The only viable alternative to the ecological collapse our world is facing

Earth at the edge

Humanity is believed to have caused a mass extinction that is comparable to the mass extinction that occurred when the the dinosaurs went extinct[1], and according to the World Wide Fund for Nature global biodiversity has declined by about 30% just since 1970[2]. Conversely, it can take many million years to increase the global biodiversity by 30% with the slow evolutionary processes that generates new species. Loss of biodiveristy has been shown to have a negative effect on humanity in numerous of ways[3][4]. We believe that policies to reverse the decline in global biodiversity and thereby prevent an ecological collapse must be implemented globally in order to be effective. A new world government therefore seems to be required to deal with the ecological issues that threaten this planet.

    Renewable resources are not only more environmentally friendly than non-renewable resources, they are also the only resources we can rely upon in the long term. We should therefore maximize the use of renewable resources while minimizing the use of non-renewable resources.

    With the technology we have today we can create a world without famine if we reduce the number of people. Overpopulation is also contributing to the decrease in biodiversity. In order to eliminate famine and live in harmony with the biosphere we should strive to control the population growth.

    Everlasting economic growth on a planet with finite resources is impossible and the quality of life stops to increase with increasing wealth when people have their basic needs satisfied. We should therefore aim for an egalitarian steady state economy that is oriented to benefit humanity.

    It is completely unfair that individuals have different rights just because they are born in different countries. Geographical inequality is just as bad as racial and sexual inequality. In order to minimize geographical inequality people should be given a global citizenship.

    Obesity, dementia, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases are to a large degree caused by malnutrition. Food containing high amounts of easily digestible starches, trans fats or saturated fats should therefore be heavily taxed in order to prevent people from acquiring such lifestyle diseases.

    Drug criminalization causes growth of black market activity. In order to minimize black market activity recreational drugs should be legalized. They can then be regulated and taxed according to how harmful they are, and it can be required that they are manufactured professionally.

    Government candidates should be evaluated by science, history and intelligence tests. Only the candidates with outstanding scores on these tests should be allowed to work in the government, as they are most likely to make the best choices for the global community we live in.


The world's biocapacity is equal to the amount of renewable resources our planet can generate. According to the global footprint network we are currently consuming about 50 percent more resources than our planet can regenerate[1]. We are only able to consume more resources than this planet can regenerate because of non-renewable resources like fossil fuels. When we run out of fossil fuels, we will no longer be able to sustain the current amount of people and the lifestyle we have now. The global production of oil seems to be peaking about now[2], which means that it is going to decline from now on. The price of oil is determined by how much is produced in contrast to how much is used. As the demand for oil is unlikely to decrease this means that oil will become more and more expensive. High oil prices will furthermore decrease the global production of food as farmers must spend more and more money on gasoline for their tractors, and on inorganic fertilizers as fossil fuels are used in the production of inorganic fertilizers. This again means that food will become scarcer and more expensive, and then a lot of people in the world won't be able to get enough food. Phosphorous is another fertilizer used in agriculture, and the extraction of phosphorous is likely to peak around 2030[3]. In many areas of the world we are also using too much fresh water. Many ground water reservoirs are in the process of being depleted[4] and once these reservoirs are depleted it can take a very long time to completely replenish them. Billions of people are in danger of dying from hunger when we don't have enough fresh water, fossil fuel and phosphorous to produce food for everyone.

About 80% of the e
nergy consumed today is derived from fossil fuels[5]. The larger this percentage is, the more we depend upon fossil fuels and the more vulnerable we will be when we start to run out of fossil fuels. Increasing the extraction of fossil fuels helps to increase our dependence upon fossil fuels and thereby makes us more vulnerable. Increasing the use of renewable energy other hand, helps to decrease our dependence upon fossil fuels and thereby makes us less vulnerable. If everybody has solar panels on their roofs and use electric cars, the impact of peak oil isn't going to be nearly as devastating as if we we continue to use gasoline cars. Electric cars are also much more energy efficient than gasoline cars. Batteries in electric cars can for example be charged by regenerative brakes[6], so that every time we use the brakes we charge the batteries a little. Electric engines are well suited for small city cars, but poorly suited for large vehicles. Large vehicles can however use combustion engines with cellulosic biofuel from perennial grasses[7] or biofuel from algae[8]. Biofuels are also a renewable energy source, and they don't increase the concentration of carbondioxide in the atmosphere like fossil fuels do. Increased concentrations of carbondixoide in the atmosphere has been linked to global warming[9]. Increasing the efficiency of solar panels, batteries, and the production of biofuels should be our main objective. This should be done by subsidizing these renewable industries with tax money from the oil industry.
This article was last updated: 2012-11-27 (16:26:35)


