Joseph George Caldwell
Copyright © 2018 Joseph George Caldwell. All rights reserved. Posted at Internet website http://www.foundationwebsite.org. May be copied or reposted for non-commercial use, with attribution to author and website. September 29, 2018
Synopsis: This radio play addresses the issues of human overpopulation and global nuclear war. The play identifies reasons why global nuclear war is likely to happen and considers a scenario in which Russia prevails after the war. Scenes 1-3 describe a context in which Russia has motive, means and opportunity to initiate, wage and win a global nuclear war. Scene 4 discusses goals and objectives associated with global nuclear war and describes strategic considerations for such a war. Scenes 5 and 6 describe tactical operations in global nuclear war. Scene 7 describes planetary management operations two decades following the war and Scene 8 describes a typical domestic scene 500 years following the war. (Scenes 7 and 8 are the same as Scenes 11 and 12 of the radio play, The Planet Master.)
Contents
Scene 1. The Economic Situation
Scene 2. The Environmental Situation
Scene 3. The Defense Situation
Scene 4. Strategic and Tactical Planning
Scene 7. In the Office of Planetary Management
Scene 8. Empire of the Summer Moon Redux
SCENE. The time is the near future. The location is the President’s office in the Kremlin, Moscow, Russia. The President, Vlad, is meeting with the Minister for Economic Development, Eric, to discuss the economic effect of economic sanctions that have been imposed on Russia by Western Powers.
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (VLAD). Eric, these new sanctions the US has imposed on Russia are draconian! I want to understand their likely impact, and develop a strategy for responding to them.
MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ERIC). Yes, sir, they are really putting the screws to us.
VLAD. So what is the likely impact?
ERIC. With respect to imports, the sanctions won’t have much of an effect, since we are largely self-sufficient. With respect to exports, the situation is different. The sanctions on our consumer-good exports won’t make much of a difference, since that is not a major component of exports. What is going to hurt, at least in the short term, is the curb on the export of natural gas. That export accounts for a significant portion of the government budget.
VLAD. You said, “in the short term.” What do you mean by that?
ERIC. What I meant was that we cannot export fossil fuels forever. Fossil fuels will not last forever, either in Russia or in the world. In the longer term, we have to restructure our economy to lessen our dependence on export of fossil fuels or products that have high energy inputs.
VLAD. OK, that is well known. What about the near term?
ERIC. In the near term, the sanctions are going to have a severe effect on our economy.
VLAD. What about our exports of military equipment? That market is strong and growing.
ERIC. Yes, that is true. But exports of military equipment are not going to replace the income lost from the sanctions. That market is limited, and there are other suppliers.
VLAD. You know, the sanctions would be less important if our production of consumer goods were stronger. In that area, the US dominates. Why can’t we compete in that sector?
ERIC. As things stand, we will never compete in that sector. Whereas Russia has a modest-size and stable population, the US population is large and growing at a high rate, from massive immigration. Their large and growing population enables them to have large, dynamic industries. Their economy is fueled by growth. Our economy, by and large, is focused on maintenance and replacement, not on growth. With our smaller size and no-growth economy, we will never compete with the US or the other growing Western economies. Their economies are growth-based, ours is non-growth-based. Their economies are dynamic, ours is static.
VLAD. So, what you are saying is that, in the short run, we cannot compete with the US or the West in industrial production because of our small and stable population, and that, in the longer term, our export of fossil fuels must come to an end because fossil fuels are gradually exhausting.
ERIC. That is correct. The situation is not good.
VLAD. You are painting a terrible picture. What do we do to fix it?
ERIC. To compete effectively with large, growing, dynamic economies, it is necessary to become a large, growing, dynamic economy.
VLAD. You mean, continued mass immigration, such as in the US?
ERIC. Yes, that is essentially what I mean. We can stimulate our economy to some extent by improving our infrastructure, or by new public works programs, but to be a major player in the world economic forum, we would have to convert to a fast-growing economy.
VLAD. Through mass immigration, the US and other nations have destroyed the very cultures that made them strong. I am not about to go down that same route. I accept your diagnosis and prognosis, but I do not like your prescription at all. You are in effect saying that, to compete, Russia cannot continue in anything like its present form. That is unacceptable. I want you to come up with some better alternatives. Let’s meet again next week.
ERIC. Yes, sir. I will see what I can do.
SCENE. The time is the near future. The location is the President’s office in the Kremlin, Moscow, Russia. The President, Vlad, is meeting with the Minister for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Mariya, to discuss environmental affairs.
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (VLAD). It’s a pleasure to see you again, Mariya. How are you today?
MINISTER FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (MARIYA). I am fine, sir, how are you?
VLAD. I am fine. Mariya, I have just met with Eric, who tells me that to compete effectively on the world stage, Russia has to promote growth, both in population and in industrial production. I would like to have your comments on this.
When last we spoke, you presented a detailed description of the environmental situation both here in Russia and for the world as a whole. Why don’t we begin with a brief summary?
MARIYA. Yes, sir, I will be pleased to do that. I will begin with the state of the planet, and then discuss Russia in that context.
VLAD. Very well. Proceed.
MARIYA. The overall state of the planet is that large human numbers and industrial production are making substantial changes to the biosphere – the natural environment in which the human species evolved, and on which it is dependent for its survival. This situation has been characterized as destruction of the biosphere, and that description is altogether apt. The stable biosphere that existed for millions of years is rapidly being replaced by a different one. Human presence and activity are causing a mass species extinction that is comparable in some ways to five previous mass species extinctions.
Human activity is severely polluting our land, seas and atmosphere. In the past couple of hundred years, the planet has lost about half of its topsoil and forest cover. The seas are polluted with millions of tons of plastic waste. Waste now invades every ocean beach in the world. Large-scale industrial production has flooded the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses that are causing global warming. The polar ice caps are melting. Polar bears are being stranded. Coral reefs everywhere are dying from pollution and warming seas.
For millions of years, human population existed at a very low density and size – about four people per hundred square kilometers, and just a few million people – perhaps five million – in the entire world. Human beings existed as hunter-gatherers. About ten thousand years ago, with the advent of agriculture and the rise of cities, the situation changed dramatically. The most significant change was in the distribution of labor and goods. With agriculture, a farmer could produce more food than was needed by his family. This surplus provided the means for a ruling class to engage in whatever activities they desired – politics, commerce, war, art, discovery – whatever.
Agricultural surplus also enabled the human population to grow. After about ten thousand years of primitive agriculture, human population eventually rose to several hundred million. With the advent of science, technology and engineering, human population commenced to grow explosively. The planetary human population stood at about half a billion in 1600, one billion in 1800, two billion in 1927, three billion in 1960, six billion in 2000, and it now stands at about eight billion. Human beings now occupy the entire land mass of the planet, crowding out all other large animals.
Uncontrolled growth of human numbers and industrial production have destroyed much of wild nature. Most of the people on the planet no longer live in species-rich natural environments, but spend most of their miserable, unhappy lives in crowded concrete jungles.
Civilization, through support of science and engineering, has spawned amazing developments, including knowledge of the universe, understanding of physical processes, and incredible technologies such as electricity, electronics, biomedicine, communication, computers and nuclear energy. Many people lead meaningful and rewarding lives.
Overall, however, civilization has brought misery on a mind-boggling scale to most people, and to an incredibly large number of people. Most people lead unfulfilling, meaningless lives, filled with boredom and unhappiness. The purpose and function of most people’s lives today is simply to produce economic surplus for those in control. Most people live in squalor. Millions suffer from illnesses and diseases directly attributable to the crowded, unhealthy conditions of civilization-gone-amok.
