13 Dec: [2] EoP Re: Jason Brent: Thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization

* Jason Brent
* 13 Dec: [2] EoP Re: Jason Brent: Thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization
» 09 Dec: EoP Re: Jason Brent: Thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization.
» 08 Dec: Jason Brent: thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: EoP v Jason Brent / EoP NWO SCO: EoP Axis MilNec Evac: Lotto: EoP v WiP  Academia, EoP v WiP Law, EoP v WiP Media, EoP v WiP Charity / EoP v WiP Neg.

From: EoP MILED Clerk <eop.miled.clerk@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:06 AM
Subject: EoP Re: Jason Brent: Thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization
To: Jason Brent <jbrent6179@aol.com>

Jason Brent (jbrent6179@aol.com)

Mr. Brent:

EoP Re: Jason Brent: Thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization

Herewith my continued response to the documents you requested my feedback on.

JB: 9) A very strong case can be made that humanity must not only reduce population growth to zero, but must make population growth negative thereby reducing the number of living, breathing humans on the planet in order for humanity to survive for a reasonable time and at reasonable economic level.

LJ: Agreed.

JB: 10) If a reduction in population is necessary, HUMANITY IS GAMBLING ITS SURVIVAL ON VOLUNTARY POPULATION CONTROL TO MAKE THE REQUIRED REDUCTION IN POPULATION, PRIOR TO THAT REDUCTION BEING MADE BY WAR AND OTHER HORRORS.

LJ: Agreed.

JB: 11) It is an absolute certainty that voluntary control has some chance of failure to reduce population growth to zero and/or make population growth negative in time to prevent the collapse of civilization. No one can guarantee with absolute certainty that voluntary population control will prevent the collapse of civilization.

LJ: I imagine its an absolute certainty that voluntary control has almost no chance of success to reduce population growth.

JB: 12) The collapse of civilization will almost certainly lead to the deaths of billions and may even lead to the extinction of the human species.

LJ: Still not clear about your definition of civilization; but if by civilization collapse you mean ecological and failed state collapse, combined climate change: agreed.

JB: 13) To the best of my knowledge no one and no group of individuals has attempted to determine, as best it can be determined, the chance that voluntary population control will fail to prevent the collapse of civilization.

LJ: I doubt any group has attempted to make such an enquiry, plausibly because the working hypothesis conclusion – based upon Tragedy of Commons and related principles – is that it would be impossible for voluntary population control to reduce population and prevent collapse.

JB: 14) To determine the chance of failure of voluntary control will require an examination of all the major problems facing humanity today that could alone or in combination cause the collapse of civilization. That will take a number of years and require an expenditure of a great amount of money and time.

LJ: I imagine determining the almost certain failure of voluntary population control to reduce population; is not too difficult, based upon basic Tragedy of the Commons principles and other related principles enunciated by Garrett Hardin. As for an examination of the major problems facing humanity that could cause ecological/economic collapse, there is plenty of research that has been done, that proves that impending ecological/economic collapse reality, the only question is a matter of when, not if.

JB: 15) A VERY STRONG ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE THAT GAMBLING ON THE COLLAPSE OF CIVILIZATION AND THE SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN SPECIES BY VOLUNTARY POPULATON CONTROL WITHOUT DETERMINING, AS BEST IT CAN BE DETERMINED, THE CHANCE THAT VOLUNTARY CONTROL WILL FAIL IS AN ACT OF SUPREME ARROGANCE AND SUPREME EGOTISM.

LJ: Agreed, more succinctly stated: a lack of ego/eco literacy [ego-eco-literacy.tygae.org.za] character.

JB: 16) A very strong argument can be made that the chance of voluntary control failing is far greater than 10% and may be even as high as 100%

LJ: I’d say very close to 100%, if not 100%. Chances of voluntary population control reducing population would only be possible in a 100% voluntarily ego/eco literate [ego-eco-literacy.tygae.org.za] responsible freedom [responsible-freedom.tygae.org.za] society.

