Dennis de Champeaux, PhD
14519 Bercaw Ln
San Jose, CA 95124

Open Letter to Mike Honda & Zoe Lofgren, Candidates for Congress

Sat Aug 28 19:15:28 2004

Both of you are contacting me in this election year. While I don't know who is representing me and while I don't even know which party you belong to, I am happy to share a few opinions about a diverse set of topics.

Prologue

This letter has gone through many iterations. Still I get accused ranging from being arrogant and elitist to the lesser charge of being politically incorrect. I have exhausted my ability to make changes. Perhaps it helps to know that my suppressed emotions are deep shame about the 150+M people slaughtered in the previous century and equally deep fear about what humanity will do to itself in this century.

The world's oil fueled economy

We are consuming within about 200 years the world's oil reserves that took 500,000,000 years to be assembled. Nuclear fission can carry us forward perhaps another 100 years. Nuclear fusion has been worked on for 50 years and is still only a promise. Experts have explained their concerns for decades about a world economy on the fragile basis of oil. Their concerns have been ignored and in the meantime the world's population grew yet with another 2 1/4 billion since 1970 (which is 3/4 billion more than the total world population in 1900). The following picture, fundamentally unchanged since 1970, concisely illustrates the collapses that we face with high probability:

It is long overdue that our (world) leaders develop worldwide strategies for a sustainable existence, for not only humanity but for a diverse biosphere.

The world's population

Humanity has grown four fold in the 20th century, which is plausibly the leading cause for most disasters that occurred in the last 100 years: genocides, species extinction, climat changes, environmental destructions, etc. and is certainly the key driver for future challenges. Still, to this day the Western countries have tax regimes that foster population growth. The planet cannot feed its population any longer without artificial means, which depend on a cheap and unlimited supply of oil. We need global acknowledgement and action that the population must not only stop growing but actually be reduced. Now.

Our politicians have been very good in handing out new entitlements. They are also supposed to address tough choices and make tough, unpopular decisions. Population reduction is the top priority for humanity.

Note 1: There is no surprise that the world's trouble spots have "absurd" fertility levels. The table below shows the average number of children per woman, which comes from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/. The trends are going in the right direction but way too slow. 

            2001      2002    2003
Afghanistan 5.87      5.72    5.64
GazaStrip             6.29    6.17
Guatemala             4.51
Honduras              4.03
Iraq        4.87      4.63
Jordan                3.15
Nigeria                       5.4
Pakistan    4.56      4.25    4.1
SaudiArab   6.3       6.21    6.15
Syria                 3.84
Uganda                        6.72
Dismissing these numbers because they refer to areas half a world away is falacious - as the 2001/9/11 events have painfully proven.

Note 2: Not only the experts have been warning about overpopulation. Here a letter to the San Jose Mercury News published on 1991 July 22 by Peter M. Vadasz (who is unknown to me). Notice the exasperated tone:

Limiting family size would save Earth
... What this country needs is a concentrated effort to stop the population explosion, not more tax credits to encourage higher birth rates. Is it really that difficult to see that more people use more space, more water, more natural resources while they dump more and more waste into the ground, the ocean, the air?

The Earth is not getting bigger. It is rather obvious that unless we stop our population growth, our individual space will get slowly squeezed down until we will all live in match-size boxes, drinking strictly rationed recycled water, and forests and wildlife will only exist in history books.

The swelling number of the poor and destitute will increase beyond comprehension the social unrest throughout the world. No amount of welfare and aid can equalize the negative economic consequences of having too many kids in an already impoverished family.

Why is the idea of not having more than two kids per family so difficult to accept? Why can't civic and religious groups discuss and promote such a simple solution to much of our problems? Do we have to wait until it is too late?

The debilitation of the (Western) societies

After decades of fierce discussions there is finally agreement in Psychology (see Pinker's Blank Slate) that personal characteristics, including IQ, are genetically inherited at a correlation coefficient of approximately 0.6. (This outcome conforms with and confirms what Socrates explains in Plato's Republic, Book III.) Although education continues to play an essential role in development it is not the dominating force, as was thought for a long time. The consequences for the society are staggering and are difficuly and painful to accept.

