15 May 2018
(Updated 17 May 2018)
Joseph George Caldwell
Posted at Internet website http://www.foundationwebsite.org
Copyright © 2018 Joseph George Caldwell. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. The Human Species Is Self-Destructing. 2
3. The Size of a Long-Term Sustainable Human Population. 8
Disease, Pestilence and Nuclear War 12
5. The Threat of Nuclear War 13
6. Planning to Survive a Nuclear War 18
The human species is rapidly altering – some would say destroying – the biosphere in which it evolved. Modern industrial technology combined with large human numbers is causing massive pollution of the air, land and sea, with concomitant extinction of countless other species that are part of our web of life. The large-scale destruction started with the industrial revolution, about 200 years ago. New technologies, combined with the tapping of massive reserves of fossil fuels, enabled a large increase in human numbers and a dramatic increase in industrial production. Population and industrial growth, and the associated alteration of the biosphere, continue today at a high level.
It is perhaps an exaggeration to say that we are destroying the biosphere. Literally, the destruction of the biosphere would imply the extinction of all biological life. We may very well be accomplishing that end, but life, under the conditions found on Earth, appears to be spontaneous, and evidently will continue with or without the human species for a long time to come. What we are doing is altering the biosphere to such an extent that the human species may soon no longer have a viable habitat. The human species is bringing about its own destruction. It is self-destructing. It is committing suicide slowly but surely. If current trends continue, its days are numbered.
The extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by a temporary change in atmosphere, which was caused by an asteroid hitting the Earth, blasting massive amounts of dust into the atmosphere, and blocking out sunlight for months. Although the dinosaurs were exterminated, the biosphere was not destroyed. It was changed to the extent that dinosaurs could no longer thrive. The human species is now in the process of making substantial changes to the Earth’s environment and biosphere. While these changes may not destroy the biosphere, they may certainly make it inhospitable to human life.
New species arise and old species go extinct all the time. Dinosaurs are gone, mastodons are gone, dodo birds are gone, and passenger pigeons are gone. Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals are gone. Forever. Extinction happens. It happens all the time, even to advanced species such as hominids. It can happen to Homo sapiens. Based on the evidence – massive destruction of human habitat and exponentially increasing human numbers, it is happening now.
A salient characteristic of the present human species is that it is at the end of a long chain of evolutionary development. It took millions of years to evolve. The conditions for a similar species to arise may never occur again on Earth. The current human species on Earth may be the only highly intelligent species ever to occupy the planet. In fact, it is arguably very possible that human beings are the only highly intelligent life in the universe. Two very interesting and readable books on the topic of intelligent life in the universe are
· Ward, Peter D. and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (Copernicus Books / Springer Science + Business Media, 2000)
· Ward, Peter D. and Donald Brownlee, The Life and Death of Planet Earth: How the New Science of Astrobiology Charts the Ultimate Fate of Our World (Owl Books / Henry Holt and Company, 2002)
Based on the evidence, it appears that the human species is very unusual, very rare. Does this make it very special? In a way, yes. Whether mankind is special depends on just how unusual it is. Since biological life appears to be spontaneous and ubiquitous in the universe, that attribute (being a biological creature) would not appear to make it unusual. Its unusualness is reflected in its makeup, the things that it does and the things that it creates. Those are things such as being a complex, intelligent, active being, sense of consciousness, sense of identity, intelligence, ability to remember, ability to reason, ability to comprehend the nature of the universe and its place in it, mathematics, philosophy, science, technology, accumulation of knowledge, social interaction, drama, games, ability for economic development, skill in war and physical infrastructure. We have no evidence of the existence of any other similar creature in the universe. As noted above, mankind, as complex, intelligent life, may be unique in this universe. Of course, mankind cannot take credit for any of these things, since it is a created entity and bears no credit or responsibility for its own creation or existence. Or, for that matter, for its feelings, thoughts, actions or accomplishments.
Would it be a shame – a cause for regret – for mankind to become extinct? Regret is an emotion felt by extant entities. The answer to that question hence depends on what other entity or entities, if any, may be observing mankind and having an interest in mankind. If there is no such entity, then mankind’s extinction doesn’t matter (when mankind is gone, its extinction no longer matters to itself!). It there is such an entity, then whether it regrets mankind’s extinction depends on the extent to which it enjoys mankind and would miss it, i.e., would regret its loss.
