Last-modified 10-Sept-2000 . . . . Go to chapters: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . . Save the images: demo_en.gif , Laffer_e.gif

Nick Kronov


(Academician V. I. Vernadsky)

Chapter 1. What is a cause of the crisis?

Mankind have no enemies excepting themselves, calamities of mankind occur from their own irrationalism. Therefore for the present it is impossible to name as "a noosphere" - that is to say the world, where the mind is ruling - the thin layer of space on a surface of Globe, where a man dominates. Now this still rich and perfect world collapses because of excessive exploitation of it by mankind economic activity, that has increased enormously in connection with demographic explosion, that has taken place. At the same time the blind leaders of mankind, having pretension to be the mankind mind, try to cure the illness of a society by the further economic and demographic growth. This article is devoted to decision of the mankind problems: elimination of neediness, violence and ecological threat. . Science and technology have made mankind of XX century powerful incomparably with former centuries. It would seems, the abundance should be achieved long time ago and on this basis all "damned" questions are solved. However the world is in crisis and the problems of mankind are not solved by their intellectual leaders because their out-of-date philosophy does not wish to perceive that the science speaks1. And this problem of a world outlook is a theme of the article too.

(FOOTNOTE 1: - a science, but not those or other scientists, the narrow experts, which can understand something but also to not understand something other. An example. Some scientists the ecologists name the woods of Amazon and Siberian taiga "as lungs of the planet", as are spoken, these are supplying the planet with oxygen. But the science says another: that the old woods exist in balance - it has rotted as much, how many it has grown, therefore the woods produces as much oxygen and carbonic acid, how many absorbs. Only young forest produces surplus of oxygen, as accumulates carbon in growing weight of wood. The next example. Ours mad scientists the demographers call upon to populate Russian Far East with the Chineses, also the rest Russia - with Caucasians and Middle-Asians: they says, the labor power is necessary in order to feed the population. But you see, this "increasing of labor power" as well means the increasing of the population, which needs to be fed! And one more example. Demographers look clever when they declare: "The pensioners live for a longer and longer time, but the means for them are decreasing because of reduction of birth-rate, hence, also of decreasing of the labor power". But let! Because of reduction of birth-rate the less means is necessary for children and, hence, should remain more for the old men!)

For example it is impossible to prevent the global ecological catastrophe by present methods of "struggle for preservation of a nature" because neither the protesting actions of "Greens" nor state preservation measures - are aimed at elimination of the deep cause of ecological crisis, they cure only the symptoms and consequences. But it is the same to try to cure AIDS by greasing the ulcers on a body of the patient with the green antiseptic. The struggle "for ecology" is being carried on against infinite consequences of the sole, as a matter of fact, true cause - the demographic one - to that persistently shut their eyes2. (FOOTNOTE 2: "The Voice of America" (29.5.96) informs: "The unattended growth of the population of cities threatens with accident, if its employment will not be supplied". The reason is named - the unattended growth. But to struggle it is offered with consequences - with shortage of means of existence). Therefore "the struggle" has gone into impasse, to a situation, that Russian names as "you'll do it but never will complete it" or "a nose has been dragged out - now a tail gets stuck ". But probably, it is worrying the "Greens" a little, they are consoled in the process of struggle, are satisfied with that they "do at least something". But If we really want to relieve mankind of ecological threat (also of need, wars, totalitarian dictatorships), it is necessary at first to ascertain correctly the diagnosis, that is to say scientifically3 to open the deep cause and the mechanism of illness.

(FOOTNOTE 3: "But among the scientists, as well as among the ordinary people, there are such ones for whom the quiet life is more dear. To study and to study is far calmer than to promise... Then it also will be necessary to be justified that you have not found you promised. It is calmer to describe a process, instead of to search for the reasons also ways of their elimination. It had been told to me at one of laboratories with frankness and even with pride: "Here you see how we work. But we are not engaged with idle thinkings"" (Gregory Gurevich, a science fiction writer).)

The threat of ecological catastrophe approaches simultaneously from the different directions: pollution and impoverishing of the seas, oceans, rivers, underground waters, pollution and destruction of woods and agricultural grounds, pollution and change of an atmosphere, reduction of the protective ozone layer, pernicious changes of a climate, the rise of the ocean level, accumulation of deadly radioactive substances made by uncountable atomic power stations4, the impoverishing of the vegetative and animal world, exhaustion of resources of the planet. Obviously the reason is not simply, as speak, "in the negligent, prodigal relation of a man to a nature". Global and versatile character of the ecological crisis point out on fundamentalty of its reasons and, accordingly, requires fundamental, radical changes in life of mankind. So what are the reasons?

(FOOTNOTE 4: The number of reactors only of atomic power stations in Japan - 53, in France - 59, in the USA - 104, in Great Britain - 35, in Germany - 19, in Russia -29, on Ukraine - 14, in other countries - 120, total in the world - 433)

It is baby's prattling that the publicists and even the philosophers speak about the reasons of ecological crisis and other disasters of mankind. It is known the wars go also in the animals world - for example between lions prides. But in philosophers opinion, the deep causes of wars are: "envy" (Vladimir Soloviev), national prejudices, "dissociation" and "ideologies". It turns out that the reasons of existence of wars are the misunderstandings and lack of upbringing. The revolution in Russia, in their opinion, has taken place also because of bad upbringing and because either Marx hadn't understood something, or Marx had been understood incorrectly. Also a reason of the ecological crisis in general and of the Chernobyl accident in particular5 - as if in "mentality of the nature-conquest" or that the people could but do not want to refuse conveniences of the civilization and progress. But the academician Velikhov - concerning nuclear energy - has told absolutely another. He has told: "We have no choice". So the human history is being promoted not by whims and misunderstandings but necessity.

( FOOTNOTE 5: If to count only material damage, the Chernobyl accident has cost for the country in 400 billions dollars)

In the majority of the textbooks of ecology - as it is branch of biology - there is talk only about biology but the question on the reason of ecological crisis of mankind is not put at all, and even there isn't talk about the crisis. But in the K. M. Petrov textbook of "General Ecology" the question is elucidated widely, however the answer is absent. In the textbook it is told: "The reason of crisis - the contradictions in mutual relation (read: notorious "infringement of harmony") between society and nature". However it is not an answer, but a tautology, the circulation along a circle, it is the same that to tell: "the reason of bad state of health of the man is that he's ill". Therefore it is necessary to repeat the question: well, but what is the reason of this "contradictions in mutual relation", what is the reason of "the infringements of harmony"?

But the biologists, ecologists do not think over this question properly. Everybody beforehand (a priori) have agreed, that the reason is immorality of the society, of a man, almost the "Adam's sin". Therefore biologists answer: "But it is any more not our competence, the sociologists and philosophers should answer this question". But the sociologists with the philosophers can't answer too. Because ecology is not their competence. Because it is necessary to search the reason of ecological crisis, ALSO OF ALL OTHER DISASTERS OF MANKIND, just in ecology. But not in "the infringement of its laws", not in "the contradictions with nature", not in "having power over nature" - but in laws of ecology, laws of biosphere, according to which mankind still lives and by which they, like animals, still is held in servitude. As Teillhard De Chardin spoke: as a matter of fact, Homo Sapiens has only just departed a point of the occurrence, the human history still is a natural history.

Actually, the scientists haven't an intellectual boldness to answer truthfully - even to themselves - a question about the first-cause of the approaching ecological catastrophe, and as a matter of fact, also of all other disasters of mankind. The philosophers and publicists only vaguely blame "the dark sides of progress", the scientists name the ecological crisis as "technogeneous", but the most "scientific" and serious it is considered to list about ten "reasons" of ecological crisis. But verbosity is one of the best ways of passing over in silence. Really such ostensibly "objectivity" and "scientific completeness of researching" serve to belittling of the real cause of crisis - of necessity to feed and to support the excessively increased population. Because the one who recognizes this reason as main, should offer very unpopular measures. But the intellectual establishment does not want to expose to threat their own high status in the society. A word "establishment" exactly means - "people of high status". Therefore if in the long list of the reasons of the crisis the scientists still mention "excessive growth of the population"6, this theme never is thought over and told up to the end - probably, according the saying, "nobody would like to run in a direction opposite where a crowd runs". And if the authors pass to specific ways of an exit out of the crisis, then there is not even a word about regulation of a population number and even about "regulation of population growth". The long list of necessary measures corresponding to the list of "reasons" is given again: here are "to improve the monitoring" and "to strengthen the ecological education", and "to increase the penalties", and "to close harmful manufactures", "to develop waste-less- and bio-technology", "to improve an agriculture", "to develop solar power" etc., but about the main - about specific measures of regulation of a population - there is not even a word. Sometimes in this long list of measures the uncertain phrase is added: "to control the birth-rate". But you see, so-called "control of birth-rate" is meaning only: "If I want - I limit myself to one child, but if I want - I'll have got two children, three, four - if I consider my means allow it".

(FOOTNOTE 6: They never say "an excessive population" because for them their own "prestige" is more dear than a truth! On TV "Dialogues about animals" (9.6.98) a woman who was making comments on film about mountain gorillas, has told: the gorillas population has decreased twice because the woods are taken out under ploughed fields because this area on a border of Congo and Rwanda "has highest density of the population". But if this area is so densely populated, how did the gorillas live there earlier? And why are they suddenly dying out now? Obviously this woman should told not "density of the population is great", but "density of the population grows very much". It is one more example, how the scientists, trying to be the defenders of a nature, at the same time because of their "culture" in every possible way are making round the sharp angles, are slurring over a picture)

Goethe has told: "The not-writing people have one advantage: they do not risk to compromise themselves". But the today's scientists know other way to be not compromised: they write much and ornate but write platitudes - so that nobody has found oneself offended or obliged to something unpleasant. Therefore all their speeches are fruitless.

Just as in the vast document of 1980 "The World Nature Conservation Strategy", accepted by International Union of Nature Conservation working under UN aegis, about the main thing are spoken only casually: "The degradation of nature comes with such speed it directly threatens to well-being of many people and stability of the states. We have the only one Earth. This perfect ship contains all the necessary for indefinitely long trip on it. But the people should not use a stock of life-support as drunken sailors. The resources of the Earth are finite and are not capable to support the unlimited number of the representatives of any species of alive nature. In other words, the unlimited growth of number of the people is dangerous. This problem is difficult, delicate, but it is impossible to overlook it, otherwise famine or other disaster will act inevitably as a regulator of the population number". ("Nature and a Man" No 3. 1981, page 64)

But in this citation as it is usual the cautious-evasive statements of the scientists should be deciphered.

Firstly, the reason of destruction of environment is not "the excessive growth of the population", as always are spoken, but the excessive population - even if this population number at this moment does not grow but falls, however remains excessive for environment. And if now the environment collapses so appreciably, it means the population is already excessive, already has exceeded the "limits" and should be reduced.

Secondly, who are those, who should not "overlook" but "overlook" the problem of a population number? And why do they overlook? It is vital important to dot one's "i's" and cross one's "t's". Really, each schoolboy, as seems, should know that the Earth has the form of a sphere, that ours world is limited. Especially an intellectual elite should not "overlook" it. But there is not more blind than the one for whom it is not profitable to see. It is not profitable to see a problem because the problem, as was told, "is delicate". By telling "a" they should to tell both "b", and "c" - and to appear as "the malthusists".

Thirdly, in this citation the keywords are: "disasters - as a regulator of a population". Here is the real cause of mankind disasters! The disasters are not a punishment from Heaven, as were thought formerly. Also it is not simply "c' est la vie" - as the science of new time suggests (implies). The disasters are the regulators necessary and inevitable, only as the mankind does not want to adjust their own number voluntarily. It becomes clear why, despite of all the occurred progress and growth of manufacture, the mankind continues to beat with their problems as a fly against a glass and just creates new problems: because simultaneously with the growth of manufacture the population has grown too - for 1000 years 20 times!

The following diagram from the A. Barnett's book "The Human Species" (Penguin Book, 1961.) is a bright illustration of this demographic explosion - concerning Europe

demo_en.gif 5 Kb

It is easy to calculate by the diagram that the most abrupt rise on the diagram means an increment of population only on 0,6 % per a year. The increment in 7,5 times smaller - on 0,08 % would mean the further development along the dashed line - the catastrophic development too, it is visible from the diagram. Today the world increment is almost in 17 times (!) higher, it is 1,35 % per a year. It means that each family has 3 children on the average. At such an increment the population is being doubled every 50 years!

It is clear this demographic explosion would be impossible if there was not even greater explosion of manufacture. Also presently in the advanced countries - in the countries with low birth-rate (that is to say in the countries with so-called "the controllable birth-rate") - it is marked the increasing of birth-rate during the periods of rise of economy and an incomes level. But in underdeveloped countries the birth rate is great already, at the periods of economics rise there the death-rate is decreasing. Thus the growth of manufacture also the growth of the population cause and spur each other till the increasing difficulties and disasters do not stop one or another. The further technical progress discovers some new resources and opportunities for manufacture growth, the situation is being facilitated temporarily but because of it the growth of the population is being renewed, and with increase of industrial activity and population number the problems and disasters are increasing again. And till the mankind will not have broken off this mad vicious circle (or, if you want, the spiral), the mankind will move along a way of progress and new disasters "forward" - to the catastrophe. But languid-pessimistic philosophers will twist their mouths, making a word "progress", as though the evil is in it.

Here usually are objecting: "However we see the contrary - in the poor countries the growth of the population is large but in the rich countries the growth has almost stopped, and somewhere the population even decreases now!"

As a matter of fact these seeming exceptions just illustrate, confirm a rule. That's not the point that the first countries are poor but that the manufacture grows there. In the poor countries the growth of the population is spurred just by growth of production (or of foreign help, earnings abroad and so on). The growth of the population physically could not occur, if the amount of made (or imported) food did not grow. And the mass illnesses, famine and violence in these countries are, by their standards, a norm of life but are not such the disasters that could reduce the birth-rate. Somewhere in Africa, in Brazil, in Bangladesh even an inhabitant of a bidonville (area of self-building up urban slums), who have a piece of essential bread for this day, is ready to breed children, and there we see rapid growth of the population. On the other hand, the Europeans, on ours standards, live richly. But they, as a whole, do not consider then and have not more than one or two children because just because of material difficulties at the greater number of children they can not provide the worthy, on their notion, life for the family7. Thus, just the neediness constrains birth-rate, instead of so-called "orientation on mini-family" discovered by demographers. In next chapter I'll try to show that this "worthy" level of material life is not luxury, not a whim but necessity for a "technotronic" civilization. And if in Europe the population decreases even when some growth of manufacture - it means the necessary quality of life is not provided. But if it will have been provided and exceeded, the population will grow again in the advanced countries too. Thus the degree of the same material difficulties and disasters in the different countries and epochs is estimated differently but there is the immutable general law of all that is alive: in the system of a biological species - the environment any species aspires to expansion, to as possible as the greater number of a population, and for this purpose to a maximum of production of the vital goods and to most economical, on the verge of shortage a necessary minimum of individual consumption of the goods. Therefore the growth of production, on the one hand, and the disasters, on another hand - are appearing as the regulators of the population number.

(FOOTNOTE 7: At 1997 in "rich and successful" Sweden for the first time the number of births has appeared less than the number of deaths. But despite of this overcrowding self-feel of Sweden, 44 thousand immigrants were admitted into the country, and because of it the population had grown again.)

At one time, in the Middle Ages the crops had increased, there was no famine - but because of it the population had increased. But because of overcrowding the epidemics had appeared and had occupied a place of famine as the main regulator of a population of Europe. Later, when the plague, the cholera, the smallpox had been overcome, the population, in consequence of it, had increased again - then the regulating role of wars and revolutions has been amplified. Unaccidentally the world wars and totalitarian regimes, unprecedented before, have appeared just in XX century - "at the acme of enlightenment and progress" in those old parts of the world where were no free space and resources, as in the New World - in Northern and Southern America. But if owing to the coming of "unification of mankind", wars will be eliminated too, then the two remaining regulators - ecological accidents and global totalitarian dictatorship should take complete effect and at last stabilize a population of the Earth - just like the situation on an Easter-island "had been stabilized" when the excessively multiplied population had transformed a blossom island into desert and had established there literally a cannibal regime.

Thus, "a technological stage in development of a society" is not in itself is not the reason of ecological crisis as it is wrongly asserted by the scientists8. We see a hard ecological situation in the underdeveloped countries (destruction of woods and resources of ocean, desertification of grounds) and we know that the local anthropogeneous ecological crises and accidents bringing the civilizations to destruction, happened earlier, when there was no todayís technique anywhere. The reason that the ecological catastrophe just now has begun to threaten to all mankind - it is the stoppage or easing of acting of other NATURAL disasters-regulators of a population and the absence of ARTIFICIAL regulators - the reasonable state regulating, that in a reasonable (noospheric) society should replace former regulators-disasters.

