Dennis Meadows, Co-Author of Limits To Growth: Peak Prosperity Interview

[Mister Imperceptible]

https://www.peakprosperity.com/dennis-m ... to-growth/

[7Wannabe5]

Good find. I have read most of the books mentioned in the article. I think this quote is key:

I think we underestimated the response of human decisions to some of the economic variables that are at work. We also, I think, underestimated to a minor extent the ability to increase food production through the application of fertilizers and water. But when we put those changes into the model and then ran it out to 2100, it didn’t make any difference in the fundamental results.

We still concluded that you simple cannot support seven or eight or nine billion people with a material and energy flow anything like what is currently experienced in the West or aspired to in the third world.

10 billion humans X $33,000/capita (2018 U.S. median) -> not possible under anything resembling current energy/material flow paradigm.

7 billion humans X $7500/capita (everybody is Jacob)-> maybe possible, but unlikely until/unless forced by circumstances which will almost certainly come with extra costs.

Since human female response to affluent urban lifestyle is to have fewer children, it is within the range of non-miraculous possibility that we won't hit 10 billion. Between 1950 and today, the population growth rate was between 1 to 2 % each year. A total population of 10.9 billion by 2100 is based on only .1% growth (less than 1/10th of previous rate!), but this is based on the current population of Africa more than tripling by then. IOW, the prediction is that population will stay at or below replacement rate in realms that are already predominantly affluent/urban, increase by about a billion in Asia before leveling off, and increase by another 3 billion in Africa before leveling off. So, a more rapid than expected transformation to affluent/urban lifestyle in Africa could keep numbers lower.

So, after you lower your expenses to approximately $7500/year, the two other things you might choose to do to help would be planting trees in places where there are not trees and/or educating young low-income women or offering them micro-loans to start small businesses. Also, you could try to invent an easy inexpensive method, other than planting trees, to capture CO2.

[jacob]

Reducing impact requires reducing the capita or the per capita. Unfortunately, the only automagic way to reduce capita is to increase per capita. Voluntary change beyond natural biological behavior remains inadequate by far. So the world remains stuck in its current structure. Unfortunately, we're now in overshoot (IIRC, the point was passed in the late 1970s) and even the average world capita uses more than "1 jacob". Therefore, it's inevitable that we'll run this one over the cliff. Ten billion is already 10x too many for a world that doesn't have to deal with climate damage while retooling for sustainability. Ultimate numbers are more in the range of half a billion given the overshot, perhaps less with climate breakdown being a factor.

It's interesting how Meadows was generally the realist ("there's still hope if ...") of the group, whereas Randers was more of a cynic ("humans are going to human"). I've noticed how Meadows has become more like Randers over the years. Interestingly, Randers in his 2052 book pushed the structural breaking point out to around 2050. Skeptics have noted that this was conditioned on some rather optimistic assumptions about solar energy. So far so good ... IEA has peak oil around 2025 with shale included now. I fear this more than climate change given how the net-energy extraction curve is much steeper than the gross curve. (This would be in line with the standard LTG run.)

In terms of estimating the response functions during the transition phase, it's practically impossible. Historical lessons don't really pertain to the modern global technology world. The world model captures aspects of the world as it is (during the growth phase) while then fitting the parameters that drive the model to current reality. It does this rather well. It does, however, not have models for how these parameters would change under stress, therefore the models in the LTG books are only good until the behavior changes drastically. After that the form of the crash is only accurate insofar humans continue business exactly as usual. This is not a realistic assumption when population is down by 50% over a period of 10 years ... or is it? I think this is where some of the optimism comes in wrt to Meadows predicting a decline rather than a collapse.

[7Wannabe5]

Unfortunately, we're now in overshoot (IIRC, the point was passed in the late 1970s) and even the average world capita uses more than "1 jacob".

