Morality clause

Legal is not always fair

What is legal isn’t always fair. Perhaps the role of morality in law is too small. Because people have different views about what is right and what is wrong, the prevailing liberal view in many Western societies is that people should be free to do as they please unless their actions harm others. But even that view may justify a greater role of ethics in law.

Moral issues can be contentious and people reason according to their beliefs and political views. The following arguments may illustrate that:

  • Social liberals might be concerned with the rights of criminals in jail but not of the rights of unborn children who are innocent of any crime.
  • Conservatives might be concerned with the fate of unborn children but as soon as they are born in misery their compassion suddenly vanishes.

It is easy to simplify matters in this way but this is how issues are framed in disputes. And as soon as you are dragged into a dispute yourself, it is hard to remain moderate. Moral issues tend to be complicated. Euthanasia can be an act of compassion but it might be turned into a means of getting rid of undesired people. Perhaps a criminal has had a poor upbringing and never realised that he had a choice but making criminals suffer can alleviate the pain felt by their victims and give them a sense of justice.

Social liberals and conservatives have moral views and can be passionate about them. This is difference of opinion rather than an absence of ethics from one or both sides. Rational debates might help to clarify these matters and to balance the laws on these issues.

There are areas where an infusion of ethics may be advised, most notably where business meets law. A research showed that CEO is the job with the highest rate of psychopaths while lawyer comes in second,1 probably because traders in financial markets were not included in the survey. Media came in third, possibly because these findings come from a British research. The British tabloids are rather unique in the world with regard to ethics. Salespeople make a rather unsurprising fourth position.

Vulture capitalism

Rural areas in the United States are turning into an economic wasteland. Closed down factories and empty malls dominate the landscape. Communities are ravaged and drug abuse is on the rise. One reason for this to happen is that jobs are shipped overseas. Several factors contributed to this situation, but a major cause is CEOs not caring for people and communities. In many cases other solutions were possible.

Paul Singer is wealthy hedge fund owner. He made a fortune by buying up sovereign debt of countries in trouble such as Argentina and Peru at bargain prices and starting lawsuits and public relation campaigns against those countries to make a profit on these debts at the expense of the taxpayers of these countries.2

In the United States Singer bought up stakes of corporations in distress. He then fired workers so that the price of his shares rose. In the case of Delphi Automotive he and other hedge fund managers took out government bailouts, moved jobs overseas, and cut the retirement packages of employees so they could make a huge profit.2

Vulture capitalists prey on patients too. They buy patents on old drugs that are the standard treatment for rare life-threatening diseases, then raise the price because there is no alternative. Martin Shkreli was responsible for a 6,250% price hike for the anti-retroviral drug Daraprim. Many people died because of his actions.3 Perhaps he should be in jail for being a mass murderer but he is not because what he did is legal.

Profiteering at the expense of the public

In the years preceding the financial crisis of 2008 there was a widespread mortgage fraud going on in the United States. Few people have gone to jail because much of what happened may have been morally reprehensible but was considered legal. Financial executives and quite a few academics share this view.4 And so nothing was done. Perhaps it is still possible to prove fraud but that may take years if it ever succeeds.

Healthcare is another domain for fraudsters. Patients are often not in a position to bargain. Perhaps that is why privatised healthcare tends to perform so poorly compared to government organised healthcare. In 2015 the Dutch government introduced the Social Support Act, making municipalities responsible for assisting people who are unable to arrange the care and support they need themselves.5

Municipalities were often ill-prepared. One of the issues that still persist is fraud perpetrated by several private contractors at the expense of the taxpayers and people in need. The Dutch prosecution is overwhelmed by fraud cases and it is not always possible to get a conviction because private contractors made use of loopholes in the law. Until these loopholes are fixed, their actions remain legal.6

In the United States hospital bills are feared. A routine doctor visit for a sore throat can result in a $ 28,000 medical bill.7 And so many people in the US go without healthcare because they can’t afford it. Efforts to reform healthcare in the US haven’t succeeded, perhaps because those who send $ 28,000 bills for sore throats have plenty of money to bribe politicians into keeping the US healthcare system as it is.

