The Green Pill

The right to die is the most powerful tool

 we currently have for the environment:

Fewer people = Less pollution

The right to die is the solution

 to the housing crisis:

Fewer people = Less demand = Cheaper Prices 

The right to die is also the solution to 

AI-generated unemployment (AI displacement):

Fewer people = Reduced unemployment

If we are able to match the speed of depopulation to that of rising unemployment, the world will become greener and housing cheaper, while the job market would remain stable and technological unemployment, neutralized.

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.

Fewer People ; Same GDP* = Higher Per Capita Income

* Gross Domestic Product; a broad measure of total goods and services produced by a country.

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, everything else being equal. Hence, much of today's climate change and environmental crises is on our own account.

Had we stabilized the world population back then as most environmentalists called for, we would have achieved unheard of progress on environmental issues at virtually no cost and with minimal effort.

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 pressure 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 is 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.

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). That does not include the cost of policing, home security, insurance, and stolen items and damages! In comparison, basic welfare rates in these countries are somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 per year (2021).

Governments spend 3 to 8 times more on criminals than on innocent people.

From a monetary point of view, after we retire we become a cost to society. That is not to say that retirees do not provide certain functions or benefits for society, but a non-working person receives government allowances, consumes resources, and pollutes without adding value as workforce participation. That decreases society's efficiency (from people being idle) and lowers average income per person (from higher taxes to support the idle and criminals). As such, when a person who is retired chooses to die early, it benefits society and the balance sheet of governments. It also means a larger inheritance received by children. 

One of the main issues most retirees will eventually face is the loss of independence. Moving into a nursing home and losing independence and privacy at a vulnerable time can be a difficult experience. You can no long eat what you want and at the times you that are best for you. You have to live with other people who are not necessarily good natured. Depending on your needs, staffs are in and out of your room day in day out. Many people would naturally chose to end their lives before having to go through this. 

Government have increasingly opened the door to euthanasia, but it is usually for cases of people close to death, but one can suffer grievously for decades without having reached that stage. 

Not all suffering is physical. Boredom can become torture when a weakening body, failing hearing and sight, or deteriorating mind no longer allows you to practice hobbies or enjoy the usual distractions. 

A huge source of anxiety for the ageing is the prospect of having a stroke that leaves you overnight unable to speak, eat, or live independently, or incontinent, etc. You may end up being bedridden for years or even decades. You can also go blind. Incidences of strokes are high as one gets older. Having the choice to exit peacefully rather than being forced to live years like that by cruel governments would provide significant peace of mind to people as they age.

There is also the issue of people whose religion (for example Catharism) permits ending one's life under such circumstances. Current policy violates their religious rights.

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

After 60, you body starts winding down. At that time in life, the frequency of serious illnesses like cancer and health events like heart attacks among friends and family increases, and the funerals begin. At some point, for many of us, life becomes more suffering than reward, and it is up to us to decide when that time has come. It is cruel and coercive for a government to force someone who suffers to continue living. 

To end one's life should be a fundamental human right. At the very least, after 65 or retirement age, or having a disability, a person should be allowed to die by choice without government interference other than that of ensuring that it is a free and informed choice. No one makes the decision to die lightly.

Today's advocates for the sacredness of life are superficial materialists who focus on saving a physical body at the expense of the suffering of thousands of souls trapped in a declining and imperfect envelope against their will.

We have to change the culture regarding death. The final exit should be an expression of gratitude towards life. 

Efficiency, Efficiency, Efficiency

Rather than advocating for 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!

Efficiency is what makes us richer.

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

The total amount of money in a country (money supply) is what is consumed.

Total money supply divided by more people means lower income per person.

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

1 Million dollars of consumption (by 1 millionnaire) equals 

1 Million dollars (by 5 persons @$200,000 each) equals

1 Million dollars (by 200,000 persons @ $5.00 each)

Total consumption (i.e. purchase of goods) is the same for each scenario.

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 efficiencies and savings that were used to create new jobs. The same principle will apply to AI in the medium and longer term.

A smaller more efficient population is what makes us richer.

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 offset the costs of 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 net unemployment) and we will get richer.

The Arguments in Favor of Population Growth

Government and the private sector have us on a treadmill, incentivizing us to have larger families and increasing immigration levels to generate revenue to support the aging population, which will make the next generation larger and in turn create the need for even more people to support them as they also age. It is a road to disaster.

Market Scale

Market scale is not a function of people, as seen above. It is a function of money. You can print money and have the same effect. The better way to increase sales is continue to free trade worldwide and fight against protectionism. It creates efficiencies, which frees money for research and development (R&D), without the impact on the environment that population growth has. Of course, transportation is not green but is likely to have a lesser impact on the environment than population growth for many goods.

Freer Trade = Bigger Markets

Labour Supply

There is plenty of labour supply in most countries in the form of welfare and unemployment. Moving to a full employment strategy (see below) is half of the solution. Paying people to do nothing is harmful to them. Humans have not evolved to be idle. Boredom sets in quickly and often leads to the development of habits to "make time pass faster," for example, drug and alcohol abuse. Furthermore, low incomes can lead to criminality. Welfare and unemployment are also a significant burden on taxpayers.