JB: 17) Action must be taken today by humanity due to the average life span of about 70 years.

LJ: Action must be taken to reduce the average lifespan?

JB: 18) Reducing the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) to replacement level will not stop population growth today. Rather population growth will continue for about 70 years and at that time population growth will cease at a level about 50% greater than the level today.

LJ: Oh okay. Agreed.

JB: 19) Every major problem that humanity faces today that could lead to the collapse of civilization has been  caused or exacerbated by the exploding population. Every major problem presently faced by humanity today will not be solved or even ameliorated unless population growth is controlled.

LJ: Partially agreed: All resource conflict and related socio-conflict problems are caused by procreation and consumption above ecological carrying capacity limits; that is enabled by ‘right to breed/consume’ clauses of international law.

JB: 20) A very strong argument can be made that solely reducing population growth to zero would not solve any or all of the major problems presently faced by humanity. Rather, a strong argument can be made that in order to prevent the collapse of civilization it will be necessary to reduce the current per capita usage of resources and/or the current population level.

LJ: Agreed. It will be necessary to reduce per capita usage of resources to below ecological carrying capacity limits, quickly, orderly and humanely, if possible.

JB: 21) Considering the problems faced today by humanity and the future possible collapse of civilization, it is my belief that a 90/10 analysis is required. You may not agree with a 90/10 analysis and argue for an 80/20 analysis or some other numbers, but such an analysis is required. That is any solution to a problem facing humanity must have a chance of greater than 90% of succeeding and 10% or less of failing. Why those numbers? Because failure could result in the collapse of civilization, the deaths of billions and even the extinction of the human species. Therefore, any solution must have a chance of success of greater than 90% before it is implemented. If any solution has less than a 90% chance of success, the risk to humanity is too great and should not/must not be considered by humanity, unless there is no other possible solution.

LJ: I am not sure I understand your analysis theory accurately. Personally I think the option that should be followed, which would have the greatet chance of success, should be the option that (a) addresses the root cause of the problem; (b) is clearly and simply stated, clarifying the required lifestyle changes that need to be made, by all of society, not just some parts of society; so that the suggested solution can be easily understood by laypersons who can cooperate to implement the solution; without being manipulated by conartist parasite’s pretending to be problem solving experts.

JB: 22) Time is of the essence due to the fact that compound growth is the most powerful force in the universe and both the economy and population increase in a compound manner. At an annual growth rate of 3.5% the economy would double every 20 years resulting in more than four doublings before the year 2100 causing the economy to be over 16 times (2,4,8,16) as large as the current economy and that cannot happen due to the inability of the earth to provide the necessary resources.

LJ: Agreed that time is of the essence, and if ‘compound growth’ is the water filling up the bath; then the effective action to take is to turn off the tap; which effectively means to eliminate the ‘right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits’ clauses of international law.

JB: 23) Every human right, except the right to produce an excess number of children, is in some manner controlled by society when the exercise of that right harms someone else. You may swing your arm, but you may not swing it so that it hit someone in the face. You have the right of free speech, but you may not yell fire in a crowded theater, unless there is fire. I challenge anyone to describe any other human right that is not CONTROLLED by society, when the exercise of that right harms someone else.

LJ: Partially agree, it is not simply procreation in violation of carrying capacity limits, that is not regulated; but consumption and production in violation of carrying capacity limits; except for socialist countries; who make an effort to regulate consumption, not at the source of the tap, but with mops to clean up the overflowing sink, by heavy taxation.

JB: 24) No one has presented and no one can present a logical argument why the right of producing an excess number of children should not be controlled by society. Producing an excess number of children (more than one or two children) is the most harmful act a human can perform as an ever growing population MUST lead to the collapse of civilization and the deaths of billions. Every nation on the planet has laws that attempt to prevent murder and punish it if it occurs. No nation on the planet relies on the voluntary action of the population to refrain from murder. There isn’t any reason why humanity should rely on the voluntary action of humanity to refrain from producing excess children, when such excess production must result in the deaths of billions and even the extinction of the human species

LJ: Agreed a global one child or less law is required to enable quick orderly and humane depopulation; until the planetary maximum goal of 500,000 is reached, then it can be changed to replacement level.