We have no answers to such metaphysical questions. With the knowledge available to us, the question of whether mankind’s extinction is a cause for regret cannot be answered. All we know is that we have an incredible will to survive and will strive to do so independently of whether there is a higher significance to our existence.
The energy source for the current level of large human population and industrial production has been mainly fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas. Fossil fuels were formed mainly from biological waste accumulated millions of years ago. They represent a one-time source of energy. Although the magnitude of fossil-fuel reserves is not known with certainty, it has been estimated that they are about half-exhausted, and that the economically recoverable remaining amounts will be largely expended within a century, at current rates of consumption.
As fossil fuels deplete, they are gradually being replaced by other renewable sources, such as nuclear, geothermal and solar. (“Solar” includes all sources of solar energy, such as solar electric, solar thermal, wind, biomass and tides. Note that “solar” could also refer to fossil fuels, since they were created from solar energy. They are not renewable, however, in the time frame of human existence.) The quantity and quality of energy from renewable energy is small compared to the level currently provided by fossil fuel. Current large human numbers and industrial production are made possible only because of the availability of large amounts of energy from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas).
If human population numbers were to continue at high levels as total energy decreased, the result would be a dramatic reduction in the per-capita consumption of energy. More likely is a period of social strife while industrial civilization transitions to a lower total energy level and a likely reduction in total human population. As the petroleum age comes to an end, human numbers and industrial production will shrink. History shows, however, that complex societies do not decline gracefully. They invariably collapse catastrophically. Large-scale Industrial civilization is headed for a fall.
Human beings are acquisitive. They want more. More of everything. Since the dawn of civilization, the policy of human leaders has been to maximize political power, and this means maximizing economic development and activity. Major constraints on economic production include population, material resources, energy resources and technology. The historical approach of maximizing political power results in a high human population, a high level of economic activity, a high level of environmental destruction, and a high likelihood of human extinction.
With respect to the likelihood of human extinction, that fact that renewable energy sources are substantially smaller in magnitude than fossil fuels is of little consequence. Although the quantity and quality of renewable energy sources are much smaller than those of fossil-fuel sources, they are still substantial – quite sufficient to support a high level of industrial activity. In other words, even if a lower level of energy is available in a post-fossil-fuel world, continuation of the policy of making use of available energy to maximize industrial activity (i.e., using the available energy resources for human purposes and pleasures) leads to continued massive environmental destruction and a high likelihood of human extinction.
Despite substantial efforts on the part of a few people, human leaders have not been willing or able to reduce human population (or associated industrial production) to long-term-sustainable levels, i.e., to levels that would cease to cause massive change to the biosphere (well under one billion people total). To date, these efforts have been half-hearted, including efforts such as economic development, education, increasing the power of women, and family planning. These efforts may have lowered the rate of human increase, but the growth rate is still positive and the human population size continues to increase. It now appears that human population (currently 7.6 billion) will continue to increase substantially, to at least eight billion people, and that, barring a catastrophe, it will continue at that level or higher – at least for the near future.
Whether eight billion people or more can be supported on renewable energy remains to be seen. In any event, it is clear from history that human leaders will strive to maintain the highest level of industrial production possible, given whatever energy resources are available. At present, the operative constraint on production is energy. The other major constraints, such as material inputs and technology, are not at present factors that limit further industrial production or maintenance of a high level of production for a substantial time – sufficiently long to complete destruction of the biosphere and bring about the extinction of human life.
By their actions, it is clear that human leaders do not give a whit about the possibility of human extinction. Reducing the likelihood of human extinction is not a primary concern. Increasing political power within their lifetimes, no matter what the cost to or effect on future generations, is their motivation and primary interest.
In summary, the transition to renewable energy will have no significant effect on reducing industrial production to levels that cause little change to the biosphere. Given recent progress in renewable energy, it appears that renewable energy will enable maintenance of quite large, biosphere-destroying, human populations and industrial activity. Human leaders have little interest in reducing human population size but are strongly motivated to increasing industrial production (and material wealth and power). Under current planetary management, human population and industrial production will continue at high levels and industrial production will continue to be maximized. Large-scale destruction of the biosphere will continue, and the likelihood of human extinction from damage to the biosphere will remain high.
