I wrote and posted this piece online several years ago.

The Population Problem and the Presidential Election

Since 2007, I have occasionally posted statistical information and arguments in favor of mandatory population control which I have connected over the years to U.S. presidential elections (2008-2012-2016) by claiming that population control is the number one issue in politics, not only here, but worldwide. In my metaphysics book The Genetic Universe, I also include a chapter on global overpopulation.

The fundamental argument for mandatory population control could be stated as a question: "Is it acceptable for the global population to grow endlessly?"

If your answer is "Yes," you can stop reading right now as this piece is not for you; my writing is meant for individuals who are concerned with overpopulation.

If your answer is "No," as common sense would lead you to conclude after careful consideration of the many consequences of overpopulation, keep reading.

The premise that population growth could not (or should not) go on endlessly led me to figure out a simple way of measuring and determining what constitutes overpopulation.

This required a model indicative of the maximum number of inhabitants for the U.S. or any other country which, when surpassed, becomes overpopulation.

The initial step is the subjective part of the system; you could accept or modify it, but after it is set, the rest of the system is objective since it works with just two statistical indicators: a given country’s total population and its total arable land area.

In order to measure the population of a country and territory as comparative entities, one must choose a model of suitability, then the country’s particular relation of population and arable land could be precisely projected toward other countries.

Having explained all that, I will refer to the chosen country, its population, and its arable land I've selected as the "model" to be used, on the basis of the population of several countries.

One more initial comment: The statistical figures you see next should be accepted just to analyze what I am proposing; their accuracy is not the issue at this point. Instead, main consideration is given to how figures project from the model country to other countries.

The model is the United States, comprising a total land area of 9,847,420 square kilometers; 16.6 percent, or 1,518,472 square kilometers, is arable land.

The population of the United States used as the first segment of the model is 321,368,864 inhabitants, approximately the current U.S. population.

The second population segment of the model is the maximum suitable population for the United States (my subjective choice) which I determined as follows in the next chapter.

 

How to Determine the Maximum Suitable Population of the USA

How many inhabitants can the United States support while still maintaining its standard of living?

Well, if the standard of living and land area of the United States were the key indicators to be considered, someone could say that it can support the largest population of the world. You could add the populations of China, India, Indonesia, and the entire European continent and believe that the U.S. population could be that large just because the country does well with over 300 million inhabitants.

However, that doesn't take into account two important things: Environmentally speaking, the standard of living would become more and more artificial, as is already happening, and the only way to stop the madness of global overpopulation would be if the United States set the example by freezing its current population.

The U.S. already has problems; the economy is not as good as it used to be, and there are social issues which will certainly increase with a growing population.

A conservative estimate should (in my opinion) regard the current population of the U.S. as suitable, but it should also doubt that even excellent political problem-fixing would prevent things from getting worse with additional population growth in the future.

Having made up my mind on freezing the U.S. population, the second population segment of the system model I set at 330,102,548 inhabitants, after which the United States would be overpopulated.

Do not worry about how I determined the exact figure; remember that this is still the subjective part of the system (setting up the country model to be compared against other countries); what currently matters is that the set figure gives the United States 8,733,684 additional inhabitants.

The additional growth is allowed due to the time necessary to implement a federally mandated legislation limiting procreation to two children per woman in the United States. I will next present a comparison of the United States population and some of the most overpopulated countries of the world.

Having set the model for the system, the key indicator you must take into account to get an accurate proportional comparison among countries is square meters of arable land per inhabitant.

The figure of the model (the United States) is 4,600 square meters of arable land per inhabitant.

So what this basically tells you is if a given country, no matter its land area or its population, has 4,600 square meters of arable land per inhabitant, it is as suitable as the U.S. in population size.

On one hand, if such a country has more than 4,600 square meters of arable land per inhabitant, its population could be larger, and how much larger—while still remaining suitable—could be calculated exactly.

On the other hand, if such country has less than 4,600 square meters of arable land per inhabitant, its population should be reduced, and how much reduction is required to remain suitable could be calculated exactly.

As a side note, one argument in favor of using arable land per capita as the key indicator for population suitability is that the problem of global warming (which is a population problem) calls for large extensions of crop land utilized for bio fuel production (I strongly oppose nuclear power); therefore, a given country’s population should not be larger than afforded by the biodegradable source energy that its land could produce.

The system’s intent is to determine how many inhabitants are afforded by a given arable land extension, which means if land (x) could produce (y) watts of biodegradable source energy, the population of such land should not be larger than the inhabitants that could be supplied by (y) watts.

Note in the initial example, with the standard set at 4,600 square meters of arable land per capita, the United States could have a maximum of 330,102,548 inhabitants and be regarded as suitably populated. However, my determination in this first step is not based on a calculation of the watts of energy that could be produced by U.S. land; it is only a quick resolution made for the sake of my argument.

