Here is a sure way to save the planet: cut the number of people by two-thirds. Somehow this (final?) solution rarely comes up for discussion in the media, which instead flaunt horror at the loss of human life through war, famine, and natural disasters—all of which, along with abortions and murder, do tend to reduce population. Animal life suffers along with human life in such tragedies, but a reduction of the human boot-print, by any means, should ultimately relieve stress on the biosphere.

Perhaps this is just to say that we are unable, as yet, to plan our collective future. Other species do not either, but most of them are not equipped to alter the biosphere significantly and are kept in check by other species. The human program, of course, has been to eliminate those species that could keep our populations and planetary effects in check. Consequently, homo sapiens is the first creature that needs to plan its future, because it has eluded nature’s plan for balance.

Climate change is an unfortunate catchword, which masks the real damages we continue to inflict on the rest of life. On the other hand, no one can claim that whole forests somehow clear-cut themselves. Or that humans have no hand in the mass extinctions underway. Our beeline to dominate nature has created an imbalance that we are ill prepared to survive, let alone to rectify.

Here is a consideration, with apologies to Plato, who thought that kings were the answer if they were also “philosophers”—by which he surely meant “lovers of wisdom” and not the academics who now go by that name. (Ironically, the word academic derives from the name of Plato’s school for the training of potential philosopher-kings, which today we would call benevolent dictators, had that not become an oxymoron.) Hardly anyone today could disagree with his idea that only a certain type of well-motivated and wise individual is qualified to lead society. But there does not seem to be a modern version of his Academy to train statespersons. Instead, they graduate from business schools or Hollywood contracts. There are think tanks, but no wisdom tanks.

If the job is to plan humanity’s future, there are scholars with expertise in the many disciplines relevant to that task, including population control. Assuming they could come to agreement, they would need the authority to make and enforce laws designed to ensure a viable future. This would be a technocracy. The large governing body of experts could be democratic within itself; but society as a whole (the world) would not be ruled by democratically elected representatives, but by qualified experts. Terms of service would rotate by lottery, much as jury duty is selected, with the current membership able to reject new candidates by consensus.

This arrangement would bypass many of the problems that plague modern democracies. There would be no occasion to curry favor with the public nor fear its disaffection. Since the “will of the people” would be irrelevant, the nefarious aspects of social media (or corporately controlled official media) wouldn’t touch the political process. There would be no election campaigns, no populist demagoguery, no contested voting results, and no need for fake news or disinformation. Power could not corrupt or even be sought, since the office is a temporary and compulsory civic duty, randomly chosen and without prestige, which would pay only a fixed modest salary. It would be not only shameful, but seriously punished, to gain economically from the term of service. Just an idle thought.