Many books and articles have been written on the topic of human population. Most of these books deal with the issue of what is the maximum human population of the Earth. The issue, stated in this way, is too simple. People who study population matters agree that the issue should be stated more specifically as “how many, and for how long?”. Some authors, fearful of a human-habitable planet devoid of all other large creatures, add “and at what quality of life.” The fundamental issue is not what maximum human population may be achieved, but what population level is likely to exist for a long time. That is, at a level that can exist in balance with the rest of the biosphere, for a long time. The fundamental issue is: what is the size of a long-term sustainable human population?
This question has an easy answer. Or at least one easy answer – a “feasible” solution. A known long-term sustainable population is the human population that existed on Earth for millions of years, prior to the advent of agricultural and civilized mankind. It is a hunter-gatherer population of density about four people per 100 square kilometers of habitat, or about five million people on the planet. With the advent of subsistence farming (low-tech agriculture: producing crops and raising animals without industrial inputs), the number is substantially higher, on the order of tens of millions of people. That level worked for perhaps ten thousand years.
The essential point to observe here is that the only known long-term sustainable human population is vastly lower than the current level of close to eight billion.
Books that discuss the number of people the Earth can support include:
· Pimentel, David and Marcia Pimentel, eds., Food, Energy, and Society, revised edition, University Press of Colorado, 1996.
· Cohen, Joel E., How Many People Can the Earth Support?, W. W. Norton & Company, 1995.
A problem associated with most books on human population is that they take into account physical constraints, such as resource limitations, but they do not adequately take into account “externalities” such as damage to the environment and the likelihood that a high population now may be a direct cause of extinction in the future.
World leaders are actively seeking to increase human population to the maximum, no matter what the cost. It is not just politicians, however, who strive for more. It is all people. The drive to acquire is a defining characteristic of the human species. Inquisitiveness and acquisitiveness; curiosity and greed. The drive to increase and accumulate is so powerful in human endeavor that an entire science is dedicated to this topic: economics. The science of economics is inextricably intertwined with politics, because economics is a primary means to political power. In fact, economics used to be called “political economy.” (It used also to be called “the dismal science.”) The goal of the science of economics is to maximize economic production.
While most economists strive to maximize production subject only to current resource constraints, a few take into account the fact that the maximization of production is subject to certain natural laws, and the untrammeled use of energy to support current industrial production is achieved at a cost to the diversity of the biosphere and mankind in the future. Books on this topic include:
· Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, Harvard University Press, 1971, 1999.
· Rifkin, Jeremy, with Ted Howard, Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World, Revised Edition, Bantam / Viking, 1980.
· Daly, Herman E. and John B. Cobb, Jr., For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future, 2nd ed., Beacon Press, 1989, 1994.
· Daly, Herman E., Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development, Beacon Press, 1996.
A book that discusses the issue of a long-term-sustainable human population in detail is Can America Survive?, posted at Internet website http://www.foundationwebsite.org/CanAmericaSurvive.htm .
The alarm bells of the biospheric destruction that is taking place because of large human numbers and industrial production were sounded many years ago, in the mid-twentieth century. A massive number of books and articles have been written on this topic – undoubtedly the most important topic of human existence. Despite the clear exposition of the problem and the danger faced by humanity, the destruction continues unabated. No acceptable solution has been found. The most optimistic predictions are that Earth’s human population may level off at about eight billion people, and that the environmental destruction associated with that large number of industrial-society people will continue to ravage the biosphere for as long as possible – until the end of humanity.
The party is almost over. High levels of industrial production continue to cause significant damage to the environment, year after year. This destructive process cannot continue for a long time. Humanity cannot continue to exist in large numbers without bringing about its demise. No one in a position of power, however, wants to reduce industrial production, or its stimulant, high human population. The human species is bent on its own destruction. It is addicted to economic growth, which leads to high human numbers and industrial production. Growth is the opiate, the drug that is killing humanity. In spite of its perniciousness, all national and corporate leaders are calling for growth. Growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Growth in employment. Growth in school enrolment. Growth in sales. Growth in production. Growth in housing. Growth in equity. Growth in wealth. If you don’t grow, you will shrink, or be consumed, or not be reelected, or lose your job. Growth über alles. Growth, growth, growth.
Note that “growth in population” is not included in the list. Leaders do not particularly care one way or the other about population growth, as long as economic production remains high.
If business continues as usual, and human society continues to embrace large human populations and large-scale industrial production, the biosphere is headed for continued macroscopic change. Mankind is in the process of modifying the environment substantially from the one in which it evolved and thereby wiping out the other species in the web of life of which it is a part. The human species is completely dependent on the “nest” in which it evolved, and it would appear quite possible, perhaps even likely, that it will not survive this change.