JB: 25) No one has shown and no one can show why having a discussion, analysis, evaluation, debate and  consideration of coercive population control and a comparison of every aspect of coercive population compared with voluntary population control would be more harmful to humanity than not having such a discussion.

LJ: Agreed a discussion is needed soon, and more important than the discussion, action to implement population control and global one child law for orderly and humane depopulation should be acted upon asap.

JB: 26) Admittedly there are a vast number of problems relating to every aspect of coercive population control. However, not one of those problems should prevent a discussion of coercive control. Rather all of those problems should be part of any discussion of coercive control and the comparison of coercive and voluntary population control.

LJ: If China could implement one child law, with an illiterate population, low technical aids, then surely international authorities can do so with a much higher literate population and technological educational aids.

JB: 27) While the problems of coercive control are vast and terrifying, those problems are nothing compared to the problem of the possible extinction of humanity due to wars with weapons of mass destruction over the lack of resources necessary to support the population.

LJ: Im not sure what problems of coercive control are vast and terrifying. I would totally agree that the problems of avoiding coercive population control are indeed very vast and terrifying.

JB: 28) No one on the face of the earth can guarantee with 90% certainty that humanity will not face, due to the ever growing population and the ever increasing per capita usage of resources, one and only one choice before the year 2100, that choice being coercive population control or the deaths of billions and even the extinction of the species.

LJ: Partially agree. I would say the one and only one choice is not simply about implementing coercive population control, but about implementing international law requiring coercive population and consumption control to be reduced to below ecological carrying capacity limits.

JB: 29) Due to the possible/likely/almost certain failure of voluntary control to reduce population growth to zero, or make it negative, in time to prevent the collapse of civilization, it is essential that humanity has the discussions set forth in this essay.

LJ: Agreed: ‘almost certain’.

JB: 30) A very strong argument can be made that a growing population demands and requires growing economic activity. A very strong argument can be made that growing economic activity requires using an increasing amount of the resources the earth provides to humanity. Since the resources the earth provides humanity are finite and limited, the more resources used today, the less resources will be available to humanity tomorrow.

LJ: Agreed.

31) If the increasing population could/would result in the collapse of civilization, then anyone producing more than two children must be considered a mass murderer. If the failure to reduce the population below the current level could/would lead to the collapse of civilization, then anyone producing more than one child must be considered a mass murderer.

LJ: Based on Jack Alpert one child for peace, and Robert Murtaughs children and carrying capacity research, each child increases a parents carbon footprint by a factor of twenty; I would reprhrase that as ‘anyone producing more than one child must be considered a mass murderer.’

JB: 32) Some people claim that the increasing population is not the problem presently facing humanity. Rather, they claim that the problem is the excessive consumption of the industrialized nations. Both the increasing population and the excessive consumption of the industrialized nations will lead to the collapse of civilization

LJ: Agreed, both – to the extent they violate ecological carrying capacity limits – are massive causes of ecological overshoot and resource conflict, and impending economic, political and social and ecological and environmental collapse.

JB: 33) How do you define excessive consumption? Should Bill Gates be required to live in the same size home as a person earning $2 a day in Africa? Should he be limited to a home the size of an assembly line worker in a car factory in Alabama? Should he be limited to a home the size of a person earning $200,000 per year? Should he be limited to a one-week vacation in San Diego? Should he be limited to a two-week vacation flying tourist class? The point of this paragraph is to show that in order to reduce excessive consumption, it would require a book of about 7.4 billion pages, one page for each person on the planet defining every aspect of that person’s life– how many suits he could own, how many pair of underwear he could own, the size of his house, the meals he could eat out, how much meat he could eat, how many times a year he could go to the movies and on and on and on. And that book would have to be updated daily as each person’s economic situation changed, as the population changed, as the per capita usage of resources changed, as the availability of resources changed, etc.

