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
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.
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.
<< Back to the Library