Planck Foundation



Life is good. Life is beautiful. Live is colourful. This is something you must learn by yourself, not as knowledge, but as experience. The environmentalists will not learn you this. They're just addicted to the dark side of any facet. As stated before: green is often no more than grey with a green coating. Greenwashing is not alone done by certain industries, it's also done by the 'grey is all we have to offer' anti everything movement. Green doesn't equal innovation. Green doesn't equal pleasure. Green doesn't equal high moral standards on delivering the truth (as an alibi for this is abundant available). Green equals grey, dark, long boring preaching, no valid alternatives. The green view on population is even darker. On this they lose every compassion they ever had. In their perspectives population is the worst gift we can give to both the earth and mankind. An good example of this view are the Georgia Guide Stones ( where a maximal population number of 0.5 billion is mentioned (for the record: we're on 6.8 billion right now). Environmental theories can become fascistic and genocidal. Who decides who can live and who had to be eliminated? This dark side of environmentalists is not on purpose, it's just caused by a lack of ideas of mainly in cities living 'green' environmentalist, who never visit rural areas. The first time I visit Germany I was overwhelmed by the beauty and wideness of the country. By these magnificent views I didn't understand the call for 'Lebensraum' for the Germans by Hitler. Was this man besides crazy also just a prisoner of the overcrowded and in deficit of anything characterized cities? In my perspective it was impossible that he could give any sense to such a contradiction to reality. But he did. Unfortunately and with huge consequences. It would be wise for anti-population environ­mentalists to leave the (certainly) overcrowded cities where they live in for a while and exploring rural areas in their own nation and in other nations of the world. This will change them. The cities are overcrowded. The globe is not. Many rural cities and villages will welcome very much new/more inhabitants. Our view on population is not good. It's negative and it should not be that way. The earth easily can host all the current 6.8 billion of us and give us a prosperous life. But we mix our overcropping with overpopulation. As we see the whole earth from out the perspective of the cities (less than 0.00001 of the earth's surface). The earth can give certainly all proximal the maximal expected 9.0 billion that one time will live together on it. It's just doing things more intelligent, more efficient. Something intelligent people not will oppose. Yes, our cities are too crowded right now. But the mega city is a 19th and 20th century facet. In the 21st century the urbanisation will stop and go in reverse mode. Just because the cities will became huge concentrations of deficits of resources. The cities will become less dense. Rural areas less underdeveloped. Mankind will find balance between the city and rural areas. Life is good. The earth is rich. We do right to life when we stop any fascistic/genocidal/eugenic ( theory endorsement and use our brains to make life beautiful. The theory of the Malthusian catastrophe is build on the perspectives at that moment, a phase in history where there was no technology available, technology in the missing wild card in this formula ( A quote from that Wikipedia page: "Julian Simon was one of many economists who challenged the Malthusian catastrophe, citing a) the existence of new knowledge, and educated people to take advantage of it, and b) "economic freedom", that is, the ability of the world to increase production when there is a profitable opportunity to do so." The reality is that the Malthusian time after time proved to be a misconception. It can be said that current day Malthusians see the world still like it was in 1798, with all the limitations of them. But the world has changed. Technology gave us the possibility to breakout the Malthusian Trap. But there's an other reality: we now face structural changes. We need to change our energy system otherwise Thomas Malthus his theory will hit us more than 200 years after he published it in 1798. If we stay on the carbon energy path, it will go into the bush and the Malthusian population formula at last will get reality in the next decade. But if we leave the dead-ended carbon trail a new wild card (renewable energy) is inserted, giving a total different outcome. No need to give any lecture on energy/resources waste: economics will teach us to handle everything more smart. No lectures on excessive meat consumption: everybody must just eat what the want to eat and is affordable for them. Freedom is good. Economics are the borders of reality. Therefore we must change our energy system to a fuel-free model. To be able to enjoy life more. Working for expensive energy and fighting for the remaining last fossil fuel energy, are not attractive concepts. Energy makes life more convenient. But we waste in by spending our life and resources in 2 hours traffic congestion a day. Like there's no time/energy efficient videocalling invented (that makes business travelling less needed) and remote office technology (that makes commuting less needed) is not available. Like Nicola Tesla always said: there's plenty of energy available, we're just to lazy to invent harvesting models for it. Life is beautiful. The human intellect is beautiful. We just need to get rid of the last remains of just dumb Reaganitis and lets get less bully and more inventive again. Sustainable Prosperity. That's what we need to achieve. No more drunken parties fully 'paid' on credit, no more mortgaging the future, no more huge hangovers of economic loss for everyone afterwards. And after some years on the edge mainly due to the financial crisis we value certainty more than ever. Sustainable Prosperity is something each and everyone of us wants for themselves and their children. Hard to realise target? No. Just a matter of a good finance model that facilitates a quick transition to new (fuel-less) energy model. A model that delivers us a fuel-free energy model and the same time save our financial system (and by this our governmental structures). Chaos and deficits are not nature events. They just created or prevented by people. We can fix our energy system and by this prevent the collapse of our economies, savings, pension funds and governments. Let's do it. It's fun and on top of it those who want can make a earning out of it (change with no income model for the changers is bound not to 'fly'). Let's fix the energy issue. The water issue is coming and fighting a two front war is not a good thing. Energy makes life conditions much more better. Prosperity is delicious. Prosperity can deliver happiness and health. Energy is life is certainly a valid statement.

Author: Gijs Graafland

Back to index page of Energy Economics | Energy Politics

Download the full Energy Economics report in PDF

Planck Foundation