(FOOTNOTE 8: The US vice-president Albert Gor had published the book "The Earth has been hung by a thread" where has declared that "the engine of internal combustion is a terrible threat for mankind". While actually the threat is the unchecked propagating and, accordingly, the infinite growth of economy, that are being supported by Gor)

Chapter 2. Misconceptions and sophisms justifying the growth.

Probably everyone agree in the following: if to solve economic, material problems of mankind, to liquidate poverty, neediness - there will not be of ground also for others disasters: for destruction of environment, for many illnesses, criminality, wars, revolutionary dictatorships and even for hard consequences of natural disasters - for example, of earthquakes - when the people perish in cheap tall buildings as it was in Spitak and Neftegorsk. About a philosophical problem of "the Golden Age" - but as a matter of fact, how to arrange REASONABLE, and therefore also happy life on the Earth, by solving, first of all, the material problems of mankind - there are five points of view (by not counting up skeptical one): Christian point of view, communist one, socialist, liberal-capitalist and noospheric.

1. The Christian point of view asserts the material problems will have been solved when will be the loving between people. By five breads it is possible to have fed a crowd of five thousands person: the main thing is to show to everybody how it is necessary to share - then it will have turned out that many people have provisions, and as a result everybody will be sufficed - both propertied, and the have-nots, and much will be left. Such an intelligent explanation of the Gospel miracle about five breads (Luke 9:12-19, John 6:5-13) L. N. Tolstoy gives. However in practice, in the communes of early Christians, obviously, they did not hope that love will have generated abundance, and therefore they were applying the opposite approach: they were beginning with obligatory socialization of property - but this is already more similar to second point of view - the communist one.

2. G. Ziuganov isn't tired of repeating that communists really carry out the Christian ideals. But it is a lie. As far back as 100 years ago the Christian philosopher V. S. Soloviov had noticed: "Though communists by their negative attitude to the property are similar to early Christians, but there is an essential distinction: Christians called upon to give your property, while communists incite to take away the property belonging to others". Thus, if Christians thought love will cause equality, and the equality will create abundance - then communists consider, no, it is necessary to begin from establishment - by violence - the property equality, it will cause abundance, and the abundance already will create love and harmony in a society.

However in practice with communists also everything is being turned out the wrong way round, the communism becomes inevitably as rigid, "totalitarian" regime - that is to say holding under the control ALL parties of life of a man. Because the establishment of property equality, as the theorists of communism speak, is being prevented by "the nature of a man", by his egoism. Therefore the whole system of measures is necessary, the strategy is necessary in order to not leave the slightest loop-hole for egoism, to not allow him to penetrate in a communist society and to pervert it, to destroy it from within - as it had turned out, for example, at easing the Stalin regime since the Khruschev period. Firstly, it is necessary, they speak, to destroy a private property, and whenever possible, any property in general, to retain in the property of the citizens only a toothbrush, hairbrush etc. The very first states - empires of Atzteks, Inks, Assyrians, early Egypt - were constructed on the principle of communism, there was no private property, as the academician Igor Shafarevich writes in the book "Socialism". Everything belonged to pharaoh, that is to say to a state9. (FOOTNOTE 9: About life in Egyptian slavery see also in the Bible (Exodus 5, 4-21) The population was divided into brigades. A foreman (an overseer) was receiving in a state warehouse the order on work, tools, materials and the day-time livelihood for a brigade; finished products were being given back to a state warehouse again. At XX century the "development along a spiral" has resulted approximately in the same point: Lenin, for the sake of property equality, has offered to establish equality of the salaries for equal number of hours of any work, it is unimportant of what work (see at his book "The State and the Revolution"). Also so-called "the war communism" was being considered by him as a convenient occasion to speed up carrying out the Marxism-Pharaohism system of production and distribution up to the cancellation of money in general. Thus, communist regime, so to speak, "solves" material problems by an establishment of compulsory equality. As a poet has told: "Their equality is slavery: All of them are slaves - thus nobody is resented". So that nobody stand out, it would be a good thing to dress all the people - men and women - in dark blue uniform as it was in China at Mao Tze-dung, to give to everyone by 9 sq. Õ of a living-space. In a Vysotsky song it is mentioned "the corridor system - there is only one lavatory for 38 families". Such the houses were really under construction at the 1920-s for the future society of completely-communism. A kitchen is necessary for no family - everyone eats in a communalrestaurant. For washing there are the public laundries. Thus woman is free of the "home slavery". But it is better to liquidate family as a public institute in general. Children are raised and educated by the state. And all this - to break the people of "the own", of property, that is to say, of inequality10.

(FOOTNOTE 10: Hitler had some plans too: after a military victory to finish construction of totalitarian socialism - for the benefit of the state to take away the property of large capitalists - as the beginning. Communists began from destruction of "superfluous" classes and then has passed, under Stalin, to destruction of the objectionable peoples. Hitler had a swastika on his red banner instead of a sickle and hammer, he began, on the contrary, with the "superfluous" peoples, and then planned to finish with classes too. In it all difference is between the communist socialism and the national-socialism.)

Besides, the communist revolution should be global, "world" - that is to say the communism should be entered at once in all the world11 (FOOTNOTE 11: Even If the world besides will be divided in hostile blocks of the communist states, as it is described in the fantastic George Orwell's novel "1984". But also besides Orwell's prophecies, we remember, how Stalinís USSR and Titoís Yugoslavia were at enmity. Also the communist "brothers" China and Vietnam with each other even made war), otherwise the states based on economic freedom and, it means, with more effective economics, will destroy the communist countries. In general, the resourceful, independent people are more ingenious, stronger than the passive, broken of initiative "the small screws" who got used that all parties of their life and activity are determined by their leaders. For this reason the states of Atzteks, Inks, Assyrians, pharaohs had perished. Till now it wasn't a success to have constructed the communism in the separate country, or in group ("camp") of countries just because the world just now is great, is divided, is diverse (is not unified) and consequently as whole is unguided. However the technical progress gradually extends hands and levers of a state, the world is turned out as though more compact, more controlled, and the communism, that is to say, global totalitarianism, becomes as the quite possible future of mankind. Now, at the end of XX century liberal-capitalist regime, as more effective, has ensured fast growth and has won a competition with communism. For the present it has won. An unskilful but strong swimmer at the expense of vigorous struggle can forge ahead but he eventually spends energy and goes down, while weak one can long lay on water without moving in general. Also the capitalism, winning only by constant growth, by this growth digs a grave for itself, lops off the bough on which it sits. You see, in the limited resource space of Globe the infinite growth is impossible, therefore, with achievement of "the limits of growth", stagnation of economy and increase because of it of all sorts of disasters will again open a gate for "the Second Advent" of communism.

3. The socialist point of view believes it is unnecessary and sheer harmfully - completely to destroy a property inequality (as it lowers diligence and production efficiency). Besides, it is impossible, the privileged class remains after revolution all the same . Enough if there will not be the too rich and too poor. Let's take away, by surtaxes, "the surpluses" from the rich and we shall give it to the poor - and all will be O.K. This point of view now dominates in Europe, though lately disappointment in the "social" state is being formed, as the income taxation undermines economy and labor morals, but an idea to have canceled the income taxes by replacing these with ecological taxes - in any way is not gone into the socialists heads, because the income taxation is the Alpha and Omega of the socialist ideology.

4. Liberal-capitalist point of view12 (FOOTNOTE 12: In the USA is another terminology. There the fourth point of view is named "conservative" but a word "a liberal" is almost abusive and approximately corresponds with a word "a socialist") fairly specifies that the forced overstating of the salaries under pressure of trade unions also other socialist "equalizing" make lower the interest in work and the efficiency of economy. In European "social" states the economy grows poorly and the unemployment is high because of outflow of the capital into the Asian countries where the low salary, almost there are not expenses of the state for social security and consequently the income taxes are less. It should not oppress the rich men by the taxes because, as speak, they invest the money in expansion of production or spend it and in any case thus they give work to poor ones. The taxes should be lowered - then more money will remain with the people for buying. And if the purchasing capacity of the population will increase - then the production will increase too. Hence the earnings will increase, therefore buying will increase any more, production will increase again - and so up to infinity. But generally, it is necessary to work even more, to turn even promptly - then, maybe, after many exactions you will nevertheless have a large part of the earned, and you will cease to be poor.

The inaccuracy of this theory is obvious: though the reduction of the taxes will increase the budget of the ordinary buyers but so will reduce the state budget, which in the final account is being spent for buying too. It turns out some money was added to private sector but the same money will be taken away from state sector. By the way, from 1930-s till the middle of the 1970-s there was in fashion the opposite theory - Keins's theory: let a state - even by printing money - to spend more and more (for construction of roads, for example), creating thus workplaces. Then people will have money, the sale of the goods will increase, hence the production will increase, thus the incomes will be increased again etc. up to infinity.

In these theories the only thing is correct: if suddenly by that or another way it is possible to increase production, it temporarily weakens material problems. It turns out, that while the economy grows, the people do not want to change anything. Why? Itís all right now. When the recession comes, they can't think about changes, all efforts of thought are directed to this: how to survive and to renew the growth - today a situation in Russia is the such.

A propagandist of the liberal-capitalist point of view the philosopher Boris Paramonov says: "In the countries, where there is freedom - there is bread too". No, quite the reverse: for the present there is bread - there is freedom too. There will not be bread (when the todayís economic boom will have terminated) - then there will not be freedom too. During XX century it was happened more than once. The modern liberals do not understand it. A frightened crow is afraid even of a bush. By flinching from the horrors of the totalitarian "Utopias" of XX century13 ( FOOTNOTE 13: Just not communist socialism but liberalism had turned out to be the Utopia in Russia) they run to another extreme. They consider that not only any "noosphere" is unnecessary, but also, in general, a government the better, the less it is ruling. They say, the people will pull a blanket everyone on themselves, and thus everything will be arranged automatically. However other philosopher - Spaniard Ortega y Gasset wrote in the book "The Revolt of Masses": "A Civilization is not natural, does not keep itself, it is ARTIFICIAL and requires art and skill. A least oversight - and the all around will vanish in a moment. At the developing the civilization becomes more complex and more intricate. And there are less and less people whose mind rises to these problems... For the mass, which has been left to the own arbitrariness, either they are the ordinary people or the nobility, the thirst of life invariably results in destruction of the bases of life... The main question is what are the radical defects of the modern European culture. It would be required to develop in all completeness the concept of human existence".

5. And now the noospheric point of view specifies that professed by liberal capitalism (as by its "ordinary people", public, as by the "nobility", the intellectual establishment) and named as "development" the infinite growth in the limited space of Globe is madness resulting in the catastrophe. And preliminary warning disasters on this way to the ruin are the neediness, famine, the illnesses, violence, wars, dictatorships and the destruction of environment - redoubled in ours, apparently, such progressive XX century. Besides the noospheric point of view, all other theories and any reasoning about "the decision of problems of a human" are unscientific, as they "overlook" - but actually do not wish to see a phenomenon, dynamics and size of a population - as the reason, but not only as a consequence of the social, economic, political or historical phenomena. The sole way to relieve mankind of disasters named above - it is the reasonable management with a population number, counteraction to its spontaneous growth. It is specific that for reduction of pressure of mankind on nature and on itself the today's situation demands to decrease the population 10 times - the ecologists speak thus (see, for example, in "The Bulletin of a Russian Academy of sciences", v.64, No 9, 1994, page 811 the article "Onward to nature" by M. E. Vinogradov, G. E. Mikhailovsky and A. S. Monin).

In the reasonings of journalists, politicians and economists about "the reasons of riches of the peoples" there is widespread an unscientific, narrow-minded justification of escalating of production: as if it provides increase of a level of life. But in reality, the steady increase of a level of life is a consequence of not an OPPORTUNITIES to raise a level of life at increase of production, but it is a consequence of NECESSITY to raise a level of life of the workers according to complication of their work14 (FOOTNOTE 14: Erich Fromm Is mistaken when he writes: "Production and consumption have grown, whereas working hours was reduced, and the children's work is largely abolished. This choice was dictated not by technical necessity; it has grown out of political struggle and change in the social approaches"). The reproduction of the qualified labor power is more expensive than unskilled one. It is necessary to take into account not only the expenses on direct training but also even large expenses on general cultural-intellectual development which is necessary too. But it can be achieved by creation of appropriate cultural-household conditions. The education, trips expanding an outlook, set of the books, color TV sets, video recorders, computers and other home appliances, spacious houses, leisure, hobby - all these are very expensive but are necessary for intellectual-technical development of a man of the "technotronic" civilization, that is to say again for manufacturing, but it is not because of the "excessive aspiration to the comfort" as some philosophers and publicists assert. Because if the civilization would not be "techotronic", it could not support the present huge population. However for publicists forming public opinion, it is more favorable to appear before the people as moralists, instead of "misanthropist-malthusists", therefore they assert that the ecological crisis is ostensibly "a payment for comfort", and never will tell the truth: that it is a payment for a huge population number though it's easily to understand it.

The increasing of the life level that has been not justified by above-named necessity but caused only by gain of production, is resulted only by the increase of number of children in families. And this gain of a population in due course "gobbles up" the gain of production, and the level of life is falling again. We see it during all history of mankind (see a diagram in the first chapter): the enormous escalating of production as a result of scientific and technical progress of last centuries - has resulted not in abundance but demographic explosion.

So maybe, it is time to stop this race between growth of production and growth of the population - it very much like the pursuit by a kitten of its own tail. The difference only is that a kitten is playing but the chiefs of mankind are engaged in it seriously. By taking into account that we live on the limited surface of Globe and that the resources of the Earth are finite, isn't it time to select other strategy for achievement of abundance: by stimulating reduction of birth-rate to promote the decrease of a population?

Another also widespread unscientific notion is that if a country has a "favorable" climate, "fertile" grounds, "is rich" by minerals - such a country shall thrive (but if it lives in misery - it is indispensable because of any malicious forces). But if a country is northern, with "poor grounds", and there is no coal, petroleum, apatite and ores - such a country shall be poor. However look at a card of density of the population of the Earth and you will see the "rich" lands become more populated - for example, valley of the Nile either delta of the Ganges, or the valleys of China rivers - and level of life there therefore becomes low despite of "riches" of these lands. But we see the high life standard in the technically advanced countries, for example, in Sweden, Holland, Switzerland, - but there are no particular natural riches. Thus, the level of life depends not on opportunities ostensibly given by "riches" of natural resources and volume of production, but in long prospect depends only on the technological level. Because the high technological level necessarily requires the qualified and that is why the high-paid population. If this necessity of increase of the life standard would not exist, the gain of a population in accuracy would correspond to a gain of production of the vital boons, and the life standard therefore would not be risen.

Manufacture includes four elements: labor, knowledge, instruments of manufacture and resources. At the times of the handicraft manufacturing, the most important and expensive element was knowledge (skill) of a craftsman. At the times of manufactories the imported resources and, hence, trade capital had become the main. When the manufacture by machinery had been arisen, the machinery, that is to say the industrial capital had become the main also the most expensive element. And soviet communists thinking in limits of "Capital" - the books of a hundred years old, was taking out, already presently, from defeated Germany, basically, machinery, but the more far-seeing Americans - was taking out the German experts. Indeed, in our "post-industrial" time the main and the most expensive element of manufacture is qualified labor, that is to say the set of two elements: labors and knowledge. Just this industrial qualification of the population, requiring a high level of life, is the first-cause of occurrence just presently, at an epoch of the "Scientific and Technical Revolution", of the high, on old standards, level of life of mass - but not at all the increased volume of production, as everybody considers. The volume of production was also being increased before, however the former revolutions in manufacture - occurrence of the cattle-breeding, agriculture etc. - had not resulted in abundance, the STR as such will not result in the abundance.

Now the new epoch comes nearer - when, with an exhaustion of natural resources, just resources - from petroleum and metals up to clear water, air and, simply, the land surface - will become the most important and expensive element of production. It is unreasonable to resist to inevitable and to restrain a rise in prices on resources, conducing to squandering and just by intensifying the future shortage of resources. On the contrary, expecting their exhaustion, it is necessary to save these already now, that is to say it is necessary by the ecological taxes intentionally considerably to raise the prices of production of the polluting substances and of resources extraction. Unlike a spontaneous rise in prices, this artificial increase of the prices will be quite painless, compensated, because will allow simultaneously by the same sum as a whole in the country to reduce the taxes from the profit and from earnings. The reduction of the income taxation not only will give the compensation but will have an salutary effect for economy and morals. But if to be floating with current and to wait for a spontaneous rise in price of resources, then to compensate it there will be by nothing, the economic and political catastrophe of mankind can become inevitable.

