They stole my idea.
I have been talking about this for several years.
I have shared such ideas by mentioning the ecological hard boundaries, the demographic issue of overpopulation and demographic planning and limiting economic models to follow sustainable vectors - and all that confirmed in a new constitution that also takes into account the fact of future generations and their entitlement to this earth.
The article speak of a disaster scenario if we do not change our ways. They are actually talking about peak oil. My approach comes from that assessment. I am a peak oiler and have been for many years. I am also a privacy fighter and these things go hand in hand and this article mentions this too.
"Crises increase the risk of more authoritarian governments, the shrinking of individual freedoms and the confiscation of resources for the use of the elite few. "
And this is what is already happening. More and more the government decides what is best for us, not just about using drugs, but possibly out of fear of being held responsible, governments take away civil rights and liberties to cut off any opposition to their perceived carelessness. This is symbolically described by something that happened several years ago in The Netherlands.
We have a walking event (Nijmeegse Vierdaagse) lasting four days where people from all over the world register for, walks of many miles and in varying distances, so for each a possibility within their limitations. It just so happens that in that year the weather was very warm. As a result people became hydrated and fell victim to their own neglect. Bottles of water were handed out. Two people died, people, who were already ill but went ahead to partake of the event anyway. This was their adult choice and risk to take. The event was immediately canceled for everyone, including hardy walkers and soldiers. Apparently the authorities decided we were too imbecile to assess the warmth and we needed, like children, to be send home. Apparently the government did not trust us with our self-determination.
In a world where peak oil will be the collapse of our civilization, governments who do this in peace and prosperity will surely go completely berserk against their own populations, 'for their own good] and 'think of the children'. And that is where peak oil and privacy join. In such a collapsing state, privacy and with it, autonomy are no longer guaranteed. More and more the government will want to take full control over the situation by controlling us. And privacy is one of the things that is taken away, and it is being taken away every moth these days, with new proposals and legislations granting the government a look behind our front doors.
The only way out is to decrease population pressure. If there are less people, there is less consumption, ergo, less energy use, less oil use. So my take on this article is slightly different. I propose a more demographic approach by adopting policies that decrease population numbers which in turn means the labor force shrinks.
The problem with infinite economic growth based on finite resources, as is our current paradigm, is that economic growth equals demand for labor, hence the need for an increase in population. This is a spiral that self sustains. My idea is to turn it around.
We should adopt a long term planning and start by making having more than two children economically very unfeasible. No more subsidies for a second child, no more allowances and other budgets to make life cheaper for families. If you want a family, you should be paying for it yourself. These subsidies are I believe even based in the notion that we need more people, more workers.
So we take control over our population size. With so many elderly people it will not take long before population growth stagnates. This is a good thing because elderly people use more energy, either to keep warm in winter or cool in summer. We have seen figures here that during warm summers, the elderly die off much faster. This works in our favor.
Lesser people for the available jobs means that businesses cannot expand. That is a good thing. We should manufacture what we need to sustain our own population and so there will be bankruptcies. The excess economy will be stripped away.
My proposal is to close down all this ugly commercial areas and turn them into forest or farm land. A country will need to be able to rely on its own sources for food. At the same time we should promote people, families, to live closer together. This is good against climate change and the environment on a local scale. We have problems with so called 'fine dust' apparently causing possibly ten thousand lives a year. Now, it is good people die..of anything where the goal is a smaller population. But I prefer they die off by more natural causes. Less traffic means less pollution.
People go to work closer to where they go now. This will promote more community building. People will feel more connected to their work and their communities. There are synergistic advantages too. There will be a smaller government needed because administrative bureaucracy because of so many people will decrease. There will be needed much less funds to maintain infrastructure, there will be less cars needed as people live closer to their families and work. Less traffic helps the world.
I think The Netherlands should aim for a populace of 10 million people maximum. It would mean we are even stricter about immigration.
There is more to it than this but I'll quit while I'm ahead.