8.0.7.1 Responses to Global Threats

Version 1.1 August 2014                               (Previous Version)

The concerns we are addressing here are summarised in the introduction (more) as follows:

On a global level, human society is facing a number of threats:

§ 1.1   The increasing global population, and rising global middle class, is increasing our consumption of natural resources and already over stretches the Earth’s capacity.

On the positive side, it appears the world as reached “peak child�: the number of children below 15 years of age is declining as a percentage of the total population.  Now 40% of world population has less than 2 children per women, compensating for the 18% that have more than 3 children per women.  The world population will still increase as the current children and adults live longer, due to better public health and better medical care.

We advocate continuing to limit population growth.  We show that religious injunctions to “be fruitful and multiply� are not commandments from God, and are anachronistic.  Political injunctions to “populate or perish� or to “have one child for Dad, one for Mum and one for the country� are short sighted and selfish, promoting one group at the expense of us all.

It is legitimate to aspire to join the middle class.  At the same time we show that we can and must dramatically reduce our per capita consumption of resources, such as clean air and water, habitable and arable land, and the biosphere that are essential for life.

We show how out-of-date political and economic beliefs hinder our responses.

Population growth will be reduced by promoting birth control, educating and empowering women, improving access to medical services and reducing the death rate in children.

Resource consumption and pollution per head will be reduced by improved efficiency and productivity, better environmental controls by area governments, and taxes on polluters.

§ 1.2   Climate change is affecting all nations - and all of life - and could be catastrophic.

We show, based on the best scientific assessments, that human induced climate change is real – that we can believe in it.  Unfortunately, given the ignorant statements of many political and religious leaders, this statement needs to be said.

We show that we can and must take steps as a global society to address this threat.  We give reason to hope that major nations can cooperate and suggest strategies for civil society to be more effective on a global scale in bringing about such policies.

These include global population control, improved energy efficiency and reduced demand, brought in by national and global policies enforced by area governments, specifically taxes or cap and trade systems for greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.

§ 1.3   Nuclear proliferation and other weapons of mass destruction are an increasing risk.

We explain how the risk of a nuclear holocaust and the use of other weapons of mass destruction can be addressed, by reducing our attachment to nation states and increasing global governance and civil society.  We show how this requires overcoming parochial biases and adopting a global perspective. 

We show that international treaties to limit weapons of mass destruction can be effective.

§ 1.4   Conventional wars, civil wars, failed states and famines are major local disasters.

We show that failed states, wars and famines are the outcomes of tyranny, and don't occur in liberal democracies with mixed economies.

We show that the risk of death through violence and war has decreased, even in the last century, compared to previous periods.  There are grounds to hope this will continue.

We advocate focussed political action to make all countries genuinely support peace, democracy and sensible economics.

§ 1.5   The so called ‘clash of civilisations’ or major power rivalry may also cause wars.

We consider the world’s traditional religions and show how religious adherents can acknowledge their cultural identities while still adopting reasonable beliefs and values. 

We show that the supposed ‘balance of power’ argument has in the past not always maintained peace. The Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy of the Cold War played its part in preventing major power conflict after World War II.

We show that war is less likely when both sides of an international conflict are democracies.  We advocate far-sighted policies to promote democracy.

§ 1.6   Enforcing political power by military might risks becoming widespread destruction.

Russia has defeated rebel groups in Chechnya and Syria by bombing indiscriminately, destroying towns, including hospitals and civilian areas.  Previously the British carpet bombed German cities in the Second World War and America intensely  bombed Vietnam.

To date, these displays of military might have been fairly isolated, but as the Viet Cong showed, bombing does not always lead to defeat or surrender, and can raise antipathy that is taken up by later generations of rebels.  There is a risk that rebellions will spread.

We show that large states have limited unprovoked aggressive attacks outside what they deem to be their legitimate sphere of influence.  WE advocate for greater autonomy for disaffected regions of larger countries, within the context of liberal pluralist democracies.

§ 1.7   The risk of global, untreatable epidemics is increased by unregulated antibiotic usage.

The risk of global pandemics is real.  New diseases can arise, or cross over to humans from other species.  The excessive use of antibiotics, especially inappropriate use for viral infections and routine usage in meat production, increases the risk of epidemics because the available pharmaceutical treatments are becoming less effective.  Already resistant strains of various diseases, such as TB, are spreading through even affluent societies.

We show that area government controls and international cooperation to confront and prevent the spread of potential pandemics and to limit the indiscriminate use of antibiotics (and antivirals) are possible and can be effective.

§ 1.8   Our internationally integrated financial system is continually at risk of a global crisis.

We show that economic policies that idealise free market economies are unrealistic and have lead to increased inequality in developed countries, held back growth in developing countries and increased the frequency and risk of financial crises.

There is hope that our political leaders and their economic advisers will adopt more evidence based economic policies, as the populace demands greater equity and stability.

§ 1.9   Large regions of extreme poverty may get even worse, despite more general affluence.

