each hectare that is burned, it is obvious that if all of the tropical forests are destroyed, then all of the resident species are gone forever. And that is exactly what is happening.

So long as human population grows and economic activity increases, the material wealth of those in charge will increase, both in absolute and per capita terms. Because of man’s greed, the planet’s political and industrial leaders will never promote a policy of lower population or lower economic activity. Both will continue to increase, and nature will continue to be destroyed. This fact is obvious from all of human history.

Why, one might ask, will the world’s leaders not put a stop, or at least discuss putting a stop, to economic growth, when there is the potential for disaster – not just the loss of many other species, but the very real possibility of the complete destruction of their own nations and the human race? It is not totally clear. One factor is “discounting in time and space”: the disaster will probably fall on the next generation, not on ours, and so we do not need to worry about it. I believe that this is an important factor, because of the almost universal response I have gotten from people when I told them the subject of this book. A laugh, and a remark similar to, “Oh, I probably won’t be alive then anyway.”

Another factor is that people are willing to kill for economic benefit, but not for environmental benefits. Countries will go to war, sacrificing the lives of millions, for the prospect of economic gain. And they will go to war to defend themselves from enslavement. Similarly, individuals and groups will commit murder for economic gain. But no one, it appears, it willing to kill to protect other species, or even the next generation of the human species.

The late Ernst Friedrich (“Fritz”) Schumacher understood the nature of economics. He wrote three books, Small Is Beautiful, A Guide for the Perplexed, and Good Work. He pointed out that economics ignores man’s dependence on the natural world, and he described a system of social organization that promotes a humane and sustainable relationship of man to nature. This system, which he referred to as “technology with a human face” (or “economics as if people mattered”) involves the use of low-cost methods and equipment in small-scale systems. He believed that universal prosperity cannot be accepted as the foundation for peace, because, if it is achievable at all, is attainable only by cultivating greed and envy, which destroy happiness and peace. He observed that economies of scale have transformed the world’s beautiful pre-industrial cities into massive slums filled with human misery, crime, alienation, stress, and social breakdown. Increasing city size has led to enormous problems and human degradation.

Schumacher quoted Gandhi, “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not for every man’s greed.” He noted that growth has become the keynote of economics all over the world. He quoted Professor Walter Heller, former Chairman of the U. S. President’s Council of Economic Advisers, “I cannot conceive a successful economy without growth.”

As Eugene Rabinowitch, editor-in-chief of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, observed, “…there is no convincing proof that mankind could not survive even as the only animal species on Earth.” But is it right to do this?

Economics is the driving force that has corrupted mankind and is destroying the planet. As mathematician John Maynard Keynes observed (in his 1930 essay, “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren”) the fatal limitations of economics as a long-term basis for human society:

“Some day we may return to some of the most sure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue – that avarice is a vice, that the extraction of usury is a misdemeanor, and the love of money is detestable. But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little while longer.”

Chapter X. What Size Should the Human Population Be?

The preceding chapters show that, under current conditions, human population and industrial activity will likely continue to grow without limit for as long as possible. Neither will stop unless some external factor, until now not operative, comes into play.

An earlier chapter addressed the issue of carrying capacity, and showed that the answer to the question, “What size should the human population be?” may vary widely, depending on what criteria are imposed. This chapter addresses this same question, but from a viewpoint that differs somewhat from those used before.

The major difficulty in determining a global population strategy and an answer to the question, “How many people should there be on planet Earth?” is that of deciding on the goal, or purpose, of human existence.

This book will adopt the viewpoint that the primary, or basic, purpose of mankind is twofold: to preserve its long-term survival, and to allow the planet’s balance of nature to continue much as it has in the current geological age, i.e., to not destroy the biosphere in which mankind evolved.

To this end, let us consider the following criteria for (goals as a basis for) determining human population size:

1. The probability of long-term survival of the human race is maintained very high (i.e., in some sense maximized).

2. Damage to the planet’s environment and ecology from human activity is kept very low (i.e., in some sense minimized).

The qualifiers “in some sense” are used because it is recognized that the planet’s ecology is very complex, and it is just about impossible to maximize or minimize any aspect of it, short of totally destroying the planet’s ecology or totally eliminating mankind.

A population that satisfies the preceding criteria will be called a “minimal-regret” population. The essential difference between the minimal-regret approach and other approaches that have been considered or proposed is that there is no attempt to maximize the human population size. Emphasis is instead on long-term survival of the human race and the planet’s ecology (i.e., of all other species), regardless of the size of the human population.

The “minimal-regret” approach differs significantly from the “minimum-population-size” approach, which is concerned with determining the minimum-sized population that could enjoy a high standard of living indefinitely. With the minimal-regret approach there is no attempt to maximize either the number of human beings or the human standard of living. The emphasis is on maximizing the likelihood of long-term survival of the human race and preserving the planet’s natural environment, not on the hedonistic goals of maximizing man’s pleasure or number.

The minimal-regret approach also differs significantly from the “optimal-population-size” approach proposed by The Optimum Population Trust. The rationale for the “optimal population size” is not at all clear. Why should there be any attempt to maximize the size of the human population at all, when the human population has been so destructive to the planet and other species and itself? The optimal population approach has the appearance of a “bribe,” or perhaps an “apologia” – if mankind would just agree to a smaller population size, then everybody could have a high standard of living. This approach appeals to man’s greed, and that may enhance its chance of acceptance. But in the attempt to maximize the human population at all, it continues to accept, indeed promote, a substantial risk of destruction of other species and the human species. The risk of species extinction (our own as well as other species) is reduced by minimizing the level of human population and economic activity, not by maximizing it!

To survive, the human race is going to have to minimize its use of energy, not maximize it. This approach is diametrically opposed to economics, which is committed to maximizing the use of energy (since that maximizes economic activity).

While there may be many solutions to the minimal-regret approach to determining human population size, the following is one possible solution:

Candidate minimal-regret population: A global human population of 5 million hunter-gatherers and a single industrialized nation of 5 million.

The “candidate minimal-regret population” consists, first, of a very-low-density global population of hunter-gatherers. Why 5 million? Because it appears from archeological evidence that the planet was able to support about 5 million hunting-gathering human beings for hundreds of thousands of years, without causing substantial changes to the biosphere. There is justification for believing this to be a sustainable level, because it proved to be so for hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of years. This belief is based on actual experience, not on conjecture.

So much for the low-density global population of 5 million hunter-gatherers. Now, what about the second component of the candidate minimal-regret population -- the single industrialized nation of 5 million? The reason for specifying a small industrialized nation in addition to the global hunter-gatherer population is that, now that technology is “out of the bag,” there is no reason to believe that a hunter-gatherer population of 5 million would not (quickly) evolve to an agricultural society, and then to an industrial society, and then once again to extreme size. The purpose of the single industrial nation is to restrict the size of the hunting-gathering population to 5 million. This is done by destroying any evidence of economic activity, such as the development of large farms or villages.

Why a single industrialized nation of 5 million, and not two or more? Because if there are two or more, there is a strong incentive to grow. The strength of a nation is proportional to its level of economic activity. At a given level of development, its strength is proportional to its population. If there are two industrialized nations on the planet, each will attempt to grow in size (population and economy) in an attempt to maximize its security. With a single industrialized nation, there is an absence of modern war. With two or more countries, war is inevitable.

Why the size 5 million for the single industrialized nation? This number is speculative. The desired size is the smallest size that can support an industrial society capable of restricting the rest of the planet to a hunting-gathering mode.