LJ: Reducing excessive consumption would not require a book of 7.4 billion pages, although it is more complicated than population violation of carrying capacity it is however not nearly as complicated as is being implied. The carrying capacity of different bioregions arable land can be ascertained to a global hectare limit, and then a certain percentage – 40 to 60 percent – of that set aside for other species, and the remaining amount provides an indication of how many individuals can be sustained below carrying capacity limits, at a certain lifestyle level.

JB: 34) While coercive population control has monumental problems, the problems of attempting to reduce excessive consumption in the industrialized nations would far exceed those of coercive population control. The important questions become, with the population expected to reach 11.2 billion in the year 2100 and still be growing after 2100, with almost all the growth in nations that cannot be considered industrialized, how much would reducing the excessive use of resources in the industrialized nations benefit the rest of humanity, and how much would reducing the excessive use of resources by the industrialized nations go toward preventing the collapse of civilization?

LJ: Coercive population control is not as monumental as being implied. While coercive consumption control would initially be more problematic, once it is simply explained and legally legislated to require consumption control, citizens could act as guardians of consumption control, and even citizen prosecutors of population and consumption control.

JB: 35) While population growth must be reduced on average to zero for all the nations of the world, it is also absolutely essential that population growth be reduced to zero, and even made negative, in those cases where two nations or groups live in close proximity to each other and compete for the same resources. For example, according to the UN the nations of Pakistan and India are predicted to have a combined increase in population of 525 million, between now and the year 2100. Even if all the nations on the planet on average were to reduce population growth to zero, that would not prevent a war between India and Pakistan, two nations that hate each other with weapons of mass destruction, due to disputes over resources that both of them need and over which they are competing. Reducing their respective populations by coercion would go a long way to reducing the possibility of those wars.

LJ: Agreed.

JB: 36) While the UN’s demographers are not Gods and cannot guarantee the future of their predictions, they are among the best on the planet and, therefore, humanity cannot and must not ignore their predictions. Do not attack their predictions unless you can provide substantial facts and evidence that their predictions are incorrect.

LJ: I don’t attack anyone’s predictions. I evaluate any individuals predictions on whatever subject they are making predictions, based upon the same principles: How clearly and simply are their predictions explained, and do they answer questions about possible misunderstandings about their predictions. If so, based upon ego literacy [ego-eco-literacy.tygae.org.za] communication principles. If they refuse to answer questions, do they have good reasons for doing so; or what could be the reason for their failure to answer questions about their prediction?

JB: 37) The American Justice System has the concept of “burden of proof”. That concept just defines which side in the litigation has the burden of convincing the judge or jury. In some situations the burden of proof can shift from one side to the other, if the first side has made a prima facie case. Since we are considering the collapse of civilization and since there can be no dispute that I have made a prima facie case (dictionary definition—“true, valid or sufficient at first impression” or “legally sufficient to establish a fact or a case unless disproved”), if those that oppose what is written herein did not initially have the burden of proof, the burden of proof has now shifted to them to show that discussing and considering coercive population control and/or comparing voluntary and coercive control is more harmful to humanity than not having such discussions. In simple terms, they have the burden of proof of showing that only a fool would believe it is in the best interest of humanity to discuss coercive population control and demand that those who refuse to consider coercion must determine the chance that voluntary control will fail.

LJ: I would agree that you have made a solid prima facie for coercive population control discussion which should include options for the best method of implementation. I do not think your argument is reasonably close to prima facie that justified avoiding the discussion and implementation of coercive consumption control.

