- 14 Aug 2009 09:33
#13128309
By Fasces
I, as many of the revolutionary right, have always concerned myself with population decline and what it means to a nation. To many, it represents stagnation, a decay of the worthiness of a population, and an evolutionary disgrace. I agreed with these sentiments, supporting measures such as banning contraceptives, increasing tax credits for the birth of children, and state-wide policies and propoganda campaigns in favor of parenthood. I no longer feel this way, and I felt it important to discuss why.
The United Nations currently predicts the world population will peak at ten billion human souls, and then decline. The reasons for it vary, from the usual doom and gloom scenarios we are fed each day, to the simple fact that the people simply do not desire to reproduce. The latter is seen in the First World, as citizens do not reproduce above replacement levels.
But what exactly does a population decline mean? In short, it means a shortage of labour. This is, by many, something to be feared. It means a limit on potential economic growth. It means a reduction in collection of income taxes, and thus a restriction on government income (and thus a limit on potential spending). It means a reduction in the value of land, as demand falls, leading to a reduction in prices, land speculation, and again, tax income derived from land. To put it shortly, population decline makes the current economic system unsustainable.
What is worse is that it is not acting alone. As the population begins to decline, fewer natural resources are needed. If current levels of natural resources are theoretically enough to sustain human life, in reduction in human demands for these resources would lead to an over-abundance of them. Even fuel, the most scarce and precious of resources, will become abundant, as investment in alternative fuel sources increase, and biofuels, nuclear power, and other electrical sources become more and more cost effective. In addition, the world is becoming mature enough to begin the process of expansion in outer space, and with this expansion, begin exploiting other worlds for their own resources. If a single asteroid is worth $300 trillion, a universe full of them will mean an end to resource scarcity. An end of scarcity, and a world of abundance, means radical revolutionary change is necessary. It makes capitalism, or communism or all ideologies with materialism and material well being as their central focus, simply unable to function. The market economy will be forced to create situations of artificial scarcity, as already occurs (as can be seen by US government policy of paying farmers to destroy crops or destroy milk, or the De Boer diamond vaults, used to restrict supply. Even digital DRM is an attempt to restrict supply, and thus increase price). In a system where excess product is inefficient, scarcity is necessary to function. If iron, or gold, become as common as air, there can be no market in these materials. The only way, in face of a declining population, and a growing pool of natural resources, to preserve this system is through the artificial restriction of the supply. This is tyranny, morally despicable, and should never be considered. If the system no longer works, a new one must be found. Market failure should be accepted as a fact of the future, and with it, a worldwide effort to adopt policies to function in a world beyond market failure must be encouraged.
This will require an end to liberalism. As the market collapses, liberal economics will be useless. Capitalism will be forced to impose inequality, or it will simply become a useless ideology of the past, like feudalism, like mercantalism, and like Marxism. Marxism, concerned with the material wellbeing of the proleteriat, will become useless through accomplishment - its goals will have been met, due to a labour shortage and an abundance of goods, that make accumulation of wealth an archaic term. However, to embrace the communist transition would be to prolong scarcity as well, as violent revolution and social upheaval will create it, as well as limit the technological developments being made in peace time that will make abundance possible within the next two hundred years.
What does this mean for the revolutionary right? There are two options - one would be to embrace scarcity and continue to endorse policies such increasing birthing rates, warmongering and limiting access to goods. The other would be to begin replacing corporatism with a new economy philosophy designed to transition into a post-scarcity world. It will require totalitarianism. It will require a strong central leadership capable of leading the nation in a single direction. It will require the mobilisation of society, and the adaption of society to a new way of life. It will require social fascism. It will lead to a society concerned with things beyond materialism and consumerism, and a spiritual and philosophical future for the human race. This, I believe, is the next stage in human evolution.
I, as many of the revolutionary right, have always concerned myself with population decline and what it means to a nation. To many, it represents stagnation, a decay of the worthiness of a population, and an evolutionary disgrace. I agreed with these sentiments, supporting measures such as banning contraceptives, increasing tax credits for the birth of children, and state-wide policies and propoganda campaigns in favor of parenthood. I no longer feel this way, and I felt it important to discuss why.
The United Nations currently predicts the world population will peak at ten billion human souls, and then decline. The reasons for it vary, from the usual doom and gloom scenarios we are fed each day, to the simple fact that the people simply do not desire to reproduce. The latter is seen in the First World, as citizens do not reproduce above replacement levels.
But what exactly does a population decline mean? In short, it means a shortage of labour. This is, by many, something to be feared. It means a limit on potential economic growth. It means a reduction in collection of income taxes, and thus a restriction on government income (and thus a limit on potential spending). It means a reduction in the value of land, as demand falls, leading to a reduction in prices, land speculation, and again, tax income derived from land. To put it shortly, population decline makes the current economic system unsustainable.
What is worse is that it is not acting alone. As the population begins to decline, fewer natural resources are needed. If current levels of natural resources are theoretically enough to sustain human life, in reduction in human demands for these resources would lead to an over-abundance of them. Even fuel, the most scarce and precious of resources, will become abundant, as investment in alternative fuel sources increase, and biofuels, nuclear power, and other electrical sources become more and more cost effective. In addition, the world is becoming mature enough to begin the process of expansion in outer space, and with this expansion, begin exploiting other worlds for their own resources. If a single asteroid is worth $300 trillion, a universe full of them will mean an end to resource scarcity. An end of scarcity, and a world of abundance, means radical revolutionary change is necessary. It makes capitalism, or communism or all ideologies with materialism and material well being as their central focus, simply unable to function. The market economy will be forced to create situations of artificial scarcity, as already occurs (as can be seen by US government policy of paying farmers to destroy crops or destroy milk, or the De Boer diamond vaults, used to restrict supply. Even digital DRM is an attempt to restrict supply, and thus increase price). In a system where excess product is inefficient, scarcity is necessary to function. If iron, or gold, become as common as air, there can be no market in these materials. The only way, in face of a declining population, and a growing pool of natural resources, to preserve this system is through the artificial restriction of the supply. This is tyranny, morally despicable, and should never be considered. If the system no longer works, a new one must be found. Market failure should be accepted as a fact of the future, and with it, a worldwide effort to adopt policies to function in a world beyond market failure must be encouraged.
This will require an end to liberalism. As the market collapses, liberal economics will be useless. Capitalism will be forced to impose inequality, or it will simply become a useless ideology of the past, like feudalism, like mercantalism, and like Marxism. Marxism, concerned with the material wellbeing of the proleteriat, will become useless through accomplishment - its goals will have been met, due to a labour shortage and an abundance of goods, that make accumulation of wealth an archaic term. However, to embrace the communist transition would be to prolong scarcity as well, as violent revolution and social upheaval will create it, as well as limit the technological developments being made in peace time that will make abundance possible within the next two hundred years.
What does this mean for the revolutionary right? There are two options - one would be to embrace scarcity and continue to endorse policies such increasing birthing rates, warmongering and limiting access to goods. The other would be to begin replacing corporatism with a new economy philosophy designed to transition into a post-scarcity world. It will require totalitarianism. It will require a strong central leadership capable of leading the nation in a single direction. It will require the mobilisation of society, and the adaption of society to a new way of life. It will require social fascism. It will lead to a society concerned with things beyond materialism and consumerism, and a spiritual and philosophical future for the human race. This, I believe, is the next stage in human evolution.