Chapter 12. Politics and Controls.
When man first lived in an organized society, the rules by which the people lived were comparatively simple, and accepted by all because they were easily understood and seen to be to the advantage of everyone. As society grew and became more complex, so the laws by which men were expected to live together also became more complicated. Rules were applied for a variety of reasons, many relating to religions, ideas and philosophies that appealed to some and were not accepted by others. Today we live according to a maze of rules, laws and expectations that have developed as our society has grown. So very many people have to live cheek by jowl these days, that fewer and fewer activities can be enjoyed freely, We have to comply with detailed and strict rules to avoid confrontation. From time to time in the past people have rebelled against these laws and the result has been conflict and chaos as one ideology has striven to overcome another and take control of the majority of the people. A review of the world today shows very clearly that this form of conflict continues and is likely to do so for the foreseeable future. The more people in the world, the more this form of conflict becomes commonplace and as resources are depleted, inevitably the conflicts will increase. It is fascinating to consider the classical experiment in which scientists steadily increased the number of rats living in an enclosed area. Up to a certain point the number of rats made little difference but once past that point the more rats that were added the more fighting took place and the more vicious became the fighting.
Mankind has tried many different forms of government, from the strict dictatorship where one man or small group made all the decisions, to socialism and communism that all too often eventually turned into dictatorship under another name. Today, our democracy is generally considered an example of freedom for all. The citizen of a century ago however would consider the many rules and regulations under which we currently live as constricting and far from the freedom envisaged by the founding fathers. So many of our laws and rules are dictated by the size of the growing population. Some action that was quite innocuous when the population was much smaller now has to be legally controlled. For example, our forefathers would be disgusted, or laugh out loud, to know that we need a permit to burn any rubbish in our garden. That we are told the color of the garbage bags we must use, or that we can be prosecuted if our dog does not have the required shots each year. These are things that have become a necessity because of the growth in our population our nearness to our neighbors and a general reduction in personal space. We now have the concerns that as our world population grows, it will inevitably cause an increasing shortage of essential resources, such as oil, water and power. Whenever this occurs, the government will be expected to apply rationing or some other method to assure a fair and equitable distribution of the affected materials be they gasoline or food. This in turn produces even more central control and intrusion into our personal lives.
Of course the way that the controls are implemented depends very much on the different political views, be they the left demanding control of every aspect of society, or the right looking for, what in their opinion, is the least interference of personal liberty. No matter who is in power, as the world population grows, government controls will increasingly affect almost every aspect of normal life, and as our resources become depleted government will inevitably control their distribution. It will be very difficult to accept capitalism and competition as the method of assuring the distribution of food when the supplies are limited.
As we are currently seeing with gasoline, shortages almost inevitably bring suppliers together to form tightly controlled cartels. It seems that the price fixing that would be illegal and totally unacceptable if organized by private companies, is quite permissible when carried out by governments. Will we see a similar cartel develop when the plantations of the tropical countries are the sole source of rubber? This will probably occur whenever the materials in short supply are not universally available. This infers that we must have some form of international agreement as to the way limited resources are distributed, and this almost certainly signals the end of capitalism as we know it. The greater the world’s population the less freedom we will enjoy.
For example we have noted that when the oil supply is depleted, some amount of alcohol for fuel could possibly be made from corn, sugar or other organic materials. When food is in short supply, some authority will have to decide how much of these materials can be set aside for this purpose, and when the alcohol becomes available who will use it and for what purpose. Similarly some controls will be required to maintain the supply of electricity. We will not be able to rely on supply and demand, or the effects of price to decide who uses the limited power available from our renewable resources. We could hardly tolerate large advertising displays in our cities, while those with a lower income could not afford to light their homes.
While any essential supplies, be it of oil, electricity or any other material, are freely available, the laws of competition work quite well. However the moment that any material or service becomes limited, competition ceases to exist, the cost invariably rises and can quickly become too expensive for the ordinary man. Where this relates to something that can be considered a luxury or something that will not affect the day to day living, for example an expensive perfume or a diamond ring, it can be accepted as a reward for hard work and success. When however it is something that is necessary for a reasonable living standard, such as food or heating for the home, the outcry of unfair distribution will become deafening as those with a lower income express their frustration.
Here we have to consider what we believe to be a "reasonable living standard", and this will vary tremendously depending on the number of people in the world. For example if we can reduce the population to the point where we can produce enough food for everyone and still have arable land that can grow crops for conversion into fuel for the internal combustion engines, our living style may even approach that which we enjoy today. If however the world’s population continues to grow, we will probably be unable to feed our total population and some will have to starve. It will be a sad day when someone in our government has to decide who those people will be.
As the population of the world grows, more and more control of our daily life will be necessary if the food and other limited necessities are to be fairly shared. The option is chaos as each country tries to fight for it’s very existence. Then of course politics enters into the picture. The politician who leans far to the right may object to limiting the birthrate if this impacts the religious or fundamental beliefs of the majority of his supporters and thus the power he or she receives from that segment of the population. The politician who leans to the left may find that the idea of controlling the birthrate takes away some very fundamental human rights and likewise fear the loss of votes. The only practical solution to these problems is to make all of this information available to the people so that they can readily see the fate that awaits them with the hope that they will voluntarily wish to maintain their families within the two child limit.
The growing world population therefore impacts greatly the type of government we will have in the future, the degree of control that will be exerted on our everyday lives and the amount of freedom we will enjoy. The more people the more controls, and the greater the inevitable intrusion into our personal lives.