A similar situation arises with a population number too. Anyhow the number of mankind should be coordinated with an opportunities of the planet. It would be better, by reducing the birth-rate, consciously to reduce the population number, than, exhausting resources of a planet, to risk extinction both degeneration of mankind and all the biosphere as a result of the anthropogeneous ecological catastrophe. Mankind is able to control computers, space ships and nuclear reactors but if they aren't able or don't want to control their own number, they will destroy a biosphere and will destroy themselves.

However the "humanist" establishment (and even the "have turned green" part of them) avoids to go deep into this theme and consequently is unable reasonably to plan the future. They do a dubious service to mankind when they are being guided in the policy by a populist principle "happiness of a man" that is actually the principle "after us even if the floodwaters will come". A known economist L. I. Piyasheva has written to me: "I have overfed with the marxist globalism and I prefer to care not about "a planet as a whole" and "ecology on a planet", but about today's "a man of no importance", about satiety of a family, children, and at the best, "the country"". There's the "new thinking" for you! It is the old thinking - old like the world, like the animals world.

In Africa the scientists-ethologists were observing behavior of monkeys. There a monkey-baby has fallen from a tree and has broken the hand. The baby shouts from a pain, the mother pick up him and presses him to her heart. Because of it he is in more pain, he is crying, mother again presses him even stronger, her instinct is such. As a result the hand is constantly injured, does not heal, and the baby perishes. Equally the instinct let down our humanists, when the matter concerns a population number or growth of production, thus they will really have driven the mankind to destruction!

The opponents of the Darwin's evolutionary theory especially are irritated with his statement that a man had descended from animals. But exactly they, these opponents, see a man exclusively like an animal - who eats, drinks, "pursues of happiness" - easier speaking, to pleasures. This is a view of a man of the religion of humanism and of the present humanistic Christianity. Indeed, that the purpose, the sense of life is not "To execute a will of Sender" as it is written in Gospels but the purpose is happiness - it is considered as an axiom and silently is put in a basis of all discourses by everybody, even by the ones who name themselves Christians. Another - originally Christian method of approach to a man is based on a recognition of the human essence not in his biological and psychological requirements but in his mind - that animals have not. Exactly it is meant by words of Bible "a man is created as an image and a similarity of God", you see, God is a pure Mind, Logos, as it is written in the same Bible.

But does a man use the mind given to him and how does he use? On that score Sigmund Freud is extremely pessimistic: "People are so a little accessible to voice of mind, their impulsive wishes dominate them completely". Is it correct? Actually it is correct only that a man during of one million years is living under leadership of instincts and emotions, and his mind - and also all our science! - are only a support, only a tool of achievement of the purposes, which an instinct puts. When psychology presses logic, it isn't the logic any more. Certainly I don't talk about transforming a man into an angel, but if then mankind will be guided in their life by the short-sight, by its nature, instincts and emotions and will not be capable to limit themselves in number (only it is necessary!), they are not just doomed that their number - like number of animals - will be still adjusted by famine, wars and illnesses, but it is worse, the mankind is doomed to degeneration and destruction. Because the scales of human disasters - as distinct from the sufferings of animals - are proportional to forces which aman manipulates - frequently unskilfully or short-sightly, or irresponsibly, but now the forces in hands of the man are huge and are increasing. The same S. Freud wrote: "It is necessary to realize in a however large measure the building of a civilization is based on a principle of a refusal from instinctive inclinations... Let sometime the intellect - scientific thought, mind - will have managed to establish their dictatorship in psychological life of the people, this is our hottest desire" (Roger Dadoune, "Freud").

It is accepted - even among the philosophers - to blame for disasters of mankind the progress, science and rationalism. But everything is quite the reverse. Why, for example, even the most courageous statement of Roman Club had been softly and evasively headed as "Limits of growth" - it would be more correctly to head it as "Suicide by growth". The softened warning sheerly had not touched. The public had thought: "Well, there will be no growth - we shall do without it, but for now it is, it is necessary to use". A key attribute of the establishment is fine appearance. As Christ spoke about the that time establishment: "A Pharisee-hypocrite separating of a mosquito but absorbing of a camel". The people belonging to the establishment or aspiring to enter into it, trying to look fine, are evasive, are cautious in their behavior and statements. Being afraid to be considered as "malthusists", they dare to condemn "the excessive growth of an industry" and "the excessive growth of the population" only. As though the non-excessive, "ordinary" growth will not result eventually the same volume of production and the same population number. To speak and to write that not the growth, but the population number is excessive, it is considered as indecent, inhumane even among the scientists. But where there is taboo - there is the self-blinding, there isnít true science, there isnít true rationality. Thus, not a science, not a rationalism are guilty in present and future disasters of mankind but just the absence of a true science, of true rationality.

And if the demographers, afraid or not able to think globally, name the reduction of population number or even only the absence of a gain of the population as "an adverse demographic situation" and are horrified of "the aging of the population" owing to low birth-rate15 (FOOTNOTE 15: If western countries are afraid that they will be not able to support growing number of their old men, why everyone speak, that these countries are "rich"? And how it is possible to speak that because of "of aging of the population" there will be a lack of a labor power, if in these countries there is considerable unemployment?), the teachers assert that for good upbringing there should be three children in family instead of one, the economists for the lentil soup of momentary benefit are ready to expose the country to invasion of immigrants, they require the further growth of the population - as they need the more and more labor power for escalating the production to feed the same increasing population16 (FOOTNOTE 16: Our economists and demographers are literally crazy about "development" and "development" of resources. In the overpopulated countries the resources "are being developed" - that is to say the nature is being destroyed - because it is necessary to feed the rapidly increasing population. But in our country the population is being decreased however the economists and demographers all the same call for "to develop" the resources of Far East and for this purpose offer to let the Chinese in. And the businessmen and officials, making profit on manufacture and export of resources, certainly, make a tribune by such "scientist". By the way, here is also a underlying reason of the agiotage about so-called "globalization"), and patriots with nationalists do not agree to stop growth of the population while other peoples will not stop the growth, - to them all we should say: "That's all! It is impossible! You must solve your problems by other ways, an Ecological Imperstive forbids growth of the population!". And, I add, moreover: an Ecological Imperative requires reduction of a population number because the ecological crisis going deeper and deeper indicates the population are excessive.

However strange it is, this elementary logic meets with furious resistan. For example, in a newspaper "The St.-Petersburg Vedomosti" from 7.4.93 a doctor of biological sciences V. B. Sapunov in the article "Do not hurry to say farewell to Eden" without the slightest proof asserts that "any limits of growth do not exist" - and at once begins to prove the opposite: that the growth of the population will not continue infinitely because in general any process cannot continue infinitely. He adduces a current "proof": the demographers, he says, have noticed a long time ago that with increase either of a level of life or a level of education in any country the birth rate in this country is decreasing. The unreasonable conclusion from here is made that erudition of the parents automatically cause the small family - two children in a family on the average. And thus it is unnecessary to do anything for reduction of birth-rate, because at the middle of XXI century the population number automatically will been established such, that, ostensibly, should be on the Earth - about 10-15 billions.

However we see that the ecological crisis continues to go deeper, despite of decrease of the birth-rate in some countries - obviously the insufficient decrease. Moreover the newest statistics shows that in the developing countries the rates of decrease of birth rate predicted at one time by demographers are not achieved. The point is that at this period on the basis of achievements of agricultural genetics there had taken place so-called "green revolution", the other positive changes had happened also - these had spurred the growth of the population again.

It is necessary to understand clearly that the automatic reduction of birth-rate can occur only as a result of disasters and, in general, as a result of insufficient satisfaction of needs. If the increased necessary needs of a man of the "technotronic" civilization, about those it was stated above, would been satisfied better, nothing would prevent to have 4-6 children in the families with high education too.

There are two reasons of the ecological crisis: the incorrectly directed stimuli in economy and incorrectly directed stimuli in demographic policy. Both here and there stimuli are directed to growth but nobody wants openly and directly to say that this direction is incorrect. For example, G. S. Khozin in the book "The global problems of modernity" (M. 1982, p.152, 153) writes: "Western scientists all more often expresses an opinion about necessity not only ecologization of world outlook but also reconsideration of economy, policy and sociology in view of qualitative changes in interaction of a community and nature. They see the reason of ecological problems in growth of quantitative parameters (population number, volumes of production, consumption of energy, mineral and biological resources, urbanization paces etc.)". And as always, the thought is not gone beyond similar general phrases . "Reconsider economy, policy and sociology". How to reconsider? To stop the growth? You see, they don't tell specificly!

It seems, from the citation follows: the reason of disasters is the growth, stop the growth - and the problem will be solved. But the reason is not the taking place growth, but the growth, that took place. That is to say the reason isnít that these amounts grow exponentially, linearly, by a S-figurative curve or somehow else. Also the reason isn't that these grow quickly. And isnít that these grow in general. The reason is that these have grown and are great already. The biosphere is overburdened and collapses already irrespective of whether these grow further.

A dispute about details is not meaningful. The journalists like to show the "objectivity" and " for the balance" to adduce the opposite opinions. Oh, how it is interesting: some scientists speak something, the others speak the absolutely another. Someone speaks, that in reality the climate don't grow warmer or grow warmer - but not because of the human activity but because of fluctuations of activity of the Sun. Someone else says that the amount of carbonic acid in an atmosphere actually does not increase, the ozone holes do not grow, the stocks of ores do not run out, and also the previous prophecies about close catastrophe have not come true. However all these objections are not serious. Because the main thing is indisputable: it is impossible to increase pressure on a nature without the end.

Thus the approaching global catastrophe is anthropogeneous. That is to say the biosphere is degrading as a result of the mankind economic activity, that had become the excessive factor on a planet. But the economic activity of the people is ruled by stimuli. Hence, a key to the decision of ecological problems is the creation of strong stimuli by legislators - for, firstly, to make economic activity more rational and, secondly, to reduce volume of this activity - which really can decrease only at reduction of the population number. And also it is necessary to emphasize that here I am being addressed not to legislators but to the public - because we know on experience that political as well as other establishment tries to bypass, "to overlook" really sharp questions and begins to do something only under pressing of a public, voters or when a disaster will already come17.

(FOOTNOTE 17: About the psychology of establishment, about their aspiration to not see and in every possible way to cover the attributes of approaching disaster, for example, the following history testifies. At the 30-s there was a book of an American military expert about inevitability of war with Japan, about what the war will begin exactly with an attack on Pearl-Harbor and in detail - why and how Japan will make it all. But both to his references round the departments, and thereupon also to this book nobody in America has found for itself favourable to pay attention - there's a clever chap, we ourselves are clever. But in Japan - had paid attention and had made everything just like was written there)

Chapter 3. From crisis to catastrophe: the madness of growth is continuing.

Liberals and democrats of all countries in the wake of Fukuyama (author of "The End of History") ingenuously believe that the liberal capitalism finally has defeated the opponents and now the mankind is for sure going toward the bright future. They forget that at the end of XIX century everybody were also sure in soon approach of era of a civilization and peace and nobody foresaw of horrors of the First and the Second world wars. Also nobody foresaw of horrors of the Stalin and the Hitler regimes. Solzhenitsin writes: if Chekhov's intellectuals could foresee that in Russia of XX century there will be the investigating by torture, all of them would get into a lunatics asylum. And though some people foresaw something, but if the reasons of disasters - wars, revolutions, - have not been understood, it will be not possible also to finish with these.

Today's western democracy is kept by economic boom which really cannot be eternal. What may await mankind on a way of economic and demographic growth beautifully named as the "health of economy", "progress" and "development"?

It is not known that will take place earlier: the exhaustion of resources and what resources precisely - or destruction of environment, and what form this destruction will assume, and whether some negative factors will coincide at once. But by any way on reaching "the limits of growth" the present boom will be terminated, the economy will go downwards, poverty, famine, the illnesses, criminality, moral degeneration, interracial, international and political collisions of interests, violence, wars - will be amplified, and at last on the Earth it can be established the cruel totalitarian regime like described by George Orwell in the book "1984"18 (FOOTNOTE 18: Unaccidentally the science-fiction writers - always depict the "cosmic civilizations" as totalitarian ones . They and their readers feel where mankind is going). By a little paraphrasing of Chaadayev, it is possible to tell: "Totalitarianism will win not because it is right but because its opponents are mistaken". Contrary to the notions of a philosopher Boris Paramonov as if "a middle class inevitably creates democracy", in the conditions of such crisis any middle class will not be able and will not want to save the freedom and democracy from crash. By saying by Paramonovís words, "it is time to get rid of this ideological illusion", at least by remembering that the similar crash already has happened at the time of economic crisis in Germany at 1933. The point is that unlike the liberal and democratic states the global totalitarianism has in the arsenal some effective ways of management, solving of problems and "putting things in order". It just closes the information and destroys the superfluous population, liquidating the whole nations and classes. It can have starved 6 millions people by an artificial caused famine - but the world will not have noticed it at all. It can have poisoned with radiation the whole region - but the people will quietly come out on celebration demonstration under a radioactive rain because they will know nothing. Then will be carried out a hidden dream of one of the ideologists of French atomic engineering, who has blurted it out: "When you are going to drain a bog, it is absolutely unessential to warn frogs about it". About the same theme Churchill has told once: "Soviet people are the happiest ones of all over the world: they do not even suspect how badly they live". Indeed it already will be "the end of History" - because, having become global, totalitarianism will become eternal. Totalitarianism in general is such that it is easy for tasting but then it is very difficult to spit it out . But the main thing is that the global totalitarianism never will have lost a competition to the free world as recently "the camp of socialism" has lost. Because there will not be any more free world beside it, it will be impossible to compare it with anything else.

Alexander Zinoviev in the book "Russian destiny, the confession of a renegade" writes: "The Second world war... had shown, that communist social regime is capable to stand difficulties and catastrophes of epochal and global scale. It was born as a result of the First world war as a consequence of a catastrophic situation of Russia and as a means of overcoming of this situation. Also after the revolution, at time of the Second world war and at the following years after the war the regime had proved with hundred-per-cent evidence, that it is a social regime as though specially adapted for self-preservation of a country in conditions of grandiose difficulties and for overcoming these. At these years it had become obviously too, that this social regime is not capable successfully to compete with capitalist regime in a sphere of economy and to raise a vital standard of the population above that in the countries of West. But this indisputable circumstance not at all shake the first one, namely the amazing ability of the communist countries to survive in conditions, inconceivable for West. And West should in any case take into consideration this circumstance. By flow of words hiding it, it is possible to obscure the consciousness of people. But by words it is impossible to persuade the history to evolve in that direction you would like".

Thus a threat of establishing of the global and eternal totalitarianism is real - we see the resources of a planet are being exhausted, the biosphere is overburdened and are collapsing, the ecological, economic, and owing to them the political catastrophe can come at the nearest historical time. Even without the most intricate global computer-models and scientific monitoring it is possible to understand that the growth in limited space, the growth, that is not restrained by reason but furthermore is specially spurred, inevitably results in destruction (the growth but not "the progress" - as the publicists speak, they mix everything up). It is testified by the ruins of the lost civilizations or, for example, the history of an island of Easter already mentioned by me at the end of the first chapter. But the publicists keep telling us as if the ancient peoples planned everything and lived happily in harmony with the nature. As speak, they "took from a nature only that is necessary for life". As though not a man has destroyed mammoths, and now in Brazil, in Africa, on Madagascar, on Borneo, on Philippines the nature is being destroyed not because the grown local population just needs eating. Formerly some civilizations were perishing but the other ones were remaining. Now the civilization has become global. Therefore now there is a threat for all Earth to become a huge "island of Easter".

An academician I. S. Shklovsky, seeing probably first of all the economic aspect of the triple catastrophe threatening the mankind - ecological, economic and political - wrote: "Collapse is being eliminated not by a stop of growth but by the reasonable management of the investments of the capital. For this purpose, however, it is necessary to turn the large part of these investments for struggle against pollution, on restoration of resources and liquidation of erosion of cultivated ground. As yet it is not clear how to do It" ("Universe, life, intellect ", 1987, page 283).

