Examining the Ultimate Solution to Climate Change

Editorial note:  The following is a thought experiment on solving the problem of catastrophic climate change.  It does not imply any such intent upon real persons or real institutions be they public or private.  The sole purpose hopes to expand awareness on the potentially existential crisis of global warming.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

By Robert A. Vella

The Assumption

You are the absolute ruler of the world, the unchallengeable behind-closed-doors sovereign over all things human.  The course and fate of modern civilization rests in your hands.  You must neither be moral nor immoral, but amoral.  Your decisions must be based exclusively on emotionless objectivity.  However, your choices are constrained by one predominant priority – to serve and support the globalized socioeconomic system of free market capitalism.  All other considerations must be subordinate to it regardless of their circumstances or consequences.

The Problem

Free market capitalism is dependent upon unrestrained growth as well as the exploitation of natural and human resources.  But, a byproduct from this kind of socioeconomic system is waste – specifically, waste in the form of industrial pollution and the degradation of vital ecosystems.  What has resulted, in this world of yours, is accelerating climate change and environmental damage which – left unmitigated – will cause the collapse of the very system you are obliged to serve.  And, time is quickly running out.

Complicating this problem is your initial reluctance to admit that it exists, and your subsequent refusal to accept its severity.  Like an overly protective mother whose only son has committed some heinous offense, you are stubbornly in denial.

Still, you must perform your primary duty objectively.  Begrudgingly, you deliberate intensely on the matter.

The Analysis

Because you cannot replace capitalism, nor modify its wasteful ways, you conclude that the only viable remedy is to reset the system back to a smaller scale so that its inherent cycle of growth and exploitation can be restarted within the reasonably sustainable limits of the Earth.  In other words, you must drastically reduce the global population.

The Solutions

The most direct solution would be to simply eliminate the billions of people you deem the least desirable (e.g. the destitute poor, disruptive radicals, uncooperative demographic groups, etc.).  But, you reject this solution due to its problematic logistical issues in addition to the destabilizing resentments it would instill amongst the survivors.

You could start a nuclear war which would indiscriminately kill off billions;  although, the resulting environmental damage would likely be worse than the most catastrophic effects of global warming.  You reject this one too.

How about triggering a deadly pandemic such as the Black Death of the 14th century which cut Europe’s population by one-half?  You say “no” to that also because its toll would be even more indiscriminate than nuclear war (i.e. eliminating many “desirables”), and there would be no guarantee of cessation.

More benign methods of population control, such as China’s one-child policy (1979 to 2015), could be effective at reducing the birth rate.  However, the problem at hand here is the size of the current population, not population growth.  Furthermore, a reduction in the birth rate would negatively affect economic growth and therefore conflict with your top priority – to serve the free market system.

You contemplate famine.  You see it as a workable prospect.  Not by overt means, necessarily;  but, by subtle manipulation done in concert with the global food shortages which will occur naturally as climate change progresses.  Starvation will hit many of the “undesirables” first and hardest, be easier to control, and would provide a credible scapegoat for blame (i.e. global warming) so that your power structure remains stable.

The Plan

In order to implement the solution of famine, you must assert greater control over food production.  If the masses can grow their own food, or have access to locally grown food, this solution won’t work.  First of all, you must centralize agricultural operations much more than they already are.  The existing corporate infrastructure of agribusiness can be utilized for this purpose.  Consolidation of farms and ranches (which grow crops and raise livestock), as well as for food processing, distribution, and resale facilities, must be completed comprehensively – a task best accomplished through corporatist practices.  Secondly, control over water resources is imperative.  Without sufficient fresh water, food production would be limited outside of government supported operations.  Thirdly, the ancillary means of agriculture (e.g. access to crop seeds, agricultural equipment, labor, etc.) must also be controlled.  Lastly, and more problematically, non-commercial fishing must be discouraged by favoring centralized commercial aquaculture.  This would be done by declaring prohibitions over coastal and inland waterways and granting conditional licenses to selected commercial enterprises;  although, enforcement could prove difficult in some areas.

With these centralized controls in place, you would implement the solution of famine by gradually tightening the food supply.  Rather than an abrupt shock which would trigger mass revolt, this measured approach would compel populations to adapt their behavior.  The birth rate would drop, and lifespans would shorten due to malnutrition and disease.  If managed properly, the world population could be shrunk down to a few hundred million by the end of the century.  Modern civilization and your precious free market capitalism would be saved.  The ravages of climate change would be slowly reversed as the greenhouse gas-belching burning of fossil fuels declined with the population.  You would be a hero… in your eyes, at least.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Postscript:  This unbelievably dismal and cold-hearted thought experiment on solving the problem of catastrophic climate change should serve as a brutal warning for humankind today.  It is by no means a prediction of what will or could happen in the coming decades.  Rather, it is intended to expand current awareness of the kinds of existential crises near-future leaders might be faced with.  How they might react cannot be predicted;  and, that alone should be enough to scare any decent, caring human being.