As discussed, it appears that the energy levels after the shift from fossil-fuel energy to current solar energy will be sufficient to support large human numbers and large-scale industrial production. If human society continues along the path of maximizing human numbers and industrial production, it will continue to have the means available to finish the job of making the biosphere inimical to human life. As was observed by a writer many years ago, with respect to the biosphere in which we evolved, the human species is now a malignant cancer on the planet, in the process of sickening its host, the biosphere, and destroying itself.
Damage to the biosphere caused by large human numbers and industrial production is not the only existential threat to humanity. Other existential threats include disease – both for human beings and their plant and animal food sources – and nuclear war. (This article does not address existential threats over which mankind has no control, such as collision with a large asteroid.)
History shows that the human species is incredibly resistant to disease. Whatever new disease comes along may kill a large proportion of the population, but no large population is ever wiped out. That is not to say it might not happen – it just appears, based on history, that it is not likely.
With the advent of mass transportation and commerce on a global scale, foreign species have been introduced around the world, and are wreaking havoc with once-stable environments. Ecological events such as these are routinely treated with pesticides and genetic modification. They may even contribute to starvation and famine, but historically they have not had an appreciable effect on reducing total human numbers and industrial production.
Based on history, it appears that disease and pestilence are not serious existential threats to mankind. The world’s population has been operating in a highly intermingling mode for some time, and collapse has not occurred. Of the various threats to mankind’s existence, it appears that just one, nuclear war, is a serious threat.
Nuclear weapons were used in 1945, as soon as they were invented. Because of their effectiveness, many of the world’s leading nations immediately moved to acquire them.
Nuclear war has been waged before, and it will be waged again. Nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since 1945, primarily because of the military doctrine strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction is not a very satisfying strategy for avoiding nuclear war. It may work – and has worked – for a time under the politics of greed but is not a rational approach under the politics of envy. Its adoption rests on a number of assumptions. The strategy of MAD works best when used by two nation-states who have a lot to lose in a nuclear war, and they are the only ones possessing nuclear weapons. It does not avoid the problem of accidental war. It does not work well if one side believes that nuclear war is survivable. It does not work well if several groups possess nuclear weapons and it cannot be determined who the attacker is. It does not avoid attack from disaffected groups who have little to lose (and, in fact, may find a martyr’s death and heavenly reward quite preferable to a life of continued misery here on Earth). In today’s world, there are plenty of people living unhappy lives who would be quite pleased to see the human race exterminated, their wretched selves included, if they cannot have things their way.
In today’s world, many of the assumptions required for MAD to be effective no longer hold. Over time, the situation has changed substantially. While MAD may have been an effective strategy at one time, it is no longer an effective deterrent. The likelihood of nuclear war is now substantially greater than when MAD was first employed.
In view of the massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons possessed by the United States and Russia, it is obvious that they take the possibility of nuclear war very seriously and have planned and prepared for it. Nuclear proliferation is gaining headway. At present, the following nations possess nuclear weapons: China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Israel, India, North Korea and Pakistan. The following countries share nuclear weapons with others: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey. In its May 5, 2018, edition, The Economist presented data on current global nuclear stockpiles – a global total of 9,345 nuclear warheads, with more on the way! Nuclear weapons were used once, were very effective, and it is likely that they will be used again – why else would so many countries be scrambling to acquire them?
To better understand the nature of the threat of nuclear war to human existence, it is helpful to consider the various types and levels of nuclear war that might occur. Several alternative scenarios for nuclear war are listed below. Nuclear war produces radioactive fallout, which can cause substantial injury and death. For large-scale nuclear war, the major source of destruction is from a “nuclear winter” – a reduction in sunlight caused by large amounts of dust injected into the upper atmosphere, with a resulting reduction in sunshine and plant growth for many months. This phenomenon happened following the collision of a large asteroid 65 million years ago, and resulted in the extinction of many large animals, including dinosaurs.
1. Small-scale nuclear war. The occurrence of a nuclear war that may be sufficiently large to cause the collapse of large-scale industrial society, but with little danger of causing a nuclear winter. Industrial civilization would be damaged and could collapse, but, given the human drive to rebuild, it would eventually recover. The chance of human extinction is low.