How to make it, how to turn the investments of capital for conservation of environment - I shall show in the latter chapters of this article when the talk will be about replacement of the income taxation with ecological one. I shall try also to prove that neither it, nor any other achievement of progress - technical or organizational - eliminate the threat of catastrophe - just the growth should be stopped and even reversed backwards. About it an academician P. L. Kapitsa wrote too: "The task, that is before people is how painlessly to stop this growth, that is to say not by death from famine as it begins to take place now. It is well known that now this problem is widely being discussed but universally recognized ways for its solving are not found as yet" ("Experiment, theory, practice", M. 1987, page 429).

But the ways for its solving, recognized from the point of view of the prevailing short-sighted humanistic egoism will not be found.It is necessary to change just "the universally recognized" notions and criteria. However the blind leaders of mankind - its spiritual, political and scientific establishment, not wishing to be reputed for the "malthusists" and being under thumb of the momentary "interests of the people", still profess the absurd and mad idea of growth. The Roman Club in the sensational report "Limits of growth" had come out with the objections but had been hissed and had reversed, had suppressed this theme. The president of Roman Club Aurelio Peccei only limply has reproved not known whom, having said: "On growth set hopes every time when at hand there are no other means of treatment of illnesses of society. The growth has turned into a certain supermedicine".

So mankind continues to sweat over the decision of economic, ecological and political problems, hoping for the further growth instead of to stop and to turn backwards the growth of economy and population - you see, it is just the excessively evolved economy and population create economic, ecological and political problems.

Here professor Helbrate (on BBC) speaks: "Mankind needs to think very much seriously about the problem of China. I repeat: this is a world problem. Because there are not enough resources for a quarter of mankind. The resources in China per head of the population do not reach even a half of the average world norm. Therefore, if China wants to achieve the standard of well-being even of the average developed countries, China will need several planets. The question is that, probably, it is necessary to think not only of development of engineering and technology but to ponder about a new philosophy of development. Because it is impossible to be aggressively on offensive against nature. We should ponder about it according to old Konfucianism tradition: a Konfucian should today think about what people will think tomorrow".

Prof. Helbrate so has got confused with a word "development" (not development but the growth is an offensive against a nature) that he isn't capable to think up anything and therefore he offers to think to mankind. This "thought stupor" of the intellectual establishment, "the Konfucians", by the prof. Helbrateís words, has the latent underlying reason in fear, in unwillingness to think of a "delicate" problem. The point is that the today's establishment are not Konfucians devoted only to the truth but the populists-humanists afraid even mentally to contradict with short-sighted "interests of the people". As Christ spoke, "a good shepherd lays his life for sheep. But a hireling, to which sheep are not belong, sees a coming wolf and leaves the sheep, and runs because he is a hireling and not take care of the sheep"19. Obscuring the distinction of the qualitative, accumulative, healthy progress and the quantitative, gobbling up, cancerous growth by the using of a hazy word "development", Prof. Helbrate and his intellectuals-Konfucians confuse itself and the others, safely for itself they leave thus the inevitably unpopular decision of a problem - and call upon other people "to ponder over".

(FOOTNOTE 19: I am frequently reproached with sharpness, indelicacy. But I remind that for example, Christ words given above he had told not about any rascals, but about Pharisees, which were considered as the intellect, honor and conscience of the epoch.)

This is really misfortune of the notorious "development" that in parallel with progress there is the usual quantitative growth which brings a large part of achievement of progress down to nothing and now threatens already in the close future to have driven the biosphere to final catastrophe.

A picture of the progress-growth can be shown approximately so:

At primitive times, 10 thousands years back on 1 sq. kilometer there was 1 man, on the average. Not because then the people ostensibly "had not time to multiply". During a hundred thousands years of existence of Homo sapiens they quite would be in time20, but the then level of productive forces could not support the more numerous population. The productive forces then were such: a head of a family in the morning was leaving for hunt and in the evening was coming back bringing for the family, for example, a partridge.

(FOOTNOTE 20: It is easy to count up by a calculator, that when the population growth of 1,35 % per one year - it is 3 children per a family, there is such the growth in the world now - the simultaneously living posterity of only one conjugal couple (for example, Adam and Eva) can has reached 1 billion people for 1500 years only)

Now on 1 sq. km there are 100 men. Someone extracts ore of iron or uranium, someone melts metal, others make machines and nuclear reactors for by these again to extract ore, to transport metal, to make computers, telephones, telefaxes, cables, lifts, cars, tankers, tractors, automobiles, fertilizers, insecticides, for to plough ground, to gather in a harvest - to have a forage for poultry farm. For all its also it is necessary: management, marketing, advertising, trade, banks, taxes, political parties, lawyers, police, science, universities, laboratories. All 100 men are busy all the day. At last, in the evening these 100 men buy in shops 100 chickens in cellophane and bring for a family again one hen as it was 10 thousands years back. But now a man has become the slave or hostage of machines, nuclear reactors, chemical manufactures and factory chimneys. He any more can't do without these because without these it is impossible to support life of the huge population. Thus, contrary to the statements of the fashionable philosophers, not "machine", not "technology" makes slavery21 but reproduction which is not adjusted by mind.

(FOOTNOTE 21: For Example, the philosopher Boris Paramonov asserts: "An attempt of the technological alteration, the total technological expansion is guilty. A machine in hands of a man has been maddened, it has crucified a flesh of existence, has required the human sacrifices. Technology as ideology is the base of modern hell of XX century")

Ecology is not "a science about pollution" as many of people consider it. The pollution of environment with specificly those or other substances is just a sanitary, technical problem. The thought rises to a level of the ecology when it is realized that any sanitary and technical measures, any philosophy and practice of enthusiasts of "life in harmony with a nature" not give and cannot give the decisions. To make machines or reactors more safe and to clear the smoky gases technically it is quite possible but for it there is not enough money - just it is the problem. That is to say not the technology, not "the progress" are guilty in the pollution but, first of all, the necessity "to feed people".

Thus, on a question of a certain philosopher "Why is the progress?" the answer is: our scientific and technical progress basically provides that 1 sq. km of the Earth surface feed now not 1 but 100 men. Some time later, due to the further "progress", already 200 men will live on 1 sq. km, then 300, 400 etc., etc. The statisticians-demographers and the optimists-futurologists consider that it is good and that the more, the better. Simultaneously, sometimes even from the same people, we hear also something contrary: that the mankind sheerly canít refuse escalating of atomic engineering ("We have no choice", - the academician Velikhov speaks), of exhaustion of resources (the population is great and continues to be increasing22 (FOOTNOTE 22: The scientists and especially demographers make the words "the population is growing" and "in the beginning XXI centuries the population will has grown up to..." - whether with a shade of doom, whether with an air of "the objective observers" - by the same tone that are spoken "wind is blowing" or "a river is flowing" - and they offer nothing, as though speaking, what can be offered here? It is interesting, when the population is decreasing - here they leave the tone of doom and "objectivity" both are calling upon, and are offering the measures of stimulation to increase a birth rate or reception of immigrants), whereas the level of life is still insufficient), of pollution of environment (the cleaning installations in some cases cost a half of a cost of the plants). Thus the illness is progressing - but, as it is considered, the progress canít be stopped. But it means, the mankind goes not there, where wants and hopes to reach, but any blind force - the necessity, the progress - drive the mankind. Where? - "Oh, all the same! - many consider. - "

More "thoughtful" men consider that "the awful progress" is the blind, inevitable movement of any species, including a man, and in general, of all the beings - to the destruction releasing a place for something new, let's hope, for something even more progressive.

And someone else tell as if the Earth, "Gaia" is an as though alive essence, and it, protecting itself, will destroy the harmful mankind.

An academician N. N. Moiseyev considers that it is necessary as far as possible more precisely, on computers, to calculate the limits of growth, so as to not overstep over these23. But near the very boundary, when the question, by Moiseyevís words, "will rise once with all acuteness", it will too late to begin to brake! And when the catastrophe will approach, whether will people have understood what is the deep reason of it? The people who were perished at Russian revolution and Lenin dictatorship, in Stalinís camps, at the war, in cheap tall buildings at the Spitak or Sakhalin earthquakes - were they understanding really that all these disasters have actually the ECOLOGICAL reason: shortage of resources and the struggle for resources because of overpopulation? And now there are few people who understand this real deep reason of the majority of disasters - it is considered that the reasons of wars, revolutions and dictatorships are the ideological, moral, psychological ones (about it you can read in more detail in the next chapter).

(FOOTNOTE 23: "The task is to calculate the fatal boundary, that may not be crossed over" ("Science and life" No 1, 1986, page 54). However "accuracy" of similar computer calculations convinces nobody because it can be always challenged because of its complexity. And these disputes about accuracy "successfully" distract attention from that simply fact that it is impossible infinitely to increase the pressure on nature. Just by such the distracting dispute about accuracy of calculations it was obscured and rejected by a world public the report of Roman Club "Limits of growth" of 1972)

But why to reach up to "the limits of growth" in general? It is better to stop beforehand, isnít it? But if we can not stop the growth now, how an academician Moiseyev is going to stop it near the limit? It seems, the academicians simply have no boldness to offer unpopular measures - therefore they want to shift the responsibility to future generations of intellectuals - when "the question once will rise with all acuteness". Is it really not clear that the loading on biosphere has been already brought to the limit? The scientists speak it is not yet absolutely clearly and because of this unclearness they demand more money for new researches, monitoring, photography from cosmos and supercomputers.

Thus the scientific and technical progress "is guilty" only that it creates an opportunity of increase of material production from the same limited surface of Globe. But in what the mankind uses opportunities, given by progress, for increase of the population number instead of raising of the quality of life and improving of the environment protection, - in that neither "a technical civilization", nor "unrestrained, insatiable progress" are not guilty. But only the ecological unreason of mankind is guilty. And first of all - the unreason of their leaders, that is to say of their today's political, scientific and cultural establishment which has pretensions to be the mind of mankind but, preserving own "prestige" and comfort, avoids unpopular, "low" truths and keeps saying about necessity of the further growth, growth and again of the growth. And also actually deceives of the people, when it is covering the growth as by a fig leaf by words "development" and "progress".

On what scientific character in the demographic problem it is possible to speak if, for example, the Radio "Liberty" declares: "The Cairo Conference will come to the decisions on stabilization of the population growth". As well The Voice of America (30.8.94) is transfering the declaration of US president Clinton: "It is necessary to stabilize the population growth". But you see, a word "to stabilize" is meaning "to keep growth by such that it is now" - with doubling of a population of the Earth every 50 years! - to keep the growth so that it will not increased and will not decreased but it would remain stable, constant. I am sure it were not the slips of the tongue of the authors or, in any case, not casual slips of the tongue. The intellectual establishment psychologically is not ready, avoids even mentally to call the important things by their proper names. Such the "malthusism" has not crossed these authorsí minds - to tell "to stabilize a population number". They, as well as majority, consider that because children are being born the population inevitably grows, and the growth of the population can only be reduced, if it is "excessive", but to stop growth absolutely - it is unnatural and impossible. And once again I quote the Radio "Liberty": "It is necessary to adjust a gain of the population" (once again: to adjust not a population number but only a gain of a population number, but the gain itself, obviously, they considers, is inevitable and, as such, may not be subjected to censure) - and further: "...In Italy the gain is minimal, the population even decreases". It is an absurd phrase - you see, if the population is decreasing, a gain, even "minimal", is absent. But the author makes this nonsense naming the reduction of a population number as "the minimal gain" (by the way, "minimal" is how many?) because the complete absence of a gain seems to him even more inconceivable - because children continue being born! Such is the scientific and intellectual level of ours intellectuals. They as well the growth of economy name as "the stability of economy". Also I was meeting in press the identification of figure of a gain of the population with figure of birth-rate. Even the Cairo UN conference (of 1994) about the population had put as the purpose only the reduction of the gain. How! - but if absolutely to stop growth or, especially, to reduce a population there will be "the stoppage of development", "the regress", "demographic catastrophe", "depopulation", "degradation", "genocide", the growth should be without fail! - the demographers consider . "In the last resort, - the most free-thinking of them speak, - there should be if only the mere reproduction of the population". But why?! Why it is necessary to support a population of the Earth exactly at its present level - 6 billions, instead of, for example, at the level of 4 billions or 2 billions? Even these free-thinkers are not dare put to itself such the question. But if the scientists are afraid to put the questions squarely and speak out to the end, how it is possible to expect the understanding of these problems by public? It is no wonder that the radio "Deutsche Welle" - after many debates and spoonfeedings have taken place on the Cairo conference - has declared as if the problem consists in "explosion of birth-rate". But really, not the birth-rate for last centuries had grown - but the death-rate (especially in young age) had decreased due to successes of medicine. Just it together with growth of production of the material goods had resulted to the "demographic explosion". And it was necessary only, according to reduction of the death-rate, in time to reduce as well the birth-rate to avoid disasters. But to think and furthermore to speak about it, speaking out to the end, were afraid and are afraid now.

With such the intellectuals what a "noosphere" can be! To the modern politicians, scientists and journalists it is possible completely to apply the Christ words, that had been told 20 centuries back and had been addressed to Pharisees and Book-teachers - the then establishment of Judea: "The blind leaders of the blind! Mad and blind! If a blind man leads a blind man, will they not both fall into a pit?"

But it is unnecessary to resent this criticism of the intellectual establishment - that is to say of all those who have enough education and abilities to understand, and simultaneously have a weight and voice in a society to bring this understanding up to the people. As again Christ had told: "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded".

Now many ecologists are enthusiastic for a fashionable idea of "sustainable development". This new enthusiasm threatens to result for mankind in new and dangerous loss of time. The academician N. N. Moiseyev considers that "the concept of sustainable development is one of most dangerous errors of modernity" (See at "The Questions of Philosophy Monthly" No 1, 1995, page 5). Really, the slogan of "sustainable development" rings beautifully but is not specific. If it means that during increase of production per head of the population, say, in 2 times the number of the population in same 2 times will decrease, then it would be possible to speak about balance, about stability. But not only about reduction of a population number but even about the termination of its growth is not mentioned, hence it means something unreal: it means we shall not further destroy environment and we shall, moreover, restore the already destroyed, not refusing neither from growth of the population, nor from the even greater growth of production. Thus the declarations about "transition to a model of sustainable development" is turning out to be a cloak for the continuing attempts to solve the problems of mankind by the same thoughtless-pragmatic way of infinite growth.

The most worse is that intellectuals connive at such an thoughtless way of treatment of society illness resembling the pursuit by a kitten of its own tail. You see, insufficiently just to cure the symptoms and consequences, but just the intellectuals should at first correctly put the diagnosis, that is to say scientifically to open the deep cause and mechanism of the illness.

Really, everybody hope for democracy and market - which, they say, should promote increasing of production and thus to solve the main problems - but nobody considers scientifically the complex question: WHY, despite of "electrification almost of all the countries" plus ENORMOUS escalating of the manufactures, that has been ALREADY occurred due to the scientific and technological progress, still the talking is about a survival and mankind in any way can not solve economic, material problems? WHY the revolutionary and international violence and wars for territories are continuing? WHY mankind and biosphere is threatened with ecological catastrophe?

Chapter 4. The understanding of the reason of disasters is absent.

The most worse are the answers given on the aforesaid questions by Christian churches. That the Bible is full of fairy tales, it is not bad. "A fairy tale is lie but it contains a hint that is a lesson for youth". It is bad that the churches interpret the Bible not spiritually but literally, just it results in the contradictions and absurdity. So, church doctrine - as opposed to the own Christ doctrine - is filled with disbelief that mankind can arrange reasonable and happy life on the Earth. And after churches the secular sages repeat a "clever" phrase "A paradise on the Earth is impossible". These philosophers teach: "Fear the one who speaks: "I know, what is necessary to do!". Nobody knows, and nothing can be done, the world and a man are spoiled initially".

For example a Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov) wrote: "I had opened a window. And suddenly a pigeon had flown to me on a sill absolutely without fear. I had taken the bread of, that had been left of a journey, and began to crumble for him. How it was pleasant for me: is not afraid of people! But then another pigeon had flown. I am giving some crumbs for him too. But the first one had already begun to be jealous: why I give also to another?! He begins to peck of the new visitor. My pleasure at once was gone: - Oh, Lord! Even pigeons have a feud and make war. But, would seems, they are such peaceful birds! Even the Saviour specifies them as an example for apostles: "Be meek as pigeons" (Matthew 10:16). It has become sad in my soul. What to require of us, of people, with all our egoism?! Somebody speak: there will be no wars ever... It is a lie: always it will be, up to the end of the world. Must be; as each of us in itself carries a source of wars: pride, envy, spite, irritation, cupidity. Not without reason one writer before death has told, when the son has asked him, whether the wars will be stopped - till a man remains a man, there will be wars too!