Attributes of the law

First we have to recognise why it is so hard to prevent these things from happening. On the political front it is because once politicians are elected, they can do as they please until the next election. Lobbyists prey on them. Citizens have few means of correcting politicians, except in Switzerland. The Swiss have direct democracy. Swiss citizens can intervene in the political process when they see fit and fix laws if they think that is needed. Direct democracy might help to fix many of these issues.

Laws are often made with the best intentions but you can’t test them in a simulation to see how they will work out in practice. So, once they are introduced, problems pop up. The process of lawmaking is slow and it often takes years before issues are fixed, if they are fixed at all because lawmaking is often political process. Changes in the law can be subject of a political process and that can make it rather complicated.

Even more importantly, the underlying principles of law cause certain restrictions that benefit the savvy. The law is the way it is for good reasons. No-one should be above the law and people as well as businesses should not be subject to arbitrariness. The rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law, including lawmakers, law enforcement officials, and judges. And it is agreed that the law must be prospective, well-known, general, treat everyone equal, and provide certainty.

Laws being prospective means that you can only be convicted for violation of laws in force at the time the act was committed. Legal certainty means that the law must provide you with the ability to regulate your conduct, meaning that the law must be sufficiently precise to allow you to foresee the possible consequences of a given action. Businesses prefer the laws to stable. They make investments for longer periods of time. If laws change then they may be faced with losses. If laws are unstable, investments may not be made, and a country may end up poorer.

With the rise of neoliberalism came the era of shareholder capitalism. Making profits became a goal in itself. Greed was good. Wall Street traders and CEOs were seen as heroes even when they were psychopaths outsourcing jobs for no other reason than making more profit. Often there was little consideration for the planet, people and communities. Consumers prefer the best service at the lowest price so businesses were pressed into cutting costs and moving jobs to low-wage countries. Businesses must remain competitive to survive. The moral issue comes maximising profit at the expense of the planet, communities and people.

A bigger role for ethics

More and more people start to believe that ethics should play a bigger role in business. The Internet enables activists to put pressure on corporations. It may however not be enough to shame corporations who misbehave or to press consumers into buying goods and services that have been made with consideration for the planet, communities and people. Corporations must remain competitive and so they are not inclined to make real changes if that increases their costs. Levelling the playing field with regulations is an option but that may not be sufficient. Perhaps the law needs a morality clause, making specific forms of unethical behaviour unlawful.

A randomly selected jury of laypeople could make verdicts in these moral issues. Perhaps it is better that the legal profession stays out of these matters.

There are a few issues that come with a morality clause. First of all, ethics in business can be a political issue. It contradicts the prevailing neoliberal view that as much as possible should be left to the markets. It can also affect legal certainty, meaning that it will be harder for businesses to predict whether or not a specific action is legal. Business owners may incorrectly guess moral sentiment and believe they did nothing wrong. That might reduce the available investment capital for questionable activities. And if immoral profits and bonuses from the past are to be confiscated, that may affect the prospectiveness of the law. But you may not like to live in a world ruled by psychopathic mechanisms like maximising profit at the expense of people and the planet so a morality clause in the law is an idea worth considering.

Featured image: Of course the laws are always functional. Loesje. Loesje.org.