JB: 38) Population growth must cease and there are only three levels at which that can happen– -at the current level of population, at some level greater than the current level, and at some level lower than the current level. I can state with absolute certainty that the best level of population for the long term survival of humanity on the planet is some level lower than the current population and I challenge anyone to produce a paper that shows my statement to be false and incorrect.

In simple terms, since the resources the earth provides to humanity are finite and limited, the more humanity uses today, the less that will be available to humanity tomorrow. The less resources that are available tomorrow, the sooner resource wars will begin and the sooner civilization will collapse. Again, the best way to prevent that from occurring may be coercive control.

LJ: Agreed.

JB: 39) No one can guarantee today, with at least 90% certainty, that voluntary population control, including all steps that humanity WILL (not merely talk about or plan) take commencing today to make voluntary population control more effective, will prevent global warming from causing the deaths of billions and even the collapse of civilization in the future.

LJ: Agreed.

JB: 40) No one can guarantee today, with at least 90% certainty, that voluntary population control, including all steps that humanity WILL (not merely talk about or plan) take commencing today to make voluntary  population control more effective, will prevent the lack of irrigation water to cause massive starvation and even the collapse of civilization due to the inability to produce food. No one can dispute today that major aquifers that take very long periods of time to recharge are being drawn down rapidly and most likely will be unable to provide the necessary water for irrigation in the future.

LJ: Agreed.

JB: 41) No one can dispute the fact that all fossil fuels are limited and that sometime in the future all of them will no longer be available for use by humanity. No one can guarantee, with at least 90% certainty, humanity will be able to replace fossil fuels in all uses such that a massive, violent die off does not happen when fossil fuels are no longer available to humanity. It is almost certain that without fossil fuels planes will be unable to fly and it is highly likely that without fossils there will be a dramatic decrease in international trade. A very strong argument can be made that alternative sources of energy will not be found that could power all the necessary farm equipment, all the transportation equipment, all the refrigeration equipment, and all other equipment used in the food industry to feed humanity when fossil fuels are no longer available to humanity.

LJ: Agreed.

JB: 42) A strong argument can be made that voluntary population cannot succeed due the positions of many of the religions on birth control, abortion and the production of children. Orthodox Jews have children beyond counting; The Catholic Church opposes modern birth control and abortion; Many other religions oppose abortion; Mormons almost always have more than two children; and The leaders of Islam have stated that Islam will use population growth to conquer Western Civilization. Religious fanaticism has caused former US Supreme Court Justice Scalia to have nine children. There cannot be any doubt that religion is the major cause of the exploding population in the Philippines. Religions in the USA have forced the government to stop funding organizations in the third world that merely provide information about abortion.

LJ: Partially agree. Religions are simply doing what ‘right to breed with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits’ international law allows them to do: breed like rabbits; just like oligarchs and corporations are simply doing what ‘right to consume with with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits’ international law allows them to do: consume like cockroaches on Viagra.

JB: 43) Those that refuse today to discuss coercive population control have two choices– – they can take the position that the present facts do not require a discussion of coercive population control today and based upon future facts or events they will discuss coercive population control or they can take the position that they will never discuss coercive population control in the future no matter what events or facts develop in the future. Those that will never discuss coercive population control, no matter what happens in the future, are just plain fools.

LJ: A discussion of coercive population control is a planetary military necessity; similarly such a discussion shall not be effective – i.e. be interpreted by individuals from all races, religions, classes and genders as ‘good faith’ and scientifically ecological carrying capacity based fair – at implementing global population control international laws, if it is not accompanied by a discussion of coercive consumption control being a planetary military necessity.

JB: Those that would discuss coercive population control in the future, logically should state, in a broad range, what events and/or facts would change their position such that they would discuss coercive population control in the future. Those that state they would change their position based upon future events or facts, logically also should state why they chose those tipping points. For example, the latest prediction by the UN is that population will reach about 11.2  6 billion in 2100 and assume that Mr. X stated he would change his position and consider coercive population control, if by the year 2030 the UN increased its prediction for the year 2100 from 11.2 billion to 15 billion or higher. The question becomes why did he choose the year 2030, and/or why the amount of 15 billion or higher and why was not the current prediction of 11.2 billion sufficient for him to consider coercive population control today?

LJ: Agreed. Indiviudals who object to honest sincere discussions or enquiries about any dispute based upon evidence, on any subject, generally have something to hide.

JB: 44) Those that today refuse to discuss coercive population control and believe what I have written above is wrong should write one or more of the following papers—a) The reasons for not having a discussion today of coercive population control would be more beneficial for humanity than having that discussion today; b) The reasons for not limiting the production of children to one or two per couple would be more beneficial for humanity than limiting the production of those children; c) The date that population growth will cease and the facts that support that choice, if humanity is limited to voluntary population control; d) The population level on the date that population growth will cease and the facts that support that choice, if humanity is limited to voluntary population control; e) The period of time, humanity will remain at the peak population level and the facts that support that choice; f) The length of time population will decrease, the rate of decrease and the population level at which the decline will cease; g) The method by which the decline will happen—will it happen with or without violence and if by violence will weapons of mass destruction be used; h) That Global Warming can be prevented from causing massive immigration and a vast number of social problems by solely replying on voluntary population control; i) It is in the best interest of humanity and its long term survival to have population peak at some level higher than today’s level as opposed to starting to decrease population today; j) Gambling the survival of humanity on voluntary population control is in the best interest of humanity even if the chance of failure of voluntary control is unknown; k) Stating the chance they believe voluntary control will fail with supporting evidence—and if they state the chance of failure of voluntary control is zero, they are fools and by chance of failure, I mean that population growth will continue until civilization collapses and/or billions die due to wars over resources; l) The reasons why the latest UN’s population numbers are so wrong that they must be ignored; m) The reasons why population and economic growth can continue forever into the future, why population growth will never reach a peak, and why if population growth does reach a peak, it will forever remain at the peak and never start to decline; m) That the average world-wide per capita usage of resources will not increase for the next 200 years, that it will remain at its current level or start to decline; n) When all fossil fuels are no longer available to humanity, humanity would be able to replace fossil fuels in all, or almost all, their uses such that there will not be a violent decline in the human population; o) Religion will not prevent voluntary population control from reducing population growth in time to prevent a massive die off; p) The economy of the planet can grow by a factor of 1,024 without causing the collapse of civilization and the deaths of billions based upon the following annual growth rates and length of time the growth continues—one percent for 700 years or two percent for 350 years, or three percent for 233 years, or four percent for 175 years, or five percent for 140 years, or similar combinations of growth rates and times; q) It is in the best interest of humanity to gamble the collapse of civilization on voluntary population control even if the chance of failure of voluntary control to prevent the collapse of civilization is unknown; r) It is in the best interest of humanity never to discuss, etc. coercive population control or compare it to voluntary control no matter what events occur in the future; s) It is absolutely certain that voluntary population control will control population such that there will not be a massive, violent die off of humanity when fossil fuels are no longer available to humanity; t) It is absolutely certain that voluntary population control will control population such that there will be a sufficient amount of food produced for the next 150 years to feed the entire population; u) Please explain why humanity should gamble the deaths of billions, the collapse of civilization and even the extinction of the human species on voluntary population control while every nation does not gamble the prevention of a single murder on the voluntary action. Laws have been passed by every nation on the planet, without a single exception, to prevent murder and punish murderers.

LJ: My only partial disagreement is that both coercive population and consumption control are a matter of necessity and required, since both contribute to violations of ecological resource carrying capacity limits.

A copy of this correspondence shall be documented at EoP Legal Submissions [eop-leg-sub.tygae.org.za].

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone, aka Andrea Muhrrteyn [EoP Oath PDF]
PO Box 5042, George East, 6539, RSA
GMC 4643-13 & 2578-14 Pro Se Applicant
Former MILED Clerk & Acting Clerk

.