Peak Population

There are plenty of individuals and communities who want more babies, and more people. I am an example of that – my former wife and I only stopped at three children because we had to – otherwise we adore them and would have wanted at least one more. Churches of course like a larger flock and famously ban contraception, or the like. Entire countries are currently actively promoting having more kids, because of the demographic and financial nightmares they fill soon be facing.

But nobody, and I mean that literally, thinks that Planet Earth should collectively have more people.

More people would be a drain on resources of course, but even though technology has in recent decades more than countered that, making sure that people have food, clothes, plastic and fuel is only one consideration. Every single aspect of more people means a worse for all the animals and plants, their diversity and flourishing, on our planet. It is selfishness from the only species that knows how to be so selfish.

With the expectation that nobody is going to argue for more of us, then the serious question, and one rarely asked and never answered, is how few of thus there should be. Given our destructiveness, and green, and damage, one answer is that we should exit from the equation altogether.

I would argue that there is a place for us – even, at a stretch, a technological us – even potentially us on planets that can be grown instead of destroyed – and maybe all we need is some tough love to make the hard decisions.

That hard decision is to – collectively, in aggregate – have fewer children. Dramatically so, so that our numbers are decimated.

I say tough love because we have well proven it is too hard of an ask for us to voluntarily make, and the harm we are doings means any natural decline will be too slow. The dictates of capitalism, and its thirst for growth, suggests that degrowth is not something we will allow.

So all that leaves is for someone, for some people, to make that decision for us. Few people would condone actual slaughter or effective slaughter (concocted diseases for example), yet I am surprised no super-villian has emerged who is actively doing it. And no, Bill Gates is not that guy.

But persuasion is a tool we can use. And I am okay with taking that angle. Simple persuasion, as in advertising, is unlikely to be effective. But radical actions, forms of civil disobedience, and wanton destruction, of tearing apart the fabrics of all the negative sides of society and putting the spotlight on the harms of capitalism and overconsumption, might persuade enough people that bringing more kids into this world feels wrong.

Radical actions of the few, in arenas that are not expecting it, in fragile systems that are barely staying afloat anyway, is what I am talking about.

In the last couple of years, the subject of population decline has become topical, with even Elon Mush mentioning it a few times. And rightly so. Not only is it well-known (because of Japan leading the charge) that the new population pyramid will mean more retired people and fewer workers. there is also the barely recognised endgame, the failure of capitalism. That is because capitalism has never experienced prolonged negative growth, and quite likely is incapable of surviving it. And even with growing populations (via immigration) most countries are struggling to grow. GDP is a dud measurement…

So we have these factors in play:

• Climate change, partly due to too many people
• Environmental harm and continuing extinctions
• Peak population in 2050
• Capitalism will fail, eventually, because of degrowth

One way of looking at that is to consider that bringing forward the decline of capitalism, could mean fewer babies, more rapid population decline and less harm to the environment. There are a number of reasons for lower fertility rates, but economic conditions and uncertainty are major.

Potentially called econo-terrorism is the purposeful destruction of infrastructure to cause economic harm. We could start with global trade, because in some ways import is theft and export is theft.

In all industries, where there is exports and imports, certain aspects are almost universally true. The supplier at the start of the journey will get beaten down to the lowest price they can produce the product for. And the end purchaser will pay the most the market will allow. Neither are allowed to profit from global trade. That profit goes to middle-men, corporations and governments. That means shipping, duty, tax, banks and profit margins, often through grift and corruption.

These could be implemented by governments, except they all want artificially-derived growth from population growth:

• Mandate like China 1 child
• Incentivise by making children more expensive
• Incentivise by offering benefits for sterilisation 
• Help poor countries get wealthier
• Give life more meaning than child-rearing
• Make living more expensive / arduous by taxing everything that harms the planet to a righteous extent

All of the above means we can at a minimum halve the population globally in 80 years, and make it only 2 Billion in 120 years.

But they will ever happen, so which potential tactics are available to a wannabe econo-terrorist?

(It goes without saying that even though depopulation is the aim, no deaths – even accidental – are wanted. Every action would need to be carefully thought through for possible direct harm to people),

Global and domestic trade has become increasingly fragile, with high rats of debt and just-in-time systems that are highly efficient but not resilient. A few spanners-in-the-works can have a ripple effect, not just in actual hindrances but also perceived future problems. The ultimate goal is to minimalise world trade and emphasise local reliances. That should lead to countries having to live according to their environmental means.

Railways are long and insecure. They are relatively easy to damage. Or hinder. A person chained to the tracks, or a drone carrying a sheet hovering above the track and impeding views beyond it.

Crops and livestock are easily destroyed from disease. Water can be infiltrated. We do not want people to starve, but they can do without beef and flowers.

Piracy still happens in the Africa and can happen more in international waters.

Machinery can be tampered with. Look up monkey wrenching, Earth First and Ed Abbey.

Retail businesses can be attacked. Drop off some manure on the doorstep of a McDonalds, or any other company directly profiting from environmental harm.

Such actions, under an umbrella name, but barely affiliated otherwise, can get a lot of publicity from not many activities, and a low risk. While laws are rapidly changing, in many cases the risk is a large fine which is meaningless for those who already have nothing.

Until now, economic terrorism has been a state vs state concept. Now it could be a means to ending capitalism more quickly and “saving the planet” by small groups and individuals who feel the calling and can grasp the consequences.