1. The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success. Kevin Dutton (2012).
2. The death of Sidney, Nebraska: How a hedge fund destroyed ‘a good American town’. Charles Couger, Alex Pfeiffer (3 December 2019). Fox News. [link]
3. Vulture capitalists prey on patients. The Sacramento Bee (22 September 2015). [link]
4. How Mortgage Fraud Made the Financial Crisis Worse. Binyamin Appelbaum (12 February 2015). New York Times. [link]
5. Social Support Act (Wmo 2015). Government of the Netherlands. [link]
6. Gemeenten starten onderzoek naar Albero Zorggroep. Eelke van Ark (31 October 2019). Follow The Money. [link]
7. How a routine doctor visit for a sore throat resulted in a $28,000 medical bill. CBS News (31 December 2019) [link]

Beautiful countryside in southern California

Capital for the future

Making the economy sustainable may require an unprecedented amount of capital in the form of knowledge and outfits like solar panels, sustainable farms and energy-efficient transportation systems. It is hard to imagine that it can be done. And imagining it is still a lot easier than really doing it. It is going to require some economic magic to divert investment capital from destructive activities to the future of humanity. We may need more useful capital and less consumption.

Perhaps the invisible hand can be of some help. It is easier to finance a great endeavour from investments than from taxation because nobody wants to pay taxes but everybody is happy to invest. It is the secret of the success of the European empires that conquered the world after the Middle Ages. England, France, Spain and the Netherlands were much poorer and smaller than China, India or the Ottoman Empire, but they didn’t finance their conquests with taxation, but with the use of investment capital.1

Europe won out because European conquerors took loans from banks and investors to buy ships, cannons, and to pay soldiers. Profits from the new trade routes and colonies enabled them to repay the loans and build trust so they could receive more credit next time.1 The same logic may need to be applied to making the economy sustainable. The challenge is so enormous that it may never be possible to finance it by taxes. Nowadays interest rates are so low because there is plenty of investment capital.

It’s the economy stupid!

It is often argued that the economy is unsustainable because of short-term thinking. The economy must grow in order to have positive returns on investments. And it is believed that returns on investments need to be positive otherwise the economy would collapse. The economic time horizons of individuals are reflected in their time preferences. The time horizon of the economy as a whole is reflected in the interest rate.

The lower the interest rate, the longer the time horizon of the economy could be. The following example from the Strohalm Foundation can illustrate this:

Suppose that a cheap house will last 33 years and costs € 200,000 to build. The yearly cost of the house will be € 6,060 (€ 200,000 divided by 33). A more expensive house costs € 400,000 but will last a hundred years. It will cost only € 4,000 per year. For € 2,060 per year less, you can build a house that lasts three times as long.

After applying for a mortgage the math changes. If the interest rate is 10%, the expensive house will not only cost € 4,000 per year in write-offs, but during the first year there will be an additional interest charge of € 40,000 (10% of € 400,000).

The long-lasting house now costs € 44,000 in the first year. The cheaper house now appears less expensive again. There is a yearly write off of € 6,060 but during the first year there is only € 20,000 in interest charges. Total costs for the first year are only € 26,060. Interest charges make the less durable house cheaper.2

Without interest there is a tendency to select long-term solutions. Interest charges make long-term solutions less economical. Interest promotes a short-term bias in the economy. It may explain why natural resources like rainforests are squandered for short term profits. If interest rates are high, it may be more profitable to cut down a rainforest and to put the proceeds at interest rather than to manage the forest in a sustainable way.

Only, things are not as simple as the example suggests. For example, the building materials of the cheap house might be recycled to build a new house. And technology changes. For example, if cars had been built to last 100 years, most old cars would still be around. This could be a problem as old cars are more polluting and use more fuel. Nevertheless, the example shows that long-term investments can be more attractive when interest rates are lower.

This also applies to investments in renewable energy. For instance, a solar panel that costs € 100, lasts 15 years, and generates € 150 worth in electricity in the course of these 15 years, is feasible at an interest rate of 5% but not at an interest rate of 10%. Many investments in making the economy sustainable may have low returns and are only feasible when interest rates are low. Low and negative interest rates can also deal with low economic growth. That may be needed for living within the limits of the planet.

Living within the limits of the planet

When interest rates are negative, the time horizon of the economy could go to eternity so that it makes sense to invest in making the economy sustainable. A few examples from history can illustrate this. In the Middle Ages some areas in Europe had currencies with a holding fee like Natural Money. As there hardly was economic growth, interest rates were negative. It was the era of Europe’s great cathedrals. These cathedrals were built for eternity. As better investment opportunities were absent, wealthy towns people spent their excess money on cathedrals.3 For similar reasons, the people of Wörgl planted trees as the proceeds of the wood were expected to occur in the distant future.3

A bit of calculus shows why. At an interest rate of 5%, putting € 1 in a bank account turns into € 1,05 after a year, so you would rather have € 1 now than in one year’s time, even when you need the money in one year’s time. That’s because you can put the money on a bank account at interest. At an interest rate of 5%, € 100 in one year’s time is worth € 95.25 now. The distant future has even less value. The same € 100 in one hundred year’s time is worth only € 0.59. And € 100 after 1000 years has no value at all in the present.

At an interest rate of -5%, you would prefer to have the money when you need it, otherwise you would end up with less. At an interest rate of -5%, € 100 in one year’s time would be worth € 105. The same € 100 in one hundred year’s time would be worth € 13,501 now. And € 100 after 1000 years would be worth more than everything there is in the present. Income in the distant future is also very uncertain, so it is unlikely that investors will shift their time horizon to 1,000 years, but this logic may help us to come into terms with the limits our planet poses on human activities.

Living within the limits of the planet may require unprecedented investments in the future. These investments may require low or even negative interest rates as their returns may be low. Only low and negative interest rates can make these investments economical. Everyone who has money to save can help by shifting money from consumption to saving and investing. The more people act like capitalists, the lower interest rates may go, and the more sustainable the economy may become.

Capitalists think that money spent on a frivolous item is money wasted, because when you invest your money, you will have more money that you can invest again. Capitalists hardly care about interest rates. They will save and invest anyway because of their capitalist spirit. Rich people may be encouraged to save even more if luxuries that use a lot of natural resources and energy aren’t available any more. One can think of luxury yachts, private jets, but also of travel by airplane for holidays. When energy becomes a constraint, local products may replace long-distance trade.

Featured image: Beautiful countryside in southern California. James McCauley (2005). Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

1. A Brief History Of Humankind. Yuval Noah Harari (2014). Harvil Secker.
2. Poor Because of Money. Henk van Arkel and Camilo Ramada (2001). Strohalm.

Clutching at a straw

When I was eighteen years or so I once read The Limits of Growth. That’s depressing stuff, most notably if you’re young and expect to live for another sixty years or so. Doom seemed imminent and I would probably live to see it happen. That was the moment when my views about the future turned grim. Before that I hardly had views about the future at all. A few years later I became an environmentalist and a member of Friends of the Earth in Groningen. Friends of the Earth does research and tries to convince people that they should change their lifestyles. Friends of the Earth also lobbies with politicians and pressures corporations. And sometimes we protested.

One day we blocked the entrance of Groningen Airport to protest against the government subsidies for the airport. The city council felt that Groningen needed an airport but Groningen wasn’t big enough to make it profitable. When we were sitting there, the police came to remove us, and it suddenly became clear to me that activism didn’t help. Politicians will be voted out of office when they are serious about solutions. Businesses will go bankrupt if they take appropriate action unless all other businesses do the same. The required measures are extremely costly and will affect our lifestyles so profoundly that it would never happen in the current political and economic system.

Once being over a cliff, a cartoon character can only clutch at a straw. And only in cartoons the straw might hold. Friends of the Earth in Groningen worked together with the Strohalm Foundation. The meaning of the Dutch word strohalm is straw. According to Strohalm, the economy must grow because of interest, and that’s destroying the planet. It is ‘grow-or-die’ because interest rates need to be positive. Any solution begins with ending interest, they believed, and interest causes a lot of other problems too, like poverty and financial instability. Strohalm’s idea was banning interest and charging a fee on money as Silvio Gesell had proposed, so that it would be attractive to lend out money without interest.

Economists didn’t take interest-free money seriously. If you can receive interest elsewhere then why would you lend out money without interest? And if you can borrow money at an interest rate of zero, you would borrow as much as you can and put it in a bank account at interest. Therefore, interest-free money with a holding tax would never work, at least so it seemed, and it didn’t take long before I realised that too. Only, that wasn’t satisfactory. Accepting doom is like committing suicide. If interest is the root of many social and environmental problems, and may destroy human civilisation, you can’t ignore that. And perhaps it could work. During the Great Depression it had been tried in a small Austrian village and it was a stunning success.

For years I used public transport as much as possible, but at some point I began to realise that it was all pointless. More and more people started driving SUV’s. They didn’t care. It didn’t matter what I do. A car can make your life more comfortable and I had no higher morals than other people.

A few years later, in 1998, I became a freelance IT specialist. I made a lot of money so I had money to invest. My first investments were small and not very successful. That was because I believed that the profits of corporations matter. But investments in loss-making internet startups did very well while profitable corporations did poorly. And so I came to believe that I had to stay informed about the developments in the financial markets. In 2000 I joined the investment message board Iex.nl.

On the message board was a day trader who shared all kinds of conspiracy theories with us. For instance, if the markets were about to collapse, a secret group called Plunge Protection Team would come to the rescue. He was ridiculed, but after the internet bubble popped, markets often miraculously recovered when they were about to crash.

And gold often crashed because of sudden selling. The day trader believed central banks wanted to keep confidence in their currencies. If the gold price were to rise, he claimed, people would lose trust in central bank currencies. This was new to me, and probably it wasn’t true, but I already had bought some gold because I didn’t trust financial markets and the people operating them. I was not good picking stocks, and I was too risk averse to be very successful in the stock market, but the gold turned out to be a good investment as I held on to it for decades.

In 2001 after the Internet bubble had popped I pitched the idea of interest-free money on the message board. My lack of knowledge was eclipsed by my zeal and lengthy discussions followed. On the Internet people from different backgrounds and different knowledge can be in one virtual room and participate in a discussion. I was rebutted time after time, but as these discussions went on, my knowledge of the financial system increased and I became aware of the issues that had to be resolved in order to make interest-free money work.

As a gold investor I became familiar with the Austrian School of Economics. This group questions money creation by banks and the need for central banks. They pointed at the inflation caused by money creation and central banks. At some point all the debt banks create would eventually collapse the financial system and money would be worthless, they believed.

And so two opposing fringe ideas, interest-free money with a holding tax and Austrian School, were challenging each other in my mind, which may be how Hegelian dialectic is supposed to work. In 2008 this resulted in a resolution and the idea of Natural Money was born. The economy can do better without interest so returns for investors can be higher. As positive interest rates are not allowed, the money may rise in value, so that interest-free money can give better returns. Hence, interest-free money was possible, perhaps even inevitable. In the following decade I integrated modern main stream economics into the theory of Natural Money. This research can be found on the website Naturalmoney.org.

Featured image: Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote. Warner Bros. [copyright info]

The last day

The limits to growth

Imagine there is a lake in a distant forest. On the surface of the lake a plant is growing. It suffocates all life below. The plant has already been there for a 1,000 days and it grows at a rate of 100% each day. If the lake is already covered half by the plant then how many days are left to save the remaining life in the lake? The correct answer is one day.

The plant doubles in size in one day. As the lake is already half covered, it will be fully covered the next day. It doesn’t matter that the plant was there already for 1,000 days. This is exponential growth. And it ends suddenly. As soon as the lake is fully covered, there is no more room for growth. For every leaf the plant adds, another has to die.

The lake represents Earth. The plant represents humanity. The leafs are people like you and me. No more room for growth may mean that for every child that is born, someone else has to die. It is estimated that as of 1971 humans use more of the Earth’s resources than nature can replenish. Currently we use one-and-a-half times as much as nature can replace. By 2050 three Earths may be needed to sustain humanity.1 Make no mistake, this is the ‘last day’.