True, but I think it is of some interest to note that although the average capita (fictional creature) now has income of more than 1 jacob, the median global per capita income is still just a bit more than 1/2 jacob at around $3900 or just above $10/day. BTW, the $33,000 I plugged in as median per capita income in the U.S. is too high because it only applies to people who have income, does not include children, etc. The median household income is $63,000 and the median household size is 2.6, so maybe more like $25,000 which is obviously more than 6X the global median and slightly more than 3 jacobs.

There are about 2 remotely arable acres/human at 8 billion population level, and around 1 more solar acre that is not arable. In the U.S. at current population levels, there is about twice that much acreage/human. So, around 1 jacob/year spending on sevices/imports/technologies/taxes on around 5 middling-quality acres might approximate U.S. -centric eco-technic future ideal. For purposes of comparison, 10 very good acres/human* on farm without tractor or modern fertilizers in 1930s could support approximately 1 human and provide enough cash crops to pay taxes and buy coffee, sugar, tools, plow-horses etc. So, 5 acres/human is within realm of possibility even without fossil fuels if other benefits of last century of ingenuity, such as better organic seed stock, are applied. Given somewhat lower soil fertility and higher population density worldwide, and effects of climate change reducing crops by 30%, it seems to me that 3 billion humans might be sustainable after the decline or collapse. If worldwide human fertility rates were to instantly decline to current Western urban-affluent averages then world population could auto-magically go from 7.5 billion to 3 billion in less than 200 years. The advantage of an eco-technic future over a simple return-to-1920s-agriculture future is that it could possibly "afford" the particular advantages that would allow for the incentives for human females to retain low birth rates. For overly simplistic instance, owning and being educated in usage of 3 solar powered agricultural robots instead of giving birth to 3 burly sons.

*This was after the advent of universal education, so this level of pre-fossil-fuel farm productivity did not require full-time employment of 1 human/10 acres.

[TheWanderingScholar]

Also my two cents of information:
My friend from Ghana (and other associates from Western Africa, mostly Nigeria) have commentd that places like Accra and Lagos are growing extremely fast, with construction constantly going on to build housing estates (considering he worked in an engineering company before leaving for his master's, I will take his word for it), with the possibility. That does not take into consideration that there are a lot of emigrants from the African continent**, lessening resource strain on the African regions and placing them on European and American.

Note that, according to Chinese Statistics, China has around 1.05, so honestly I imagine that their population will actually decline by the mid-century as it continues to decline rapidly.

Overall, I reckon population will plateau much faster than expected all over the world as rate of urbanization seem to be kicking up as Europe, US, and China tries to grow their economies by tying them to sub-Saharan African regions, meaning a stronger decline in fertility than projected.

As for farming stress on land; well when in doubt use corn from Mexico because evidently corn can do anything, such as using the air as fertilizer. I mean if short-growth corn varieties can be breed with this trait on a commercial scale, that does not require any fertilizer will seriously help in food production struggles. Honestly, I want to find some of these corns that do that and try to breed varieties that can grow in the most horrid conditions I can find to see what survives and how to eat it. Reason being if it can be commercialized, I can use for my personal consumption and my neighbors.


* West African Coastal Highway
**Both North Africa and Sub-saharan.
***Note to Self: Find fertility rates broken by five year increments and detect the rate of change

[7Wannabe5]

Being raised on a farm which sustained 11 people and had less than 2/acres person of arable land, and having experience growing food and being vegan for over two years, I reckon your numbers have way too much slack. Plus. arable land is far from being the only kind that can be used to produce food, raising animals being the most obvious of the counter examples for western eyes, and terrace gardening being another.

