Humanity must solve climate change (and its sister problem, wildlife loss), but the question of how to reduce carbon emissions and solve climate change is at least as hotly debated as the question of whether manmade climate change is real and how bad its effects will be. Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power aren’t nearly as cost effective as fossil fuels, and they require far more labor to produce the same amount of energy. In the US, the rural working-class men who would be doing most of the work of solving climate change by building new renewable power plants and running sustainable farms resoundingly rejected renewables by voting overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, a man who has consistently espoused climate change denial rhetoric. With this in mind, the ball is now back in the left’s court to find a plan to solve climate change in a way that the more educated urban left can pull off on their own. There is one source of energy whose primary cost is the highly intelligent and well-educated workforce required to provide it, and that power source is nuclear energy; unfortunately, nuclear energy has its own challenges that the left will have to deal with if they wish to solve climate change.
Nuclear energy isn’t without its dangers. The Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents released large amounts of radiation and radioactive material into the surrounding ecosystem. The area around Chernobyl is still unsafe for human habitation, and affected wildlife for hundreds of miles around, while Fukushima’s radiation leak affected a large portion of the Pacific Ocean. To defenders of nuclear energy, the risk of a meltdown is a small price to pay compared to the guaranteed damage that oil spills and carbon emissions are causing, and may even seem acceptable compared to the high costs of renewables. Renewables also kill some wildlife, and mining for the rare metals needed to build solar panels and wind turbines is about as harmful to local wildlife as mining for uranium to power nuclear reactors. By some estimates, nuclear is more cost-effective and environmentally friendly than renewables. Even including the risk of more disasters like Fukushima and Chernobyl, nuclear energy is arguably better for the environment than fossil fuels, and will likely be needed alongside renewables in order to provide energy during times when solar and wind can’t generate enough. For those on the right, even those who doubt humanity’s impact on climate change, nuclear also provides a potential way to move away from our dependence on oil and stop us from sending large amounts of money to Middle Eastern countries whose people hate us and our way of life.
However, there is one cost to nuclear power that its supporters often fail to acknowledge, and that is the cost of finding enough highly skilled labor to do the necessary work. In order to replace a large portion of our current energy production with nuclear, we’ll need a lot of well-educated, highly qualified people running the plants. The less capable the people running the plants are, the greater the likelihood of a meltdown or other accidents that kill people, irradiate wildlife, and destroy local ecosystems. The question of whether or not we can replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy largely comes down to whether or not there are enough qualified nuclear engineers and technicians capable of running a plant properly to avoid meltdowns and other catastrophes. This is where demographic trends become a big obstacle for nuclear energy, because the number of highly skilled workers is shrinking relative to the growing number of consumers for a number of reasons, and this means future generations aren’t likely to have enough nuclear engineers to meet demand. The retired and welfare dependent portions of the population of most developed countries have grown significantly over the past few decades and are expected to continue growing for some time; Social Security and Medicare already account for over a third of the US federal budget, and there are over 1.5 times as many retirees per worker today as there were when Medicare began, with that number expected to grow to 2-3 times as many retirees per worker in the coming decades. Retirees who continue to consume resources long after they stop contributing to our ability to produce them sustainably are a major obstacle, but the fact that the types of people most likely to produce kids who are capable of being nuclear engineers are having the fewest children may be an even bigger problem.
The continued survival of life on Earth as we know it is too big of an issue to let political correctness get in the way of solving it. We need to recognize the reality that different racial, ethnic, and hereditary groups have different average levels of education and intelligence, and that the most intelligent groups are currently having the fewest children. Racial and genetic heritage are obviously not the only things that impact a person’s intelligence or level of education, but looking at these broad demographic groups will illuminate some trends that hold true even when ignoring race. The best example is the Jews who, despite being less than 1% of the world’s population and less than 2% of the western/developed world’s population, have won about 1/4 of Nobel Prizes for science, about 1/4 of Fields Medals for math, and almost 1/3 of Turing Awards for computer science. Jews were also instrumental in cracking the secrets of the atom, with minds like Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, and Manhattan Project director J. Robert Oppenheimer among those who made the greatest contributions to our ability to unleash and harness atomic energy. However, Jews have a low birthrate, and are expected to shrink in both total numbers and percent of the population everywhere in the world except Israel. Only in Israel, where the immediate threat of being surrounded by hostile Muslims has sparked an increase in their birthrate, are Jews expected to grow their population. But even in Israel, the Jewish birthrate just caught up to the Arab birthrate for the first time in decades. Israel may have solved the problem of its demographic decline and prevented Jews there from being demographically replaced by Palestinians and other Islamic groups, but for the rest of the world, much of which will quite likely be depending on Jewish scientists and engineers to reform our energy infrastructure, the Jewish population decline is a cause for concern. Jews were 3-4% of the US population in the 1950s, but are now less than 2% of the US population. Also, the greatest growth in the Jewish population is among Orthodox Jews, who are the most religious and not necessarily the most intelligent members of the Jewish community, while non-religious people of Jewish ethnic heritage have a shockingly low birthrate of 1.5 children per woman, far too low to maintain their current population. Many of the greatest minds of the past century were atheists of Jewish descent, so that trend should worry fans of scientific and technological advancement. Will the Jews continue to dominate the intellectual world if the smartest portions of their population reproduce slower than relatively less intelligent portions of their population?
