<< Back to the Library

Biogenic Warfare as a Solution to Economic Sustainability

A Package Solution to the Problems of Economic Sustainability and Scarcity as Described in Eric A Davidson's Book "You Can't Eat GNP"

By Eric Corson

Introduction:
    Eric A Davidson's book, "You Can't Eat GNP" presents the fallacies that are inherent to an economic system that bases measurements of economic well-being without consideration of the depletion of natural resources needed to make that growth viable.  His two key problems that are presented in the book are the issues of sustainability and scarcity.
    Sustainability is the idea that land and other natural resources should be used in such a manner that they are never worn out.  For instance, if an aquifer recovers its water depth from rainfall and other sources at the rate of 2 inches per year, then no more than 2 inches per year of water should be pulled from the aquifer.  In the case of agricultural land use, if the land can only support crops for 2 seasons, and then must be rested for 10 seasons before being used again, then agricultural production in the area should be limited to the point that only a small portion of the land is used at any given time, and a cycle established that will prevent any additional land from being cleared.  Sustainability's primary downfall is that it involves stable outputs, which is not sufficient to keep up with an expanding world population.
    Another major problem is the idea of scarcity.  Davidson explains that scarce resources cause the need for constant expansion in order for everyone to have enough to survive.  Unfortunately, these resources are being drawn from a so-called 'spaceship ecology' in which everything is limited.  Therefore, enough resources must be present in all inhabited areas for every member of the society there to be able to survive comfortably, thus reducing need to destroy limited resources for survival.  Destroying them for profit will still be pretty much unaffected however, unless regulations are made against it.
    The obvious solution to the sustainability and scarcity problems is large-scale population reduction.  This would allow massive social reorganization into sustainable groups, with initial guidance on sustainable development without needing to re-traverse the historical actions that have often compromised the ability of modern groups to maintain sustainability.
    Also, large-scale population reduction would reduce the number of people needing to survive on limited resources, and, if done properly, would have little effect on the quantity of said resources.  The method I would propose would be widespread biogenic warfare.

Definitions:
    It is tantamount to the argument to both define biogenic warfare, and define the process by which this end will be accomplished.  The process will be described in more detail later in this paper, but the concept will be defined below.

Biogenic Warfare:  Biogenic warfare is an outgrowth of biological and chemical warfare methods.  Where biological warfare used naturally occurring virulent organisms to threaten mass disease outbreaks in high-population density locales, biogenic warfare uses the manmade viruses, with very specific properties to accomplish the same end with much greater efficiency and lower risk.  It is widely banned under international treaty, but it is believed that Iraq, elements of the former Soviet Union, China, France, and the United States all possess some degree of biogenic or biological warfare weapons.

     It should be noted however, that for this to be a viable economic solution, processes must be maintained to ensure that the process is both as globally widespread as possible as well as being controlled.   It should also be noted at this time that the average rate of immunity to a correctly engineered biogenic virus is approximately 1 in 10,000, thus resulting, ideally, in a total post-war world population of 600,000 human beings.

Arguments:
    On initial observation, scarcity is the primary source of many of our ecological and social ills.   Lack of sufficient organization to distribute foodstuffs to the entire country effectively drove the Soviet Union to undertake massive irrigation projects in the area around the Aral Sea, with the intent of reducing the scarcity of food, and improving the lot of the Soviet people.  The project was a resounding failure.
    Lack of arable land is one of the primary reasons for the clearing of rainforest areas to allow cattle to graze and farmers to plant crops.  Reducing demand for food from and in that area would then reduce the need to clear those areas.
    In the United States, demand for internal agriculture stability and scarcity of money for farmers with low outputs (non-fertilized production) produces a perceived need to use fertilizers, which, as Davidson points out, cause a variety of problems in the US.  Notable among these environmental issues so engendered are algae blooms, ground-water depletion and poisoning, and selenium poisoning of topsoils.
    It is readily apparent that scarcity produced problems are a major cause of ecological devastation worldwide.  Unfortunately, since increasing output is not ecologically feasible- indeed is a major cause of such problems- the only way to reduce scarcity driven damage is to reduce demand, thereby allowing scarce resources to more adequately supply the entire population.  The most efficient way to reduce demand in the case of food production and consumption of other commodities is to reduce the population demanding such items.  There is no shortage of ways to reduce human population dramatically and with relative immediacy.  However, there are few that also can be used in such a way as to have a viable economic system afterwards.