Also Son of God himself had predicted that not the progress but deterioration of the human relations is in store for the world. And before the end of the world there will be especially terrible wars: a people against a people will rise (instead of armies against armies), kingdom against kingdom. Evil is into us, into ours hearts; therefore all the history of this world and a man in general is tragedy but not an easy and cheerful outing. The world is spoiled, and we all are sinful.

Also my pigeons were not reconciled - both have flown away". ("God's people", M., 1991)

Thus, on a sill there was enough of crumbs for two pigeons but all the same they fought - here, as speak, we see the "irrational", is not known whence arisen, aggressive nature! But the simplified "laboratory" conditions of that sill do not suit as a model of biosphere - "crumbs", really, are not enough for everybody. And if two bears or same two pigeons have a fight for territory, it only seems irrational: is it really not enough of a place for them? But the point is that the territory is necessary to them not in itself but because it supplies them with food. That is to say indirectly nevertheless "the famine rules" them, even if they are not hungry when they are fighting. Also people: it seems they make war for any psychological, ideological reasons but actually they make war for the vital resources24.

(FOOTNOTE 24: "The Resources" should be understood in the widest sense. Struggle of animals for females is the struggle for vital "resources" too. That concerns people too, recollect if only from a history of Ancient Rome famous "kidnapping of Sabinian women")

Under influence of the church dogma even the "father of Russian philosophy" V. S. Soloviov had displayed the naivety in this matter. He asserted: "The primitive relations in mankind more remind "war of all against all". It was occurring not from the compelled struggle for existence but from free game of malicious passions, was caused by envy instead of famine". Interestingly, but why does these "the malicious passions" has occurred, if not because of "the compelled struggle for existence"? But despite of evidence of the latter, all the same the majority considers that "only by education of consciousness it is possible to solve problems of mankind". And simultaneously the majority does not believe in a real opportunity of such education.

Even a modern philosopher Erich Fromm thinks that the reason of wars is the depravity of a human nature. He says: "A man can be more easily prompted "todecide of problems" by force, than to persistent constructive work that besides requires the long time for to bear fruits". Erich Fromm does not notice that people are working from the times when a monkey had gone down from a tree and had taken a stick into the hands, people are working already many thousands years but it does not solve the problems, problems remain the same. Certainly, the key to the decision of problems is not in wars and revolutions - but, as we see, also not in work.

The delusions of intellectuals and also of ordinary people about a primary role of "malicious passions" in disasters of mankind occur because all our culture is mythological or, as now are spoken, "literature-central", though it is clear to everybody, excepting Don Kichot, that it is necessary to distinguish the world of poetry, literature and cinema from the real world. I would advise to everyone more often to look TV about animals life to see correctly what are life and biosphere. An academician V. I. Vernadsky wrote: "A root of the decision of many, not only of scientific but also of philosophical problems, concerning a man, is in the scientific study of the biosphere". The philosophers seeing the reason of ecological crisis in "the consumerism and anthropocentrism of the modern civilization", recommending to mankind "to not separate themselves from the nature, to take from the nature only that is necessary for life", to economize here and there, to become vegetarians, to get rid from the arrogant anthropocentrism - do not notice that, for example, the maximum "alternative" way of living of elephants, their economical vegetarianism and the absence in their mentality of the arrogant "elephant-centrism" does not help elephants to solve their ecological problems. Similarity of the situations of elephants and people is that they as well as people have no enemies in nature. Elephants, have been multiplied, destroy, eat up vegetation - just as the people destroying biosphere. . Therefore it has to shoot the elephants as the whole herds, and it was shown on TV.

The philosophers does not also notice that the condemned by them "anthropocentrism" is not any ideological excess, not a "claim by a man of world domination", as they speak, - but the fact. The fact of responsibility of a man for the condition of biosphere. Because "a man has become a geological power", as Vernadsky had noticed. Moreover, now the life and the death of all the biosphere depends from mankind. Just on this fact of the anthropocentrism the idea of a noosphere is based.

One more mistake of quoted above a Metropolitan Veniamin testifies how the church dogma obscures the initial Bible doctrine. He says: "Even pigeons - such peace birds - make war... What may be demanded from us, of the people!". On the contrary: animals cannot that a man can, as he is created on an image and similarity of God!

Also a near-Orthodoxy philosopher (not recognized by church) N. A. Berdiayev echos to Metropolitan Veniamin, just adding the so pleasant for intellectuals philosophical mist: as if say, oh, how it is difficult, "irrational", obscure, uncognizable! Berdiayev writes: "A war is material revealing of the initial contradictions of being, detection of irrationality of life. Pacifism is a rational denying of the irrational-obscure in life. And it is impossible to believe in the eternal rational peace. Not without reason the Apocalypses prophesies about wars. Christianity does not foresee the peaceful and painless ending of a world history. Below is reflected the same that is above, on the Earth is that on the sky. But above, on the sky, the angels of God struggle against the angels of Satan. In all spheres of cosmos the fiery and furious element is storming and the war is waged".

Such is the church doctrine. But, you see, Christ taught not like this. The heavens, the Heavenly kingdom is not the material cosmos, it is a FEASIBLE ideal for the Earth, nobody is struggling on the heavens, there an kingdom and a will of God are. "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" - these are Christ words (Matth 6:10). But the churches teach that our perfect, unique planet the Earth and all alive on it, and "all affairs on it", and even all the universe - are all the same doomed shortly to burn down because of the people sins25. And if also "the sky receded like a croll, rolling up" (Revelation 6:14, Isaiah 34:14), what will become with our Sun, with our Galaxy and with 10 billions of other galaxies, in each of these there are 10 billions suns? But for Christians-literalists, only because they believe in Trinity and in expiation by blood, God will create "new bodies" and "new life", and "new the Earth", and even "new the sky".

(FOOTNOTE 25: Even the mentioned philosopher Berdiayev has named the doctrine of the pedant-churches about end of the world and about eternal flours in a hell as "orthodox sadism")

So Christians adopting the church doctrine are not really interested in prevention of ecological catastrophe: "Let the material world be burnt, a site in paradise is ensured for us" - this is actually their belief. But I think, if our Earth - this fine vineyard (Matth. 21:33) that Heavenly Lord has planted and has arranged - will suffered the losses because of the excessively multiplied mankind26, it is impossible to hope that the Owner will punish "non-Christians", but as if the believers "have not the conviction". Just the other way about! - "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded" - as Christ spoke.

(FOOTNOTE 26: The emotional readers were indignant with my ostensibly by bad attitude to mankind, that, as seems to them, can be detected in words "excessively multiplied mankind". But as it had been told in Bible: "Be fruitfull and increase in number", it is necessary to warn and of excessive reproducing. But otherwise it turns out like the saying "if to compel a fool to pray to God, he will have hurt own forehead")

However so-called "Christians" prefer to be disposed to the Heavenly Father not following the example of Jesus Christ - as the adults, responsible sons - but as small, helpless children. They speak: "All we are going under God. Why in general to participate in policy, to struggle "for ecology", or against wars, or to prevent new Chernobyls? May be, these actually are necessary? It may be the plan of God is such that we should suffer? But never mind, soon God will come again and will arrange everything for us without us".

This dependence is expressed most distinctly by "a Church of the Witnesses of Ihegova". They teach that the people and governments cannot solve the problems of mankind and even the Witnesses themselves do not understand how to solve though they have studied Bible. But when 144000 men God will nominate into his heavenly government - all problems will be solved.

Well, a god with them, with the "Christians". It is bad that disbelief in "Utopia", in "rationalism", in ability of mankind to decide "eternal" problems - is adopted from the Christian churches as well by the newest fashionable ideologies - by beginning from Freudism and ending by postmodernism and with the theories that a man is "an impasse of the evolution" (Arthur Kestler) etc. Unaccidentally the literature of XX century has become the literature of absurdity. People don't believe in an opportunity of the solving and for this reason offer nothing also do not listen any offers . About this disbelief Berdiayev writes in the autobiographic book "Self-knowledge": "When at one of ten days in Pontigny the problem of loneliness was put, it was considered the loneliness at Petrarca, at Rousseau, at Nietzche... Western cultural people consider each problem first of all in its reflection in the culture, that is to say already in the secondary. In the put problem the life does not tremble, there is no creative fire in the attitude to it... Their thinking has become heavy and in effect is weakened by the tradition of thinking, is disunited by the history. Already they a little believe in an opportunity of the decision of problems on the substance, it is possible only the study of it in the history of thinking. This is the cultural skepticism, absence of freshness of soul"27. Berdiayev says there are three human types: looking for, sceptic and dogmatist, but "sceptic, as a matter of fact, does not search properly, he is not in movement".

(FOOTNOTE 27: Instead of answering on the substance, for sure someone will try to brush aside this my book too, by hanging a suitable label - for example, "Russian cosmism", "messianism" - as though speaking, all this we already saw)

Just such, already not so much "christianized" by church, as "buddized" by the fashionable gurus the intellectual elite generates the psychology of "hung hands". Erich Fromm wrote: "The idea of progress is named today as a children's illusion, and instead of it there is in wide use a word "realism", designating, in effect, a lack of the belief in a man".

Long time I didnít understand why my previous article"The Ecological Taxes Instead of Income Ones, or How to Create a Noosphere" (in a St. Petersburg magazine "Zvezda" No 9, 1993) had not caused any stir in the intellectuals circles. At last (12.4.97) I had heard the revelation of a commentator of the Radio "Liberty" Anatoly Strelianyi, he had told: "It is impossible to rescue the mankind because the mankind is an historical phenomenon that is to say temporary". In general, the human life, in opinion of many intellectuals, is simply "a game with beads". But any drug addict or drunkard in a beer-house states the same and even more bluntly: "All the same we all shall croak". Also French king Luis XVI told: "After us let the floodwaters comes". In his country he had driven the affairs to the revolution, that had established a totalitarian regime, and he had terminated the life on a guillotine. Thus over mankind a threat of the self-carrying out prophecies has impended too. So to speak, "According to your disbelief will it be done to you".

The unbelief in a man follows from what the intellectuals in searches of the reasons of mankind disasters look in absolutely other direction, their approach to a problem is not natural-scientific, not materialist - but idealist, "literature-centric". By seeing that to the physical (material) phenomena: to the ecological disasters, wars, crimes, violence, revolutions - the phenomena mental (spiritual): egoism, hatred, enmity and "ideologies" precede, the majority of people for the simplicity think that just these spiritual phenomena are the reason of those material ones. Such a course of thinking is spread also among the philosophers and intellectuals but it is, as a matter of fact, the same primitive idealism - when people were animating subjects, elements and were believing in evil spirits. In reality, if two phenomena are connected, it is not always necessary that one of them is the reason and another is the consequence; both of them can be the consequences of any common reason.

It is easy to understand it, but according to modern myths created by the intellectuals (including the ecologists) - with different modifying having inherited from Christian church the hopeless idea of human sinfulness - the reasons of material disasters of mankind is ostensibly the psychological, spiritual, ideological. Moreover the reasons mutually exclusive and contradicting each other are named. Namely the following reasons: greed, vanity, "arrogance" (Vatslav Gavel, president of Czechia), "envy" (V. S. Soloviov), "the human nature" - ostensibly especially "aggressive" (that is to say ostensibly the passion specially peculiar to a man, to kill, to destroy, to pollute), "a will to authority", "transition from culture to a civilization", "the Judaic-Christian heritage" (as if belittling the nature up to an auxiliary role), "the Prometheus spirit of titanism", "the Faust type of personality", "backlog of moral progress of mankind from scientific and technical one" (Teillhard De Chardin), "the technical progress should be balanced with the moral one" (pope) - (why till now is it not possible in any way to have balanced these?); "inability to operate technics, to subordinate technics to a spirit", "absence of a habit to consider the interests of other people", "the civilization outstrips the culture, the civilization is heartless" (Moiseyev, a dance-master), "the civilization of consumption should be replaced by a civilization of creativity" (an academician Moisseyev), "alienation and dehumanization of a technological society" (Erich Fromm), "a rupture with nature", "coercion of a nature", "conquest of nature".

At such the naive-idealist understanding of the reasons of crisis also the unbelief in a man it is no wonder that neither the Nobel-prize winners, nor all the academicians, nor whole the scientific institutes - have offered to mankind any decision, anything except of their "anxiety", the calls "to ponder" and general phrases. Therefore the trust to a science is falling, and accordingly, to put it mildly, the "exotic" theories, religions and sects, like "the Witnesses of Ihegova" or "Aum Senrieke" are spreading.

Here a sample of similar general phrases and happy wishes by Erich Fromm: "Also we in "the free world" - we worship the force, but not the force of dictatorship or bureaucracy but the anonymous force of the market, success, public opinion, of "common sense" - or more exactly, of the force of absurdity - and the force of technics, servants of which we have become"... (But why have become? Again the reasons are moral, psyhological?)... "The peace between the people, between a man and nature... it is an embodiment of true harmony and unity, it is experience of "expiation" in the world and inside oneself, it is the end of alienation and returning of a man to himself... The exit is in activation of an individual and humanization of the technology... Peace between a man and a nature is the harmony between them. Nature donít any more threaten a man, he any more doesnít intend firmly to conquer nature: he begins to belong to a nature... The creation of a healthy society assumes that a man will learn not blindly but reasonably to adjust the relations with nature".

"A man will learn" - well then teach us now: what exactly and how a man should reasonably adjust. It may be to adjust the population number? How to do it? But they are silent. They are afraid to tell directly.

But others - those who "believe in a man" - because of their optimism they does not believe in the gravity of crisis and therefore propose nothing radical too.

Chapter 5. From biosphere - world of famine and violence - to a noosphere.

But following the callings upon of the academicians, "I have pondered" - and now I assert that all the main disasters and problems of mankind, in essence, is one disaster and problem - the ecological one, and the first-cause is not "a severance between the technical progress and the moral one" and not "a severance with nature", but on the contrary, it is that the mankind still have not broken with nature - with its law "love and famine rule the world".

This law was formulated by a poet Friedrich Schiller28. "Love" here, certainly, is an euphemism, and means a sex. Also "famine" is a generalization of disasters - that are being increased when population number is excessive and by this are being furthered the reduction of the number that "the love", on the contrary, tries to increase. Thus "love" and "famine" adjust the vegetative, animal and human population in the world, that is to say "rule the world".

(FOOTNOTE 28: In a poem "All wisdom of the world" Shiller says: the philosophers from the rostrums speak the beautiful-silly words while love and famine rule the world. Presently philosophers are engaged more in abstraction, but for public the announcers, publicists and journalists speak the beautiful-silly words. Nazism, they speak, occurs from hostility to foreigners. That is to say there is tautology again, again the same explanation of the world evil by the psychological reasons and the struggle just against these)

"Love and famine rule the world" it is the main law of biosphere, the main law of ecology. Because the ecology is not "a science about pollution" as many people think. It is unnecessary to confuse ecology and sanitation. Ecology is a BIOLOGICAL science, the science about interaction of a population of any biological species (it is unessential just of a human) - and the environment of its living. At this interaction the main characteristic of a population is its number and the main characteristic of environment is amount of vital resources necessary for life of this biological species. For example, if in closed volume the bacteria live, and they do not have enemies, they will multiplied and then will perish - or from famine, by having exhausted resources, necessary for their life, or,if they find new resources, they will multiplied further and will perished from poisoning of the environment with their own scraps.

The intellectuals - educated not on natural-scientific but on humanitarian, "literature-centric" paradigm - in searches of the reason of mankind disasters endlessly philosophize about the subtleties of "Protestant ethics", "Euro-Asianism", various ideologies, cultures, "civilizations", psychology, sociology, policy, economy, history and do not want to see that the explanation is quite simple - that just "love and famine rule the world"29 (FOOTNOTE 29: An Abkhazian writer Fazil Iskander once correctly has noticed: "When we have everything in abundance, we all together enjoy on a feast and do not think who is Abkhazian and who is Georgian. . But when the boons are not enough - then the international conflicts begin". However in the other place he declares: "It is necessary to harmonize the mankind - and by culture more than by policy and economy". Well, but harmonize first of all the number of mankind with opportunities of the Earth and nature - so that everybody have everything in abundance!). Today the philosophers are certainly the culture-philosophers. Therefore they do not understand how to decide the problems of mankind. But it means that at next moment of sharpening of these problems the primitive-foundationalists - red, brown or of other colors - will again come to power and will have solved the problems by their way of wolf. Because, as A. S. Pushkin had told, "fools are always inclined to evil deeds". And also because it must be solved. You see, even the excursions to an orbit of 25 astronauts per a year strain the budget. Therefore it is a complete delirium - the dream of thorough resettlement into cosmos of 250000 people DAILY. Exactly such the gain of the population of the Earth is present now, that is to say the excess of birth-rate above death-rate per a day. And it is - when even without any gain - with today's population number - we see, even in the rich countries, the rigid, strained life, struggle for a survival and degradation of environment.

An academician Moiseyev speaks: "The technical decision of the approaching ecological crisis is absent!" ("Neva" monthly, No 10, 1995). However the humanitarians think of the ecological problem simply. For example, a philosopher Boris Paramonov considers that "new, pure fuel will be invented soon and thus a half of the ecological problems will be solved". Oh, certainly! Then one more any thing will be invented - and thus the second half of the problems will be solved, so the ecological crisis will be terminated.

But everybody should see that during the progress of mankind any improvements give only temporary relief. As in a fairy tale "Alisa in the country behind mirror" it was told: "It is necessary to run as fast as you can to remain just on the same place". In the past the replacement of wooden ploughs by a steel ones and the horse-draft by machines had not solved, as everybody hoped, the material problems of mankind. Then people also hoped for "the electrification of all country", then - for nuclear energy, now the industrial dreams are replaced by the postindustrial ones: now they hope for "the information civilization of the third wave", that in practice is turning out to be a civilization of information noise, information pollution. They hope for computers, for gene-engineering. "The Red-Greens" hope to save very much if to liquidate the high classes and "their" culture, "to break a man of greed and consumerism", "to simplify the way of living", to proceed to vegetarianism. The majority continue to hope that private property, "the middle class", democracy, investments of capital - will rescue.

However the economic growth is being continued already thousands years but abundance does not still come. On the contrary, it looks as though, the economic problems will develop into the crisis. Neither the Keins' theory, nor the monetarism, nor the social-democratic "Swedish model" are helping. But now the ecological problems have arisen and are developing into the crisis too. The point is that mankind, like the above mentioned bacteria, also lives in closed volume of biosphere, practically has no enemies, the mankind number is being increased like an explosion from a beginning of the scientific revolution discovering new and new resources (see a diagram in the first chapter). Therefore any miracles of technical progress and organizational improvements (private property, investments of capital, common markets, escalating of consumption of resources and manufacture of goods) and also, on the contrary, any measures of "optimization", of resources economy (disarmament, ecological taxes, socialist "alignment of incomes") - will have not solved the problems of mankind but only will allow mankind to multiply further by putting off the catastrophe. Already mentioned seeming "opening" of the demographers, as if the increase of an education level reduces the birth-rate as far as it is necessary will not help too. Because itís clearly, that, if the conditions of life will be improved considerably, not only uneducated people but also the families with high education may have 4-6 children.

I think Malthus was understanding too that disasters: the illnesses, famine, wars, revolutions - do not really solve any problems of mankind. These are just a permanent background, so to speak, way of living on this "land of grief"30, because the growth of a population can be restrained only by disasters and troubles, that are already existing or are being expected because of birth of a child. A phrase "love and famine rule the world" is meaning exactly this.

(FOOTNOTE 30: To not answer a question on the reasons of these disasters, the modern scientists do not use a word "disasters", but speak about "the crises", which, as they say, "are the necessary companion of any development". Also to enhance "scientific character" they say"the system crises".)

But it is necessary that THE MIND WOULD RULE THE WORLD, that is to say it is necessary that the mind would determine number of a population without waiting when the excessive number will cause crisis, and the disasters will exert pressure in the direction of reduction of the number. Thus when the mind will replace disasters as a regulator of the population number - then mankind will passed from epoch of life under the animal laws of biosphere - of "a kingdom of this world founded on the evil", as Christ say - to the epoch of a noosphere, of which Vernadsky dreamed. Today the mind on the Earth is actually absent, because, on the one hand, here the economists and "love" ARE RULING - by pushing to growth, and on the other hand, - neediness, illnesses and violence - as a NECESSARY, and hence ALSO AS AN INEVITABLE COUNTERACTION constraining growth, - exactly like among animals not having the mind, whose number is being adjusted, as are spoken, "by nature" - that is to say by famine, illnesses and by mutual extermination. Such the "harmony" is in nature. Therefore the calls "to live in the complete consent with the world of nature" are not too clever.

That I say is it similar to Malthus theory? It is similar but not absolutely. I say nothing about a "geometrical progression", about an "arithmetic progression" - certainly, these are nonsense - the population cannot grow in a degree greater, than manufacture of necessary things grows. I say that in the latter case the population, though can, but should not grow, moreover - it should decrease, as differently at increase of manufacture the pressure upon the biosphere is increasing. I don't say, alike Malthus, that famine, illness's and wars - are good for regulation of a population number, I say that these are inevitable so far the mankind is living under the laws of biosphere - that is to say when the evolution and progress are being promoted not by mind but by famine and violence - when the mind and science if are present then only as the subsidiary tool. A merit of Malthus - as well as a merit, for example, of Freud - is that Malthus had the boldness to consider what the "scientists-humanists", in the majority, don't want to see, what they avoid even to think about, what they "eject out of mind", because such the thoughts conflict with their humanist belief (religion, world outlook), that is more dear to them than a scientific truth.

An academician Vernadsky at 1942, at crisis of the war wrote: "We live in a remarkable period of a history of our planet - the anthropogeneous era, when spontaneously during millions years a man - with stops but steadily, at the last centuries faster and faster - becomes a geological power changing the face of our planet. It depends on us to make the spontaneous process as conscious one, to transform area of life - the biosphere into a kingdom of mind - into a noosphere. The scientists of our country should set themselves it as an object". But then (1943) Vernadsky is perplexed: "Never I felt as now, on the one hand - the cosmic process and on the other hand - a human speck of dust in it. The deepest and, it seems, high understandings of everything disappear. It is impossible in any way to understand why there are necessary such the sufferings that now are going on in the vandalism having arisen in mankind again".

This misunderstanding dominates also now. Fighters for peace who try "to create the world without violence" by the calls for "the moral rearming" that is why cannot achieve a success because they obstinately do not see biological, ecological, that is to say the real, the deepest reason of enmity, violence, wars and revolutions. It seems to them that the recognition of the biological reason takes away hope to reach peace. You see, "biological" is a synonym of "natural". But "natural" - for non-Christian mentality - is "normal" and "inevitable". The Christian mentality or, to be exact, the church mentality, as I had shown above, even in behavior of pigeons, let alone the people - sees the not biological reason but "the game of malicious passions". Therefore the fighters for peace - both "the non-Christians" and "the Christians" - prefer to struggle against windmills - against any false reason, for example, against "the ideologies" in general, are preaching "the de-ideologization". Or they struggle against "disconnection of the people", aspire to create an united European state or even the world state.

But the ideologies (fanatical) can be the reason of excesses only - but not the wars and violence as the such. To consider the absence of unity as the reason of enmity it means to put a cart ahead of a horse, to confuse the reason and consequence. Therefore the aspiration to achieve peace by so-called "unity", that is to say by creation the empires31, international, inter-European or world governments - is similar to attempt to stopper up a boiling cauldron. It is possible only during short time, then steam will all the same break through - because the original reason of boiling - the fire under the boiler is not eliminated.

(FOOTNOTE 31: United Europe is being formed for the sake of the discontinuance of wars in Europe. But this is an empire also, though presently empires are being constructed not by military compulsion, but by economic compelling to join a common market)

The conflicts and wars occur not because there are different religions, ideologies, political systems, different states and "civilizations". The deep first-cause of violence, revolutions, dictatorships and wars - also is not immorality, not xenophobia, not national prejudices - but the struggle for resources always limited because of increase of number of the people that is following as a shadow behind the increasing of used resources32 (see the diagram of demographic explosion in the first chapter), - just as among animals or plants struggling for a place under the sun. But what is the attribute by which the people should be united (and should be separated) during of this struggle for resources - by family attribute, national, ethnic, religious, "civilization", ideological, state, professional, class, Mafia - it is not essence and depends on local circumstances. Also from the struggle the dictatorships are born (but not the other way about). The circumstances of the struggle also form ideology suitable to these. As spoken, these all are the "superstructure". But the "basis" is the resources shortage inducing the struggle, that is to say "famine", in direct or metaphorical sense, - inevitable in the world living under the law of biosphere.

(FOOTNOTE 32: But if to look simply: where is a war? In Tadjikistan, in Chechnia, in Kosovo. But where during the previous decades there was a high-birth rate? Also there.)

Therefore for all the countries, together or separately, an alternative that mankind is faced, is the such: or, by keeping, and even by increasing the number, the mankind on the devastated and poisoned Earth at a cram and at spite will suffer and degrade because of Chernobyl and other similar "the illnesses of a civilization" (these actually are the consequences not the civilizations but overpopulation), famine, violence, wars and permanent extreme regime of totalitarian, Orwell type that is necessary at such situation, - or during of about 300 years the number of mankind will be reduced in about 10 times - quite painlessly - as a result of decrease of birth-rate down to one child on a family, - and then mankind will prosper and develop on the Earth in bloom, not afraid wars, dictatorships and ecological accidents, using technics and a "market" but having no need to become their slave or hostage.

Thus, by achieving the reduction of the population number, each country, first of all, improves the own life. But by not achieving - they, first of all, punishes themselves. Only recently it have been understood in China33. It seems, it will been understood in other countries, as well as in China, too late, and then it will be necessary to take the same rigid measures, as take in China now. For now the different authors, using Chinese demographic policy as a bugbear, try to prove impossibility to reduce a population by state influence and even impossibility to stop its growth, - exactly like a proverb "who wants to do - looks for ways, but who does not want - looks for reasons - to not do".

(FOOTNOTE 33: Someone will speak: China is certainly overpopulated. But in Russia - there are so much empty spaces! Who so speaks, overlooks that in China they have three harvests per an year but the large part of Russia is the eternal frost. Thus both China is overpopulated, and Russia is overpopulated, as well all other countries, but each country is overpopulated in accordance with the opportunities to have fed (more correctly - to have underfed) the population)

Meanwhile, the simple and at quite not terrible ways and measures necessary for reduction of birth-rate, obviously, should be the next:

1. The explaining actions. The society should have comprehended the circumstances mentioned in this article, so that they could have agreed with the measures offered below. A duty of all educated and understanding people - to join in those explaining actions, instead of to be hidden in their professions as in an "ivory tower of arts". Otherwise it will turn out as in a fable: "Were you singing? Itís a business. Come on to dance now".

2. The government should announce the norm "one child in a family" and the principle "the supporting of children is a affair of their parents". But thus it would be unreasonable to hope for "enthusiasm" and "consciousness" of the population. You see, if the "conscious" part of the citizens will limit themselves to one child on a family, it will increase material resources of a community, the level of living and will allow "irresponsible" ones to have 2-4 children. It means, apart from the exhortations, it is necessary:

3. The discontinuance of all grants and privileges that the parents receive for the children. Certainly, it does not exclude the social help to the people really living in misery.

4. And only in the countries, where the enumerated measures will not give due result, will be necessary a kind of the ecological tax - for child-bearing. If a man wants to have one or several children, the desire is natural and it is impossible to condemn him. But let him to have everything that he wants but only for his own money, the society should not conduce to reduction of resources of a planet, and moreover, should by tax measures to create obstacles to it.

I emphasize the necessity of economic stimulus. Often people say in simplicity: "Why to adjust the birth-rate and to control the population number - it is enough to propagate and to sell the contraceptives". But they do not ponder as far as from its sale the birth-rate will decrease? Will it decrease enough? As far as the growth of population will decrease? Or it will be stopped absolutely? Or the population will be decreasing? It is absolutely not clear. Because the contraceptives are only the means of regulation. Therefore it is also necessary the rather strong "regulating influence" - if to use the term of the engineering theory of regulation, - "the stronger, the greater deviation of a size of the adjustable parameter from the established size there is". As, for example, a rudder is only a means of car control, but it is also necessary to be turning the rudder, and to be turning it just by such the angle so as the car has gone round an obstacle. But if you have turned it not enough - an accident all the same will take place, in spite of the fact that there was the rudder in the car and that the rudder was used.

The opponents of abortions and contraception means, like pope - as they name themselves "the defenders of life" - should first call upon the people to decrease of the population number of the Earth by reduction of birth-rate up to one child on a family. Because not abortions but namely the overpopulation threatens life on the Earth, by bringing nearer the global catastrophe, to which more than to the fall of Jerusalem the words of Christ is suiting: "Here come the days, when will be told: Are happy who did not give birth, did not suckle, who are sterile!" (Luke 23:29).Certainly, the abortion is poorly, but to punish a woman and even more a doctor for the abortion is a fanatical unceremoniousness, masked by the religiousness, no matter how their religion is named - "Christianity", "Mohammedanism", "Judaism" or "Humanism". But the injunction of euthanasia is even absolute dullness. How it is possible to forbid to a man to choose to live or to not live?!

Demography is a surprising science, it is not interested by the reasons and explanations what is going on. It declares: "Just today the demographic curve is going through a point of a bend". Just imagine - it is going through and that's all. It is no wonder, that in light-minded press the soothing forecasts are very popular. As speak, the scientists have carried out some "researches" (researches of what?) and completely precisely have calculated that "at XXI century the growth of the population of the Earth will be slowed down" and probably will ceased. The hint is clear: it is unnecessary to do anything especial for it, the demographic problem will be decided "automatically". But they do not speak: why the growth will almost be stopped? It is to be thought - that because of bad life34. So here, the essence of my offers is how, without deterioration of life but, on the contrary, with its significant improvement at the same time to decide the demographic problem, that is to say to liquidate the overpopulation of the Earth, because of which the main disasters take place.

(FOOTNOTE 34: I hear an objection: "It isn't true! The West is prospering, and other countries should increase manufacture and to have overtaken the West". Indeed? Is it prospering? But why then does the West not want to stop, but continues to increase manufacture and so is afraid of discontinuance of the growth? Whether will the biosphere sustain, if other countries will increase the manufacture up to the same degree? And is the low birth-rate not because of bad life? But ask western people, why do they not acquire second child, third child? - and you will get an answer - "because of the material problems". Radio "Canada" was describing such a questioning.)

Often are objecting that to the different countries and regions "it is necessary to apply the different approach". Because in some countries the population is increasing quickly but in others - almost isnít increasing or even is decreasing. But I offer the different approach too: where now there are, on the average, 4 children in a family, is offered to reduce the norm from four up to one, but there, where 2 children in a family - to reduce only from two up to one35. Also we shall not forget a usual answer-back accusation coming from the countries with quickly increasing population: "But in your countries per one your inhabitant it is being produced the pollution, is being consumed the energy and resources, more than in our countries per ten our inhabitants". Certainly, it not argument: if in the advanced countries each man destroys a nature, it give no rights for each ten men in the undeveloped countries to do the same. Thus we see, when the population is excessive, neither the riches of the country, nor the thrifty poverty save from destruction of environment, but in "rich" countries (to be exact, in technically advanced ones) there is the excessive population already when it is 10 times smaller than in the undeveloped countries.

(FOOTNOTE 35: Few will express aloud what others think in soul: "Certainly, - theyíll tell or think, - it is necessary to limit birth-rate of the Chinese, Indians, Negroes or Arabs but our birth-rate is already low". But I think, the advanced countries must declare norm "one child on family" at first for themselves, then they will have the moral right to demand the same from the underdeveloped countries, to which they give the economic help and privileges)

Probably, it will be not possible to achieve the exact observance of the norm "one child in a family". But the greater reduction of the birth-rate will be achieved, the more probable that the mankind will have time to solve economic and ecological problems and will survive. Only when as a result of such counter efforts the problems will be solved - whether it will be achieved at a population of the Earth reduced to 0,5 billion or at 2, or already at 4 billions - but only then the norm of birth-rate may be increased up to two children in a family that will ensure in the future constancy of the population number of the Earth.

Is it possible to achieve by such way of reduction of a population of the Earth? Is this the Utopia? Is it possible the transition to the noosphere epoch in general? For who doubt, I bring here the Erich Frommís words: "A question not in that, whether there is at us a certitude in the opportunity to achieve a change. At questions of life both individual, and society the probability of healing - 51% or 5% is not so important. The life is risky and is unpredictable, and the sole way to have lived is to make an effort to preserve it each time at each presented opportunity".

Chapter 6. Replacement of harmful income-taxes by useful ecological ones.