There are about 126 billion acres of surface area on this planet[1], and the world population seems to have increased from about 0.2 billion people in year 0 to about 6 billion people in year 2000[2]. This means that if we divided the surface area of this planet equally in year zero, each individual would own about 630 acres. If on the other hand we divided the surface area of this planet equally in year 2000, each individual would own only about 20 acres. You might think that 20 acres still is a lot for an individual, but only about 6 of these 20 acres are landmass, and only about 2 of these 20 acres are well suited for agriculture[3]. Each person also produces a certain amount of excrement, and if there are too many people peeing in the same river the water quality becomes bad. In order to create agricultural land we also chop down forests and replace them with monocultures of crops. This leads to a decrease in biological diversity as forests have a much higher biodiversity than monocultures of crops[4]. About 70% of earth's surface area is ocean, but obviously we don't have enough ocean to feed the world population either, as the amount of fish is dropping rapidly due to overfishing[5]. In year 2000 each person would own about 20 acres of surface area if we divided it equally, but if the world population continues to grow as expected there will be about 9 billion people in year 2050. Then each person will own only about 14 acres of surface area if we divide it equally.

Clearly we
benefit from having more surface area per individual, and the other plants and animals benefit from less surface area being occupied by humanity. There is a finite amount of renewable resources on this planet, and the more individuals this finite amount of resources is divided on, the less resources for each individual. With the technology we have today, all people can live in economic prosperity if we reduce the total number of people. One industrialized farmer can easily produce food to at least 100 individuals today, if he is given enough fertile land. If there are less people, there will be more fertile land for farmers, and less people to feed. So with more surface area per individual we should be able to create a world without famine. Further population growth will on the other hand create more famine in the world. There are also other species on this planet, and the more fertile land we occupy, the less fertile land there is available for them. In order to reduce poverty in the world and in order to reverse the decline in global biodiversity, something like the one-child policy[6] in China should be implemented globally. If that doesn't work it might be necessary to increase the infertility rate of women by genetically engineer a virus[7] to produce the contraceptive hormone progesterone[8].
This article was last updated: 2014-10-19 (16:00:02)


As can be seen on the graph above, the quality of life[1] increases a lot with gross domestic product[2] per capita the first 10 thousand USD, but after that it increases less and less. Having more money doesn't seem to increase the quality of life much when people have their basic needs such as food, water, a place to live, and free health care. A larger and more expensive TV usually doesn't make us much more happy than a smaller and less expensive TV. There are also many other aspects to life which people tend to forget about. Having a good social environment and a healthy mindset can in many cases contribute just as much to our emotional well-being as economic wealth. Economic wealth is however important for the poorest individuals that don't even have their basic needs fulfilled. We should therefore try to decrease the economic gap between the rich and the poor, but because the poor often are forced to take out huge mortgage loans while the rich usually deposit large amounts of money to banks, the poor mostly pay interest rate to banks while the overly rich mostly receive interest rate from banks. So the banks we have today actually take money from the poor while they give money to the rich ( the opposite of what the English folklore hero Robin Hood did[3] ), and this doesn't just apply to individuals but to whole nations as well. In order to generate economic equality in the world there should be a highly progressive tax system where the overly rich have to pay a lot of taxes while the poorest individuals are completely exempt from taxes.

Economic growth is usually regarde
d as positive as it tends to increase economic prosperity, but unfortunately it also increases the use of natural resources and it is impossible to have everlasting economic growth on a planet with finite resources[4]. During the 20th century the gross world product grew with about 4000% from about 1 to 40 trillion USD[5]. A lot of this economic growth can be contributed to increased exploitation of natural resources. Economic growth implies an increase in production and consumption, so product quality is also depreciated as more products can be produced and sold if they need to be replaced often. People replacing their cellphones every month are contributing to more economic growth than people replacing their cellphones every 5th year, and medicines that temporarily relieves symptoms contribute to more economic growth than medicines that give a permanent cure. Imagine if there comes a drug which cures headaches instead of just relieving the symptoms. Selling such a drug would give some profit initially, but then less and less as people got cured from headaches. So the incentive for profit oriented companies is to develop medicines that give temporarily relief rather than medicines that permanently cure. Instead of striving for ever more profit and economic growth until our planet is completely drained of natural resources, we should aim for a steady state world economy[6] that is oriented to benefit humanity and the biosphere rather than to maximize profit.
This article was last updated: 2012-11-27 (17:56:21)


Nations, religions, and even to some degree ethnicities are fictitious group identities[1] which only serves to increase the fragmentation of mankind. This fragmentation furthermore generates friction between the different groups of people and thereby conflict in the world[2]. We are all better off with identifying with the whole of humanity, rather than with more limited subgroups of humanity. All human ethnicities can mate with other ethnicities and produce fertile offspring. To procreate with a different ethnicity is not only possible, but also healthy for the children. Many recessive genes[3] are shared within an ethnicity, so mating with a person of a different ethnicity actually reduces the likelihood for your children to develop recessive genetic disorders[4]. Just like inbreeding[5] increases the likelihood for your children to develop recessive genetic disorders. In order to make children adapt a more global perspective and identify more with the whole of humanity, there should be a much greater emphasis on world history[6] rather than on national history. People should be given a global citizenship[7], and not be forced into any religion or ideology that is in disagreement with the modern scientific understanding of mankind and the world. Geographical segregation isn't any more justifiable than racial segregation. People shouldn't have different rights just because they are born at different places, just like people shouldn't have different rights just because they belong to different ethnicities.