I was splitting the difference between best case scenario and worst case scenario, because the 2 "arable" acres/human ONLY means not barren mountain-scape or desert or Antartica, as opposed to fertile, level landscape of deep rich soil well-prepared for planting. IOW, the 2 acres/human includes acreage that is currently covered by suburban housing tracts, highway concrete, swamps, or solid 9 months of snow each year. OTOH, a realistic estimate for mixed stand, intensive, small-scale agriculture is .5 lb/square ft. given inputs. Without inputs, small-scale closed loop production will require at least 50% of acreage-time to be devoted to cover crop and/or livestock feed production and facilities such as walking paths. So, .25 lbs./square ft. = maximum of 10,000 lbs/acre. So, given 4 lbs/day of unprocessed food consumption/human, in theory, an intelligently designed, intensively managed, mostly closed-loop system could produce enough food to feed 6 or 7 people on just 1 acre. However, third factor that needs to be taken into consideration is need for significant acreage devoted to wilderness/trees in order to produce and process all the inputs and outputs that can't be handled in a purely agricultural system; such as wind coming in and soil erosion going out. This might prove critical in a future world in which agriculture becomes less efficient.

https://sustainable-farming.rutgers.edu ... v07n01.pdf

As for farming stress on land; well when in doubt use corn from Mexico because evidently corn can do anything, such as using the air as fertilizer. I mean if short-growth corn varieties can be breed with this trait on a commercial scale, that does not require any fertilizer will seriously help in food production struggles.

This possibility and many others like it are definitely important factors. The more I read on the topic, the more I believe that the impact of biological research and development is going to remain huge going forward.

The discovery of heterosis and its commercial development in the first thirty years of this century was a harbinger for an almost exponential rate of farther development. Advances in genetics, mathematics, and a variety of support technologies enabled a wide range of plant breeding strategies to be developed. From now on we can only cover the techniques involved in broad outline. To summarize, these have been:

- the exploitation of F1 hybridization and heterosis in an increasing range of crops
-techniques to increase the levels of genetic variation available to breeders
-techniques to cross progressively less closely-related species with each other
-the increasing level of control over both plant chemistry and physical structure

The bottom line is that during the twentieth century, food production kept up with population growth. Most analyses show how the roles of various factors: fertilizers, irrigation, pesticides, farmer education, and so forth, and tend to put the share of the increase in yield due to plant breeding at around half. It is this yield increase that is the biggest single factor between us and starvation, In many cases, per acre yields doubled between the 1930s and the 1980s. After breeding, the next largest factor has been the use of synthetic fertilizers.- "Hybrid: The History and Science of Plant Breeding"- Noel Kingsbury (2009)

I can't locate the quote, might have been in another book on similar topic, but one note that really struck me was something to the effect that 21st century professional plant breeders feel like they are dissed and dismissed for reasons beyond their control and potential. The reasons why they are currently limited to developing stock that grows well in conjunction with petroleum based fertilizers are the same reasons why car designers are still drawing up huge SUVs in Detroit. Right now, in the marginal economy of the moment, petroleum is still very cheap. That doesn't mean that there are no possibilities in existence, or highly possible existence, between current protocol and 1910 style agriculture, for if/when petroleum becomes more expensive. I would also suggest that there are likely professionals in the science of demography who are likely similarly banging their heads on a research table somewhere.

[7Wannabe5]

Further note would be that although systems models are the very best we have now, a general problem would be that wherever you choose to plug in a number or attach a cloud-symbol which means something like "off to the unknown" , it is possible that somebody else could/would attach another complex system in the place where you plugged in a number or attached a "cloud." IOW, it is important to not confuse personal unknowns with universal unknowns.

I wonder if anybody is working on something like a wiki Limits to Growth model?

[jacob]

I wonder if anybody is working on something like a wiki Limits to Growth model?

Not sure what you mean by wiki, but you can download Randers' models on http:/www.2052.info
I played around with them but not enough to understand the input. The hard part here is not the math but collecting the input data.

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

Thanks. I will download it later. I have looked at some of the earlier Limits to Growth models with Vensim. I have played around with making quite limited, fairly silly models of my permaculture projects with Vensim. I also use Realtime 3-D Landscaping Plus software which is the old female gardener/home renovator equivalent of video game environment design walk-thru. One of its features is you can create your own objects which are Plants and have many of the characteristics of plants, such as growth rate over time. You can also import objects from Sketch-Up.