We know that localized crises continue to arise.  Wars, civil strife, and local weather events, such as storms, floods, droughts and fires cause local disasters, homelessness and famines.  We can prevent war.  While we can't change the weather, we show that catastrophic effects of these events are due to failures in democratic government and fair economic policies.

Similarly, we show that local pockets of poverty, such as those currently in central Asia and most of sub-Saharan Africa, are also due to ineffective government and discredited economics, rather than local deficiency in the local people. 

We show how we can optimistically advocate for political and economic change.

§ 1.10 Increasing automation is leading to a loss of jobs and risks increasing inequality.

Humanity has been increasing productivity for thousands of years, and even more so in the last 200 years since the Industrial Revolution began.  Increased mechanisation sped up the production of goods; faster communication spreads new innovations; improved transport allows international trade add minimal costs; and now automation, with numerically controlled machines in factories, robots making cars and other goods, computer systems eliminating repetitive administrative tasks and so called “artificial intelligence� reducing the number of jobs for professionals like paralegals, accountants and other subject matter experts.  Even service jobs in retail, restaurants, entertainment and hospitals are at risk.

The increase in productivity reduces costs and generates more sophisticated products. The technological changes create new jobs, but these only partially replace the jobs lost.  Politicians and economists encourage improved education, upskilling and retraining so that workers can keep up in the modern economy, and indeed this is happening all around the world, especially in China, India, Europe and the Americas.  But many ordinary workers don’t have the wherewithal to learn what is required for many of the new jobs, and there are fewer of these jobs (otherwise the economics would not support the technological change).

One suggested solution (proposed by several opposition leaders in the West) is a universal income, where everyone, regardless of wealth, receives from the government enough to live on, but progressive tax scales recover most of this back from the wealthy.  More feasible may be a staged increase in access to welfare payments, funded in part by sovereign wealth funds and proper taxing of major corporation, especially multinationals, which requires a reduction in the disparagement of people on welfare (as eg dole bludgers) and campaigns to promote their physical and mental well-being and a path to a meaningful life without an “occupation�.  These are not the proposals of radical leftists, but should be supported by right wing capitalists who will benefit from the ongoing social stability, avoidance of wasteful job creation schemes, and wider markets for their goods and services.

We show how we can optimistically advocate for political and economic change.

 

§ 1.11 Peak oil is here or will be soon, requiring a dramatic re-organisation of our economy.

We consider the global oil reserves and increasing global oil usage.  Shale oil has recently become commercially viable because of increased oil prices and fracking technology, increasing potential reserves.  We show that on current trends demand for oil will inevitably exceed supply – the only question is when. 

We show that simple risk management and the need for national energy security point to policies to actively reduce our dependence on oil, especially for transport and heating, so that oil can be used for those purposes for which there is no easy substitute. 

We show that a reduction in the rate of oil consumption is a positive for the climate.  We support efforts to introduce more effective atmospheric pollution controls, such as taxes and “cap and trade� systems for greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.  These policies are also directed at reducing global reliance on coal fired power stations.  We show that these policies can be effective, and provide grounds for hoping they will be implemented.

We also show that some societies have collapsed because their political elites failed to appreciate long term trends and take appropriate action to address these.  We outline strategies, including promotion of this way, education in general, and advocacy on specific issues, to avoid this generation repeating such errors on a global scale.

§ 1.12 Religious fundamentalism is prevalent and is used to justify violence and terrorism, gender inequality, abuse of women and children and repressing natural human urges.

We understand the majority of the world’s population follows, to a greater or lesser degree, one of the world’s major religions.  We analyse the truth claims of these religions and show how their adherents can, as most of them already do, select those aspects of their culture that they wish to retain and reinterpret or disregard the rest.

Our values of diversity, truth, life, love, responsibility, equality and hope compel us to show the flaws in religious arguments that support violence, terrorism, sexism, misogyny, child abuse and repression.  We join with all religious adherents who also combat these vices.

We reserve the right to assertively promote our reasonable way as an alternative not only to traditional religion but also as an alterative to mindless consumerism.

§ 1.13 The abuse of state power by security services and secret police is a risk to humanity.

We do not need to be crackpot survivalists or too conspiratorial to be concerned about the power of the state.  Totalitarian government still exists.  Many governments – in developed and developing countries – have used the post 9/11 so called ‘war on terror’ as a pretext to override the human rights of their own citizens as well as non-citizens.  Even the Americans, who see themselves as the bastions of freedom, have introduced oppressive legislation, unscrutinised, that severely limits human rights, and have indulged in an unjustifiable war, unjust imprisonment without trial, illegal torture and extra-judicial assassination.

We advocate that stability and security are to be highly valued, and strong central government, within the confines of the law, is preferable to violence and chaos. 

We advocate for a greater world wide focus on human rights, democracy, the separation of powers, bills of rights, open and transparent area government, and global non-government organisations, to counter concerns with the state abuse of power and reduction in freedom.

 

§ 1.14 Rational, natural, responses to global threats.

We phrase our initial draft conclusion on addressing these global threats this way: