Humanity

A B.I.G. Population

"Our country has a big population. We need to have a B.I.G. population. Our population of 4 billion is the largest in the world. We have destroyed our natural environment. We need to have a beautiful, intelligent, and good population." said Michael. Michael was the lead researcher tasked with coming up with a recommendation to improve the quality of life in Usetopia.

"We have high crime and poverty. We have inequality in distribution of wealth. We do not have enough food to feed everybody," Michael continued. "Therefore I have come up with a recommendation to improve the lives of future generations. I aim to reduce our population by over 50%. We will only allow those people who are beautiful and intelligent to have children. The children born will have better education, more wealth, and thus we expect reduction in poverty and crime. The next generation will have better quality of lives."

"We will select those who are judged to be in the top 50% of looks, and also those who are in the top 50% of intelligence. Intelligence will be determined by tests, professional achievement, and genetic analysis. They will be allowed to have up to two children. The full report is in front of you. Do any of you have any questions?"

Sitting around a table in a conference room were Michael, Albert the geneticist, Leonard the economist, Peter the priest, and Joan the writer. They had been hired as expert consultants to give feedback on the report.

"I have a question," said Albert. "Why don't we use genetic engineering to create a more intelligent and beautiful population?"

"Genetic engineering is too expensive to use on the entire population," replied Michael.

"Have you considered selecting on wealth of parents?" said Leonard the economist.

"Yes. But wealth depends on many factors including luck." replied Michael. "The next generation will be richer. We have current wealth of 12 trillion currency units, and GDP of 4 trillion currency units. The wealth, including real estate and financial assets of those who do not have children will be taken by the state (at the time of death) and redistributed to the children of others."

"Have you considered the aging of the population?" said Leonard the economist. "A young workforce will have to support a large retired population. And also, the drop in GDP due to reduction in the workforce which will cause a loss in our international economic, political, and military power?"

"Yes," replied Michael, "we have considered both questions. The demographics will eventually correct. While the GDP will go down, eventually the GDP per capita will go up. Our goal is not to maximize national GDP and wealth, but to improve the quality of lives of our people."

"How about selecting people on morality or goodness?" said Peter the priest.

"We cannot do that." said Michael. "Our research indicates that genetics plays a small role in morality. People generally do good or evil based on their upbringing and environment. It can be situational. By improving the quality of lives of our children and teaching them the law we will create better citizens."

"But it is not right to artificially select people." protested the priest.

"We are not following any religion," said Michael. "We do not discriminate on race, gender, or class. We only select on beauty and intelligence. Joan, you have been quiet. Do you have any comments?"

"You cannot judge creativity and artistic talent by using standardized or genetic tests." said Joan.

"Sure." replied Michael. "That is why we will also look at professional achievement, and successful artists will be allowed to have children."

"All of you experts have given me input. I will recommend this plan to the president, and he will have it voted on in a referendum. Any further comments?"

"It will never win in a referendum," said Leonard the economist. "Most people want to have families."

"You cannot improve the quality of life by breeding people like animals." said Joan.

"Oh," said the geneticist, "but people are animals. And we have bred lower animals to improve them, so why not humans."

"Perhaps," said Leonard the economist, "you should consider a less radical solution. Allow most people to have children and only slowly reduce the population."

"I disagree," said Peter the priest. "We are all equal before god. Everyone should be allowed to have families."

"Yes." said Michael. "After we have reduced the population, and improved the beauty and intelligence of our people, we will allow everyone to have up to two children. The pain will only be temporary. We must be willing to sacrifice in the short-term for the long-term. We have overcrowded cities, high crime, and poverty; people are being murdered and starving. We do not have enough land, and we are losing biodiversity. Unless we take a radical step, we will continue to suffer."

"Thank you." said Michael. “I will reflect on all of your advice, and prepare a final report for the president. This meeting is adjourned"

The president, Bill, had read the report prepared by Michael. He had also passed the report to some of his closest allies. His minister of economy had gone through the report, as had his minister of science. But he had not passed it on to anyone else, as he wanted to keep its dangerous ideas a secret for now. There could be opposition from other political parties and the public. Its conclusions and consequences needed to be closely studied by experts.Bill walked into the meeting room, where waiting for him were Michael and his ministers. Everybody stood up and greeted him, as Bill took a seat at the head of a conference table.

“Michael,” the president said, “I have read your report as have these ministers. We have some concerns. Richard, is my minister of science. Richard, why don‟t you speak about your concerns.”

“I believe that your conclusions are based on weak evidence.” Richard said. “General intelligence is only about half determined by genes. There are other factors like environment. If we just wanted to improve intelligence we could focus on improving the quality of education.”

“I am aware of that.” replied Michael. “However improving education does not help with our population problem, and also we do not have the budget to increase spending on education.”

“Alright,” spoke the president, “Adam, here is the minister of economy. Adam, why don‟t you share some of your concerns.”

“Michael,” Adam said, “I believe that when you reduce the population, the demographics will shift. There will be fewer young people, and relatively more old people. We will have to increase our taxes to get the same amount of money to spend on the old. That means lower after-tax income for the working population. The next generation will be poorer, not richer. The demographics will take several generations to correct.”

“We cannot wait a hundred years for our GDP per capita to go up!” exclaimed Bill. “The public will never accept this.”

“I am a sociologist, and not an economist.” replied Michael. “As Adam said, it may take a few generations before the demographics corrects. Average income may not go up immediately, but average wealth will go up quicker. The people will have to bear some short-term pain, to ensure a better future for our descendants. Why don‟t we let the people decide?”

“Thank you Michael,” answered Bill, “but you are not a politician. People cannot see more than five years into the future. Perhaps they can be concerned with their whole lives, but why should they care about the lives of distant generations?”

“We need to reduce our population.” said Michael. “Our land cannot support a growing population!”

“Michael,” the president interrupted, “the referendum will never pass. I am rejecting your recommendations in the report for several reasons. First, it is likely that no person who is currently alive will benefit from radical population control. Second, people feel that they have a fundamental right to have as many children as they want. I am ending this meeting.”

Michael was disappointed, but not altogether surprised. Ethics demanded that we look after our current generation, including their human and economic rights. But what about the rights of future generations, to have a better quality of life?

Liked so far? To read more visit www DOT crescobooks DOT com