(prof. M. Bernstam, 6-Aug-2000)

However many decades are necessary for the solution of the demographic problem. So as the mankind could has gained the time avoiding ecological catastrophe, I offer a way - how to achieve not only resolute shift in the direction of economy of energy, resources and reduction of pollution but also fast decision of such economic problems, as deficiency of the budget, unemployment insufficient social maintenance. This way is to establish high taxes for production (but where there is not the production - for import into the country) of energy and of other natural resources, of resource-capacious products, and also for production of polluting substances. And these ecological taxes must be established not for consumers of the resources but for the extracting enterprises, that is to say at the beginning of a manufacturing-consuming chain. Also these must be levied not after the extracted product is sold, but at once after extracting it, and the size of the tax should not depend on a sale price.

I ask the reader to not speak: "I do not want to go deep into it, I am not an expert in taxes". You must not be an expert but you have to be a citizen and a voter, therefore it is necessary to understand, what variants of tax system can be offered to the country.

Really, what is the reason of the today's crash of Russia? Why under communists, "at the time of stagnation", despite of mismanagement, the wasting and inefficiency - the state had enough money for maintenance of the low prices, also for army, for a science, for astronautics, for culture, education, public health services, for house-building and for support of the "friendly" countries, also our leaders then did not live in misery - why there was enough money? Because then just the state, instead of any private trader, was getting the RENT FROM NATURAL RESOURCES. This rent, as a matter of fact, was a rough prototype of the ecological taxes, that I here offer. But then after taking the place of the communists-dogmatists the democrats-dogmatists thoughtlessly adopting from West even that there already poorly works and is obsolete - have given up all riches of the rent actually into private hands. They hoped that our state, after a western model, will have managed with the small share of these riches - income-taxes that ostensibly will be paid to the state by these private traders.

A known American economist, former adviser of the president of Russia about economy the professor of the Stanford university Mi”kle Bernstam has approximately the same opinion on the reasons of crash of Russia. In an interview of a Radio "Liberty" in the beginning of 1995 he spoke: "Russia sells natural resources on the West and receives approximately a half of what these are costing in the world market. Thus, Russia loses per year of 13-15 billions of dollars. This money is stayed in the West on the private accounts of the chiefs of the Russian enterprises, intermediaries and God knows of someone else. We name it "a outflow of the capital", but actually it is real outflow of natural resources. It must be understood thus: if sometime somewhere in a hell, in boiled water I will being tortured by pincers or will being beaten by stones - it will be, because at the end of 1991 together with Gaydarís government and together with the representatives of parliament, I participated in making the decree about liberalization of foreign trade. We all have not understood one thing then - we all are to blame - we have made a very large scientific mistake: we have not understood that it isnít impossible to allow freedom of foreign trade for the state enterprises. If a private trader would export resources, a private trader should pay the taxes for natural resources. And these can be equal to 85% and 90% of the cost. This difference between the price of manufacture and the price in the world market as the rent payments would come in treasury"... Here prof. Bernstam is cunning. The task of the sorry reformers just was to leave from the rent and to replace it by taxes from the profit and income - unimportantly, from private traders or from state enterprises. Because their basic dogma - "to do all as in the West". "The situation is turning out, - Prof. Bernstam is continuing, - when we high-clever intellectuals and the officials - we make the rough scientific mistakes, not understanding a situation, but the people is paying it by their well-being. Here we have created the completely monstrous situation. I admit honestly, I participated in making it, and it is necessary to beat me by stones, is exact as well as all others. But now it is necessary to realize the mistake, oversight and to have changed this situation, and it is possible to have made it for 24 hours".

But Gaydar persists in his error. Even in the interview of the Radio "Liberty" in May, 1998 he declares: while the state was receiving the rent on natural resources - these "bad money", in his opinion - the state did not want to carry out the reforms. It was necessary to disorganize the everything (that is to say to discredit the reforms also!), in order "to start the reforms". GaydarĎs logic is the such. Though Kuwait and other Arabian Emirates for some reason do not complain, that they have a lot of incomes from the natural riches.

The program of our reformers is simple up to primitive:

1. "Let as much as possible deeds to drift.. The less the government interferes, operates, the better it (the government) is. The people will pull a blanket everyone to themselves, and thus everything will be adjusted automatically".

2. "And in general to do everything as in the West ".

In America if a private proprietor buys a land site, where later on petroleum or gold is discovered, its all are his property, he becomes a rich man. Well, it has developed in America historically, it is their affair. But it wasnít here! We lived at the expense of natural resources, and when the market dogmatists had given up what was belonging to the state to the private proprietors - we had got poorer; a science, education, public health services, the army - began to wrecked, inflation had begun.

Let you think, why should the private traders make profit on natural resources, instead of state? Those who extracts resources should receive the normal salary. Those who trades in resources should receive the norm of profit. But everything that is over and above it - the rent for natural resources - should come to the state!

And what we see now? Even in USA there was a budget crisis, because of that the work of establishments and public services stopped. In France there were strikes and demonstrations against reduction of the expenses of budget. In Russia - delay of the salaries. And everywhere disappointment in politicians and parties. It shows that neither governments of the "social" states, nor public, nor economists, as they sweat over, can guess, by that taxes it is possible to extract so much means for the budget, how many it is necessary, not undermining thus by income-taxes the profitability of the enterprises and interest in work, and consequently they are compelled to cut down the expenses of budget.

However already it is appearing the understanding of the necessity to tax not getting of the income but the consumption. The international ecological organization World Watch offers to replace the harmful income taxation with ecological ones. But people heads are occupied with a dogma as if "the taxes are being paid from the incomes". And from here unfounded conclusion is drawn that the tax can be paid ostensibly only after the income from sale of a product is received, and that the size of the tax should depend on size of the income. By paraphrasing a poet it is possible to tell: we say "the taxes" but imply "income-taxes"36 (FOOTNOTE 36: Even Yavlinsky is confused. Once he correctly notices: "Ours liberals - Gaidar, Chubais - are not liberals at all: they have brought a level of the taxes in the country up to 90 % (from the profit, it is necessary to understand - N. K.), they have transferred all incomes from use of natural resources to the narrow group of the people, basically - to the former communist nomenclature". Then he again does not see an alternative to income-taxes: "What is necessary? So as in the budget there was money. Whence money can be taken? Only from the people - by taxes. Hence it is necessary to make so that the people paid the taxes"). The prevailing notion about "harm of the high taxes" also occurs because under "the taxes" everyone think just the income-taxes, as though other forms of the taxation are not thought up already a long time ago. The publicists and even the economists say: "The citizens should well earn - then the government will receive in the budget the means by the taxes". The right-wing politicians do not find anything cleverer, as "to reduce the taxes" (the income-taxes), recovering economy, but suffocating the social sphere. The left-wing politicians, on the contrary, offer to increase the assignments for public needs "by raising the taxes", and as a result they strangle the economy by income-taxes. And this fuss of so-called "the political process" - consisting in alternately pulling of a political rope there and back now right, now left and creating only the visibility of a movement - occurs, basically, because of faulty income taxation that isnít giving the enough money to the state budget for a science, public health services, culture, education, for army, police, for prisons, for pensions, grants, for house-building, for preservation of a nature.

But these means can be received by the ecological taxes that - as distinct from the income taxes - do not reduce profitability of the enterprises and consequently in the sum on whole country these can be much more than the sum of income taxation. But so as the ecological taxes would not reduce the profit of the enterprises but only would raise the price of their production, forcing the consumers to save, these taxes should be the excise taxes. That is to say their size should not depend on the price of a taxable product, otherwise they will be a recurrence of the harmful income taxation.

Thus I offer a system of the taxation which allows to connect the best parties of socialism and ones of capitalism, excluding the worse parties. By the way, the famous "Swedish model" tried to achieve the same purpose - but by the income-taxes - and therefore has not achieved, has broken37.

(FOOTNOT 37: I repeat, the advanced countries somehow solve the problems and continue to live "richly" - only at the expense of the fast, outstripping growth of economy. But the growth cannot proceed eternally! It all will be terminated badly!).

Today a common delusion is, as if "the struggle for ecology" requires the huge expenditure of the budget means. But at use for this purpose of the ecological taxes it turns out quite the reverse: it can give an enormous income for the budget!

I emphasize however that the ecological taxes should be levied not from sale but from output of natural resources. But what do we see today? An enterprise "Komi-petroleum" has spilled petroleum in tundra, the losses of petroleum also the penalties for harm caused to nature have reduced the profit. But if there is no profit - there is no also tax from the profit. Thus, with income taxation the mismanagement is encouraged by reduction of the income-tax. No, the tax should be levied not from the profit after sale of petroleum and not from the sold quantity of petroleum, namely from quantity of the extracted petroleum. And to be levied at once as petroleum is extracted from under ground. If you have paid the tax at once - then the sold petroleum gives all profit only to you, it is unnecessary to share it with anybody else. Also spilled petroleum and the penalties are only yours losses but not of the state. With such system the stimulus is really increased to contain pipelines in the order. But today "Komi-petroleum", may be, also receives money to repair others oil pipelines brought by them to emergency, receives from any of ecological fund, that is to say at the expense of the different enterprises not guilty in these failures. Also it is not known what for actually will be spent (and what for were spent earlier) money, intended for repair.

The solution of ecological problems by the ecological taxes is prompted by increase of the prices on petroleum 4 times (!) at the time "of a petroleum crisis" of 1973 that has created a strong stimulus of economy of energy, subsequently had died away, when the prices, unfortunately, were reduced again. At the period of high prices the Americans were cooperating and were coming from suburbs to work in city by four men in one car. Then the newspapers even were writing that the OPEC countries well have made when they had inflated the price, as it at last has forced West to save energy.

But such conclusion is as ridiculous as though someone has told: "It is well that someone have stolen my purse with the salary, as it at last has forced me to save money". Because inside the country to increase the price for petroleum 4 times, not waiting the OPEC actions, the governments of western countries could also - with the aid of excises for production of petroleum and duties for the import. Thus, the money received from increase of the prices, would not go away to the petroleum sheiks but would remain in a treasury and would allow in the same sum for the whole country to reduce the income taxation: that is to say the taxes from profits of the enterprises, from earnings of the citizens and all other kinds of the taxes and deductions proportional to the profit, price or income. The consumers would begin to save, the demand for petroleum would fall, and the OPEC countries would appear in a difficult situation and couldnít already further, by reducing the extraction, thus to inflate the prices.

But, as I already spoke, radical ideas constitutionally are alien to the political and scientific establishment, even if they are necessary for a survival of mankind - because in the beginning they are always unpopular. New ideas are always put forward and are asserted by the minority, and the establishment does not support these because it is important for them to look well in eyes of the majority38.

(FOOTNOTE 38: The scientists do not support new ideas also because they estimate the new by so-called "a criterion INH" - "is Invented Not Here". Or, as a Gospels personage said, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?". Rare the scientist would want to connect his name with other's and consequently "doubtful" new idea by supporting it. If it is not possible to keep silent, he will reject it without fail - though also will tell any compliment. By the way. I do not want so as a reader thought, that I am unfriendly to those authors, which I quote and criticize in this book. On the contrary, those who speak on the essence of a problem deserve approval - even for the honesty and boldness. But such authors always risk to be mistaken. Much worse are those who does not want to risk their "prestige" and therefore are silent or are escaping with insignificant phrases)

Thus the legal economy will limp because of reduction of its profitability by the income taxation, the shadow economy (that is avoiding of the taxes) will have advantage against legal one by demoralizing and criminalizing a nation, the resources will wasted, the environment will collapse - while there will be a high income taxation and low prices for energy, resources and pollution. Therefore I offer to do the reverse: to do the income taxation low or even zero and - with the aid of the ecological excise-taxes to make high prices for resources, energy and polluting substances.

This is my idea of revolution in the taxation. At first sight it is not so impressing as any next revolution in science, technique or medicine but it is necessary because it is useful and moreover - just it is saving. I shall try to show more in detail why it is.

Chapter 7. How today try to solve an ecological problem.

The local ecologists, biologists, engineers who develop the ecological engineering, doctors, forestry experts, ichthyologists - who are anxious with a condition of the environment in their region - insist that the ecological taxes be received just by the local budget, into special funds for the ecological purposes. But it is the same that to crack nuts by a steam-hammer. As I just now have shown the ecological taxes can have the more important application.

I deflect the accusation as if the ecological taxes legalize pollution of environment: as speak, has paid - and may pollute now. The authorities still have right to regard one pollution as extreme, inadmissible and to struggle against it by the severe penalties and closing of manufactures but other pollution to regard as technological, that is accompanying the manufacture, and to stimulate the reduction it by tax. But for this purpose the ecological taxes should not be a small local extortionís but the large component of all the state budget.

A stimulation of measures preserving nature already is partly applied - but incorrectly. The stimulation is understood - as granting of means and the tax privileges for the ones who introduces into practice any devices for cleaning. The activity preserving nature is also estimated by how many billions monetary units are given for it. But it is necessary to understand that the means and privileges for originators of pollution actually appear by encouragement them and at the same time mean additional tax burden, punishment of those who in any way is not guilty of the given pollution. If the ecological measures are financed from special local fund which is filled up at the expense of the penalties and the ecological taxes, the size of receipts into the fund cannot be coordinated with size of need in means and with maximum of stimulating influence of the ecological taxes. And in any case the granted as a gift billions and the privileges disappear as into a fathomless pit because their addressees are not interested in so as the invented cleaning devices really effectively worked. On the contrary, they are interested to receive all new and new means and privileges.

The stimulation should be contrary. As the market economy (that is to say an economy on a commercial basis) is better than the directive economy, as the the measures preserving nature on the basis of the commercial profit is better than the directive measures - on the basis of state assignments, conditional norms and prohibitions. Therefore - to put the conservation of environment on a commercial basis - the polluting substances should be taxed with high tax proportional to the pollution. With high tax - in order they would have the high profit because of decreasing the tax from them of in case of decreasing the pollution by them. But consequently, the profit of the enterprise should not suffer from the tax itself as it is not always possible to lower the pollution. Hence, the tax should be levied not as percent from the profit but should be an excise. Excises that I offer is the determined rate (in roubles) of the tax from each unit (ton) of a made product or of a scrap.

I am repeating. The size of the ecological tax is established not as a result of "exact calculations" of inflicted damage to nature. Probably It is impossible to make such a calculation - but it is unnecessary too. Because the size of the tax is determined by its purpose. But the purpose of the tax - the stimulating of enterprises to reduce pollution and to save resources. From this point of view the size of the tax should be so high as far as it is possible.

But why such powerful stimulus as the taxes till now almost is not used for conservation of environment? Because public, journalists, politicians and even the economists speak about "taxes" in general and about "the harm of the high taxes" in general, not by understanding that the withdrawn into income of the budget COMES BACK to a society as expenses of the budget, and consequently harmful is not withdrawal of taxes but those or others THE FORMS of taxation also those or others the useless expenditures from the budget.

What about the form - one thing is the income taxation, that is to say the percent from complete price of a product (a tax for an turnover, a tax for sales or for purchases) or the tax from a part of price (a tax for profit, for salary or for profit and salary together - so-called "the tax from added cost"39 (FOOTNOTE 39: Usually as "the tax from added cost" it is incorrectly named that actually is the tax from sale of the goods and services.) - these taxes, really, reduce percent of the profit (named as profitability) and thus negatively influence economy. The taxes from property and the taxes from purchases - also actually are the income-taxes as the first are more often paid from the incomes of this property and the second ones - from the price of the goods.

And absolutely other thing is the excises - making lower the consumption (and consequently the manufacture) of defined goods but not making lower the profitability of any enterprises and the economy in general. An example: a prototype of the ecological taxes is the excises for such "the polluting substances" as alcohol, tobacco and gasoline. Though the excises for these may be rather high (70% of the price of a packet of cigarettes in France is a tax) but the profitability of the appropriate manufactures is not impaired by it at all.

All this can be understood very easily, if a desire would be. But the point is that the establishment prefers to moralize - by raising their own "prestige" - instead of to offer the radical, revolutionary - and therefore unpopular - tax measures. British prince Charles is calling upon "to establishing the new ethical attitudes in economic activity". In his opinion, only these are capable to ensure effective conservation of environment. Also Mendeleyev - though a hundred years back - was speaking, that to use petroleum (the valuable chemical raw materials) as a fuel - is the same that to heat by bank-notes burning.

But it is silly to reproach people with greed - it is necessary to turn their greed for the society benefit. It is time to understand, that to exhort the economy to not destroy environment and to save resources is ridiculous just as to exhort the economy to make beautiful and good products. It is necessary to talk to economy in language of economy. That is to say it is necessary to make so that the economic benefit would push - not to destruction of environment but to preservation it. So as the excises from extracted resources and the produced polluting substances WERE GREAT, they should be entered not as addition but INSTEAD OF the taxes for the profit, for turnover, for added cost and for personal incomes. The highest and, hence, the most effectuve ecological taxes it will be excises equal in sum in whole the country to all present taxes and completely replacing these. Thus, with transition from the income taxation to ecological ones the total tax burden will not increase and, hence, there will not be any damage to economy and to standard of living. The capital investment into ecological measures will become profitable therefore the necessity to allocate on them large means from the budget will disappear, the enterprises will find means for these, as now they find means for any investments giving profit.