Immigrants occasionally engage
in criminal activities, but instead of increasing the height of protective national walls to isolate ourselves we should get a strong international police force to combat criminals globally. Criminals just go to lawless countries and organize their criminal activity from there if the laws become too strict in their native countries. Businesses also tend to move to countries with less strict laws and less taxes in order to make more money. It is therefore somewhat difficult to implement laws to protect the environment and taxes to promote egalitarianism when the world is divided into countries. We won't achieve any permanent solutions by running away from our problems and hiding behind national walls. Our problems only grow outside of our national walls until eventually they can't keep the pressure from the outside anymore and break down. The problems we are facing today must be solved globally at the root, rather than being kept in check by national protective walls. In order to prevent the ecological collapse our world is moving towards[8] we must enforce somewhat unpopular laws on a global level. It doesn't help much if one country starts to apply a more environmental friendly policy while the other countries refuse to do so. National borders cannot protect us against greenhouse gases, acid rain, and radioactive contamination. National borders are only hindering us from developing a real sustainable solution for mankind.
This article was last updated: 2012-03-03 (15:53:13)


A high intake of easily digestible starches, saturated fats or trans fats has been linked to obesity[1], dementia[2], diabetes type 2[3], cardiovascular diseases[4], cancer[5], and other diseases[6]. The number of such lifestyle diseases can be decreased drastically by improving the diet in our society. As people usually prefer to buy cheap groceries rather than more expensive groceries, unhealthy food should be taxed heavily while more healthy food should be heavily subsidized. This policy will make people prefer to buy the healthy food rather than the unhealthy food, and improve the diet in our society while decreasing the number of lifestyle diseases. As lifestyle diseases also are enormously expensive to our society, this policy will also make our society save a lot of money. Any product that is hazardous to health should be taxed at least so much that it covers the expenses of the diseases caused by the product. Trans-fatty acids that are hazardous to health can form from heat, pressure, ultraviolet light, and partial hydrogenation[7], while saturated fats that also are somewhat hazardous to health in large amounts are found mostly in meat[8]. Unsaturated fats that are beneficial to health are found mostly in vegetables and whole grain foods[9]. Whole foods and vegetables also contain a high concentration of fibres, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and other phytochemicals that are antibacterial, antifungal, anticarcinogenic or antiviral[10].

Biomagnification is a term that refers to the i
ncreased accumulation of a fat-soluble substance which cannot be broken down and excreted through a food chain, so that the primary producers have the lowest concentration while the top-level predators have the highest concentration[11]. If there is a toxic fat-soluble substance in the soil, then plants will accumulate some of that substance into their tissues, herbivores will accumulate some more as they eat many times their own body weight of plants during their lifespans, and carnivores will accumulate most as they eat many times their own body weight of herbivores during their lifespans. As a consequence of this vegetarians generally should have a lower concentration of such fat-soluble toxic substances in their tissues than individuals that eat fish and meat. Artificial meat made from plants is available many places today, and with our modern biotechnology we are becoming better and better at emulating the taste of real meat. It is also cheaper to mass produce artificial meat made from plants, as it involves less work to grow plants than to breed farm animals. We can get about 10 times more calories per acre from plants than from farm animals[12], as a lot of energy is lost in the metabolism of farm animals. This means that we can feed about 10 times more vegetarians than carnivores from the same amount of land.
This article was last updated: 2012-12-02 (16:09:32)


According to the microeconomic model of supply and demand[1], the price of a product goes up if the product becomes less available while the demand for the product stays the same. So the irony of drug prohibition is that the more money we spend on enforcing laws to decrease the availability of drugs, the more money criminals can earn on selling drugs as long as the demand for drugs stays the same[2]. In a society where recreational drugs are legal there will be an optimal level of taxes and regulations on the drugs. Black market activity is just as detrimental to our society as drug abuse, and if there are too much taxes and regulations there will be an incentive to sell drugs on the black market. It is however somewhat risky to sell drugs on the black market, so if there aren't too much taxes and regulations the sale of drugs can be kept mainly within the legal system. If drugs are legal we can also require that they are manufactured according to the same standards as today's pharmaceutical drugs, and we can require that they are sold with labels informing consumers about what they contain and about potential dangers. Drugs in the black market often contain harmful impurities, and they don't have any labels informing consumers about what they contain and about potential dangers. After experimenting with drug decriminalization for five years, Portugal had a reduction in drug abuse by teenagers, a reduction in HIV infections among drug users, a reduction in the number of overdoses, and an increase in the number of individuals seeking treatment for drug addiction[3]. The American war on drugs has on the other hand cost trillions of US dollars since it was implemented, while the amount of drug abuse has increased[4]. That is like spending trillions of tax dollars on a medicine which only makes the patients more sick. The only outcome of the war on drugs is a 500% increase in the number of people incarcerated[5].