The key issue is that the bottom half of the society has procreated faster and in greater abundance during the last century. The result is that (in spite of $60+K/per person of public education) the average of cognitive skills has slowly decreased. This decline plays a role in the following disturbing statistics:

Hence, the very disturbing conclusion indeed: we should not only decrease the overall size of the (world) population, but also discourage the procreation contribution of the bottom half. This may be less difficult than it sounds. Tax credits were used in the past to foster population growth. We can reverse this by removing all tax credits related to having children. If that is not sufficient, we can introduce co-payments (if necessary progressive) for use of the public education system and/or provide incentives schemes for not having (more) children.

Note 1: The statistic inherit-ability of IQ has as consequence that the current testing of students and using the results to compare schools is not fair. Schools in poor regions will score lower, not because the parents are poor, but because the parents have a lower IQ on average than those in affluent neighborhoods, and therefore, the students will score poorly. Thus to create an incentive scheme for a school, we should obtain instead the productivity of education activities by comparing the cognitive skills of the students at the beginning of an academic year to the end of the year.

Note 2: The press can't stop talking about the rich. This hides the fact that a great majority of the population can not fully support itself. Here the brutal data [Doug Bandow, Sr Fellow Cato Institute]:
- The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 1/3 of income taxes
- The top 5% pay more than 1/2
- The top 10% pay nearly 2/3
- The top 25% pay more than 4/5
The government acts like a massive transfer agent to channel money from one segment to another. Still, labeling a great majority of the population as "parasitic", "deficient", "incompetent", "moronic", etc. does not make any sense whatsoever. People react rationally within the context in which they live. The problem is the society creating, with good reasons, entitlements whose negative side effects over time outpace the benefits and the subsequent near inability to retract entitlements. The solidarity principle underlying the entitlements is the root cause for us now having a "duh" society.

Healthcare mess

The facts are simple: The public believes that someone else is responsible for the bills because it was decided in the deep past that healthcare was a benefit to be paid by the employer, the government, whoever. An employer does not pay for housing, transportation, appliances, etc. So why should an employer deal with the healthcare of the employees?

My ferocious critique on the healthcare system at a recent conference was met with a yawn - the system is broken at a way deeper level than even the experts know.

To get $100 from an ATM takes less than 60 seconds. To get a reimbursement from an HMO can take 100 days.

Healthcare is a cost component of the nation's economy. Reducing the percentage of the GNP that it consumes opens up large amounts for more promising expenditures.

Large organizations reorganize every year to adjust to the changing market and to correct for internal decay. The introduction of Medicare shook things up for good. The same can be said for HMO's. But now both of them have become part of the problem and constitute humanity's most inefficient sector ever invented. We need to overhaul this whole system again and again. A person is not responsible for his/her genes, but that does not imply that someone else must pay for that person's lifestyle choices.

Note: Here a "little detail." Roughly half of emergency room (ER) visits are not necessary. Tele-advice over the phone increases ER visits instead of reducing them. Why? The most esoteric chance for a life-threatening condition results into the advice to go the ER due to the fear for litigation. Unnecessary ER visits amount to $46B, which is 3.3% of the nation's healthcare expenditures. Information Technology could help reduce these "illogical" services. However, the multiple stake-holders in the medical establishment are smugly not cooperating to improve operating efficiencies.

GNP metric

The Gross National Product (GNP) is a measure of the nation's economic activity. It can be used to compare the economies of different nations. After correcting for inflation and dividing by the number of citizens one can also use it to observe the trend of economic activity per capita. This is all fine and good but it does not measure the "real" trend of available product and services per citizen.

The simple reason is that while the GNP sums up all economic activities, it does not distinguish between income and expenses. It resembles a company that presents its yearly results by adding together its incomes and its expenses. This would still be an indication of the size of the company, but it would not show whether the company makes a profit or not.

Hence we need an additional metric - True National Product - to measure our progress or lack there of. The TNP would distinguish between economic activities that are income like (mining, agricultural, distribution, transportation, manufacturing, etc.) versus those that are expense like (healthcare, education, the justice system, environmental clean up, etc). Subtracting the total expenses from the total income, correcting for inflation and taking the number of citizens into account would yield the real amount of products and services available to the public.

This would yield a powerful instrument to measure what is happening in the society. For example, we would be able to notice any detrimental effects on the quality of living caused by expenses such as:

Taking both income and expenses into account is the only way in which we can assess the impact of our collective actions upon the environment and our quality of life.

Poor if not ridiculous legislation

Inflation and its effects has been with us at least since the 16th century. Strangely, we still have legislation that ignores inflation by sporting fixed monetary amounts. For example, we have been allowed to give tax free the amount of $10,000 for more than twenty years. Assuming a 3%/year inflation, the worth of $10,000 twenty years ago has eroded to a value of $5438. The recent tax free gift allowance increase failed to compensate for inflation when the amount was raised to $11,000 instead of at least $18,000.

Our legislators should always use inflation adjustment rules or sun set clauses when dollar amounts are part of the law.

"Death taxes" are another issue heavily affected by inflation. For the past twenty years, the amount of money that can be inherited tax free has been set at $600K without any adjustment for inflation. Our legislators have finally agreed to increase the tax free amount with a formula that seems truly bizarre. In 2009, the tax free amount will increase to $3.5M and in 2010 there will be no tax on inheritance at all, while in 2011 the tax free amount drops back to $1M. Who knows what strange things can be expected in 2010 due to this absurd legislation, euthanasia and murder included.

Democracy in action

Democracy has been spreading in the last century. It has the crucial advantages that it prevents not only nepotism but also that a single person, or party, stays too long in power. Shaking things up helps to address changes in a fast paced world.

However, the current version has disadvantages as well. Democracy in the US differs from what one finds in the countries of continental Europe. Having many viable parties, as is the case in Europe, helps to express the multi-facets of concerns in a society. One can find secular as well as religion based parties; left wing as well as right wing parties; ecology based versus whatever based parties; etc. This helps the public discourse on the many issues in the society.

More important, however, is that the discourse there is focused more on topics/ principles/ philosophy instead of the personality idiosyncrasies and mudslinging capabilities of a party leader. Obtaining a nation's opinion about intrinsic tradeoffs is more important than selecting a leader who appeals most on television. The democracy in the US is definitely due for an upgrade.

Freedom versus obligation

Others have proposed to complement the Statue of Liberty at the East Coast with a Statue of Obligations at the West Coast. We certainly need also an appendix to the Constitution with a Bill of Obligations. Our laws are now an ad hoc patch work of restrictions on our freedoms. The dual view is to formulate generic constraints on our (collective) behavior. For example: The Bill of Obligations should outline our obligations to the indefinite future wellbeing of the nation, of the world community, of humanity and of the biosphere.

The vision thing

Many parties everywhere are bewildered about the lack of humanity's direction. Simple minded consumerism is being striven for by many and it has become the life style for those who "have made it". The popular media mixes success, glamour, happiness, and power with sumptuous consumption. This causes solid resentment in people for whom material affluence remains a distant and enticing mirage. There are also people who have intrinsic objections against consumerism for many incompatible reasons: it is unsustainable, spiritually vacuous, against religious principles, etc.

Humanity has a tradition of exploration and going beyond current realms. Our next step is the solar system, our galaxy, and further out. This journey will be tough and challenging, not in the least because we will need extensive (genetic/bio)engineering to prepare ourselves for very hostile environments. This requires that we use our resources wisely and plan for the future, rather than squandering them at mind boggling rates.

Plundering the planet, a me-too economy and short term thinking at all levels is doing us in. Lets agree instead to the Giant Leap in the Universe. Its challenges will squash our petty and moronic fights and will force us to work together world-wide.

Epilogue

My friend Arthur Allen replied with:
We are really caught in a lurch now: runaway population growth leading to environmental & no doubt institutional & economic collapse within the lifetime of our children. The French talk of "Fuite en avant", that the only solution lies in our inventing our way out of the problem, adopting broader visions, embracing greater challenges leading to a form of transcendence, as you suggest. I also think that a spiritual renewal will be required: we must learn to recognize our commonalities while celebrating our differences, and melt the divisive religions of old in a big crucible out of which will emerge, with much pain, a new fusion of science & spirit & vision of Cosmic Man. I believe that the dark times to come will burn such a deep mark in mankind's collective memory that we shall never again be inclined the repeat mistakes we commit daily with utter unconsciousness of consequence.
May we still hope that humanity gains control of its destiny and be able to avoid the Dark Ages ahead?

This letter can be found on: http://rs6.risingnet.net/~ddcc/opinions/Congress2004.html