In the following statistical examples, I will not refer to square meters of arable land per capita, I will make it simple and direct showing you 1) a country’s approximate current population, 2) the maximum population it should have according to its arable land per capita figure, and 3) how much it is overpopulated.

I invite you to do your own research collecting the statistical indicators from the source of your choice, because I want you to concentrate on the merits of the system instead of on doubting whether or not the statistical figures shown are accurate.

Before I list the most overpopulated countries, I will show the small list of countries which are suitably populated according to the system under consideration.

Should you check the figures and do not conclude (as I have concluded) that there is a global population problem, you can stop reading right there; it would be fine to think at such point that I do not know what I am talking about. But if the results show the opposite—that there is a major population problem—keep reading to see how I connect it with U.S. presidential elections.

The Population Situation of a Number of Countries

Countries with Population Credit  (17 Countries)

Russian Federation

Pop. 142,423,773

Max. Pop. 267,014,185

 

Pop. Credit  124,590,412

Australia

Pop. 22,751,014

Max. Pop. 100,203,913

Pop. Credit  77,452,899

Canada

Pop. 35,099,836

Max. Pop. 98,842,500

 

Pop. Credit  63,742,664

Kazakhstan

Pop. 18,157,122

Max. Pop. 63,971,152

Pop. Credit  45,814,030

Argentina

Pop. 43,431,886

Max. Pop. 86,265,228

Pop. Credit  42,833,342

Ukraine

Pop. 44,429,471

Max. Pop. 70,651,852

Pop. Credit  26,222,381

Niger

Pop. 18,045,729

Max. Pop. 34,696,565

Pop. Credit  16,650,836

 

United States (System Model)

Pop. 321,368,864

Max. Pop. 330,102,548

 

Pop. Credit  8,733,684

 

Paraguay

Pop. 6,783,272

Max. Pop. 9,759,761

Pop. Credit  2,976,489

 

Belarus

Pop. 9,589,689

Max. Pop. 12,130,489

Pop. Credit  2,540,800

 

Lithuania

Pop. 2,884,433

Max. Pop. 4,973,125

Pop. Credit  2,088,692

 

Uruguay

Pop. 3,341,893

Max. Pop. 5,060,361

Pop. Credit  1,718,468

 

Latvia

Pop. 1,986,705

Max. Pop. 2,622,796

Pop. Credit  636,091

 

Moldova

Pop. 3,546,847

Max. Pop. 3,945,600

Pop. Credit  398,753

 

Bulgaria

Pop. 7,186,893

Max. Pop. 7,552,000

Pop. Credit  365,107

 

Guyana

Pop. 735,222

Max. Pop. 898,663

Pop. Credit  163,441

 

Estonia

Pop. 1,265,420

Max. Pop. 1,373,067

Pop. Credit  107,647

Total Population Credit for those 17 Countries 417,035,736

Most Overpopulated Countries (Top 25)

#1 China


Pop. 1,367,485,388

Max. Pop. 230,623,444

Pop. Liability  1,136,861,944

#2 India


Pop. 1,251,695,584

Max. Pop. 341,270,504

Pop. Liability  910,425,080

#3 Indonesia


Pop. 255,993,674

Max. Pop. 51,196,543

Pop. Liability  204,797,131

 

#4 Bangladesh


Pop. 168,957,745

Max. Pop. 16,695,717

Pop. Liability  152,262,028

 

#5 Pakistan

Pop. 199,085,847

Max. Pop. 66,195,130

Pop. Liability  132,890,717

 

#6 Japan


Pop. 127,209,972

Max. Pop. 9,193,252

Pop. Liability  118,016,720

 

#7 Nigeria

Pop. 181,562,056

Max. Pop. 73,851,567

Pop. Liability  107,710,489

 

#8 Philippines


Pop. 100,998,376

Max. Pop. 12,121,259

Pop. Liability  88,877,117

 

#9 Egypt


Pop. 88,487,396

Max. Pop. 6,059,261

Pop. Liability  82,428,135

 

#10 Vietnam


Pop. 94,348,835

Max. Pop. 13,953,150

Pop. Liability  80,395,685

 

#11 Mexico


Pop. 121,736,809

Max. Pop. 49,866,543

Pop. Liability  71,870,266

 

#12 Ethiopia


Pop. 99,465,819

Max. Pop. 32,826.087

Pop. Liability  66,639,732

 

#13 Democratic Republic of Congo

 

Pop. 79,375,136


Max. Pop. 15,277,946


Pop. Liability  64,097,190

 

#14 Germany

 

Pop. 80,854,408

Max. Pop. 25,837,422

 

Pop. Liability  55,016,986

 

#15 United Kingdom

Pop. 64,088,222

Max. Pop. 13,621,711

Pop. Liability  50,466,511

 

#16 Iran


Pop. 81,824,270

Max. Pop. 32,216,967

Pop. Liability  49,607,303

 

#17 Italy


Pop. 61,855,120

Max. Pop. 14,834,887

Pop. Liability  47,020,233

 

#18 Korea Republic (South)

Pop. 49,115,196


Max. Pop. 3,241,804

 

Pop. Liability  45,873,392

 

#19 Colombia


Pop. 46,736,728

Max. Pop. 3,617,935

Pop. Liability  43,118,793

 

#20 Brazil


Pop. 204,259,812

Max. Pop. 165,345.813

Pop. Liability  38,913,999

 

#21 Turkey

Pop. 79,414,269

Max. Pop. 44,672,002

Pop. Liability  34,742,267

 

#22 Kenya


Pop. 45,925,301

Max. Pop. 12,620,061

 

Pop. Liability  33,305,240

  

#23 Myanmar (Burma)

 

Pop. 56,320,206

 

Max. Pop. 23,425,696

 

Pop. Liability  32,894,510

 

#24 Thailand

Pop. 67,976,405

Max. Pop. 36,539,741

Pop. Liability  31,436,664

 

#25 Malaysia


Pop. 30,513,848

Max. Pop. 2,071,293

Pop. Liability  28,442,555

Total Overpopulation for those 25 countries 3,708,110,685

How I Connect the Overpopulation Issue

with U.S. Presidential Elections

Should the international community have any intention of fixing the population problem, it would had happened already.

Not only is there no interest to do it, no one is even talking about a population problem, so a conversation on it is likely to lead nowhere.

Fortunately for the planet, however, the problem could be approached as an economic matter, and since in the United States, presidential elections concentrate on the economy as a prime issue, the key requirement would be for a candidate to show a firm interest in population control if for no other reason than because it would be good for the economy.

No one believes that currently, but it could quickly change if a convincing explanation was given on why population control would be good for the U.S. economy.

I propose to connect the matter of global overpopulation with an economic issue: the imposition of federal duties on imports.

The level of duties imposed would be proportional to the level of overpopulation of the exporting countries.

Examining the list of the top 25 overpopulated countries, you will find in it a good number of economic competitors of the United States, and should the highest duty rate imposed (for the most overpopulated exporter) be a minimum of 300 percent, the economic result for the United States would be a major enlargement of its domestic market.

Some exporters (up to a certain overpopulation level) would be able to negotiate a deal under which they would control their populations to qualify for a low or moderate rate of import duties, allowing them to remain competitive, but it would take years for the most overpopulated countries to export to the U.S. again.

If a number of high-level exporters were to stop exporting to the U.S., it would be easy to anticipate that each American looking for a job could get two jobs instead of one.

That issue alone could win an election. So you may ask What's the problem?

First, as I noted earlier, no one is talking about a population problem. Second, what I am proposing is protectionism, and that political–economic ideology would be unlikely to win Congress' approval since there are many who gain from free trade and oppose protectionism.

Do I believe that a protectionist candidate could win the election over a free trader? No. Free trade is too entrenched in American politics, and while I am not a promoter of protectionism per se, I believe protectionism is needed to present a population control agenda to the world.

The key issue, therefore, is that the public needs to move toward population control, away from mindless implicit acceptance of endless population growth, and it would be easier for that to take place if a side effect of population control was economic improvement of the domestic market.

Since no candidate has shown any interest in recognizing a population problem, and protectionism of a serious kind would not pass through Congress, what the United States seems to need is a short-term dictatorship to take over and set up a protectionist arrangement and, of course, institute mandatory population control.

By "taking over" I do not mean a revolution, rather I believe that when it becomes clear to enough people that the U.S. is in steep decline—as suggested by the national debt—it is conceivable the American people (represented by a good number of citizens) could demand a short-term dictatorship led by a council of able individuals, instead of a single individual.

If enough people get tired of going from one administration to the next without realizing the expected results, pressure could build toward an effective resolution. If that were to happen, the question would be, When is the best time for population control to begin?

I have no hope at all that the much-needed population control arrangement will happen by traditional governmental means anytime soon, but it is needed sooner rather than later.

What do I mean by a "short-term" dictatorship?

Well first of all, I believe the democratic system in the United States was fine until special interests got too strong, and furthermore, I think that should such interests be "put in place" by a hand stronger than themselves, the democratic system would be fine again.

When the system worked fine, there was no reason to think a dictatorship was needed. It was only when special interests became a major obstacle to implementing solutions for a changing environment (because they gain from preventing such solutions) that the idea of giving a qualified group a free hand to fix what has become corrupted began to make sense.

Should I be the one to lead, I would not need more than six months to fix the United States. I do not mean me alone, but with an able group of government participants; therefore, I would take the job for only six months.

Having said that, a transition would surely be needed after six months of deep corrections for everything significant that had degenerated in the last 50 years to be rectified. I estimate such transition to perhaps require up to 3½ years, so the whole process could be as long as a traditional presidential term, but I would leave the governmental position at the six months mark.

That is what I call a "short-term" dictatorship in the context of what the United States currently needs; thinking about a governing council instead of a single dictator.

If this political piece gets a good reception, there could be a second to follow.

García-González