But also for economy the ecological taxes are the better than the income ones.

Chapter 8. How it is more rational to impose taxes on "rich men".

The sense of economic activity - and especially the sense of perfecting it - consists in obtaining the benefit, the profit; this sense is lost at all if the income does not exceed the expenses on manufacture. But, unfortunately, the taxation is understood and exists everywhere as the income taxation, that is to say, a percent from profit, income or price of the goods - as the percent that lower the profitability. For this reason the modern "social" states, as they sweat over, cannot solve a problem: how by not suppressing the economy by the taxes but at the same time to ensure to the budget the income necessary for performance of the extensive social programs. Meanwhile the decision of a problem is obvious: the taxes should not be the taxes from the profit, from the income. Therefore Margaret Tatcher tried to establish the poll-tax and because of this had lost the post. Also therefore already in many countries the taxes from the incomes partially have replaced by the taxes from consumption - "by the taxes from purchases". But these taxes too depend on the price and stimulate reduction of any consumption without distinction and sense. But it is necessary to concentrate the stimulating influence of taxes on reduction of consumption just of those goods, the manufacture of which harms to the environment and requires the large energy consumption and of the drained resources. Therefore not the taxes from purchases, namely ecological taxes and namely excises - not depending from the price - should replace the present income taxation.

The many usually object against a cancellation of income-taxes because the rich, as speak, should pay more taxes than the poor. Let us assume that it is correct. But at the income-taxes system is considered as rich and is taxed by the higher taxes who works more effectively and consequently earns more. That is to say the income taxation actually is a punishment for more successful activity. But it is unfair and consequently harmfully for a society.

At the taxation system offered by me and based not on income principle but on ecological one - it will be possible completely to release all citizens and enterprises (apart from the enterprises that make polluting substances or extract resources) from all direct taxes apart from land tax (land is the major natural resource too). The extracting enterprises (mines, oil-gas-extracting enterprises, loggings) and enterprises that make polluting substances (chemical, metallurgical and some other factories, nuclear and thermal power stations) - will pay the high ecological taxes (excises). But their profitability will not suffer from it at all. I already gave an example with production of alcohol and tobacco. Any manufacturers do not suffer from the excise taxes in general, as they for the sum of the taxes raise the price of the product, actually shifting these taxes to the consumers of a final product. But it should be: "to suffer" from the ecological taxes it should be the consumer for whom the ecology-dangerous product is made. With the excise ecological taxation the rich people too will be - indirectly, through the increased prices - to pay higher taxes than the poor but thus they any more will not be punished for they work more effective and consequently more earn but they will be punished for they more consume, live on a lavish scale. And just in that degree are punished, in what degree the industry, satisfying their need, exhausts the important resources and pollutes environment.

I heard an objection: "But this is unfair! For example, an owner of a casino receives huge profit. Whether to release him, as well as the all others, from the tax for this profit?!" I answered that the size of the profit of a gambling house is difficult for supervising, it is better to take the firm rate - for a license. But if you are worried that someone receives super-profit you may place another two gambling houses side by side. Then competition will force the owner to lower profit to not lose the clients. In general, to struggle with excessive riches it should not suppress a business by taxes, instead of it is necessary to conduce to amplification of the competition.

Sometimes are asking: how specifically can the sizes of the ecological taxes be established? Very simply, approximately in such a way that the sizes of all kinds of the income taxation are established today. At first the size of an expense part of the budget is being defined as the sum under all clauses of the expenses. The budget should be balanced, that is to say the income volume consisting of the various tax duties, should be equal to the expenditure volume. If the expenditure volume of the budget in comparison with the last year is increased by any sum, they look what taxes and how much may be increased to collect the given added sum. It is possible to establish new taxes, for example, ecological, but old taxes may be reduced at appropriate size. For example, a price of petroleum in the market is 20 dollars for a barrel. As the beginning we shall establish the ecological tax at a rate of 5 dollars for extraction of every barrel of petroleum. By a similar way we shall establish the taxes for extracting gas, various ores, for felling of wood. And if the extracted simultaneous gas is not used but is burnt in a torch, the tax for its extraction is necessary to pay too. Also if woods have been cut down, for example, on place of a future storage lake, and the wood is not used and is left there to rot, the tax for cutting down all the same must be paid plus a penalty for the pollution. We shall consider expedient for the present to not tax the production of coal. Letís establish the certain taxes for emissions by large chimneys also for the harmful drains from the enterprises and for production of each ton of different chemical substances: fertilizers, pesticides, freons and other dangerous products and wastes: for more harmful substance - the tax is larger too. Let's establish the duties to import of the same resources and chemical products so as the import products have not made the becoming dearer domestic products noncompetitive. It is possible to count how much money all these new taxes and the duties will give to the budget. Let's decide as far as now it is possible to reduce different kinds of the income taxation so that the budget has remained balanced. The next years the various ecological taxes can in a different degree be increased, and the income taxes can be reduced - up to its complete cancellation. Probably it will be necessary to increase pensions and grants in view of a rise in price of energy. The fears, that the ecological (indirect) taxes will be heavy burden, basically, for working people, are not well-founded. If the taxes will increase - the salary soon will increase too because actually the clean salary is being determined not by someone's arbitrariness but by supply and demand for work of the given qualification40.

(FOOTNOTE 40: Even at the communist times, when, it would seem, the market laws should not work, it were possible to read such an announcement: "A carpenter Is required for a post of a senior economist" (the citation is taken from a column "You cannot think up it purposely" in a magazine "The Crocodile weekly")

Thus, by not reducing profitability, the ecological excises will raise the price of a product made by an ecology-dangerous technology, hence, will reduce demand for this product - for the benefit of alternative products and technologies. The application of harmful products (for example, the freons, destroying the protective ozone layer of an atmosphere) and harmful technologies will be decreasing and application of alternative products and technologies - will be increasing. . But a positive influence of the ecological taxes isnít exhausted by it.

Chapter 9. The decision of economic problems.

The replacement of the income taxation by the ecological excises will allow forever to decide a problem of the state budget deficiency being the main reason of inflation. Because it is the income taxation that creates instability of economy. Because the increase - in case of necessity - of the income-taxes reduces the profitability of enterprises, the enterprises suffer crash, are being closed, the unemployment is increasing, an income of the state budget is decreasing - because - at the income taxation - it is proportional to the profits of enterprises and to the earnings of citizens. But meanwhile the expenses of state are increasing - as it is necessary to pay the allowances to the unemployed. The state becomes compelled to raise the taxes again or "to switch on the printing machine". Thus the economy is being worsened like an avalanche.

The ecological excises can give the much more income into the budget than the income taxation gives, not causing at the same time of the described above negative by-effects. Therefore there will be an opportunity to cancel and all payments for social maintenance that the businessmen are now obliged to do for each employed worker. It will help considerably to reduce unemployment by development of the small enterprises. Because it is the numerous small business that is the basic employer. In the USA the small business gives 75 % of a total product of the country. But the small businessmen are held back from hiring the assistants and are forced to manage with help only of members of the family - basically, by the obligatory payments for social insurance and the pension maintenance - one more component in the sum of the excessive income taxation.

The high incomes of the budget as a result of the ecological taxes will give also opportunity to make free the urban and suburban public transport, and it, together with a rise in price of fuel, will reduce usage of the personal vehicles also air pollution and road jams in cities.

The income taxation should be liquidated also because it generates cynicism in relation to the law, corrupts, criminalizes the whole nations, because actually gives advantage to the shadow economy (that is to say to the economy that hides from the taxes) and to criminal activity - because that and another becomes free from the taxation unlike the lawful activity. It come to work fairly it becomes not simply unprofitable but even impossible. It is no wonder that, for example, in Sweden, where the income-taxes are great especially, complain that the economy is worsening, and the former industrious and honest Swedes are becoming lazy dodgers who evinces the initiative basically at unofficial work. The sum of the small left incomes for 1996 in Sweden has come to 10 billions crones. At 1997 everyone eighth worked on the side, in result the Swedish state has received 40 billions crones less of taxes.

How it occurs - "the Lafferís diagram" shows it visually:

Laffer_e.gif 9 Kb

It is visible from the diagram that the incomes (profit) subjected to the taxation (upper inclined line), and the incomes presented to the taxation (the lowest inclined line) fall with growth of percent of the tax from a profit. Also the sector of shadow economy and the state expenses for struggle against it (between these lines) grows accordingly. Also the lower convex curve shows that the income into the budget from collecting the taxes from profit is not increasing almost when the tax achieves 35% of the profit size, and when the tax achieves over 50% the income into the budget even is decreasing. Thus the clean (after the taxes are paid) lawful earnings (a vertical arrow in the middle) is being decreased disastrously so the legal economic activity sheerly loses sense.

Today the income taxation and especially the progressively-income taxation are widespread, basically, because of ridiculous socialist anti-market notion that it is possible to take away, "to redistribute", "to equalize" incomes. But actually the clean average salary of the worker (with the deduction of all taxes) is being determined by supply and demand to work of the given qualification. The worker all the same will have got the due, and the increased tax actually is being paid not by him but the employer which thus actually is being punished for hiring the worker of high qualification and is being forced to manage the more mediocre workers. Thus because of the income-taxes established for the sake of illusion the economy is suffering, that is to say we all.

The opinion, as if the income taxation is necessary for reduction of a social inequality, is incorrect as well because the help to needy can be rendered directly, but it is not obligatory by means of the lower taxation for them. For example, in the USA for needy there is a help by money, food coupons, by partial payment of home. On the contrary, the ecological excises will allow the budget to receive the greater income than now as the excises have not the enumerated above harmful by-effects of the income taxation. It means a state will have more money for the social purposes. There will be an opportunity to establish a new form of social maintenance - the guaranteed income41 that will become partial or complete replacement of all numerous kinds of grants, pensions and will be paid to all the citizens irrespective of the other incomes. The similar system already exists in rich with petroleum Alaska - there each inhabitant receives "bonus" equal 1000 dollars per one year - and in some states of a Persian gulf.

(FOOTNOTE 41: Among the supporters of establishing the guaranteed income it is possible to name the economists Milton Freedman, James Towin, a congressman Melvin Lard and the others)

I want to prevent an incomprehension able to arise. Whether my phrase "the average salary contradicts is being determined by a supply and demand on the work, the worker all the same will have got the due" - to other my statement that "the income taxation actually is the punishment for more successful activity"? No, does not contradict. Because in the first case the question is about the AVERAGE salary (or profit). But when the talented worker or businessman, by improving technology or organization of business, receive the income ABOVE THE AVERAGE, just then the taxation punishes them because it is the INCOME taxation, and it is even worse if it is the progressively-income taxation.

Also there is no contradiction and between two other statements. Between the stimulating influence of the new taxes and that, as I have told, "the profitability does not suffer because of the ecological taxes at all because the tax is shifted to the consumers of the product". Yes, it is shifted but only if the consumption of resources and the pollution (in a unit of product) - are within Of AVERAGE for similar manufactures. If these parameters above average, the enterprise will be punished by increase of the ecological taxes. And it any more can not shift the increasing of the tax on the consumers by raising the price of the product even more. Because then its product, being found more expensive than average level, will become noncompetitive.

What the ecological taxes will give to the ordinary people? Probably, will give much. Imagine: all citizens and almost all enterprises (apart from the enterprises making the polluting substances also extracting resources) are released from all direct taxes apart from land tax. The land is a natural resource too, the rent from land should come to the state, and the land tax should be high - so as an owner would use the land the most effectively, instead of would sit on the land like a dog on hay. The huge means will be saved on simplification of the tax service. An economist B. Pinsker wrote: "The Tax Code of USA before the tax reform of 1986 it was 9 volumes of total about 10 thousands pages. A result: in a national economy of the USA more than a half of a million lawyers, the experts who engaged for searching of the loop-holes in the tax laws". Also in Russia 40 thousands people in the tax service and also 180 thousands in the tax police are engaged. Will disappear the necessity for bringing (by the tax police) the law-obedience up the millions tax bearers hourly being corrupted by the system of income-taxes.

Though it is necessary to transgress the liberal-democratic dogma that asserts that "the indirect taxes are characteristic for the undemocratic states but the direct taxes (read: the income-taxes) is an attribute of the democratic state". Ostensibly at the indirect taxes system the citizens cannot know how much they pay and what for their money is spent. Here a reason and a consequence are confused. Quite the reverse, democracy allows without harm to establish the indirect taxes as democracy provides a control over the actions of authorities.

The countries before others having replaced the income taxation with the ecological one will obtain an advantage before other countries and will shoot up forward in economy, though the main sense of the replacement - is creation of strong stimulus to save energy, resources and to reduce the pollution. Having introduced the economic and of ecological technologies and products the enterprises will receive a large gain from reduction of the rather high ecological taxes directly or indirectly levied from them. The increase, with the aid of these taxes, prices for resources and energy will create also opportunity with benefit to use wastes and alternative sources of energy. Using these, when the present prices for resources and energy are low, is economically unprofitable and for this reason practically is absent, despite of diligence of the developers and enthusiasts of the ecological technologies.

Certainly, as the energy-economizing, resource-economizing and ecological way of living and managing will being introduced, the budget income from the ecological taxes will being reduced. Therefore the state shall raise the rates of the ecological taxes. However total sum of these taxes can remain constant. The increase little by little of rates of the ecological taxes will by additional stimulus for the enterprises to keep up with others at introduction the measures preserving nature and economizing technologies.

The stimulating influence of the ecological taxes is similar to the classical mechanism of stimulation of a capitalist by profit. One businessman introduce a certain improvement, the innovation and thus he increases the profit. But others little by little introduce the same innovations, and as a result of competition their profit is falling up to a former level. However a deed is made - the perfection has taken place. Exactly as the reduction by an enterprise of pollution or economy by them of the resources reduces the ecological taxes levied from them. But others aspire to introduce and little by little they introduce the same improvements. The sum of the taxes coming into the budget has decreased. Then the state raises the rate of the taxes, restoring the coming sum. The benefit being received by the enterprises from introduced by them the cleaning technologies and economy of resources is being reduced to zero. However a deed is made - the perfection of manufacturing has taken place. Then the cycle is repeating.

Thus the replacement of the income taxation with the ecological ones will allow quickly to solve ecological, economic and social problems, but, I repeat, to solve only temporarily, it will give to mankind a respite to have time to cope with the overpopulation problem. Because for painless reduction of a population 10 times it is necessary about 300 years. If the demographic problem in the meantime will not be decided, the improvement of conditions of living as a result of replacement of the income taxation with the ecological one will result in new increase of birth-rate. As I spoke, this law of spontaneous development is already noticed by demographers: as soon as in any country with low birth-rate - that is to say with so-called "the controllable birth rate" - the economic situation improves and the level of the incomes has risen, the birth-rate at once rises too. Because this "birth-rate control" actually means only: if I want - I limit myself with one child but if I want - I shall have two, three, four children, if I consider that my means allow it..

But two children on family means preservation of the present excessive population with all the present and approaching disasters because of it. And three children on family it is also preservation of present growth of the population with doubling of the population each 50 years (see a diagram in the first chapter).

But I hear again:

- What "a noosphere"? What such a mind? You offer the artificial decrease of birth-rate by any economic stimuli coming from a state. No, it is not suitable for us. It does not go!

- Well, - I answer, - but it means the population number also subsequently shall be adjusted by a natural way - that is to say by famine, need, by disorder or intensity of life, by ecological disasters, illnesses, criminality, by wars and by totalitarian violence - as it was during centuries and as it occurs now. And if it will be possible to eliminate, say, such the disasters-regulators as famine and the wars, accordingly it will be amplified the others - for example, ecological disasters and totalitarian violence. You have chosen it.


Nick Kronov
Home:, Mail:

Brief version of this article:

Second part of the book - Cosmology: space expands, because time is flowing.

Third part - Jesus Christ doctrine about life also other outlooks (170 kB)

Dear reader, if you consider my works important or to say the least of it interesting, I wish you would save the texts because of fatal heart-disease of the author this site can soon has disappeared. Also you could publish this site URL in the catalogues and the guest books - Internet is too expensive for me. Can somebody also assist me in publishing the book? Thank you. I permit noncommercial distributing of the texts free-of-charge. I try to improve the English translation.

Welcome to my Guest Book. My E-mail:

Back to my homepage: