The Green Pill 

and the Right to Die

AI is the Solution to Population Collapse.

The right to die is the most powerful tool we currently have for the environment, economic development, and the housing crisis.

Growth does not make us richer, smart decisions do. 

AI unemployment and population decline are not problems but complementary solutions to each other.

AI Is the Perfect Complement to Depopulation

Governments have historically promoted population growth in order to increase demand and create jobs. AI will create significant unemployment in the short and medium terms. Increasing a country's population will worsen that problem. Decreasing the labor force at the same speed as jobs are lost to AI will keep unemployment stable and make us richer as we would share the national income among fewer people.

The Road to Self-Destruction & Extinction

Since 1975, the world population has doubled, resulting in roughly twice the pollution and pressure on limited resources than would have been the case otherwise. Hence, much of today's climate change and environmental crises is on our own account.

As we move towards the planet's limits, everything will become more costly. The price of food will go up, housing will become more expensive, etc. The pressures for conflicts over dwindling resources will also increase.

The mineral crisis (see The Depletion Wall) is coming up. Metals and anything made of them will become increasingly more expensive. All of this will increase poverty and we will be fighting even over such things as sand: The Next Conflicts Will Be Fought Over Sand.

Population growth worsens climate change, pollution, and resource depletion.

And, most politicians are pushing for it.

A Deluge Moment

We have turned the world's oceans into a toilet, complete with gyrating whirlpools of flotsam.

You may not realize it, but that toilet does not flush!

The environment is increasingly peppered with toxic lagoons from the mining industry and expanding garbage dumps from the cities. All of these will keep growing as every toxin and piece of garbage we produce ends up in the environment: Nothing created nor destroyed!

Those toilets do not flush either!

Because of the momentum of our destructive activities runs several decades long, much of this will still happen even if we start cleaning up our act today.

Efficiency, Efficiency, Efficiency

Rather than advocating population reduction, governments around the world are doing the very opposite, fully aware that it is destroying the environment. More people, more people, and more people!

For the same growth, more people means the average person gets poorer.

Fewer people would mean the average person gets richer.

Efficiency makes us richer.

Consumption is a function of money, not number of people per se.

A person twice as rich would consume as much as two poor people

(same money supply & total consumption).

Population growth makes the rich richer (more production, house construction, etc.). But it makes the poor poorer (housing prices increase from more demand, lower wages than otherwise from more people competing for work, etc.)

A Broken System

We are so borrowed out at this point that economists are warning of hyperinflation and a massive economic collapse. As of 2021, about $1.6 trillion of new private currencies not backed up by goods entered the economy. We are pushing the system to its limits.

National and other similar debts are money stolen from our own grandchildren. These could become the object of a massive generational class action suit.

We are a utopic society that lives above its means and that will leave the system broken, both environmentally and economically.

The Green Pill: The Right to Die

As each person produces garbage and pollution, decreasing the number of people on the planet would be one of the most effective green strategies available. In fact, it could save us billions, for example, the costs related to ageing.

Depopulating would also have significant side benefits like cheaper housing.

The Better Solution for the Ageing Population Crisis and the Environment

As of this writing (2021), nursing home costs in North America average between $55,000 and $180,000 per year, and that of incarceration, between $35,000 and $40,000 in the US (2021) and a whopping $116,000 in Canada (2016). In comparison, basic welfare rates in these countries are somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 per year (2021).

The right to die should be a fundamental human right. It is cruel and coercive for a government to force someone who suffers to continue living or someone who does not want to live. And, much suffering is mental and cannot be assessed by authorities.

Governments should provide support, counselling, and alternatives as appropriate to ensure that as few as possible take that road and that they do it willingly, but ultimately a person's life belongs to them.

Consider that many like people who have finished their working life will want sooner or later to end their life and do so at a time of their choosing and in perfect peace of mind. Some people with disabilities, who are incontinent or in jail, etc. might also want to make the same choice. 

Forcing people to suffer against their will is cruel and coercive and without purpose whatsoever.

Each additional year that we stay after we are ready to go, we produce a huge amount of unnecessary pollution as well as costs. At some point, for many of us, life becomes more suffering than reward. The right to die, the green pill, can help save the environment and eliminate the aging population problem.

Cathars have historically had the right to die to alleviate one's suffering.

It is a matter of testing it in court to see if it will be upheld in specific countries.

Planetary-Scale Emergencies

An asteroid grazing the Earth or hitting it could have catastrophic consequences for all. Major dust clouds could hang over for years, causing massive famines. A green pill option could alleviate suffering under catastrophic circumstances and allow for greater chances of survival.

Long-Term Strategies

Of course, long-term strategies rest in controlling, or better, deincentivizing large family sizes. This may affect some of the rights we have taken for granted for a long time but the benefits for both the environment and children (better prospect of future employment, greener world, etc.) are sizable.

Depopulate - Depopulate - Depopulate

Depopulation is the easiest way to address climate change, pollution, the housing crisis, and save the world trillions of dollars.

Governments fear that depopulating would lead to disaster. In fact, it is the very opposite. Population growth will likely lead to famine and worsens today's housing and environmental crises. As well, the progressive depletion of metals will eventually add to significant increases in the cost of living, etc.

Population growth is an important cause of wars. As settlements grow, people begin encroaching on each other's territories, resulting in conflicts over food and dwindling resources.

Reduce the world population and you reduce the pressures for war, leaving more resources for everyone (i.e. making us richer).

Depopulating does not necessarily mean unemployment and poverty. Technology has eliminated many many jobs in the last few decades. Yet the total number of jobs has actually increased. Why? Technology made things more efficient, which generated savings that could be used to created new jobs. The same principle will apply to AI but only in the longer term.

A smaller more efficient population is what makes us richer.

For example, a 10% decrease in the elderly population would produce billions of dollars in savings that would be available to generate employment in the economy or pay for the ageing population boom, which itself would be 10% smaller: a double bang effect.

AI, technology and efficiency improvements will continue to create job losses. If we depopulate at the same rate as jobs are eliminated, the system will remain in balance (i.e. no additional unemployment) and we will get richer.

Some have argued that more people means more research. Research is not a matter of kilos of flesh but of funding. For example, for a given cost of living of $9,000 a year, two people earning each $10,000 would generate $2,000 in savings to invest in research while one earning $20,000 would have $11,000 to spare for the same purpose. Efficiency can deliver more money for research than a large number of poor people and would do so without the environmental impact of the latter: another double bang effect.

Population growth advocates are selling you the road to poverty.

Overscripting a New World

Major changes are usually very slow primarily because they rely on massive new government spending or a transfer of money from rich to poor countries.

The secret to bringing about major changes is

to overscript existing systems into what we want.

1. A United World of Provinces (WoP)

It is countries that make war, not provinces. As the world will unite sooner or later, any territorial gains from current wars will be rendered meaningless. Instead, how about we create a united a world of provinces, none so big as to be able to threaten the whole? Conflicts would be dealt through the International Court, and the world's militaries would implement its rulings.

The headquarters? The Old Vatican!

It would end the unending arms race and prevent it from spreading to space. The world would literally save trillions of dollars. It would also permit environmental initiatives that are much more potent but difficult to implement in a divided world. For example, we could use, for example, the WEF or G20 as the first WoP Council. The tops of national bureaucracies could be overscripted as the new WoP government.

Uniting the world would bring international peace and massive savings in military expenses and in avoiding duplication in almost everything. For example, education could be digitized and centralized worldwide for core components.

Everything below would save the world billions of dollars and can be achieved with overscripts rather than additional spending.

2. The Aging Population Crisis & the Right to Die

By far the easiest way to handle the aging population problem is to give people the right to die. Palliative care is very costly and medical bills raise sharply up as we age. Many are already suffering and begging to go, but governments won't let them. The rest of us want the option if we have, for example, a stroke and face prospects of prolonged suffering or disabilities.

Fewer people on a planet with limited resources means more wealth per person. Any non-workforce person exiting makes us richer.

The math of population growth as a solution to the aging problem does not add up. More people makes us poorer and worsens environmental problems. As robots continue to replace labour, population growth will result in unemployment, not wealth production.