The end may come suddenly. Most people don’t see it coming. Others believe that it can’t be avoided. They are preparing for the worst. In 1972 a group of scientists called the Club Of Rome predicted ‘the end’ when natural resources would run out. They claimed it would happen shortly after the year 2000.1 It didn’t happen until now, but that doesn’t mean that the current path of humanity can continue for much longer.

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend
The end

– The Doors, The End

The depletion of natural resources and the degradation of our planet are amongst the most serious challenges humanity is facing. If these challenges are not addressed, billions of people may die of hunger, pollution, resource wars and ecological disasters. Poverty may spread because of the depletion of natural resources.

Perhaps new technologies will become available in the future that can deal with these issues but we don’t know whether that will happen and when. Even if these new technologies become available, we may need to bridge a gap in time and adapt our lifestyles until then. That might require buying less stuff for those who can afford it.

Climate change

The average temperature on Earth is expected to rise by three degrees Celsius by the year 2100. It has already risen by one degree Celsius since the year 1900. Such a rise in temperature can alter the weather globally and cause massive harvests fails. Polar ice may melt so that the sea level will rise and low-lying territory where more than 500 million people currently live, may be lost. The main cause of the temperature rise is our use of fossil fuels. There is little doubt about that.

There is a lot of uncertainty about the accuracy of the estimates regarding the consequences of climate change as was the case with the predictions made by the Club Of Rome. The exact impact of rising carbon dioxide levels on the weather is hard to predict. The estimates of the climate scientists are the best we currently have as were the estimates made by the Club Of Rome in 1972. Probably they are right about the direction but not accurate in time.

Ignoring climate change is like playing Russian roulette with the future of humanity without knowing exactly how many bullets are in the revolver, but sensing that it is two to five out of six. Taking action may result in wasting an unprecedented amount of effort and resources on combating climate change if these predictions are wrong, but you need to pull the trigger to know that.

It is hard to imagine how bad it will get and it is even harder to imagine that it may be happening soon. Drastic actions like ending frivolous uses of fossil fuels and investing massively in clean sources of energy appear necessary. Several scientists believe that nuclear energy is an alternative. There may be accidents and dangerous waste, but they believe that nuclear energy will cause fewer deaths than fossil fuels.

Going nuclear?

In 1994 I met my wife Ingrid. The next year we spent our first holidays together in the Dutch province of Zeeland. During one of our trips we came across a village named Kwadendamme. The English translation of this name is Evildam. Ingrid was driving. Suddenly she hit the brakes. “Antiques,” she cried. By the side of the road was a shabby shed with a sign ‘King’s Antiques’ on it. Inside were piles of stuff. An elderly couple entered via a back door. They may have been in their seventies or eighties. And perhaps they were the only antiques there.

Ingrid was browsing the shelves and soon she found a doll. 185 guilders (85 euros) was the price tag. Ingrid kept on staring in bewilderment. “This doll isn’t very old but the price reflects that,” the old lady said. Later Ingrid told me that she had seen this doll in a store chain a few years earlier. Back then the price was 9 guilders (4 euros). We were about to leave. Then the old man said: “Don’t go yet, there’s another hall.” He pointed at the back door. Behind the shed was a small place and another shed. It may have been a henhouse previously. I could hardly stand upright in there. It was filled with more stuff.

Just after we left Kwadendamme we found ourselves on route N666 (National Route 666) to Borssele. Back then I already found this to be a bit peculiar, not only because of the route N666 passing Kwadendamme (Evildam), but even more so because it was the route to Borssele, which is the site of the only remaining Dutch nuclear power plant. The N666 ends near Borssele next to a village named ‘s Heerenhoek, which can be translated into The Lord’s Corner. With the benefit of hindsight, this probably isn’t a coincidence.