Civilization is a double-edged sword. It is a tool, and like all tools, it may be used for good or for evil. On the one hand, it enables humankind to realize a full potential, in terms of development and discovery. On the other hand, uncontrolled, it has brought unimaginable misery to billions of people. It is destroying the biosphere in which we evolved and on which we are dependent for happiness, fulfillment and our very existence.
For decades, world leaders have lamented the fact that large human numbers and industrial activity are destroying the biosphere, but they have been unable or unwilling to do anything to resolve the problem. Politicians have promoted the position that economic development, education, empowerment of women, and democracy would result in a “demographic transition” to smaller families and a stable global population. This approach has been an unmitigated disaster. It has enabled the population to grow to eight billion, a level that is destroying the biosphere. Human population is expected to reach ten billion by 2050, and no one expects it to decrease to a level comparable to the level that lived in harmony with the rest of the biosphere for millions of years. Most world leaders are calling for increased economic growth, despite the fact that growth-based economics is destroying the biosphere and perpetuating human misery.
VLAD. OK, Mariya, I understand the global environmental situation. Please summarize the environmental situation with respect to Russia.
MARIYA. The situation with respect to Russia, is, overall, quite good, albeit not perfect. Russia’s population has remained stable, at less than 150 million, for decades. Because of industrial development and activity, we have caused some pollution and environment, but most of this damage is repairable. For example, we have destroyed much of our virgin forest, but the affected area can be reforested, if we wish. Through unsustainable farming practices we have lost perhaps half of our topsoil. Future losses could be avoided, if we chose to do so. Through industrial production we have polluted our rivers and lakes, but this pollution can be reversed, if and when we choose to do so. Our human presence – numbers and industrial production – has caused some species loss, but to a much lower degree than outside of Russia.
We are extracting fossil fuels at a high rate. The burning of fossil fuels loads the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses, causing global warming. We could reforest to offset the emission of carbon into the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, but we have not chosen to do so. I should note that the major consumer of Russian fossil fuels is not the Russian people, but the foreigners who buy them from us. By and large, our industrial production is for domestic use; we do not produce vast quantities of consumer goods for export. On a per-capita basis, energy use by Russians is low compared to that of other economically developed countries.
In summary, although Russia has caused some destruction to the environment, and continues to do so to some extent, its domestic activities are not contributing substantially to the present global biospheric destruction. Relative to its land mass, Russia has a low population, and that population is stable. It is largely self-sufficient, and does not produce much more than is needed for domestic purposes.
In a global context, Russia is acting responsibly. Unfortunately, the rest of the world is not. All other large nations are committed to growth-based economics and to continuing a high global human population. Those nations are destroying the biosphere, and they are committed to continuing that destruction. Unfortunately, in the process of destroying their home – Planet Earth – they will destroy Russia along with themselves.
Russia has a relatively low population and low population density. It could exist in harmony with the biosphere indefinitely. The biosphere as we know it will not survive the world’s current large human population.
VLAD. OK, Mariya, so large human numbers and industrial production are destroying the planet, but Russia, by itself, is not. Do you see a solution to this problem?
MARIYA. I am sad to say that I do not have a satisfactory solution. There are some things that we can do to protect Russian environment, such as reforestation and ending the pollution of our land, water and air. Those actions would not cost much to do. There are additional actions that we could take, which would help lessen the emission of carbon into the atmosphere, such as ending the export fossil fuels and products whose production uses them in large amounts, such as agricultural commodities and refined metals. Regrettably, since the rest of the world is committed to growth, large human population, and a high level of industrial production, this would make no difference in the long run – the rest of the world will simply replace any reduction accomplished by Russia.
VLAD. What about conservation?
MARIYA. Conservation is not an answer. First, if there is motivation for conservation, the situation is already terminal. Second, under growth-based policies, conservation cannot possibly make a difference in the long run. For example, if you conserve by reducing consumption by ten percent, but in ten years the population grows by ten percent, then nothing is accomplished. Under a growth-based regime, conservation is useless.
VLAD. So, what will work to solve the problem?
MARIYA. The human species will survive in a stable, species-rich biosphere only as long as its presence and activities have an insignificant effect on the rest of the biosphere, that is, if it lives in harmony with the rest of the biosphere.
A fundamental issue is that human beings are appropriating virtually the entire inventory of the planet’s resources – its land, seas, atmosphere, solar energy, and other resources – for human purposes. There is no room and no resources left for a natural, species-rich environment. Large human numbers are converting the entire planet from wild, natural habitat to human habitat.
Another issue that must be recognized is that human beings who use modern technology, such as people who live in modern cities, consume massive amounts of energy – on the order of a hundred times as much per person as primitive peoples did. Whenever energy is used, changes are made to the environment, and these changes must be reversed for the biosphere to remain stable. Undoing the changes caused by energy use requires even more energy. In nature, all waste is recycled – the waste from one creature is the food for another. There is no net increase in waste. This equilibrium process continues indefinitely using the current flux, or “budget,” of solar energy. For the biosphere to remain stable, the planet can support only a very few “high-tech” human beings who consume massive amounts of energy.
As long as world leaders are committed to a planet filled with human beings all of whom are consuming massive amounts of energy, the situation is hopeless. There is nothing left for other species, and they perish. The only solution to the problem is a dramatic reduction in the total number of human beings. If the total number is sufficiently small, then some of them may use large amounts of energy.
VLAD. You are telling me a lot about the nature of the problem. I ask again, what is a solution to the problem?
MARIYA. The only solution is an immediate and dramatic reduction in the size of the human population on Earth. If the human population continues at a level of eight billion, or even a substantial portion of that amount, we are all doomed.
VLAD. OK, I accept that. So, what do we do to accomplish, to achieve, this solution?
MARIYA. In my view, an immediate and dramatic reduction in the planet’s human population will occur only through war. Disease will not accomplish it. Plague will not accomplish it. And recent history shows for certain that peaceful political means, such as economic development and demographic transitions, will certainly not accomplish it.
VLAD. So you are proposing war as a solution to the world’s population problem?
MARIYA. No, I am not. If I had reason to believe that it would make a difference in the long term, I would propose it and promote it. But it will not make a difference. Even if there is a war, even a global war, nothing will change in the long run. A global war could cause an immediate and drastic population reduction, but people will simply rebuild. While war may be the only feasible means of accomplishing an immediate population reduction, that reduction would not last. Given mankind’s propensity to breed and compete, the situation appears to be hopeless. In the long run, there is no place for growth-based economics. It is an explosive process, not a stable one.
Following global war, if nothing else changed, there would still be multiple nations competing with each other for the planet’s resources and striving to maximize political and economic power – and hence, population. For the biosphere to survive as we know it, in my view there must be but a single nation in charge, and that nation must be committed to a low human population. Perhaps that situation will never develop – I am convinced that it will never occur via political means, since most nations are committed to growth, or at least to maintaining high human population levels. With about 200 nations in the world, it seems impossible that any one of them could ever prevail over the others, either politically or militarily.
What is needed is a long-term-sustainable planetary management system. War could create conditions favorable to establishing such as system, but war alone is not a complete solution. Given the ridiculous situation in which we find ourselves, it may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. What is needed is a political system that is committed to protecting the biosphere – a long-term-sustainable planetary management system. Present political systems and the world community of nations do not support responsible planetary management. In fact, they are inimical to it.
VLAD. Mariya, I am quite aware of your professional career. You have never suggested war as a solution, or even as part of a solution, to global environmental problems before. From what you say, the only reason you are not promoting war at present is that you believe that it would make no difference in the long term, that even if the population were decimated, mankind would simply repopulate – or, re-overpopulate, I should say. In fact, from what I know, you have never suggested any solution at all. Why are you doing so now?