A report from 2
011 by The Global Commission on Drug Policy[6] regarded the war on drugs as a complete failure, and recommended to end criminalization of drug usage. Legalizing drugs doesn't necessarily mean to sell them everywhere uncontrolled, but can also mean to sell them only in special drugs stores where people must use a smart card[7] which registers how much drugs they have bought. If people buy too much drugs in a short amount of time they can be prevented from buying more with their cards until some time has passed. Recreational drugs can be taxed according to how harmful they are from scientific point of view. In a report from 2006 by the UK Science and Technology Select Committee[8], the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco were found to be more harmful than many illegal drugs; such as marijuana, LSD, ecstasy, and magic mushrooms. The drugs were categorized according to physical harm, dependence and social harms. Another even more detailed report from 2010 by the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs[9] draw similar conclusions. A scientific article from 2006 about drug toxicity[10] found ethanol to be approximately a hundred times more toxic than the illegal drugs marijuana, LSD and magic mushrooms. Some illegal drugs actually have anti-addictive properties. Tabernanthe iboga[11] is a plant traditionally used by people belonging to the Bwiti[12] religion in mid-west Africa. Iobagine[13], which is the active alkaloid of this plant, has been shown to stimulate the k-opioid receptor[14]. Stimulation of the k-opioid receptor has been shown to down-regulate the reward system[15] in the brain that is involved in addictive behavior. Ibogaine does this so well that a single megadose often is enough to completely eliminate the withdrawal effects from a heroin addiction.

This article was last updated: 2013-03-02 (17:40:58)


In democracies the most popular individuals are elected to rule, but not necessarily the people with most insight. Celebrities are more popular than professors today, but professors usually have much more insight. Direct democracies[1] are however well synchronized with the general population, and this prevents friction between the government and the general population. Direct democracies might therefore be ideal systems for societies where everybody has a high level of education and understanding. If however the general population in a direct democracy doesn't have a sufficiently high level of understanding they will vote for ill-founded short-term policies rather than for well-informed long-term policies. The majority of the population in the world today unfortunately have a very narrow view of the world[2]. Our planet is also facing an ecological collapse[3] soon unless we cease our destructive intrusion in the biosphere. The importance of preventing a global ecological collapse surpasses by far the importance of exclusive human affairs. In a long-term perspective we probably also depend upon a harmonious global ecosystem for the survival of our species. The damage humanity is doing to the global ecosystem is however difficult to comprehend for the general population that mostly is preoccupied with the trivial problems of daily life. If we however continue to vote for ill-founded short-term policies an ecological collapse is imminent. Then the question is not if there is going to be an ecological collapse or not, but rather how many years we have left before it happens. If the world population and world economy continues to grow exponentially it is probably going to collapse quite soon.

A meritocracy[4] is a system where peo
ple with merit rule. In such a system professors with insight would be given positions in the government, rather than popular celebrities that democracies tend to favor. The definition of merit might be somewhat ambiguous, but intelligence, scientific knowledge, and historical knowledge are easily measurable qualities that people in the government definitively should have. Unfortunately the policies of a meritocracy aren't necessarily well in tune with the opinions of the general population. Being in tune with the short-term thinking of the general population is however not necessarily a good thing. The majority of the population in third world countries will probably not support strict birth control policies, nor is it likely that the general population in first world countries will accept a decrease in economic wealth. But overpopulation[5] in third world countries and overconsumption[6] in first world countries are the two issues which are causing most damage to the global ecosystem of our planet. In order to save the global ecosystem from overpopulation and overconsumption we probably need to enforce unpopular laws which would be difficult to get approved in a direct democracy where the majority of the population rules. The only system that seems capable of saving our planet is a meritocracy where people must pass science, history and intelligence tests before they are allowed to work in the government. This government should be allowed to propose legislations, but before the legislations can be ratified they must be scientifically proven to be advantageous to either mankind or the biosphere in the supreme court[7]. In matters where policies to aid mankind are in conflict with policies to maintain the health of the biosphere, policies to maintain the health of the biosphere should take precedence over policies to aid mankind.
This article was last updated: 2012-11-30 (17:56:51)