Worse, the unemployed have to be fed and supported, reducing the amount of money available for the elderly.

Here is the math:

Imagine a system with 3 working-age persons and 2 retirees producing together 20 pizzas per day. That would result in 4 pizzas each.

The Population Growth Scenario: A new unemployed worker is added. 20 pizzas now have to be shared between 6 people, leaving each 3.33 pizzas.

The Right to Die Scenario: One retiree is happy with his/her life and decides to exit. The 20 pizzas would now be divided in 4, resulting in 5 pizzas each, a shocking 50% more than the population growth scenario!

Overscript for the Ageing Population: The green pill.

3. A Guaranteed Work Wage Top-Up Strategy

A living wage has no chance of happening if done on the back of taxpayers or the private sector: Nobody wants to pay for it.

There is an infinite amount of work below the minimum wage.

Overscript:

A Guaranteed Work strategy coupled with a Wage Top-Up system could deliver a living wage at no cost to anybody.

Current unemployment/welfare departments would be overscripted into a Wage Subsidy system which would top up the hourly pay offered by companies.

To create an incentive for workers to choose the highest paying job (the more productive one for society), governments could top up the wage difference at a rate of 90%. For example, for a living wage of $15.00/h, a job paying $10.00/h would be topped up by $5.00 X 90% = $4.50/h. The standard living wage could be intentionally set higher to account for that, for example $15.50/h.

Compared to a welfare system where no work is done, society would make money from the goods and services produced which would allow for a living wage higher than current welfare rates. The system would deliver cheaper more competitive goods, increased productivity, etc.

Multiple social (reduced crime and drug and mental health problems) and individual benefits (guaranteed work, increased income, work experience, training, etc.) would also result.

Initially, many minimum wage jobs would drop to the sub market as it maintained pay artificially higher. However, this would only mean lower costs for products, which would benefit society and offset the top-up money shelled out.

Minimum wage made society poorer from the millions of work hours wasted.

4. Labour Peace: Merging the Interests of Labour & Capital

The stock market is the most communist system there is, labour owning the means of production. Communist countries killed tens of millions only to return to capitalism... all needless deaths.

Aligning the interests of business and labour could achieve what China aimed to do without any loss of life or liberty. The oft-proposed solutions are leftist schemes that do it at the expenses of business.

The following overscript offers a neutral transition to profit sharing and would have multiple benefits.

Overscript:

Step 1: Calculate the average profit over, for example, the last decade.

Step 2: Convert current wages to a profit sharing scheme.

Current Wage minus Average Annual Profit divided by 2 (e.g. 10%/2) = 95% (Fixed Salary)

Here is the result assuming an average annual profit of 10% and initial $20/hour wage:

The company that used to make 10% profits/year and pay its workers $20/hours would now pay its worker $19/hour (fixed wage) plus $1/hour (profit sharing). Any increase in profit would be shared 50/50. So would decreases, or they could be banked against future increases to keep salaries stable for workers.

Without paying workers a cent more, a company would rake in huge benefits from the elimination strikes and divisive wage negotiations, and from workers being more motivated and looking for efficiency because they share profits.

Another huge benefit is that a lower fixed salary ($18 instead of $20) would allow companies to survive down markets and cheap labour competitors more easily. Sometimes a lower wage is better than no job. A company that closes down is a huge loss of capital investment and jobs when these are most needed.

Everything below should be considered rough drafts and probably needing tweaking.

5. Bringing the Guillotine Back: Cutting Out the Aristocracy

Many countries elect politicians at three levels: federal, provincial/state, and municipal. Most of the backbenchers be replaced by civil servants.

The regular federal and provincial levels duplicate the representation already made by city councillors and are fertile ground for politicking and corruption. Furthermore, they are extremely expensive.

6. Genetic Deselection and the Elimination of Diseases

We could eliminate many genetics diseases within a few generations through genetic deselection. As a parent, wouldn't you rather give your kids healthy genes?

Healthy genes will probably become one of the most sought after commodities of the future.

Under Development...

More details will be added later...