So, let's say I was using Vensim to model what might happen to my Northern Michigan project with input of conditions for climate change 20 years from now with NASA website as my source of information. Maybe I included a plot of corn surrounded by deer fencing in my design. I am not an expert on corn, so I just input some rough yield at various temperatures correlation. If my model was a wiki model, maybe somebody who was an expert on corn could modify it and make it more realistic. For instance, the expert might know that intelligent re-design solution would be to switch to particular Southern variety if/when average June temperature exceeds X. So, then, if my wiki model was also like a video-game environment, when I ran the walk-through, instead of my Northern variety corn crop looking pretty weak in year 20 and non-existent in year 30, I would see a variety turnover expense in my virtual future book-keeping system and cash account balance in year 16. Etc. etc. etc.

Basically, make the input data collecting task and the design of sub-systems an open collective effort for experts and improve the ease of viewing and visceral effect for general public.

[7Wannabe5]

Okay, my first brief look over has me already disagreeing with Randers' model, because IMO you can't neglect feedback loop between "urbanization" and "socio-economic inequity" in the deterministic backbone shown in Figure 3-1 in "2052." The reason why I believe you can't neglect this feedback loop is that growth of "inequity" and decrease in population due to decrease in fertility are inter-tangled with reality of "associative mating" being a strong factor in rising inequity in high-tech urban advanced capitalist societies. So, for example, in one district in India, social experiment was done with increasing spending on education of females at rate faster than previously associated with rising affluence/urbanization, and fertility rates plummeted.

Once education/employment opportunities for women are on or near par with those for men, marriage/fertile-mating defaults to primary female conventional choice which is tight peer matching, as opposed to male choice which provides for more social mobility due to higher value given to factors such as physical appearance. I also believe that polyamory is emerging at next development level up (since it is more popular in very highly educated/affluent circles) as manifestation of unconventional-female-choice, but I doubt it will have much effect prior to 2052. That said, my radical suggestion would be that if men focused on manifesting the attractive qualities that females freed from convention desire in sexual relationship, it might go some way towards ameliorating socio-economic inequity and/or effects of global climate change.

[Mister Imperceptible]

Reducing impact requires reducing the capita or the per capita. Unfortunately, the only automagic way to reduce capita is to increase per capita. Voluntary change beyond natural biological behavior remains inadequate by far. So the world remains stuck in its current structure.

@7

Dr. Fisher is saying that the preconditions for modernity is globalization, which is self-terminating in a finite world. From the Wikipedia article on Degrowth:

Dilemmas:

Given that modernity has emerged with high levels of energy and material throughput, there is an apparent compromise between desirable aspects of modernity[72] (e.g. social justice, gender equality, high life expectancy, very low infant mortality) and unsustainable levels of energy and material use.[73] Another way of looking at this is through the lenses of the Marxist tradition, which relates the superstructure (culture, ideology, institutions) and the base (material conditions of life, division of labor). A degrowth society, by its drastically different material conditions, could produce equally drastic changes of the cultural and ideological spheres of society.[73] The political economy of global capitalism has generated a lot of bads, such as socioeconomic inequality and ecological devastation, which have engendered a lot of goods through individualization and increased spatial and social mobility.[74] This has allowed social emancipation at the level of gender equality,[75] disability, sexuality and anti-racism that had no historical precedent. These two co-evolving aspects of global capitalism, liberal modernity and the market society, are closely tied and will be difficult to separate to maintain liberal and cosmopolitan values in a degrowth society.[74] Inter-personal violence, gender equality and modern healthcare are examples of such values that may be difficult to maintain under degrowth conditions.

Inter-personal violence

The reduction of inter-personal violence that we can observe within modern societies, has co-emerged with the expansion of the global market by the nation-state through a monopoly on violence.[76] It is not certain that this reduction of inter-personal violence would persist under a different political economy.[74]

Gender equality

Women’s emancipation since the 1980s as conditional to the capitalist labour market which has provided them with wages while the state provided childcare.[77] Again, the presence of social progress such as women’s emancipation in modern society is not a guarantee of its presence in a less complex degrowth society with a low energy and material throughput. Traditional gender roles could reemerge in a de-globalized society dependent on local production and in which birth control technology would become limited.

It is anathema to feminist polyamorists but with degrowth/descent there will be a restoration of traditional gender roles out of necessity. It will not be something that can be negotiated. Female emancipation from those traditional roles is a luxury afforded by a globalized liberal economy. Your man who manifests the attractive qualities you desire will have his head bashed in by the man that does not care what you think.

Deep down you want to be swept away.

[7Wannabe5]

It is anathema to feminist polyamorists but with degrowth/descent there will be a restoration of traditional gender roles out of necessity. It will not be something that can be negotiated. Female emancipation from those traditional roles is a luxury afforded by a globalized liberal economy. Your man who manifests the attractive qualities you desire will have his head bashed in by the man that does not care what you think.

I think you have it a bit twisted. I agree with the premise that "low energy and material throughput" may lead to return to traditional gender roles. I don't even need to jump in a time machine to the future-past to figure that out. It happens every time I go rough camping or rough urban adventuring with competent, burly male companion. However, I have also noted that because, unlike upper body strength, brain power is equally divided between the genders, if/when a competent, burly male companion in situation of primeval woodlands or rough urban decay needs somebody to help with task such as surveying or plant identification, our roles become much less differentiated.

Practitioners of polyamory are generally very aware of the fact that strong dichotomy increases the erotic field. I may be wrong, but I think every female on this forum who overtly practices polyamory has expressed willingness to "pay more" for a Dom on the open sexual market. Of course, "swept away" holds more of a connotation of strong dichotomy between feminine/masculine energy rather then submissive/Dominant energy; IOW it is more high romance than high eroticism. IOW, I think you are very badly misconstruing what I meant by "attractive qualities that females freed from convention desire in sexual relationship." Only women with relatively low sex drives prefer very pretty men like Donny Osmond.

Anyways, just like Randers notes that his model is based on being very educated ecological economist, my model is based on eliminating the historical inefficiencies of under-utilizing female ingenuity. Obviously, any design that eliminates any known inefficiency will conserve energy use.

[Mister Imperceptible]

I think obvious ingenuity will become self-evident without constant pleas to pay attention to the ingenuity.

The idea of micro-loans being made to low-income women sounds like quantitative easing being made to zombie banks and zombie companies. IOW, without an implicit or explicit government guarantee behind the loans, there would not be so much malinvestment into unproductive ventures because the lender knows the loans will never be paid back. That’s why the government has to guarantee the loans- they are essentially donations made by taxpayers enforced by the state which has a monopoly on violence.

Doesn’t sound like conserving energy use.

Edit: What, after all, is a Lentil Baby? As far as I can tell, the concept is really not much different from the ancient concept of the wife and mother as household manager, efficiently using the resources procured by the husband and father. The micro-loans being asked for in a modern context is basically the woman doing all that she is ever done, only she wants to offer no loyalty to the male whatsoever, IOW, have your cake and eat it to.

Sounds like a great way to pimp out the global supply chain.

[7Wannabe5]

I think obvious ingenuity will become self-evident without constant pleas to pay attention to the ingenuity.

True. Like when I am mixing up the extremely toxic mushrooms in the plate of food I am serving to the guy who bashed my chosen lover over the head, highly unlikely that I will be blatantly bringing attention to my ingenuity.

The idea of micro-loans being made to low-income women sounds like quantitative easing being made to zombie banks and zombie companies. IOW, without an implicit or explicit government guarantee behind the loans, there would not be so much malinvestment into unproductive ventures because the lender knows the loans will never be paid back. That’s why the government has to guarantee the loans- they are essentially donations made by taxpayers enforced by the state which has a monopoly on violence.

Uh...