MARIYA. I have accomplished my professional and career goals. For years, I have pondered this issue, and I am always drawn back to the same solution – war. Earlier in my career, taking this position would have ended my career, since it is not a politically acceptable approach to environmental protection or to population control. At this point in my life, career advancement no longer concerns me. I am now free to speak my mind. The present system is a sham, a giant, biosphere-destroying, humanity-enslaving economic con game, and I am now ready to challenge it. At this stage of my life and career, I may be in a position to accomplish some meaningful change.
Human beings have no problem killing other human beings, as long as they are different in some way – a different race, a different language, a different tribe or nation, a different political system, a different religion, a different location, a different time. The problem that exists at present is that the issue of global population and the planet’s biosphere is being addressed by a single community of nations – the United Nations – that is strongly opposed to war and to any effective means of population control. The United Nations is not about to kill anyone to protect the biosphere, even though that position ultimately dooms the biosphere and mankind.
VLAD. OK, Mariya, I appreciate your openness and honesty in telling me this. [Looks at his watch.] I see that we have run out of time – the Minister for Defense, Dimitri, wants to see me now.
As I said when we began this meeting, I just met with the Economics Minister, Eric, and I needed insight into the issue of continuing or reducing exports of fossil fuels or fossil-fuel-based products. With all of the world’s nations champing at the bit to consume the planet’s remaining fossil fuels, and to grow, reducing our fossil-fuel exports would have little long-term effect on the planet’s environment. So, from that viewpoint, there is little reason to reduce them. The issue may be a significant budgetary one, but it is not a significant environmental one.
Mariya, I want you to know that I value your opinion. I value your insights to the problem of protecting the environment, and I see the hopelessness of the situation on a global level. I will work with you on environmental actions that we may take here in Russia, such as reducing pollution in our rivers and lakes, and reforestation.
It is sad that we spend so much effort dealing with problems that, in the long run, are of no consequence. The population problem that you addressed is significant and existential. I, and the other world leaders, should be dealing with that problem, not with issues that, in the long run, are of no consequence.
OK, Mariya, that’s it for today. Thank you very much.
MARIYA. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the interest that you have shown in my assessment.
SCENE. The time is the near future. The location is the President’s office in the Kremlin, Moscow, Russia. The President, Vlad, is meeting with the Minister for Defense, Dimitri, to discuss national security.
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (VLAD). Hello, Dimitri, how are you?
MINISTER FOR DEFENSE (DIMITRI). I am fine, sir, how are you?
VLAD. Dimitri, you asked to see me on short notice because you have something urgent to discuss. What is it?
DIMITRI. Yes, I have some really good news. Our latest test of a nuclear-powered cruise missile has been an unqualified success!
VLAD. Well, now, that is really good news! This is truly a significant breakthrough. Your people have been working long and hard on this problem. I am very pleased to hear this news.
DIMITRI. Yes, it is a truly significant accomplishment. High-speed cruise missiles following the nap of the earth are difficult to defend against. Using conventional propulsion, the range of our cruise missiles was limited. Their short range, necessitating the use of launch platforms such as aircraft carriers, submarines or long-range bombers, represented a significant shortcoming. Now, we can send nuclear warheads to targets anywhere in the world without the need to use cruise-missile launch platforms or ballistic missiles.
VLAD. This development gives us a significant advantage over our adversaries. How long will be have this advantage?
DIMITRI. In modern warfare, no breakthrough lasts long. The US will no doubt have a similar capability before long. Although cruise missiles are difficult to intercept, the US is working on technologies to counter them, and deployment of effective terminal defenses is underway in many places.
VLAD. So, how long do you estimate we will have this advantage?
DIMITRI. Our information sources estimate that we will possess a significant advantage for probably a year. Development and deployment of defenses to counter our cruise missiles will take some time, but it will not be long before the US also has nuclear-powered cruise missiles. For now, the balance of power has shifted significantly in our favor, but we will not possess this advantage for long. For the moment, this development gives us a window of opportunity, but that window will not stay open long.
VLAD. It takes some time to build nuclear-powered cruise missiles. How long will it take, for example, to build 4,000 of them?
DIMITRI. We can build that many within a year.
VLAD. Dimitri, I have recently had discussions with Economics Minister, Eric, and Environment Minister, Mariya. With the latest economic sanctions, the entire West has ganged up on Russia. Eric’s view is that we will never be able to achieve a position of economic strength relative to the West, because their approach is growth-based economics, and ours is not. In the long run, their growth-based system will swamp our steady-state system – that is a fact of elementary mathematics. As if that is not enough, they have also imposed crippling economic sanctions on us. They are out to crush us, and there is little that we can do politically or economically to stop them. That is why I exploring military options.
Mariya’s view is that growth-based economics is destroying the biosphere. Even worse, even if growth ceased today, the continuance of the present large human population and industrial activity will surely destroy the biosphere as we know it. She claims that war is the only feasible means of accomplishing an immediate and substantial reduction in human population and industrial activity. She also claims that the biosphere will be saved in the long run only if there is a single nation in charge of the planet, committed to restricting population and industrial activity to very low levels.
DIMITRI. OK, so what are you leading up to?
VLAD. What I am leading up to is this. With our nuclear-powered cruise-missile capability, can we destroy all of our adversaries?
DIMITRI. Yes, as soon as we have them built, we can almost certainly accomplish that. The only problem is that in all-out war, the US may destroy us. We have a substantial defense against ballistic missiles, and a limited defense against cruise missiles. We have a substantial defense-shelter system. But these are not sufficient to assure that much of Russia’s infrastructure or population would survive a heavy attack.
VLAD. So, what is your estimate of the range of possibilities?
DIMITRI. The destruction could range from complete destruction of Russia – both its population and infrastructure – to destruction of about one-third. The actual level of destruction would depend mainly on whether we made an effective first-strike, and less so on the effectiveness of our missile-defense and defense-shelter systems.
VLAD. Dimitri, in view of what Eric, Mariya, and you have told me, it appears to me that the only way that Russia will survive as a significant culture and nation, and the only way the human-caused destruction of the biosphere will end, is for Russia to neutralize the industrial production of all other nations of the world, and to establish a long-term-survivable planetary management system. From what you have told me today, for a short time we will have the ability to accomplish these ends. Am I correct?
DIMITRI. What do you mean, “neutralize”?
VLAD. Terminate, end.
DIMITRI. I am not sure that I get your meaning. Wouldn’t the other nations object to that?
VLAD. Of course they would! You don’t get my meaning at all! What I am saying is to conquer all other nations of the world, and stop their industrial production. This would be accomplished by war. It would be accomplished with 4,000 nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missiles. We would destroy all industrial capacity outside of Russia. Maybe not all of it via direct effects, and perhaps not in every country, but most of it indirectly via a mortal wound leading to collapse of the brittle global economic system.
DIMITRI. Oh my god!
VLAD. What do you mean, “oh my god”? You are in the business of war, man! This would be the ultimate battle, Armageddon, to save the biosphere, mankind and Russia. Continuing the present system of massive human numbers and industrial production leads only to certain destruction for Russia, for mankind, and for the biosphere as we know it. Global nuclear war could mean the same thing, but at least with that approach there is a chance. It may be the means, perhaps the only feasible means, of establishing a better planetary system.
DIMITRI. If I understand correctly, you are proposing an unprovoked first-strike against all other nations. A preemptive strike. What is the justification for this? We are not under attack, or even under the threat of imminent attack.
VLAD. Dimitri, it may be preemptive, but it is certainly not unprovoked. The rest of the world is actively working to crush us economically, and their policy of continued high levels of human population and industrial activity seal our doom. The rest of the world is actively engaged in mortal combat with Russia. All nations have a right, indeed, a responsibility, to defend themselves from aggression, and to counterattack.