2. Medium-scale nuclear war. The occurrence of a nuclear war that is relatively certain to cause the collapse of large-scale industrial society, but with significant danger of causing a nuclear winter. Human extinction may or may not occur.
3. Large-scale nuclear war, without prior preparation. The occurrence of a nuclear war that will wipe out large-scale industrial society and likely cause a nuclear winter. Make no preparation for such an occurrence. Leave the issue of whether any human beings survive to chance. Absent preparations, the likelihood of human extinction is high.
4. Large-scale nuclear war, with prior preparation. The occurrence of a nuclear war that will wipe out large-scale industrial society and likely cause a nuclear winter. Make preparations for the survival of a number of underground “pods” of human beings, animals and seeds in select places around the world. These pods would assure the survival of the occupants for the expected duration of nuclear winter.
In Scenario 4, the quality of life for human beings on this planet following the nuclear war would depend in large measure on the skill of the planners in stocking the pods with adequate provisions to outlast a nuclear winter and radioactive fallout, and suitable animals and plant seeds to reconstitute the biosphere. The pods could easily be provisioned with reference materials on all aspects of technological civilization, allowing for reestablishment of technically advanced civilization, if that is desired.
What is the likelihood of nuclear war? The answer to this question depends on the length of time considered. As long as the probability of nuclear war is positive, then the longer the time that passes, the higher the likelihood that a nuclear war will occur in that time. It is the same as with automobile accidents. If you have any positive probability of having an accident in a given time period, then the probability of ever having an accident increases, the longer you drive. The likelihood of having an accident within ten years is higher than the likelihood of having an accident in one month. If you play Russian Roulette, the longer you play, the greater the odds that you will “win.” If you play for a sufficiently long time, the odds of “winning” become high.
It is common knowledge that the likelihood of nuclear war at any given time varies – that is the basis for moving the hands on the “Doomsday Clock.” Whatever the instantaneous likelihood, however, as time passes, the likelihood of nuclear war (ever) continues to increase.
The genie is out of the bottle. Given sufficient time, nuclear war is virtually certain to happen. We can do little to change that mathematical fact. What we can change, however, is the likelihood of surviving nuclear war, when it does occur. The prudent response to this existential threat to humankind is to prepare for it. This is the same reason why lifeboats are placed on ships, and seatbelts and airbags are placed in automobiles. The odds of a catastrophe are low, but it is prudent to prepare for one.
At the present time, human society is extremely wealthy and technologically advanced. We can fly to the moon and Mars. The challenge of preparing to survive a nuclear war can easily be met. Our society – even wealthy individuals in our society – can easily afford to establish a number of pods throughout the world, thereby assuring the survival of themselves and mankind after nuclear war occurs.
Nuclear war is coming. When it does occur, it is reasonable to speculate that some groups or individuals will have had the foresight to prepare for it, and thereby assure not only their survival, but the survival of the human species. (Because of the politics of envy, pods would be vulnerable to destruction by people without access to one, who would feel that if they are not eligible to seek refuge in a pod, then no one should have that privilege. As a result of this vulnerability, if there are already pods in existence, the general public would be unlikely to know about them, and it would certainly not know of their locations.)
Astronomer Fred Hoyle observed that, with respect to energy sufficient to develop technological civilization, the human species may have but one bite at the apple. When all of the readily available energy from fossil fuels is gone, no comparable source of inexpensive, high-intensity energy is available to replace it. He observed that a key ingredient enabling the development and maintenance of our large, complex, technological society was the massive quantity of fossil fuels, accumulated over millions of years and expended in a few human generations. If modern technological civilization collapses, mankind would not, in Hoyle’s view, have this key ingredient – a massive amount of cheap, high-grade energy – available a second time, to build technological society again. Hoyle’s point is arguable. Although the one-time treasure trove of fossil fuels may have enabled a very rapid and very inefficient development of a planetary technological civilization, and may temporarily support a very wasteful and lavish lifestyle for a truly massive number of people, it appears that post-fossil-fuel sources of energy are quite sufficient to develop and maintain a technological civilization, a second time.
The fact is, with sufficient planning and preparation, a large-scale nuclear war is survivable for the human species, with high probability.
In the 1950s, the United States had a large-scale Civil Defense program, which identified fallout shelters having adequate ventilation, and stocked suitable shelters with water and other provisions. The program was eventually discontinued, when it was realized that in a large-scale nuclear attack most people would perish, with or without the fallout shelters. There was no point to fallout shelters, at least not of the sort used then (mainly, basements of buildings).
Some nations maintain fallout shelters today, but they do not provide for the contingency of a nuclear winter.
To survive a nuclear winter requires substantial planning, preparation, and expense. Locations such as Mount Weather and Cheyenne Mountain could be quickly modified to provide for two years of operation without outside support. In planning for space missions to Mars, the US and other countries are acquiring much useful information about supporting a small group of people for an extended period of time in a hostile environment. The Mormon religion requires its adherents to stockpile a year’s worth of food. Without provisions to protect survivors from radioactive fallout and from attack from survivors who have no food, such preparations are useless.
Wealthy individuals such as George Soros, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have the wherewithal to plan and prepare shelters that could keep small groups alive for a couple of years.
Mankind has gone to the moon and returned. It is now planning to explore and colonize Mars. Providing for a number of colonies of human beings to sit out the aftermath of a large-scale nuclear war, including the provision of those colonies with adequate biosphere restocking supplies, requires planning, preparation, and expense, but it is technologically less daunting and less expensive than going to the moon or to Mars (since no space travel is involved). Moreover, it is vastly more important – unlike an expedition to the moon or Mars, the survival of mankind depends on it!
Given adequate preparation, nuclear war is survivable. The key to survivability is, however, adequate planning and preparation. Simply surviving, by itself, is not a sufficient goal. The issue of surviving to what end must be addressed. Plans and preparations should be tailored to a specific post-nuclear-war goal. If the goal is simply to survive a nuclear war, what is the ultimate outcome likely to be? Extinction a year later? Establishment of a second large-scale industrial civilization and a subsequent collapse and extinction? To be successful, plans and preparations must be tailored to a long-term goal.
If large-scale nuclear war occurs, and some people survive, they will be the founders of a new civilization on a new planet. What are they going to do? Go forth and multiply? Could be. Will they construct a new technological civilization, such as we currently have? In view of mankind’s drive to build, this is likely. Will the new civilization avoid the collapse endured by its predecessor? Who knows.
This article analyzes the current human situation and identifies ways in which the current problem of extinction facing mankind might be avoided. The purpose of the article is to stimulate needed discussion on a pressing – existential – social issue and motivate people to develop strategies to avoid extinction.
This article does not advocate the undertaking of nuclear war. The fact that nuclear war is survivable does not imply that it is a desirable alternative. Although nuclear war is survivable, it would cause massive damage to current civilization – to some of the very things that make human beings special. In a large-scale nuclear war, it is quite possible that most or all major cities would be targeted, and the crowning achievements of the human race in architecture and art would be destroyed. The purpose of this article is to promote the analysis of the existential threats, including economic development, overpopulation, environmental destruction, species destruction, biospheric destruction, and nuclear war, and motivate working to find solutions to them.
Books on the likelihood that Earth is likely to be the only planet in the universe having intelligent life.
1. Ward, Peter D. and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (Copernicus Books / Springer Science + Business Media, 2000)
2. Ward, Peter D. and Donald Brownlee, The Life and Death of Planet Earth: How the New Science of Astrobiology Charts the Ultimate Fate of Our World (Owl Books / Henry Holt and Company, 2002)
3. Broecker, Wallace S., How to Build a Habitable Planet, Eldigio Press, 1985.
Books on the nature of reality, existence, and alternative universes. (It would appear that there are an infinite number of alternative universes, including an infinite number harboring intelligent life. Unfortunately, we do not have the means to communicate with any of them.)
1. Rees, Martin, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1999.
2. Penrose, Roger, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Jonathan Cape, 2004
3. Penrose, Roger, Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness, Oxford University Press, 1994.
4. Penrose, Roger, The Emperor’s New Mind, Oxford University Press, 1989.
Books on environmental degradation and species extinction caused by large human numbers and industrial activity.
1. Leakey, Richard and Roger Lewin, The Sixth Extinction: Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind, Anchor, 1996.
2. Brown, Lester R., Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, W. W. Norton & Company, 2009.
3. Brown, Lester R., Who Will Feed China: Wake-up Call for a Small Planet, W. W. Norton & Company, 1995.
4. Brown, Lester R., Tough Choices: Facing the Challenge of Food Scarcity, W. W. Norton & Company, 1996.
5. Brown, Lester R., The World Watch Reader on Global Environmental Issues, W. W. Norton & Company, 1991.
6. Brown, Lester R. and Hal Kane, Full House: Reassessing the Earth’s Population Carrying Capacity, W. W. Norton & Company, 1994.