This paper uses a global data set of 350 microfinance institutions (MFIs) in 70 countries to study the common belief that women are generally better credit risks in microfinance than men. The results confirm that a higher percentage of female clients in MFIs is associated with lower portfolio risk, fewer write-offs, and fewer provisions, all else being equal.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... X10002330

Might have something to do with the fact that men are more likely to overestimate their competence and women vice-versa.

[jacob]

Isn't this [gender issue] just a disagreement between where you see the future going in terms of Holmgren's brown-tech->lifeboats vs earth stewards? That is, you're both right within what I think are your respective future outlooks.

viewtopic.php?p=201358#p201358 (table here)

[Mister Imperceptible]

I can understand that women want to be in charge (have their cake and eat it too), and in an objective scientific way I do think it would have certain benefits in a vacuum (acknowledging that it would suck for me personally). I would just like to observe where in the history of (wo)mankind, which is a history of warring states, the example of where a matriarchal society does not get its ass whooped by the patriarchal neighbor.

I could imagine the high comedy of the matriarch presenting a research paper at the parlay where the opposing patriarch describes in detail the horror he is about to inflict.

Unless you administer nanotechnology that emasculates everyone and removes their feelings and sex drive like in Equilibrium or something. Some future.

[Mister Imperceptible]

This whole thread is already indicative of how nothing is going to change. They predicted this 50 years ago and we are right on track.

Imagine the United States, China, India, and Russia getting together and having a discussion about degrowth and giving each other as many concessions as 7 and myself are giving to each other right now.

Imagine the Republicans/Democrats, whites/minorities, men/women, blue people/green people.....

Got my guns and my popcorn ready.

[7Wannabe5]

Isn't this [gender issue] just a disagreement between where you see the future going in terms of Holmgren's brown-tech->lifeboats vs earth stewards? That is, you're both right within what I think are your respective future outlooks.

Yes, except I would note that I am on the Green Tech edge of Earth Stewards, because I don't see how a low energy future could be female dominated (like in Holmgren's chart) or even mixed egalitarian unless there is at least Annie Oakley level of solar-based technology. Also, what I would bet on and what I would prefer would vary.

I can understand that women want to be in charge (have their cake and eat it too), and in an objective scientific way I do think it would have certain benefits in a vacuum (acknowledging that it would suck for me personally). I would just like to observe where in the history of (wo)mankind, which is a history of warring states, the example of where a matriarchal society does not get its ass whooped by the patriarchal neighbor...
Edit: What, after all, is a Lentil Baby? As far as I can tell, the concept is really not much different from the ancient concept of the wife and mother as household manager, efficiently using the resources procured by the husband and father. The micro-loans being asked for in a modern context is basically the woman doing all that she is ever done, only she wants to offer no loyalty to the male whatsoever, IOW, have your cake and eat it to.

I wish I could make you understand because I think it would be of some benefit to you, and you are young enough to bring out my maternal. (sigh)

Anyways, I believe that "wanting to be in charge" and "loyalty" are traits which are more strongly associated with personality type than gender, although it is true that being placed in position of authority will tend towards raising testosterone levels. I mean, a female ESTJ is going to take down a male INFP every time (and sometimes he will like it*) I don't recall which type exhibits most dog-like loyalty, maybe ESFJ? , but like anything else you might want on the market, you will have to decide what you will give up and/or offer up in order to be able afford "loyalty." I sincerely hope you aren't confounding "loyalty" with "no other options." As an eNTP female, I prefer mostly independent functioning, but I don't mind spending some time in the follow with a guy I find otherwise sexy and/or likely to be able to teach me something. Kind of a rough balance between liking a challenge and wanting to be good at everything, including relationships, and tendency towards hating boredom and restrictions in relationships as much as I hate them on the job, would inform my personal level of "loyalty."