You have just told me that, for a brief time, Russia will have the means to destroy our attackers. Nations that destroy their attackers are not mass murderers. They are doing what nations are supposed to do – defending their people. Undertaking this venture is morally justified, both from the viewpoint of saving Russia, ending the mass misery that uncontrolled growth has wrought, and acquiring a high quality of life for humanity for millions of years to come. We have strong moral justification – a moral imperative, actually – and motive to do this, and, given the news that you have just brought me, we will soon have the means and opportunity.
With respect to population and the environment, Russia is acting responsibly. We have a low density of people, and a modest total population. Our population is stable – it has been so for years. All other nations are calling for economic growth, and for continuing large human numbers and industrial activity. Uncontrolled economic growth is destroying the planet, and Russia with it. Growth-based economics is destroying the biosphere, and has created a vile system in which billions of people live in misery. That system is the enemy of Russia and of humankind.
You, Dimitri, are the Minister for Defense. You are charged with responsibility to defend Russia. You have succeeded in the development of military weapons and systems that can save us and the rest of humanity. Those capabilities will now be put to use. To good use.
DIMITRI. We will go down in history as the greatest mass murderers of all time!
VLAD. That is not at all true! It is uncontrolled growth-based economics that is the greatest mass murderer of all time. It condemns billions of people, those already living and those yet unborn, to lives of misery and grinding poverty. It robs them of the opportunity to live in a spacious, species-rich environment. It robs them of the opportunity of realizing their full potential. It condemns them to death before they have any chance to lead happy, meaningful lives.
After global war reduces human numbers and industrial production to low levels, it will be possible to establish a long-term-sustainable planetary management system, which will assure a meaningful existence for humankind for millions of years. Don’t you recall anything from the detailed discussions that you, Eric, and Mariya had a few weeks ago on this very topic?
DIMITRI. Well, yes, I recall that, but I dismissed it as a lot of ivory-tower, academic nonsense.
VLAD. Well, the other participants in the discussion were serious – deadly serious.
Dimitri, I have given a lot of thought to this. We are in a real fix. The growth-based economic system used by the rest of the world will eventually overwhelm our steady-state system. The sanctions are crippling us, and will bring us to our knees. The current planetary management system is destroying the planet, Russia included. The only rational response to the present situation is to bring that system to an end. From what you have told me about our nuclear-powered cruise missiles today, we have a window of opportunity to pull this off. Is that not true? What were you thinking about when you referred to a “window of opportunity,” anyway?
DMITIRI. I don’t know. It wasn’t a first strike to destroy the rest of the world. I am Minister for Defense, not Minister for War. I have generally viewed my role as that of defending the Motherland, not of taking over the world.
VLAD. Well, simply defending Russia from attack is not sufficient. You must now adopt a proactive stance, not a reactive one. Up to now, the country has been defended by a policy of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD. While that approach may have protected us from military attack, it is not going to save us from destruction by other means. All it accomplishes is perpetuation of the pernicious global economic system that is destroying the biosphere, and Russia with it. The present global policy of large human numbers and industrial production is a sure path to our demise, even if MAD is one-hundred percent effective in preventing nuclear war. The real enemy is not US missiles. It is the West’s policy of growth-based economics, large human population, and high industrial production. Our only route to salvation is to bring that planet-destroying system to an end.
[Pause.] Tell me, Dimitri, are you up to this? Be honest.
DIMITRI. Right now, I am pretty much stunned. Unlike you, I have not thought about planetary existential issues. I would appreciate your indulgence, and permit me to consider these things. I need to know whether I can commit myself unconditionally to them. I need some time to think.
VLAD. That’s understandable. How much time?
DIMITRI. I need the rest of the day. I will get back to you first thing tomorrow morning, after I have thought things through and slept on them. Is that satisfactory?
VLAD. Quite. I’ll see you in the morning. Thank you, Dimitri.
DIMITRI. Thank you, sir.
SCENE. The time is the near future. The location is the President’s office in the Kremlin, Moscow, Russia. The President, Vlad, is meeting with the Minister for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Mariya, to discuss strategy for global nuclear war.
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (VLAD). Mariya, the plan to establish a long-term-sustainable planetary management system is known just to me, to you and to Dimitri. Dimitri is very good at accomplishing military goals, but he does not possess a lot of vision. This is not a serious criticism – it is good for the military to leave goal-setting to the politicians. You, on the other hand, have an extraordinary talent for seeing the big picture, and for identifying alternative visions of the future. The reason I called you in today is to engage in discussion of visions for a long-term-sustainable planetary management system, and strategy for bringing that vision to reality.
MINISTER FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (MARIYA). I appreciate the confidence that you have shown in my judgment.
VLAD. It is not just your judgment that I respect, it is your creative talent for generating alternative visions, and synthesizing alternative means of implementing them. From our earlier discussions, I am familiar with your general concept for planetary management – a single high-technology, high-energy-use nation of a few million people in a limited geographic area and a low-technology, low-energy-use population, also of just a few million people, distributed over the planet. For technical reasons, you call such a population as a “minimal regret” population.
Stated in these terms, these concepts are general. I would like to identify specific ways in which a minimal-regret population might be established, in the global context that exists today, and in view of the damage that Russia might sustain in global nuclear war.
MARIYA. I understand. Do you have some specific questions, or shall I comment in general?
VLAD. Let’s start with your general comments. I am sure that I will have specific questions, but they are better asked later, in a specific context.
MARIYA. As you know, the concept of a minimal-regret population stems from a desire to minimize the worst that can happen. In waging global nuclear war, I would utilize the same decision criterion. Let us consider some of the undesirable outcomes, and see how to address them.
VLAD. OK, I agree with that approach.
MARIYA. The very worst outcome is that the war is so massive in scope that the planet goes into nuclear winter, and humanity is destroyed. As you know, with current global nuclear warhead inventory levels, the likelihood of that outcome is very low. So let’s assume that this does not happen.
At the next level, let us consider the situation in which Russia is essentially annihilated – either physically destroyed or contaminated with radiation to the extent that conduct of necessary post-attack operations is precluded. If we strike first, the likelihood of this is low. It could conceivably happen, however, and we must therefore plan for this contingency. Russia is more than just a physical country. It is a culture. While that culture’s present home is the present-day physical country of Russia, it could be located elsewhere on the planet, at least for a time.
VLAD. Yes, we have considered this in our earlier discussion.
MARIYA. As you know, radioactive fallout settles downwind from the detonations. The prevailing winds are from the west, and since Europe contains many targets, Russia, to the east, will be affected. The odds are high that Russia will be substantially damaged, either from the direct effects of blast and heat or from radioactive fallout. For this reason, it is imperative to consider alternative locations for Russia after the war.
In much of the habitable northern regions of the Northern Hemisphere, the population density is low. Apart from Russia, this region includes Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Sweden and Finland. The total population of these lands is about 60 million. If this region were to avoid destruction in global nuclear war, it could serve, in its present form, as the high-tech nation of a minimal-regret planetary management system. I would propose that no cities in these countries be targeted by Russia. Some cities in Alaska and Canada may be targeted by China, but the US will not attack any.
My proposal is the following. In the first wave of the war, do not target any locations in these countries. After the first wave, contact the leaders of these countries and give them an ultimatum to capitulate or face annihilation. If they capitulate, fine. If they do not, then target them. Just some of their cities. Then ask them again.
VLAD. If Russia is largely destroyed, how do we manage to accomplish that?
MARIYA. It is necessary to set up redundant command posts and survivable inventories of nuclear-armed cruise missiles.
VLAD. Following this second stage of the war, after capitulation, the number of major surviving cities in the region could be most of them, some of them, or none of them. How do we assume control under these alternatives?
MARIYA. Many years ago, Machiavelli considered this problem. His views are still valid. There are three main ways to assume administrative control of a conquered country: (1) destroy the country utterly, as the Romans did to the Carthaginians; (2) set up a puppet government to do the administration, as has been done many times by Russia and other countries; and (3) assimilation via mass immigration, education and relocation. Option (1) is distasteful. Option (2) is out of the question if we wish to achieve the goal of a single cohesive entity in charge of the planet – we need a homogeneous group of loyal Russians in charge, not a motley collection of foreign administrators. In my view, option (3) is the only reasonable approach in the present situation. When all is done, the high-tech nation in charge of the planet must be dedicated and committed to the goal of establishing and maintaining a long-term-sustainable planetary management system. It must be thoroughly Russian in culture and language.
VLAD. But the countries you have cited don’t speak Russian at all. How do you propose to implement assimilation?
MARIYA. We don’t have time to fool around. It has to be done quickly. The conquered peoples should be speaking only Russian within a year.
VLAD. And if not?
MARIYA. Then they would be relocated outside of the high-tech region.
VLAD. OK, that seems reasonable. By the way, the terms “high-tech region” or “high-tech nation” or “planetary management organization” are awkward. Can we give it a simpler name? Should we just call it Russia?
MARIYA. We could do that. It may be confusing, however, to use the same name for the high-tech nation or the planetary management organization as is used for current physical Russia.
VLAD. The countries you mentioned are all of the far north. How about the legendary names “Hyperborea,” or “Thule”?
MARIYA. Those names might work, but they are well-worn. How about “Solaria,” since under the new regime the planet will function on the current flux of solar energy, not on fossil fuel?
VLAD. Well, that’s not quite correct – we will also be using nuclear energy, at least for cruise-missile engines and warheads.
MARIYA. OK, I agree that a shorter name would be good, but there are lots of possibilities. How about, for the present, just use PMO, for Planetary Management Organization?
VLAD. Well, that term works for the organization running the planet, but it would not reasonably apply to the geographic area in which that organization is located.
MARIYA. I see your point. Under the minimal-regret scheme, the planet is essentially divided into two geographic areas – the area occupied by the high-tech nation, and everywhere else. The PMO is located within the geographic area defined by the high-tech nation, but that area also includes general population, whose activity supports the PMO functions. The PMO is an organization with a singular mission – managing the human population of Planet Earth. What we are concerned about here is a name for the city-state in which the PMO is located.
The fact that present circumstances locate it in the far north has nothing to do with its purpose, or mission, or function. It seems to me that the geographic name should relate to the mission, not to the geographic location, which could have been anywhere on Earth under different circumstances. The name should reflect the function, and perhaps the status, of the city-state. It will be the only city-state on the planet. How about “Civitas,” or “Metropolis,” or “Capital City,” or “The City”? Or perhaps a neutral term, such as TerraNova – Latin for “New Land.”
VLAD. If our venture succeeds, that name will become dated. After a millennium, it will not be new at all. It will just be “Terra” again. The name “TerraNova” might reasonably refer to the entire planet under the new planetary management system, but not to the city-state area.
Of the names that you have suggested, I like “Metropolis” best. The definition of the word “metropolis” is the chief city of a country, state, or region. It is more specifically defined as the mother city or parent state of a colony. That definition fits its role well in the present context.
MARIYA. OK, “Metropolis” it is. And what about a name for the rest of the planet? “The Bush”? “The Outback”?
VLAD. [Chuckles.] Those terms are descriptive, but too used. How about “The Hinterland,” or “The Hinterlands,” or simply “Hinterland.” These terms are more general. One definition of “hinterland” is “remote areas away from cities and towns.” That is apt.
MARIYA. OK, that’s fine.
VLAD. Tell me a little more about your concept of assimilation. Suppose some people do not accept the mission of establishing and maintaining a long-term-sustainable planetary management organization? Suppose they are not committed to it. Suppose they are unwilling or unable to learn Russian, or to adopt Russian culture.
MARIYA. Then they will be relocated outside the PMO’s city-state area, outside Metropolis.
VLAD. You mean, “deported.”
MARIYA. Well, yes, I do, but “relocated” is a more neutral term.
VLAD. Is that a death sentence? Tell me more about your concept for the area outside of the PMO area, for Hinterland.
MARIYA. I have given a lot of thought to this. The essential function of the PMO is restriction of planetary population and industrial activity to low levels. I believe that the following policy will accomplish that end:
1. There shall be no cities of population over 100,000, except perhaps in Russia.
2. There shall be no use of energy other than current solar energy, except in Russia.
3. All waste shall be recycled.
4. Permanent settlements may be located only within three miles of rivers that are navigable from the ocean.
VLAD. You referred to “Russia.” Did you mean “Metropolis”?
MARIYA. Yes, of course. Metropolis.
VLAD. So, outside of Metropolis, people are free to do whatever they please, as long as they don’t build sizable cities, use only solar energy, recycle all of their waste, and locate along rivers navigable from the ocean? That’s all? That sounds too simple.
MARIYA. It seems to me that this policy will work. If it doesn’t, it will be revised.
VLAD. Why are permanent settlements allowed only along rivers accessible from oceans?
MARIYA. Subject to the policy, people are free to live any lifestyle they choose. If they desire a high-tech, high-energy-use existence, it must be in Metropolis. Outside of Metropolis, they may engage only in low-energy-use activities, either nomadically or in small villages. The reason for the restriction of permanent settlements to banks of navigable rivers is so that we can monitor them easily.
VLAD. And if they violate the rules?
MARIYA. Villages that violate the rules will be depopulated.
VLAD. “Depopulated”? You appear to have a penchant for euphemism.
MARIYA. That may be so.
VLAD. By the way, from the way you describe the situation, the term “Hinterland” is not very appropriate for the region outside of Metropolis. One definition of the word “hinterland” is the remote areas of a country away from the coast or the banks of major rivers. Permanent villages along major rivers are not hinterland. “Hinterland” is not a good descriptor for the region outside of Metropolis.
MARIYA. You are correct. I am a little puzzled, however, why you are so focused on finding exactly the right terms to describe the concepts that we are discussing. Do the labels matter that much?
VLAD. Yes, they do. I want to make sure that we are always on the same page, that there is not a miscommunication. I like for the terms that I use to be well defined. Dealing with a conceptual framework is facilitated when the terminology and the symbology are logically useful, well defined and well understood. We are discussing new concepts, and I want to get the terminology right, to avoid confusion later on.
MARIYA. OK, I understand, and I accept your point. Let’s not call the area outside of Metropolis “Hinterland.” How about “Arcadia”? The term refers to a vision of pastoralism and harmony with nature.
VLAD. I like that. “Arcadia” it is. The planet TerraNova will consist of two regions: Metropolis and Arcadia. The Planetary Management Organization, or PMO, is headquartered in Metropolis, but it operates throughout the planet.
Mariya, you really have a knack for planetary management. If we are successful in pulling this thing off, in setting up a planetary management system, you could be Minister for Planetary Management.
MARIYA. I am flattered, sir, but I don’t see that the PMO would be organized like conventional government, into ministries or departments headed by political appointees.
VLAD. Oh, why is that? How should it be organized, in your view?
MARIYA. There are two organizational aspects to Metropolis – the population and infrastructure of a city-state, which we are calling Metropolis, and the PMO, which is physically supported by that city-state and operates within it, but which also controls it. The city-state would exercise traditional governmental functions, but the PMO would operate as an independent entity. The city-state government would embody many of the traditional functions of government, such as public health, education, environment, and justice, but, under the new arrangement, many of the traditional functions of government would cease, or be of little or no consequence. With but a single city-state on the planet there is no need, for example, for ministers of foreign affairs, defense or international trade. The PMO, on the other hand, will operate like a mission-oriented corporation or military organization, not like a nation-state, and not like an organic agency of the city-state government. It will be an independent entity. While the ministers of government may be appointed or elected, my view is that the leaders and members of the PMO would be selected by merit.
VLAD. OK, I see your point. In any event, establishment of the PMO is still a long way down the road. There is no need to address details at this point in time.
OK, Mariya, this discussion has been extremely helpful. I have a much clearer picture of where we are headed, and how to get there. That’s it for now. I am sure that I will want to talk again, after I have considered things further, and as the situation evolves. Thank you.
MARIYA. You are very welcome. Good day.
SCENE. The time is the near future, shortly after the first phase of global nuclear war. The location is a remote military command center in Russia. The President, Vlad, is making a telephone call to Pierre, the prime minister of Canada.
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (VLAD). Hello, Pierre! How are you today?
PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA (PIERRE). I am well, sir, how are you?
VLAD. I am well.
Pierre, how informed are you of the global situation? What is your understanding of the situation?
PIERRE. I know that it is extremely dire. Our assessment is that in the global nuclear war that began a month ago, most of the planet’s large and medium-sized cities have been destroyed. We have sent out a number of aerial drones that have revealed that most of the world’s nations have collapsed. Canada was not attacked, but the United States has been annihilated. What is the situation in Russia?
VLAD. I regret to say that Russia got clobbered. We lost a lot of population and infrastructure. I am calling from a remote command center.
PIERRE. Do you know how the war started? Who initiated it? Who participated in it? What is your assessment of the situation?
VLAD. Pierre, this is the situation. For good reason, Russia initiated the war.
PIERRE. What? There is no good reason for starting a nuclear war! Why did you do this?
VLAD. Pierre, I don’t want to go into a lot of detail right now, and I don’t want to get into a discussion of the ethics of nuclear war. I want to focus on where we go from here.
PIERRE. So, where do we go from here?
VLAD. Despite the hammering we took, Russia has survived the war. Once the initial attack occurred, a free-for-all ensued, in which all of the world’s nuclear powers launched nuclear weapons against their adversaries. The global situation is that the only surviving countries are small nations of minimal significance, plus Canada, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Russia did not target those countries, and neither did anyone else.
So here’s the situation. It is Russia’s intention to assume control of the planet. In fact, we have already done so. We intend to set up a planetary management system that will limit human population and industrial production to levels that will live in harmony with the rest of the biosphere.
The reason why we did not target Canada, Norway, Sweden and Finland is that we anticipated that Russia would get hammered. We have lost much of our population and most of our physical infrastructure. Under present circumstances, we can accomplish our goal of setting up a planetary management system in either of two ways: (1) after radiation levels subside to low levels, we can begin the slow process of rebuilding our infrastructure; or (2) we can cooperate with Canada, Norway, Sweden and Finland to make immediate use of their infrastructure, which is undamaged.
The purpose of my call to you today is to ask you whether Canada will join us in the effort to set up a planetary management system such as I described. I will send you a detailed description of what we have in mind. After I end this conversation with you, I will be making similar calls to Norway, Sweden and Finland.
I know that this is a big decision for Canada. It will mean that you cede your sovereignty to Russia. Moreover, it will mean that Canadians will learn Russian, adopt Russian culture, and adopt the role of participating in the planetary management system. Canada will assimilate as an integral part of Russia.
PIERRE. Mr. President, I am absolutely stunned by what you are saying. I am sure that I speak for most Canadians in asserting that your proposal is totally unacceptable. It is unacceptable because it would deny all people the fundamental right to freedom, and it is unacceptable because it would require Canadians to forsake their Canadian heritage, culture and values.
VLAD. Pierre, I know that you are upset, and that it will take some time and reflection to adapt to this new situation and make a decision. I want to make it clear, however, that you really have no choice. If you do not agree, we will attack Canada as we did the rest of the world, and annihilate many of your major cities. I will call you back in a month for your decision. Do you have any questions?
PIERRE. Yes, I do. How do I know that your threat is credible? From what you say, Russia has been largely destroyed. Our aerial drones have confirmed this. For all I know, you are calling from a shack in Siberia, with no resources at your command at all.
VLAD. OK, Pierre, fair enough. In fact, our substantial arsenal of nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missiles remains intact. To demonstrate our capability, I will detonate one of them a few miles off the east coast of Canada, the day after tomorrow, three hours after dawn local time.
PIERRE. [After a pause.] OK.
VLAD. Thank you, Pierre. I look forward to hearing your decision.
SCENE. The same as before. [The time is the near future, shortly after the first phase of global nuclear war. The location is a remote military command center in Russia. The President, Vlad, is making a telephone call to Pierre, the prime minister of Canada.]
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (VLAD). Hello, Pierre! How are you today?
PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA (PIERRE). As you would expect, I am not very happy.
VLAD. I can understand that. You are in an uncomfortable position. In any event, it is time to make a decision. What have you decided?
PIERRE. Mr. President, in the month since we talked, I have had intensive discussions with my people, and also with the heads of government of Sweden, Norway and Finland. The consensus is that Russia has been annihilated, and that you need our infrastructure to move ahead with your plan. While you may possess the wherewithal to destroy us, that would be shooting yourself in the foot. To implement your plan of a planetary management system, you need industrial infrastructure. Your suggestion that you could proceed to implement the PMO after you rebuild Russia is not credible.
VLAD. I concede that your logic is reasonable. So what is your decision?
PIERRE. Mr. President, your proposal is not acceptable. The peoples of Canada, Sweden, Norway and Finland have no desire to assimilate into Russia. Moreover, we view your plan to implement a planetary management system as morally reprehensible. The primary responsibility of the leaders of democratic governments is to their constituents – to the live citizens of today, not to hypothetical populations of the future. Our people choose to live free, and not to engage in your plan to implement a totalitarian regime over the planet, and not to implement forced population control.
VLAD. Pierre, it is difficult for me to appreciate your position. Our plan assures a stable, human-friendly biosphere for the indefinite future. It will use the tools of civilization and science to promote a stable biosphere and assure a high quality of life for human beings for millions of years to come. Your approach is to continue the biosphere-destroying, misery-producing globalized civilization of the past. The new system assures that human beings will live in healthy, pleasant environments, not crowded together in misery as under the current system, in a rapidly deteriorating biosphere. You appear to see a moral imperative to keep today’s people alive, no matter what the consequences for future generations of mankind. We see a moral imperative to make the world a much better place, for millennia to come.
I implore you to reconsider your position. While we can make effective use of the infrastructure of your country and its allies, we do not need all of that infrastructure. If you do not agree to our plan, I will target all major cities within Canada, leaving only the port cities of Vancouver and Halifax intact.
On reconsideration, what is your decision?
PIERRE. Your proposals are reprehensible, and we will not yield or compromise our principles to your threat. We will not capitulate or cooperate with your plan. We will work to thwart it. Even if you destroy our major cities, the remnant population will resist. As you are well aware, all four countries have effective defense shelter systems. We will survive your nuclear war, and we will defeat you. We call your bluff.
VLAD. OK, Pierre, so be it. Goodbye.
SCENE. The time is twenty years after a global nuclear war. The location is an office in the Office of Planetary Management in Astoria, Oregon. Two people are present. Mrs. Olga Komarova is a human resources officer, who is interviewing a candidate, Peter, for a position in the Office. Madam Komarova is holding a dossier in her hand, reviewing Peter’s application
MRS OLGA KOMAROVA. Good morning, Peter. How are you today?
PETER. I am fine, Madam Komarova. Thank you.