7. Brown, Lester R. et al., State of the World, various years, W. W. Norton & Company.
8. Brown, Lester R. et al., Vital Signs, various years, W. W. Norton & Company.
9. Carson, Rachel, The Sea Around Us, Oxford University Press, 1951.
10. Carson, Rachel, Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962.
11. Gore, Al, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Plume / Penguin, 1993.
12. Kaplan, Robert D., The Ends of the Earth: A Journey at the Dawn of the 21st Century, Random House, 1996.
13. Mowat, Farley, Rescue the Earth!: Conversations with the Green Crusaders, McClelland & Stewart, 1990.
Books on the role of energy in technological civilization and human population growth, the destruction of biosphere, the on-going shift from fossil fuels to sustainable energy sources, the effects of resource limitations and depletions on human society, and the collapse of complex societies.
1. Hardin, Garrett, Living within Limits: Ecology, Economics and Population Taboos, Oxford University Press, 1993
2. Diamond, Jared, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, W. W. Norton & Company, 1997.
3. Diamond, Jared, Collapse: How Societies Chose to Fail or Succeed, Viking, 2005.
4. Tainter, Joseph A., The Collapse of Complex Societies, Cambridge University Press, 1988.
5. Homer-Dixon, Thomas F., Environment, Scarcity, and Violence, Princeton University Press, 1999.
6. Hartmann, Thom, The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, Three Rivers Press, 1998.
7. Klare, Michael T., Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, Metropolitan / Owl / Henry Holt, 2001.
8. Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 1992.
9. Catton, William R., Jr., Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change, University of Illinois Press, 1980.
10. Leslie, John, The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction, Routledge, 1996.
11. Heinberg, Richard, Power Down: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World, New Society Publishers, 1994.
12. Brower, Michael, Cool Energy: Renewable Solutions to Environmental Problems, The MIT Press, 1993.
13. Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Simon & Schuster, 1996.
14. Gibbon, Edward, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, abridged edition, Penguin Books, 2000 (volumes 1-6 of the full edition published 1776, 1781, and 1788).
15. Shirer, William L., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, MJF Books, 1959.
16. Gwynne, S. C., Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Tribe in American History, Scribner, 2010.
Books on the topic of how many people the Earth can support.
1. Pimentel, David and Marcia Pimentel, eds., Food, Energy, and Society, revised edition, University Press of Colorado, 1996.
2. Cohen, Joel E., How Many People Can the Earth Support?, W. W. Norton & Company, 1995.
3. Caldwell, Joseph George, Can America Survive?, posted at Internet website http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf , 1999.
Books on economics and entropy.
1. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, Harvard University Press, 1971, 1999.
2. Rifkin, Jeremy, with Ted Howard, Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World, Revised Edition, Bantam / Viking, 1980.
3. Daly, Herman E. and John B. Cobb, Jr., For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future, 2nd ed., Beacon Press, 1989, 1994.
4. Herman E. Daly, Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development, Beacon Press, 1996.
Books on war.
1. Orwell, George, Nineteen Eighty-Four, various publishers, 1949.
2. Kahn, Herman, On Thermonuclear War, 2nd edition with index, Princeton University Press, 1961 (reprinted in 1978 by Greenwood Press).
3. Machiavelli, Niccolò, The Prince, Penguin Books, 1961
4. Machiavelli, Niccolò, The Art of War, Da Capo Press, 1965
5. Sun Tsu, The Art of War, Oxford University Press, 1963.
6. Von Clausewitz, On War, Penguin Books, 1968 (1908 Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. translation of Von Kriege, 1832).
7. Hart, B. H. Liddell, Strategy, 2nd revised ed., Penguin / Meridian, 1991 (Copyright Faber & Faber, 1954, 1967)
8. Kaplan, Robert D., Warrior Politics, Random House, 2002.
9. Ehrenreich, Barbara, Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War, Metropolitan Books, 1997.
10. Greene, Robert, The 33 Strategies of War, Penguin Books, 2006.
FndID(59)
FndTitle(Is Nuclear War Survivable?)
FndDescription(Assessment of the likelihood of nuclear war, and the likellihood of surviving a nuclear war..)
FndKeywords(nuclear war; global nuclear war; overpopulation; the collapse of complex societies)