Also, as I have noted elsewhere, it was part of my late mid-life-empty-nest overt systems design to break up and move my traditional homemaker skills and feminine energy manifestation from household to community/regional level. On a day this plan was working well for me, I might have spent my morning using my ingenuity on personal projects of interest, my afternoon teaching low-income 5 year old children, and my evening being taken out to dinner followed by sex with one of my affluent lovers, none of whom were primarily interested in my loyalty I fully realized that I was balancing "relaxing dinner with affluent lover" with "demanding afternoon with low-income children" in almost exactly the cycle you described. IOW, there is nothing inherent in polyamory that disrupts fair open trading sex or other manifestations of feminine energy in return for support of "babies." So, I don't understand why you are hung up on the "loyalty?"



[*]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ6pLKlU-8Q

[Mister Imperceptible]

@7

I am just wondering when we can have a conversation based on interesting shit like the stuff @TheWanderingScholar posted where the solution is not granting women more authority and access to resources and sex with whomever they choose.

I know you are smart I just wish you would take the feminist crusader hat off for one minute.

Maybe I am being irrational because in re-reading the thread you have discussed a lot besides that, but the fact that you cannot seem to help adding the “and give women more resources” bit to the end of almost all your posts means that is all I end up seeing. It triggers me, it just takes away from your posts. Especially because I generally believe that what we need is austerity (and most everyone hates austerity).

Anyway, do not confuse the fact that I disagree with government subsidy of low-income women that I expect some kind of caricature of servitude and loyalty from women. My point is, you already are able to use your charm to get a free dinner and sex from the affluent lover, and so do other women, do you/they really need a government subsidy as well? Do the men you get benefits from live on less than $8000 a year and plant trees, or do they work high-pressure jobs where they get their balls busted and they end up leaving a high carbon footprint?

[7Wannabe5]

@MI:

Trust me, there are a lot of people who would self-identify as feminist who wouldn't like a good deal of what I have written in this thread

Forget about feminism. What if we were puzzling out solution to over-population of some other species? Mating habits vary widely, so our solution would very much depend on whether we were concerned with ants, mollusks, brown bears, or deer. However, in every case, we would certainly pay attention to which gender might be better targeted. Paying a man $10,000 to get a vasectomy will have less effect on overall fertility rate than spending $10,000 to send a woman to college during some of her prime reproductive years, plus society gets at least some benefits from increased human intellectual capital. My suggestion was meant to be towards most austere and only known workable solution, because increasing "overall affluence" towards "educating females" is more expensive than simply spending on "educating females."

I also agree that this trend towards females spending 40-plus hours/week in their masculine energy or selling their feminine energy outside of the home also results in a shortage of available "volunteer" feminine energy in the community. However, I strongly believe that the way out of this problem is forward and through rather than back into the box. I was mostly amusing myself with suggestion of adding flow of "increased male focus on sexual attractiveness to females" but it might help balance things if men put more effort into activities like working out and learning how to play guitar.

crosspost: ETA

My point is, you already are able to use your charm to get a free dinner and sex from the affluent lover, and so do other women, do you/they really need a government subsidy as well? Do the men you get benefits from live on less than $8000 a year and plant trees, or do they work high-pressure jobs where they get their balls busted and they end up leaving a high carbon footprint?

Yes on the "plant trees." No on the "live on less than $8000" year. Mixed bag on the "high pressure job." Mostly I date guys who are "millionaire next door" level frugality and consider me to be a cheap date. Obvious reason why I don't date men who "live on less than $8000" per year is that I am surrounded by the same general population as every other American. All other things being equal, when I have had to choose between "buff and plays guitar" vs. "takes me out to expensive dinner instead of serving chips", I have always chosen "buff and plays guitar." Can't help it, I am wired like a freakin' peahen. That's why increased flow of "buffness" and "guitar skillz" is part of MY austerity plan future world model.

My daughter got a free ride scholarship to a very expensive private university. She told me that one of her dorm-mates was being put through school on Sugar Daddy scholarship. If I was a guy, the problem I would have with that sort of private-payer plan would be that it would greatly favor older men over younger men.