KOMAROVA. Peter, you have applied for the position of Resource Development Officer in the Office of Planetary Management. You are a recent graduate of university and have completed your two years of required military service. This will be your first permanent position.
I see from your résumé that you performed quite well as a seaman. You could have continued in the military. Why did you not choose to do so?
PETER. I found the work challenging and interesting, Madam Komarova, but I found the long postings to be difficult. Military service involves short-term postings, and a lot of relocation. Most of the seamen in my unit were serving their required time, like me. Not many were long term. I would prefer a land position, where I can have a permanent home and a stable family life.
KOMAROVA. I can understand that. Tell me about your military work.
PETER. Yes, Madam. I spent most of the time on the La Plata River between Uruguay and Argentina, on river patrol. I was attached to the Regional Outpost in Colonia del Sacramento. Our patrol boat monitored the river, and escorted supply ships. We patrolled from Punta del Este to Mercedes.
KOMAROVA. Did you see any action?
PETER. No, Madam. Things were stable there. The duty was routine.
KOMAROVA. You did well at university. Your degree is in wildlife management. I can understand why you found river patrol limiting. Tell me, Peter, why are you interested in this position, Resource Development Officer, and why here, in Astoria?
PETER. I read about the plan to restore the Interior Plains in North America – to reestablish the prairie, to reintroduce the bison, the wolf and feral mustangs on a large scale. To me, that project is worthwhile, and I would like to be a part of it. With my training in wildlife management, I feel that I can make a significant contribution to this effort.
KOMAROVA. Why do you think that this project is worthwhile?
PETER. Before the war, the United States did much to destroy the Interior Plains. They destroyed the prairies, replacing them with massive farms. They wiped out the bison – both the plains bison and the woodland bison. They exterminated the grey wolf. They fenced in the prairie and plowed it. They pretty much wiped out the feral mustangs, which had added a lot to the continent and to human society on it. They destroyed the prairie grass and they destroyed the prairie. Before that, the Interior Plains of North America were a magnificent natural wonder. In my view, it is worth restoring. It can be restored, and I would like to help bring that about.
KOMAROVA. What do you think of Russia’s population policy?
PETER. I am not sure what you mean. My political views are conservative. I support the law. I support that policy.
KOMAROVA. What is your understanding of that policy?
PETER. I know the basic tenets.
KOMAROVA. Can you describe them to me?
PETER. Certainly. The main tenets of Russian population policy are the following:
1. There shall be no cities of population over 100,000, except perhaps in Russia.
2. There shall be no use of energy other than current solar energy, except in Russia.
3. All waste shall be recycled.
4. Permanent settlements may be located only within three miles of rivers that are navigable from the ocean.
KOMAROVA. That is correct. What are the major implications of that policy?
PETER. Basically, it is designed to keep global human population low. More specifically, it means that all interior land in the world may be used only by nomadic people, who exist by hunting and gathering. It also means, basically, that Russia is the only high-technology nation in the world. It is the only place where large cities may exist and nuclear power may be used. Outside of Russia, human activity is limited to subsistence agriculture along ocean shores and the banks of rivers that are navigable from the ocean.
KOMAROVA. Why the three-mile limit, along the ocean shore or river shores navigable from oceans?
PETER. So that all permanent settlements may be reached by Russian patrol boats. Such as the one I was on.
KOMAROVA. You have a correct understanding of the basic policy. Do you know why that policy exists? Why should Russia want to keep global population low?
PETER. Before the war, Earth’s population stood at over eight billion people. Industrial production had destroyed much natural habitat and seriously polluted the land, oceans and atmosphere. The industrial activity of large human numbers, enabled by use of fossil fuel, was destroying the biosphere and threatening human existence. Most of the eight billion people on the planet lived in poverty, deprivation, desperation and want.
There was no longer sufficient land for everyone. There was no free land anywhere. The planet was so crowded that only the wealthiest were able to access its natural wonders. A few people were fabulously wealthy. Most people lived in cities, many of more than a million people. The cities were plagued by crowding, disease, violence and crime. Many people worked in large factories at meaningless, repetitive, mind-numbing jobs. The work had little direct relevance to their survival – its purpose was to produce wealthy for the planet’s controllers. For most human beings, life was a living hell, with no hope. In the United States, almost one percent of the population was incarcerated in prisons, many for terms over ten years.
When the war occurred, Earth’s population plummeted to less than a billion, in just a few months. Russia was the sole remaining large high-tech nation. Its policy was to establish a planetary management system that would stop further massive change to the biosphere and assure long-term survival of the human species. Basically, the policy is to allow a single high-technology nation – Russia – and to limit energy use outside of Russia to current solar energy. That means that the world outside of Russia is low-technology – hunter-gatherer in the interior of continents and primitive agriculture along oceans and large rivers that flow to oceans. Russia’s role – its purpose and mission – is to operate a long-term-sustainable planetary management system. This system keeps global population at low levels.
KOMAROVA. How did the pre-war situation arise? A planet stuffed with billions of people living in misery. That is hard to conceive.
PETER. The global economic system was a system in which most people engaged in meaningless work to produce vast wealth for the planet’s controllers. The system produced a global population consisting of a very small proportion of very wealthy people, a small proportion of people of modest means, and a very large proportion of very poor people. The system was committed to growth, both of the population and industrial production. As the total population grew, the number of desperately poor people increased, but so too did the number of wealthy people and total wealth.
Through industrial production of food, the economic system enabled the population to grow to very high levels, so that most people on the planet no longer had access to an amount of land of size or quality sufficient to provide a good quality of life for their family, using natural methods such as hunting, gathering, herding or farming. Most people were slaves to the economic system, sentenced to lifetimes of meaningless work. For most people, the situation was hopeless. The most that they could hope for was to claw their way a little higher up the in the teeming mass of desperately poor people. They either worked within the system, or they perished. The global economic system was all-encompassing. It consumed the entire planet. There were no alternatives.
KOMAROVA. The poor outnumbered the wealthy by a tremendous factor. Why would they put up with such a cruel system, comprised of so many poor and so few well-off?
PETER. It is not entirely clear. Partly out of fear of the unknown. Party because the global economic system encompassed the entire planet – there was nothing outside the system, there was nowhere else to go or to seek refuge. Partly because they were brainwashed by the system into believing that a better life was possible only through the system, that by working harder within it and for it things would get better. They evidently did not realize that as the global economic system grew, and human population grew along with it, it was in fact crowding the available space with ever more people and destroying the biosphere.
Enslavement. Indoctrination. Ignorance. Fear. Inertia. Evil leaders. Human greed. All of these things were factors. I’m not sure I understand why it happened – history tells how, not so much why. Perhaps it was destined to happen. Perhaps mankind had to pass through that terrible phase, to have the wisdom to change things for the better.
KOMAROVA. Peter, everything that you have described about the global economic system is negative. It is difficult to accept that a global system could exist for very long at all, if it had no positive benefits associated with it. Do you have anything good to say about it?
PETER. Well, the first thing that I would say would be that it did not last very long at all – a few hundred years. Compared to the timespan of human existence, that is but an instantaneous blip. Second, a growth-based economic system is an exponential process. Exponential processes are like explosions – they do not last very long. Without a mechanism to stop the exponential growth, the system was bound to self-destruct. Third, the large global economic system did in fact produce a very positive benefit – the tremendous explosion of knowledge that it made possible.
Without a substantial economic surplus, society does not possess the wherewithal to support its thinkers – its mathematicians, scientists and philosophers. The economic system enabled us to acquire a good understanding of the universe and our place in it. This would not have happened had human society continued as hunter-gatherers, or even as primitive agriculturalists and herders. The economic system did not serve only the wealthy – it served all mankind in enabling the acquisition of a massive amount of knowledge in a short time. The fact that it brought about an extreme distribution of wealth, and caused billions to live in poverty and deprivation, is the cost that had to be endured for this very significant benefit to happen.