The practice of keeping people unemployed to keep wages up (for others) or down (for society as a whole) is cruel and destructive. It takes away one's dignity and is depressive from generating a sense of failure. Welfare funds could instead be used to sponsor apprenticeships in the private sector, solving the idleness problem while providing people with experience and getting them trained and ready for regular positions as they become available.

The other half is to integrate the education system more closely to the job market. It does not benefit anyone to train for a job that is not there. It is tens of thousands of dollars wasted for both the state and individuals while providing no benefit. 

Such an approach could entail restricting more closely educational openings to anticipated demand. For example, it would make sense to form 1,000 engineers (or 1,000 + 10%) when 1,000 jobs are anticipated in the sector. 

Aging Demographics

The need for population growth to support the aging babyboomer generation is no longer necessary, with the "right to die" providing us with a double positive impact.

Research 

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.

Intellectualism - The Bane of Society

The Ridiculous World Created by Intellectuals

...

The Fallibility of Democracy

Democracy is an idealism. Ultimately, it can only fail because it gives equal power to the bottom 50% of people, which are less wealthy than the top half, hence are more likely to look after their own needs rather than those of society and future generations. Furthermore, that demographic generally includes most criminals. While the rich have their own problems and corrupt actors, they have a vested interest in the system working properly.

Places like Portland, Mexico, and Haiti are examples of cities and states where the forces of decay took over. While they all have good people, the dark side of those communities is the one leading, overtly or covertly, and being heard through the media. You can make the same argument about Islam. While there are many peaceful Muslims, toxic voices dominate in many parts. At the international level, the jury is still out there as to whether tyrannies or democracies will eventually win. We are not safe.

The principle of democracy is good, but giving the right to vote to everybody will eventually result in failure. Removing voting rights from toxic entities like criminals and people who chose to live off others can only improve countries. The principle of full democracy is idealistic, a child of intellectualism. It looks perfect on the surface but in actuality works against us. Think of the impotence of governments towards fentanyl and other illicit drug trafficking, forced prostitution, endless Internet scams, etc. Think of Portland, which failed to take action when their city was being destroyed. 

Criminals will always vote to defund law enforcement, make sentences lighter, and crime easier to commit and more difficult to police and curtail. It is insane to give power to people whose choices and actions are toxic or destructive to society. A qualified democracy can only lead to the improvement of how countries are managed.

Recripting a New World

Major changes are usually very slow to occur primarily because they often rely on massive new government spending or a transfer of money from rich to poor countries. Avoiding these is the secret to making change happen faster.

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

1. 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 available if, for example, we have a stroke and face prospects of prolonged suffering, dependency, or disability.

Fewer people on a planet with limited resources means more wealth per capita. 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 add up to 4 pizzas each.

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

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.

The Last Cruise

It is very conceivable that companies in the future could offer "funeral exit packages" (for example, a three-month cruise around the world before peacefully dying, spiritual retreats in tropical settings, a month of all-included party package for the budget limited, etc.) for people who would rather go out with a bang (and a thank you) than struggle and suffer for years on end before dying. 

For the poor, governments could actually sponsor those and reduce costs to society. For example, after retirement a government could make available to those who want to go early a full year's worth of old age security benefits (e.g. $10,000) to pay for an exit package. For a 70-year-old and an average lifespan of 80 years, society would save 9 years' worth of old age security payouts. It would also means 9 years' worth or remainder of one's private pension going to children rather than being spent extending one's suffering.

2. A Full Employment Strategy: Guaranteed Work & Wage Top Up

A living wage has no chance of ever being implemented 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.

A guaranteed work strategy coupled with a wage-top-up system could deliver a living income at no cost to anybody.

Existing unemployment and welfare departments could be rescripted into a wage subsidy service which would top up the hourly rate paid by the private sector to a living income and replace the current minimum wage system.

Under such a system, the private sector's hourly pay rate would be set to what it is worth to them, and governments would top it up. For example, for a living wage of $13.00/hour to $18.00/hour (or whatever a country aims for).

Creating an incentive for workers to choose the least subsidized jobs, as it less costly for society, would be needed. Governments could top up the wage difference at declining rates. For example, a job paying $14.00/hour could be topped up by $4.00 X 100% = $4.00/hour for a total of $18.00. A job paying $10.00/hour could be topped up by $8.00/hour X 80% = $6.40/hour for a total of $16.40/hour.  A job paying $6.00/hour could be topped up by $12.00/hour X 60% = $7.20/hour for a total of $13.20/hour. So on and so forth. 

Under the current system, some types of activities may not be worth the minimum wage. They either do not get done or are performed by overpaid labour, which is wasteful and inefficient and results in higher prices for consumers. Many of the subsidized positions could be apprenticeships, improving real labour availability (trained employees) for employers.

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

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

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

3. 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.

Aligning the interests of business and labour could achieve what China aimed to do without loss of life or liberty. The oft-proposed solutions are leftist schemes that do it at the expenses of business. This is why they do not work.

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

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.

4. Crime

65 +

5. DNA - 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...