Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

July 29th, 2009

Tags

Comments

3 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Considering a Policy Response to Mass Global Sterilization

knowingI previously considered how the world would manage the repopulation of a country that was wiped out by a zombie epidemic—the 28 Weeks Later Repopulation Scenario. Now, Marginal Revolution considers the following scenario: a freak solar event results in half of the planet (people, animals, etc) facing the sun to be sterilized. What happens?

I would predict the collapse of many fiat currencies and the immediate insolvency of most financial institutions. Who could meet all those margin calls? Unemployment would exceed 20 percent and martial law would be declared, food rationing and guys with rifles on street corners. The affected countries would take in larger numbers of immigrants, especially young immigrants from poorer countries, to keep their societies going and to use and maintain the still-standing capital stock. Many of those immigrants might be better off in the longer run, especially if they could internalize the norms of the host country by the time the original inhabitants perished. If you let me “cheat,” I’ll postulate that genetic engineering is used to perpetuate the genes of the original inhabitants.

If a poor country were hit by this blast the eventual result probably would be mass starvation. There is a chance that social order would collapse across the entire globe, due mostly to contagion effects, multiple equilibria, and bad expectations.

MR has not analyzed the situation, only described social anarchy, and was too lazy to more thoroughly analyze other than to shout, “Dogs and cats, living together—mass hysteria!” No more babies = mass starvation in poor countries makes no sense to me. One of the first comments wryly states, “I had my vasectomy some years ago and it has not noticeably affected my ability to meet margin calls.”

Here’s how I think countries hit by mass sterilization could respond:

  • Babies and children could be imported from countries with a surplus—Congo, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. Infrastructure designed to handle youth such as schools and childcare centers would quickly empty, giving opportunities for new immigrants.
  • For nation states where ethnicity is a strong part of identity, encourage expat nationals living overseas to return home and reproduce. These people could even be hired and paid to serve as “repopulators.”
  • Many species would instantly become endangered and many would go extinct. Immediately tackling this to preserve biodiversity would be crucial. Most species are not as globally spread out as humans.
  • Explore other creative immigration solutions.
  • Cloning.

Final note: the world is facing serious problems with regards to shortages in water, food, energy supplies, raw materials, and other resources. Our environment is under tremendous stress dealing with the enormous and growing human population. Such a scenario might not be such a terrible thing 100 years after the event.

Readers care to weigh in?

Comments to this entry

Sejo
July 29, 2009
7:31 am
There's an association in Italy called «Rientro dolce». You can find their website at: http://www.rientrodolce.org/ and there's an English version. Their full name is «Associazione radicale Rientro Dolce a due miliardi di persone» or «radical [as in hystorical “liberal left”] association for a mild return to two billions of people».
From their website: «Rientrodolce is an association linked to Radicali Italiani, which concerns itself with overpopulation, environment and energy. Its name comes from Marco Pannella's idea of a "mild return" ("rientro dolce" in italian) to a world with 2 billion human beings. The association considers overpopulation the primary cause of the humanitarian, environmental and energetic crisis of our planet. It aims to inform and convince the society, the mass media, the intellectuals and the politicians of the necessity, along with the other environmental measures, of a reduction of the world population, in full respect of human rights and individual liberties».
While they have a point – and often my vote in the general and European elections goes to the Radicali – I strongly disagree on this issue and for just one reason: this kind of message would grow only in the developed world and, if people choose even more to not having kids, will lead to cultural and even ethnical euthanasia.
The only idea of not having kids raised in the sub-sub-subculture of the European, Italian, Mediterranean and in particular Barese Apulian made of raw fish and virtually no meat, “pane e pomodoro” and “focaccia” makes me sad.
Nonetheless they have a point: the Earth could not be able to feed us all. But I always thought that the (hu)mankind was here to transform the planet, making it possible for everyone to eat and grow, through technology and such. I would support an association for the devolution of a large part of the national GDPs for the terraforming of Mars, instead. Maybe it's a religious bias, honestly, but I think that an intelligent form of life – having covered the surface of the planet in which it was born – has the right to grow even more and conquer other planets, other stars. And not die here, even voluntarily.
bristlecone
July 29, 2009
6:35 pm
Trying to step through his logic, crashing population leads to collapse in value of long bond; collapse in long bond leads to government funding through taxes (enforced balanced budget); leads to contraction of money supply and deflation; leads to producers being unable to secure raw materials; leads to famine.

I think - not sure if the tax/draconian cuts in public spending necesarily lead to deflation. Feel free to shoot holes...

I am guessing that knowing your society is dying will lead to the repeal or disregarding of environmental laws iand no maintenance of infrastructure as people think of themselves as renters instead of owners.
Saru
July 30, 2009
6:49 pm
Maybe Japan could distribute anime character pillows? :-p