Code for the Protection of All Living Entities:

Utopian schemes have an unfortunate tendency of becoming nightmare dystopias. They give everyone a nice warm, cozy feeling as they are formulated. The Communist Manifesto really sounds good the first time we read it, but I doubt that many survivors of the Gulag retain much faith in it.

[ Utopian schemes that have merit (Communism being one of them) usually fail because we are still clinging to the ways of our biological past, and unwilling to break out into the light of 'rational, fair, and compassionate behaviour'.]

There is a positive danger to enacting laws and manifestos based on "ought". Such pronouncements wouldn't be necessary if it were human nature to behave the way someone thinks they "ought" to behave. People and human affairs are more complex than any formula for making a perfect, or even better, world. We are driven not so much by what is prescribed by others in high-sounding terms, as we are by our immediate desires and perceptions of what we want. "Ought" people to be more thoughtful, patient, compassionate, giving, etc.? Sure, but saying so won't make it so. We are overloaded, especially in the world of the early 21st century, by "information" and interest groups vying for our attention. I think many, perhaps most of us, begin to filter out a lot of the messages so urgently pushed on us. This idea is just another bit of background noise, because it is overly simple in a complex world. It is not possible to implement, and even if it were the negative consequences would be large.

[ What human beings "ought" to do is frequently only too obvious to them; and the consequences of that "doing" belie their life's mistakes.]

There is a sentiment that the world would somehow be better if there was a single world government, or if the UN had the ability to forcibly implement it's decisions. I think that would lead to a nightmarish world far more frightening than the seeming chaos we have today. Imagine a world where there was no escape for a person or group opposing the universal order. Is that which is "good" for Nigeria, also "good" for Belgium? Who is to decide where and how world resources are distributed? Would any appreciable number of American's give up our Justice system for one based on the Napoleonic Code, or where a person must prove their innocence? To implement the manifesto suggested by this thread, the UN would have to use force and the individual freedom of every person in the world would be circumscribed.

[i see a world in which there are no 'Americans', Canadians, French, Afganis, Belorussians,...............there are only citizens of this planet free, and equal under a democratically devised code of rights and responsibilities applicable to all]

Privacy and personal preference would vanish to ensure that no one would have a juicy steak, or use force to defend their lives or property.

[property is nonsense; no one 'owns' anything, but they displace it from all; every steak you enjoy is eaten in a world where millions of children wake every morning hungry]
The individual would be reduced to nothing, while the power of the State would be everything.
[currently the 'power of the state' imposes the will of a small group of 'individuals' upon the rest]

No, no, no. Never, and I doubt if you would be able to convince more than a handful of thoughtful people anywhere in the world to adopt such a simplistic policy.

[The equitable sharing of the resources of this planet is, indeed, "simplistic"]

There has been a lot of research conducted since that population density study was done on rats back in Chicago(?). More recent studies with other species is that extreme population density and scarcity of resources actually reduces violent behavior and promotes cooperation. Human-kind is often at its best when confronted with a major crisis that threatens survival. Another one of those themes of science fiction is that as humanity faces extinction from X, a threat from outer space arrives and humanity "pulls together" and wins the day. Simple plots.

[i suppose this could one of the very few positive contributions of our 'large brains' (be that not overly optimistic!)]

The thing is, most of us rarely can see beyond our own self-interest and the immediate future. In South America the rain forests are burning because poor farmers feel they must clear land to harvest sometimes only one, or two crops, to feed their starving families. Then they move on and destroy more precious resources that the whole world may depend upon. Its an old story and one that is acted out again and again by groups and by individuals. Its such a common tale that it is easy to become cynical. Optimism is overwhelmed by dread.

[the 'immediate' frequently creates massive constraints for the 'future'!]

Folks need to step back and take a more balanced view of where we seem to be going. There is a pretty chart somewhere on the internet (i've seen it, but forgotten the site address) that charts violent human deaths (by the 100,000) by century back to our earliest known ancestors. Don't ask me where their data came from, because that's pretty problematical before our modern obsession with statistics. Anyway the trend line rises from near zero in the 13th century, and ending almost off the chart for the 20th century. Then we're asked to imagine extrapolating the number likely to die violently in the 21st century. For some folks thats a shocking forecast. However, the chart loses much of its appeal if we just think about it a little. The chart construction with the x going back perhaps a couple of million years crowds the intervals, and accentuates improperly the visual rise over the last seven hundred years. If the chart only depicted the 20th century (when much better datas is available) year by year, the trend line would be down. If we charted human populations, or almost anything, in a similar fashion to the one which scares folks so much, same rapid rise off the chart pattern/trend lines would emerge. For some reason, we humans seem to "get-off" on gloom and doom far more than on appreciation of opportunity and optimism that is just as likely.

[however, we are you must agree, now able to run that chart off the scale with a number of our current initiatives, and challenges.]

I've listed four major threats to human-kind that have, I think, a pretty high probability of occurring within the next 10-20 years. That doesn't mean that one or more of them will actually happen, much less that the negative effects we believe would follow given current thinking would. Resource allocation and distribution is something that policy makers and planners need to think about. Improved economies built on sound foundations opens the doors of opportunity. [only "share economics" will work] The development of an interdependent world economy reduces the risk/threat to individual societies, and distribution networks improve all the time to service the global economy. Genetically altered crops to increase yield from exhausted and arid soil might save millions of lives, even if hundreds died of some potential side-effect.[but the advantage is lost if 'all' die!]

Finding ways to slow population increases in places like the PRC [without placing that burden upon women], India and other Third World countries should be pursued and encouraged. Abortion is one alternative, and in light of the seriousness of the mortality rates shouldn't be taken off the table. Family planning almost didn't exist 100 years ago, now its a major effort and in the future may show dramatic shifts in the population trends of today. Shifting from agricultural production on small farms heavily dependant on human muscle, reduces the need and desire for large families. [it is however essential to eliminate religious 'medaling' in the 'ethics of birth control'!]

Medical science hasn't stopped progressing, its just gotten much more expensive. The war for survival between us and the virus/bacteria will never be solved entirely, because we are to a large extend interdependent. New drugs and treatments are being pursued even as traditional anti-biotics lose their effectiveness. We are all more aware of how important Public health systems are, and they become better all the time. Several false alarms have awakened, I hope, the PRC to the necessity of closely monitoring emerging strains in Southeast China. Unlike the devastation of the Black Death and earlier epidemics with high mortality, today we can treat the threat more intelligently. Rapid identification of the threat, quarantine, and treatment can reduce deaths by a considerable number. To reduce the death rate from say 25% to 20% is very meaningful when applied to the large number of cases we might expect. [but we need to find a mechanism for providing suitable medical treatment without economic involvement, to those potential victims who can least afford it.]

Improvements in the delivery of projected increased demand for energy are being worked on. Fusion remains outside our grasp, but I imagine that the problems will eventually be solved. Solar power (windmills, direct and secondary generation from solar panels, etc.) has great promise, but remains far too expensive to bring effectively on-line. Hydro-electric power might be increased somewhat in some locations. The dangers associated with atomic power plants (waste and accidental release of radio-activity) makes us wary. We rightfully worry about more atomic powerplants in parts of the world where safety precautions, design redundance, professional management, and the potential for producing more warheads are a factor.

[the 'future' of energy efficiency lies in 'transmission - a grid of supercooled underground cables would allow a world grid, minimizing production constraints.]

In the worst case scenario ... back to science fiction ... human population might be reduced by up to 50% within one, or two generations. The herd will have been thinned and trimmed by Mother Nature. Local and regional wars might flare up to increase the death toll as one group fights another for survival. [traditional war, strangely enough, while it provides a huge amount of suffering, and despair, is less productive of loss of life than plagues, drought, and the various 'genocides' that have taken place throughout history.]Some, perhaps many governments would lose control, and human organizations might fragment. Some networks might, even probably would go down for some time. World travel would be more difficult, and satellite communications might be lost. Some foods and goods that are now plentiful could become scarce in some locations. Technology, for a time, might be returned to about where it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Adjusting to the loss of technology would also result in the a certain number of deaths. The grand total deaths, could be between 50% and 75%. I lean toward the lower estimate

On the upside, the human population would put less strain on their environmental niche. Natural immunities coupled with fewer humans in more scattered locations would end a major epidemic. If famine were the primary killer, it would fade as the demand for food went down and the conditions that caused crop loss ended. Demand for most products would go down as the survivors converted legacy wealth to their own purposes. People die but their material goods continue to exist, and nothing has more enduring value than books. Recovery of technology would probably be pretty fast. Laboratories and factories of all kinds could beginning turning out new products almost immediately.

[but on the 'downside' we would be back to 'survival of the fittest" which got us to this point in the first place!! And will take us there again if we don't scrap the system!]