East Asians, who have slightly higher average IQs and education levels than whites, are also seeing a decline in their populations, as are whites, who have the next highest average IQ and education level among racial groups worldwide. The highest birth rate among east Asian countries is in North Korea, with 1.9 children per woman – too low to maintain their current population size. Meanwhile Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea have birth rates of 1.2 children per woman, a birth rate so low that their working age population will shrink to half its current size in the coming decades. Japan and China are doing only slightly better at 1.5 and 1.6 children per woman, respectively. China’s low birthrate may not seem like much of a concern considering their massive population, but east Asia will be shrinking as a percent of the world’s population in the coming decades because of it. Europe is also seeing relatively low birthrates; Portugal’s 1.2 children per woman is tied with a few east Asian countries for lowest birthrate in the world, Spain and Poland are barely doing better at 1.3, Italy clocks in at 1.4, and Germany at 1.5. The UK is doing slightly better at 1.8 births per woman, a slow rate of decline, while the only European country with at least 2 births per woman is France, which also has the highest percentage of Arab and African immigrants in Europe, and those migrants reproduce faster than the native population. And, as with the Jews, the most religious whites are typically having more kids, especially in the US. Generation Z is the most conservative and religious generation since World War 2, in huge contrast to the Millennials and Gen Xers who came before them, partly because the left has embraced abortion, divorce, homosexuality, transgenderism, childfree lifestyles, and other positions that result in lower birthrates (a big change from the free love moment of the 60s and 70s that produced the left leaning Gen Xers who made the Millennials), while the religious right have people like the Duggars and Quiverfull movement pumping out large numbers of children. If the left is as much smarter and more educated than the right as most people on the left like to believe, what will happen when smart left leaning whites have fewer and fewer kids, attempting to replace themselves with less educated immigrants, while the religious right have more and more? And as conservatives increase their share of the next generation, how will that affect our ability to make progress on climate change, unless we can make solving climate change a right wing issue?
Meanwhile in Africa, where the native population can barely maintain the level of infrastructure they were left with when colonialism ended, birth rates are incredibly high. Sub-Saharan Africa has an average birth rate of 4.9 children per woman, with Niger topping the list at 7.3 and Somalia, Congo, Chad, and Mali all having more than 6 children per woman. All but one of top 20 birthrates are African nations. The Arab world, where oil is plentiful and cheap, has a birthrate of 3.4 children per woman, about twice the European average. Latin America’s population will remain stable with 2.1 children per woman, while India (which is already very densely populated) will grow slowly with 2.4. And it’s likely that even within these racial and ethnic groups, it’s the least intelligent who seem to be having the most kids while the most intelligent and productive people are too busy trying to solve the world’s problems to have as many kids. Not only that, but as the retired population in the most advanced nations continues to grow while the working age population continues to shrink, there will be more consumers relative to the number of workers, further increasing the burden on our most capable and educated workers.
Of course, not all Africans are stupid or uneducated. Nigerian immigrants to the US, for example, are better educated than white Americans and a higher average income than white Americans. This is partly because the US only allows the best and brightest immigrants from third world countries to move in. What happens when the smartest Nigerians, those who are smarter and better educated than the average white person, move to developed countries like the US? When Africa’s smartest people move to developed countries with low reproductive rates, having fewer kids with every generation they live there, while Africans with less education and lower IQs remain in Africa having 2-4 times as many kids as African immigrants to the west, what happens to the IQ of the average black person around the world? We live in an evolutionary world where things like racial IQ averages can change over time. If high IQ blacks have more kids and low IQ blacks have fewer kids, the average black IQ would increase with each generation and they would catch up to other hereditary groups. But instead, we have set up a system where the smartest blacks end up having the fewest kids while the least intelligent blacks have more. Even without the looming threat of climate change and the need for highly educated people to work high tech jobs, that would be a disaster for Africans. While many on the left would argue that this problem can be solved by industrializing and developing Africa, this brings up two problems – number one, countries like North Korea, Yemen, and Honduras that have average incomes on par with the sub-Saharan African average have far lower birthrates, implying that there is far more that affects birth rates than merely poverty, and two, further increasing the income and resource consumption of Africa’s billion plus people at a time when our ecosystem is already collapsing because humanity consumes too much would be downright disastrous.