The only other Dutch nuclear power plant was located in Dodewaard. It had been closed in 1997. Dodewaard can be translated into Death Holm, which is a bit spooky considering that Route 666 leads to Borssele. The Dodewaard area is 66.5 square kilometres, close enough to 66.6 to be a bit eerie. Nuclear fission energy is ‘a deal with the devil’. If we use it, accidents might happen and people might get killed. Only the number of people killed when using fossil fuels would probably be far greater.

Solar and wind appear to win the race in terms of cost but until now only a few percent of the global energy production comes from these sources. Furthermore solar and wind aren’t a stable source of energy and storing electricity is cumbersome. We need a reliable source of energy. The only real alternative to fossil fuels appears to be nuclear energy. Nuclear energy produces dangerous waste and accidents can’t be ruled out.

Nuclear fusion can be a lot safer than nuclear fission, which is the type of nuclear energy that is currently used. If something goes wrong with nuclear fusion, the process dies out. It can’t go out of control like nuclear fission. The nuclear waste from fusion would be more manageable. There may be energy from nuclear fusion within a few decades, but that’s still far from certain. Safer nuclear fission reactors may become available in the near future and they may also be cheaper to operate.2

Nuclear fusion might bring us unlimited energy at virtually no cost. In that case it would be possible to recycle much more than we currently do as the value of the recycled materials is now often lower than the cost of the energy needed to reclaim them. Even though developments in the field of nuclear fusion seem promising, it will take time and it is still far from certain that it will become available. And as long as it isn’t available, living within the limits of our planet may require considerable sacrifices.

Mass extinction

Climate change gets a lot of attention but there are several other environmental disasters happening at the same time. Many species of plants and animals have become extinct or are on the brink of extinction because humans destroy their habitat. On average, there was 60% decline in the size of populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians in the last 40 years.3 There is hardly any wildlife left.

To put it into perspective, one can compare the total weight of all humans and their domesticated animals with the remaining wildlife, which are all the wild animals except insects and microbes. The seven billion humans on this planet together weigh 300 million tonnes. All the domesticated animals, such as pigs, cows, horses and sheep, together weigh 700 million tonnes. By comparison, all the remaining large wildlife on planet Earth, such as lions, elephants, whales, crocodiles and penguins, together weigh less than 100 million tonnes.4

And then there is pollution. The list with problems caused by the exponential growth of human activities is long. This is perhaps not a complete list:
– depletion of natural resources, especially fossil fuels;
– shortage of drinking water;
– air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination and noise;
– deforestation and loss of ecosystems that sustain global atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide balance;
– loss of arable land and a growth of deserts;
– increased chance of new epidemics;
– low life expectancy in countries with fastest growing populations;
– unhygienic living conditions for many because of water resource depletion and discharge of raw sewage and waste disposal;
– more crime rate as people revert to stealing in order to survive;
– conflict over scarce resources leading to wars;
– fewer personal freedoms and more restrictive laws.

Why produce garbage

Why produce garbage if it is thrown away?

Wealthy countries are throw-away societies. There is an excessive use of disposable items. Why should we recycle garbage when we can use more durable goods? Why are there so many packaging materials? For instance, liquids be transported in tanks and consumers could fill up their bottles at the supermarket. Why isn’t anybody doing this? It might be because marketeers believe that the packaging and not the content is what makes a product unique. The amount of packaging can be reduced significantly.

There may be no other option than to curb polluting activities, the consumption of raw materials and carbon emissions. Frivolous consumption may need to be banned if it uses too many scarce resources. Harmful activities that are difficult to end may need to be taxed and the proceeds of these taxes may be used to reduce taxes on labour, so that labour can replace energy and materials consumption where possible. These changes can make it more attractive to recycle and to make products longer lasting. Tariffs may need to be put on products from countries that do not comply to these standards.