    In this case, a viable economic system also demands sustainability.  This means that not only should the system be able to facilitate with ease the needs of the entire population, and do so for the foreseeable future, but should be able to accommodate a reasonable growth rate within the population.   Finally, none of the factors of production of this sustainable system should be limited resources.  Or, at the very least, none should be resources that are limited to less than multiple thousands of years after allowing for pre-accepted growth rates of the population.
    In order to most easily create a sustainable economy, exiting infrastructure should be put to use, but be stripped of elements that make it unsustainable.  For instance, in the case of agriculture, existing farms, fenced grazing land, irrigation systems, and such should be used, however fertilizers should be minimized, irrigation should be limited to the approximate rates of replacement of the water sources from which they are drawn, uneven row planting methods should be used to minimize topsoil loss, fields should no be placed adjacent to one another but should remain with native planted buffers, and fields should be allowed to lay fallow three years in every four.
    Roadways, similarly, should be used, but those that are not commonly used should not be maintained, and those that are found to be needed should be maintained with concrete (a less limited resource than asphalt, which is oil based) by machinery operated as minimally as possible, and, ideally, replaced with alternate fuel source machines.  The roads should be traveled by vehicles that either minimize resource use (like hybrid cars) or use renewable energy sources (solar cars, horse-drawn buggies, etc).
    This need for the use of existing infrastructure indicates that any method for population reduction that would result in large-scale destruction of that infrastructure (i.e. thermonuclear war) are not acceptable.

    This brings the question to mind of how best to institute this policy.  The process needs to eliminate a large, but controlled, portion of the world's human populace.  This would point to biological, biogenic, chemical, or thermonuclear warfare.  The result needs to be short term- people need to be able to populate the affected areas again within weeks of the event.  This eliminates the options of biological warfare and thermonuclear approaches.  Naturally occurring biological organisms have too high a mutation chance, which could allow them to spread beyond the original project scope.  Thermonuclear war of course leaves radioactive residues that take centuries to dissipate.  It also needs to leave infrastructure in place.   This eliminates thermonuclear war again, and also certain forms of chemical warfare, as these attack buildings and make them structurally unsound.  Finally, it needs to leave the ecosystem undisturbed to as much extent as possible.  This eliminates biological warfare, since the organisms have the tendency to mutate, and may cross hosts from human, and chemical warfare of all types, since all effective chemical warfare agents react with all organic elements, regardless of species.
    It would appear then that biogenic warfare, using specifically tailored biological organisms that target humans exclusively, is the best choice.  Finally, as mentioned before, no biological weapon has a 100% effectiveness rate.  Therefore it would be impossible to eliminate the entire population.  It should also be considered what a sufficient genetic density in the world would be.  If immunity rates are 1 in 10,000, this leaves a minimum of 600,000 people- easily enough for a genetically sufficient population.
Process:
    Of course, an event of this magnitude would require very carefully planned steps to execute properly, and would have even less tolerance for purposes of maintaining sustainability afterwards.
    First, a location should be selected in which to place the remaining population- something of a sacrificial continent.  North America- especially the United States- is a logical choice for this.  First, there is a significant amount of agricultural land and capital.  Next, there is a strong infrastructure, and sufficient resources to maintain a small population base for an extended period of time.  Third, it is by and large a temperate climate, with long growing seasons, fertile soil, and significant amounts of most renewable natural resources.  Also, the United States has almost all of its arable land in use, which would make sense to continue using, in a more sustainable manner, rather than cutting new plots in less damaged areas.
    Next, certain societal elements should be preserved.  In this case, ecological experts, who also know about sustainable development, agricultural engineers, forestry management professionals, energy source specialists and power engineers, and technicians capable of making use of any resource left behind and deactivating potentially harmful objects (i.e. unattended nuclear plants, etc).  These should total approximately 1,000 people, this being a sufficient task force for the needed jobs, but maintaining a less than 0.2% total population segment.  This is good because these people will effectively be the government of the reorganized sustainable society, and this ratio provides for their needs without making too large an impact on necessary production by the rest of society.  The best way to arrange for these people to be available would be to, before the event, isolate a significant amount of fuel, small aircraft, and other supplies.  Then these should be set aside with instructions to use them to gather survivors and make appropriate preventative measures in any hazardous areas.  Then abduct all of the people chosen to be a part of this governing body approximately two weeks before the event.  Vaccinate them and hold them in isolation until afterwards.  It would be prudent to install an automatic release system on the location in which they are secured, to allow for the probability that no one who knows where they are will be among those who are inherently immune.
    Next, a group of people with practical skills in sustainable agriculture should be selected for preservation.  The most logical approach to doing this would be to select a group who has significant experience in sustainable development, who will be unlikely to demand world control after the event, who do not rely on technological or unsustainable means for any significant portion of their livelihood, and who are already in the target location.  This, assuming the United Sates were to be chosen as a target, would most logically be the Amish.  These people should be vaccinated as well, unknowingly, probably via an aerosol method before the event.  Then, after the release of the governing body from whatever location they are kept in, they should be given instructions to seek out surviving Amish communities, and to place themselves under the tutelage of the Amish as soon as more pressing matters (population collection and prevention of further disaster) to learn proper methods of sustaining life.

Conclusion:
    Obviously, this is not presented as a serious solution.  However, if Davidson's warnings and predications are to be taken seriously, and Malthus' predictions before him, solutions must be found that will largely upset the current balance of power, and mandate social reorganization.  The solution of the Amish taking over the world might not that bad after all.   Regardless, society must be willing to both change and sacrifice comforts in order to preserve human existence on this planet.

Top

<< Back to the Library

Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!