India’s situation is similar to that of Africa. Indian immigrants to the US are the only ethnic group with a higher average income than American Jews, because only the best and brightest Indians are allowed to immigrate to the US. India’s caste system had a unique effect on their evolutionary development, as certain castes required high levels of intellect and skill to survive, while other castes did not, resulting in some portions of their population being very intelligent and others not so much. When the smartest minds of India flee their country, while the remaining population continues to grow (and while their birth rate is slower than most of Africa, their population density is already far higher), will India be able to continue industrializing? Will they be able to convert to nuclear energy or will they end up relying on fossil fuels because the people most capable of handling nuclear engineering have already fled to the west?
As the Arab world’s population grows, what are the odds that they will switch to renewables or nuclear power, and how much more likely is it that they will continue to use the cheap, plentiful oil beneath their feet to provide more resources to their ever increasing population? As Africa’s population doubles over the next 50 years, will we be able to afford to let them industrialize when they produce so few workers capable of doing the complicated work necessary to produce nuclear and renewable energy, or will the burden of their reliance on fossil fuels be too much for the world? As the population of Africa and other low IQ, low education people grows and their people spill over their borders into the west, creating more consumers but fewer highly skilled and educated workers with each passing generation, they are likely to increase the overall amount we consume and make the burden on our ecosystem worse, increasing our dependence on fossil fuels which don’t require the highly intelligent and educated labor force nuclear energy requires. As the Jewish population shrinks outside Israel, as people of lower average intelligence move to the west and replace higher intelligence whites, and as the working age population shrinks in most of the industrialized world (while our retired populations are likely to continue growing and consuming and requiring more highly skilled and educated workers to care for them, tying up workers who could otherwise go into nuclear energy), our ability to spare workers for the process of switching over to nuclear energy will only diminish while our energy needs will only grow. This will make the work of solving climate change that much harder.
If the left wants to solve climate change by switching to nuclear energy, they will first have to address these demographic concerns. The left will have to put down the politically correct social justice movement that makes it impossible to discuss hereditary and evolutionary differences in IQ and the effect that our world’s changing demographics is having on our ability to solve climate change, provide for people, and solve our world’s problems. We will need to shift our economy from being one that expects our most capable workers to make sacrifices for the wellbeing of the least capable people to one that lets our best and brightest profit fully off their valuable labor and encourage them to use those resources to raise more and better kids so our next generation will be able to solve these problems. The left will need to re-evaluate the welfare state and social democracy’s role in the growth of our retired and immigrant populations, and foreign aid’s role in the population growth of the least intelligent portions of the world’s populations. We need to embrace the reality of evolution and use it to improve the quality of people of all racial and hereditary groups, not just whites. And if we want to see the world’s poorest countries industrialize, we will need to take steps to reduce their birthrates first (as China has already done), and we will need more whites, east Asians, and Jews to emigrate from the developed world into these poor nations to bring our skills to them, rather than letting them immigrate into our countries and consume more like we do when we have yet to fix the problems our high levels of consumption create.
At the moment, the alt right is more suited to solve these problems than the left, and that is downright embarrassing for the left. However, the alt right is not perfectly suited to solve them either, as many on the alt right deny the reality of climate change (or any other environmental problems) and their hatred of Jews will prevent them from utilizing the greatest resource we have available to us to help solve these problems, though perhaps pressure from the alt right can push more Jews out of our broken, rent seeking financial system and dishonest media and into the STEM fields where their intelligence can do the most good for humanity. But they do recognize the harm of the racial demographic shift our world is going through and the reality of racial IQ differences and their impact on society’s ability to solve its problems, and that alone makes them better than the social justice movement that has overtaken the left. If the left truly wants to solve climate change, they will have to address these issues and face the reality of evolution and of the effect hereditary genetic differences have on our ability to solve societal problems, as well as the effect their anti-meritocratic welfare statism has on increasing consumption and the strain that puts on the workers they’re expecting to solve climate change. For the meta-right, this offers us an opportunity to bridge the gap between the environmental left, who must be put at odds with the cancerous social justice movement for the good of our planet, and the alt right, whose recognition of the reality of race and the problems of the social justice movement put them in a far better position to solve our environmental problems than the modern left.