Asimov was prophetic in his speech. He mentioned an extraordinary number of problems that we face today in his speech, including global warming, the Malthusian Catastrophe, and the aging population. It was clear from the speech that Asimov was a polymath synaptic philosopher. His expertise ranged from science to politics to philosophy, which quite impressed me. The world that he envisioned, while stood on firm logical and theoretical footing, was however unrealistic. Population growth rates are already down in many parts of the world—mostly in the developed countries, with the U.S. being the only major developed country with a significant natural population growth rate—and this kind of population rate is not achieved through eugenics or any sort of population-control schemes. However, the population in the developed countries are growing quickly, and it is almost impossible to check this growth, owing to the fact that there is no effective world government to enforce any sort of universal population regulation. Population will continue to grow until child rearing costs (usually stemming from a higher level of education) increase significantly as the developing countries emerge from poverty.
Asimov also fails to mention one major factor in the changing demographics as population decline and the old increase their share of the population—the unaffordable welfare bill that will inevitably be saddled to the world’s governments. Less population means fewer younger men to generate tax revenue, and an aging demographics mean more expenditure on a variety of elderly necessities—health care, recreation, retirement funds… and this problem is already straining many of the governments in the developed world. Tax rates inevitably becomes more extortionary (Sweden, for example, pays 55% of its GNP into taxes), which in turn stifles development. This system at a long term is unsustainable, in other words. The only viable solution is to keep a stable population while the developing world emerge from poverty. One viable solution is to keep population growth at a stable level while the developing world emerges from poverty—this may mean the goodbye of the suburbia, but the City is very capable of supporting population—the mega-conglomerate of Tokyo (pop. 25,000,000+)exists on a plot of land the size of Connecticut (pop. 3,000,000). Meanwhile, we should work on genetically-modified agriculture, hydroponics, and the use of salt-resistant crops that will raise the output of our land and reduce agriculture’s resource intensity. Eventually, when the gap between the developing world and the developed world closes, we will have a stable population and the quasi-utopia of Asimov (and really, Karl Marx) will finally be reality.

Sophistry without Meaning

I suppose what Kristol means is that humans cannot survive without “purpose” in life. I think that comment colludes well with Socrates’ conviction to follow his purpose as a gadfly willing to question and change “normalcy.” But do we all need an absolute purpose to live, and can the definition of “purpose” be welded? Few alive today could state, with absolute conviction, “this is what I am born to do and I will do this for the rest of my life.” Just as a ubiquitous example, the procurement of material comfort (i.e. money) occupies the life of most living creatures. To many, this kind of life has little to no “purpose.” But who is to say that materialism is “meaningless,” per se? Only the individual may make an accurate judgment on the meaning of his “purpose” in life, and really, I think few of us get a chance to even ask this question, in this fast-paced and self-centered world where intellectualism in the traditional sense has little relevance. Think of the 1984 scenario—the idea of rebellion did not even cross the mind of the impoverished and neglected “proles,” the huddled masses oppressed by the Party, when they were struggling to eke out a miserly existence. In reality, we live in a relatively similar scenario: often, the nitpicky details of our lives occupy almost all our attention (Why did so-and-so say this to me? Why do I have to do this work? Why does lunch suck so much today?), and self-reflection of the higher magnitude simply never occurs to us. In fact, this kind of reflection often requires the individual to inspect himself from a third-person view—in other words, to judge oneself with all the impartiality of a bystander (Socrates was brilliantly successful at this in Apology). But how often can we really get past that barrier of “self” that Russell considers such a barrier to enlightenment? The truth is, rarely, if one’s not a temple-dwelling, celibate, and teetotal Buddhist monk whose leisure time in a year exceeds the amount of leisure we have in perhaps a lifetime; we simply do not have enough time to closely scrutinize our so-called “purpose.” Thus, what is its importance to us? I do not need to find a “purpose,” or perhaps, my purpose is to do what I am doing right now in, to me, the best possible way. As long as I am satisfied with the plethora of mundane things that I do (e.g. making a ton of dough, if that is what I want, or maybe to enjoy the movie that I’m watching right now), I see no reason for having self-reflections. Be and let be.