Population control

A mother in waiting once asked the biologist Midas Dekkers what she could do to raise her child as environmentally friendly as possible. Dekkers then said that nothing affects the environment more badly than having a child. For the environment it is better to cut down one hundred hectares of tropical rainforest than to have a child, he added. It may be a good idea to limit the number of children, for instance to one child per couple.

Population control becomes even more urgent as humans may soon live indefinitely. The people who live 1,000 years or longer probably already live today. And if no-one dies of age then it may be stupid to let people die of hunger simply because we couldn’t control our desire for having children.

Apart from people wanting to have children, poor people seek security. They worry about making ends meet. The depletion of natural resources is not on their minds. The only long-term plan of many poor people is having children who can care for them when they are old. Even though poor people do not use a lot of resources, they often have many children, and if we like them to prosper, that could be a problem.

If the rights of a couple to have a child can be sold, wealthy people may bid up the price of these rights, and poor people can have a pension out of selling them. There are some ethical issues with such a measure as it may result in poor people having fewer children and people from specific ethnicities opting for this more often than others. The limits of our planet are such a serious issue that these consequences may need to be accepted. And on the bright side, fewer children may be raised in poverty.

The food situation

In the face of climate change and the possibility of massive harvest failures it is wise to look at the food situation. Currently, the available food stocks can feed humanity for a few months. Famine may be just around the corner for billions of people. It therefore seems wise to heed the advice Joseph gave to the Pharaoh, which is to store massive amounts of food for bad times. Perhaps a Natural Money currency backed by stored food can be issued to pay for the storage.

The food situation requires another look at meat consumption. Animals used for consumption eat food humans could eat. It takes three to seven kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of meat. There are other disadvantages to meat. Eating meat causes animal suffering as many of these animals live in factory farms. It will be hard to change human diets unless good substitutes for meat become available, but reducing meat consumption may be needed to deal with potential food shortages.

Nothing but flowers

The challenge is so huge that it seems impossible but there is hope. The plan can succeed because that might be part of the script. When we believe this then we can make it happen. In the past no appropriate action has been taken, so drastic measures seem inevitable. It probably will not be easy to make you accept the proposed measures. They may require sacrifices you never imagined you would make like taking holidays near home rather than taking a long trip to the other side of the world.

Measures can have undesirable side-effects. For instance, China had a one-child-policy for decades. Many parents preferred a son so baby girls were often killed. Nowadays many men in China can’t find a wife. Another example is tropical rainforests making room for palm oil plantations to produce ‘renewable energy’. We need to deal with undesirable side-effects as soon as they emerge.

When everything ends well, you may not be satisfied with the outcome. The Garden Of Eden was a Paradise for Eve and Adam, but it may not be great for many of us. We can adapt. Just think of the children of the future. They won’t remember this era of excess from personal experience and they may be happy with their lives.

Here we stand
Like an Adam and an Eve
Waterfalls
The Garden of Eden
Two fools in love
So beautiful and strong
The birds in the trees
Are smiling upon them
From the age of the dinosaurs
Cars have run on gasoline
Where, where have they gone?

[…]

And as things fell apart
Nobody paid much attention
You got it, you got it
I dream of cherry pies,
Candy bars, and chocolate chip cookies
You got it, you got it
We used to microwave
Now we just eat nuts and berries
You got it, you got it
This was a discount store,
Now it’s turned into a cornfield
You’ve got it, you’ve got it
Don’t leave me stranded here
I can’t get used to this lifestyle

– Talking Heads, Nothing But Flowers

Featured image: Judgement Day. Royal Museum Of Fine Arts of Belgium. Rama (2008). Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

Other image: Why produce garbage when it is thrown away all the same. Loesje. Loesje.org.

1. The Limits to Growth. Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, William W. Behrens III (1972). Potomac Associates – Universe Books.
2. Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis. Philip Bethge (7 January 2020). Der Spiegel. [link]
3. Living Planet Report. World Wildlife Fund (2018). [link]
4. Sapiens: A Brief History Of Humankind. Yuval Noah Harari (2014). Harvil Secker.