Without the incentive for acquiring wealth, the wealthy would not have worked hard to build the global economic system and make it grow. Without the massive amount of wealth generated by the system, the means would not have been available to support the science establishment. The suffering of the poor, who generated the wealth, was not in vain – what you see today is the direct result of their contribution.
In short, the global economic system was not all bad. It was causing substantial destruction of the biosphere and therefore could not continue long. But before its collapse it did enable mankind to acquire great knowledge. The universe appears always to evolve to greater complexity. The rise of the global economic system may have been inevitable. Its collapse surely was. In any event, its existence was very useful to mankind. It enabled us to set up the current planetary management system.
KOMAROVA. The present system includes both hunter-gatherers and primitive agriculture. It appears that mankind’s problems started with the move to agriculture. Do you see a role for agriculture outside of Russia? Or just hunting and gathering?
PETER. Primitive, household-level agriculture, such as practiced by individuals or small tribes, is reasonable. It can lead to a meaningful and happy lifestyle. The system that generates much poverty and hardship is the use of agriculture to support a large number of people. The controllers then keep the farmers working full time to produce food for as many people as possible. This arrangement keeps the farmer in poverty, deprivation and hardship. Industrialization and commercialization of agriculture are extensions and implementations of this concept. As long as the agricultural product is used only by the people who raised it – by their immediate families or local communities – there is no problem. It is when it is attempted to use the agricultural product to support other people, remote from the producers, that the problems begin.
To answer you directly, I see a role for household-level agriculture, but not for commercial agriculture, outside of Russia.
KOMAROVA. I am afraid that we got a little off track. I had originally asked what happened to change things, to get rid of the economic system that had such a grip on the planet. What in fact happened to change that? What is different now?
PETER. Well, the war changed everything. It gave Russia the opportunity to set up a well-functioning and biosphere-friendly planetary management system. The situation is radically different from before. There are now no cities of size over 100 thousand people, anywhere on the planet, even in Russia. Economic poverty is unknown. Disease and violence are at low levels. Prisons are gone. Public shaming or shunning is used for minor offenses, and banishment is used instead of capital punishment for serious offenses. Most people on the planet lead meaningful lives. All people have access to land and water, if they want it. Outside of Russia, there is no private ownership of land.
No one is required to do any job that he objects to. If he is not satisfied, he can leave, strike out on his own, leave Russia. If you don’t like things now, there is an alternative – you can leave. There is a whole, empty planet you can go to, if you wish. Everyone in Russia now is there because they want to be. They are, in general, happy. Most of the world outside of Russia is empty. We have reset the biosphere to the way it was prior to the industrial revolution – a limited amount of agriculture and the interiors of most continents occupied by hunter-gatherers.
KOMAROVA. Your description is accurate. Do you know how the population policy is implemented, enforced? How is human population kept low?
PETER. Yes, I do know. In the military, we were trained in enforcement. The Russian military establishment possesses a strong navy, air force, and army. We have nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed cruise missiles that can reach and destroy any large city. We have nuclear-powered ships that access the shores of all continents. We have river craft that can reach all permanent settlements. We have nuclear-powered and solar-powered drones that can support global communications and aerial photography of the entire planet.
KOMAROVA. You have certainly done your homework, Peter. You have a good understanding of the current planetary situation, how it developed, and Russia’s role in operating a planetary management system that can assure a long-term-sustainable biosphere and human society.
From what we have discussed, I believe that you are a strong candidate for the position. You appear to be enthusiastic about the project, and you have the education to be able to contribute to it. As you know, the purpose of this interview with me is for me to meet you briefly. You will now continue with in-depth interviews with other staff members, for the remainder of the day. Good luck!
PETER. Thank you very much, Madam Komarova, for the opportunity of meeting with you. Good-day.
SCENE. The time is 500 years in the future. The location is somewhere on the Great Plains of the United States. It is evening. A man and wife are seated in front of a teepee, in native costume. It is early evening. A buffalo robe lies nearby.
MAN. Wife, how was your day today?
WOMAN. Dear, it was a good day. The children played. I spent some time with Mother. We had a good talk. I worked on your shirt. I have finished tanning the leather and am ready to cut it to size. I can take the size from your old shirt, or modify it if you wish.
MAN. The old one fits fine. Perhaps make the neck a little looser.
WOMAN. OK, I will do that. How was your day? Did the hunt go well?
MAN. Yes, very well. The buffalo are plentiful. We killed one, but then the herd bolted. We chased them for a while, but we did not want to tire our ponies. We will go out again tomorrow. I need to fletch more arrows.
WOMAN. The meat that you brought back is good. I cooked some of it for this meal, and will dry the rest.
MAN. Good.
[A pause in speaking.]
WOMAN. Where did you get the rabbit?
MAN. Just before we got back to camp.
WOMAN. Who got the buffalo hide?
MAN. Don arranged the hunt. The hide is his.
WOMAN. Autumn is approaching, and we could use another hide.
MAN. OK, I will arrange the next hunt. The next hide will be for you.
[The two remain silent for a while, drinking.]
MAN. Our life is very good. The game is plentiful. It is good to be free, to be able to go anywhere on the plains, any time we wish.
WOMAN. Yes, life is very good.
[They remain silent for a while.]
WOMAN. Did you hear that two agents came by today? A man and a woman.
MAN. No, I did not know that. What happened?
WOMAN. It had been several months since an agent had visited, and they wanted information on what had happened since then. It was the standard questions about where we had camped, how plentiful the game was, and whether we had had any encounters with strangers. We told them about the ruckus last month, and they asked for details on it.
The woman wanted to know about health. She asked about any health problems we had had. She then examined those who agreed. She asked each of us how happy we were. We told her that we were very happy.
MAN. Was that all?
WOMAN. No, they asked, as usual, whether the tribe wished to send any child or children for education.
MAN. And what was the answer?
WOMAN. We said not at present, but if a child were orphaned it would be considered.
MAN. Are they still here?
WOMAN. No, they are gone now. Before they left, they asked whether anyone wanted news from outside. We said yes, and they told us much. Someone asked about the old times, and they told us about that. Did you know that evil people once destroyed all of the buffalo?
MAN. I had heard that once, but I did not believe it. We cannot live without buffalo. We would have perished. Do you believe that?
WOMAN. Yes, I believe that it is true. The prairie was empty.
MAN. But there are plenty of buffalo. Millions of them. Everywhere. That belies what you say.
WOMAN. What happened is that a great man, Lord Vlad, conquered the evil men who destroyed the buffalo. A few buffalo remained in special places, and Lord Vlad reintroduced them to the plains. Along with the ponies.
MAN. Well, if that is true, then bless you, Lord Vlad.
About the author: Joseph George Caldwell is a consulting statistician living in Tucson, Arizona. He holds a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie-Mellon University. His professional career includes consulting in statistics, operations research, economics and information technology; Adjunct Professor of Statistics at the University of Arizona; Director of Management Systems at the Bank of Botswana; and Principal Scientist and Manager of Research and Development of the US Army Electronic Proving Ground Electromagnetic Environmental Test Facility. He is author of numerous books, reports and articles on statistics, game theory, evaluation, defense, health, taxation, public policy, environment, population, planetary management, science fiction and music. During his professional career he worked for a number of years in the field of ballistic missile warfare, a topic central to the subject matter of this radio play.
FndID(219)
FndTitle(TerraNova, A Radio Play)
FndDescription(TerraNova, A Radio Play)
FndKeywords(radio play; geopoliitics;global war; world government; long-term survival of human population and biosphere of Earth)