"The Developers, of course--the politicians, businessmen, bankers, administrators, engineers--they see it somewhat otherwise and complain most bitterly and interminably of a desperate water shortage, especially in the Southwest. They propose schemes of inspiring proportions for diverting water by the damful from the Columbia River, or even from the Yukon River, and channelizing it overland down into Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico.
What for? 'In anticipation of future needs, in order to provide for the continued industrial and population growth of the Southwest.' And in such an answer we see that it's only the old numbers game again, the monomania of small and very simple minds in the grip of an obsession. They cannot see that growth for the sake of growth is a cancerous madness, that Phoenix and Albuquerque will not be better cities to live in when their populations are doubled again and again. They would never understand that an economic system which can only expand or expire must be false to all that is human." ~Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire
Interestingly enough, E.A. earlier described a microcosm example for global overpopulation, perhaps unwittingly as he didn't make the comparison directly. He described the rampant poverty on the Navajo reservation, and how Navajo are forced into the slums of the "white" cities, etc. as their own land has been essentially destroyed as a result of their increased fecundity (namely due to the introduction of the white man's modern medicine and its subsequent effect on infant mortality). Overused and overgrazed, the Navajo reservation no longer supports the (then) current number of Navajo, hence the population overspills out into white slums.
What happens, then, when we extrapolate the situation to a global level? Where will the "overspill" human population go? Sci-Fi offers romantic notions of escaping the planet and colonizing other chunks of rock in space. Utter absurdity. Life on Earth is adapted for Earth's climate, one of possibly infinite arrangements of climatic variables. What is the likelihood that we'll find a suitable planet for habitation, free of ill (and likely unforseen) effects? What if such a hypothetical planet were otherwise perfect, but the atmosphere failed to block out harmful solar radiation? It would be like sucking on lollipops made from Uranium 235, and the "colonists" would soon succumb to a most miserable, agonizing death. So much for expanding our available land. As much as I love Firefly, terraforming is a fantasy.
So our available planet space is finite. We will soon be trapped in our own depleted "Navajo reservation" to take what we can from what little is left of the land. It's less productive overall, for a higher number of people. The gruesome truth of Overpopulation. THIS is the single most dangerous threat to the environment, to society, to the existence of life on Earth. Pollution, habitat loss, etc. are all related to and amplified by population. We've overextended our carrying capacity in a way that no species (to our knowledge) has yet been able to do, as a result of cheap energy from the alchemically altered bodies of organisms that lived millions of years ago. It was cheating. Non-renewable energy provided a false sense of prosperity.
Of course the basic concept is not as unnatural as it at first appears. Carrying capacity is not a fixed value, but is dynamic (responding to changes in the environment). Changes like the applications of fossil fuel to industrialization. Changes like a boom in the population of hares, increasing the carrying capacity of the fox. Such cycles are common in nature, and as the increasing number of foxes prey upon the hares, the prey species begins to decline because too many of them are getting eaten. Well, that leaves less food for the fox, and its carrying capacity decreases. Or at least that's how the textbooks put it; they even make it easy to understand with a nice graph: a red sine wave slightly misaligned with a blue sine wave. Blue (fox) follows red (hare), and an increase or decrease in hares causes an increase or decrease in foxes (likewise, an increase in foxes causes a decrease in hares, thus the feedback loop is ongoing). The textbooks make it very crisp and understandable indeed (good for the visual learners, of course). Distanced from the reality of the Struggle for Existence. The graph can't evoke the hunger that the fox feels when he can't find any hares. The slow weakening of his muscles. The more he needs food the less able he is to hunt food. And so his body consumes itself; slowly, and painfully. Perhaps he goes mad. Starvation is not a pleasant death; if he is capable of emphathy (and perhaps he is? We know not...) then he certainly envies the quick death of the hares that were plentiful in his puphood. The sustenance that he hasn't known for weeks, or even months.
But with non-renewable energy, there is no cycle (at least not one applicable to the human reference frame). An increase in the utilization of petroleum certainly increased our carrying capacity, but what happens when that resource runs out? A drop in carrying capacity, much like with the fox. And then the biology student will truly understand that deceptively simple graph, with its red and blue sine waves.
Over-dramatic much? What can I say, I've been reading Edward Abbey. And of course the hypothetical example that I gave is a simplification; after all, renewable energy will provide a boost to our carrying capacity! But a boost equal to that of fossil fuels? And where exactly will that carrying capacity line hover? 6 billion? 9 billion? 3 billion? 1 billion?
And more importantly, what shall be the terms? We can continue to "cheat" and raise our carrying capacity beyond what the world can sustainably support. Instant gratification, right? Develop all the world; turn all the fields and forests into cropland; turn all the oceans into hatcheries; dam all the rivers and drain all the aquifers; use every last resource for the benefit of humanity and fulfill that prophecy of the 6th mass extinction!
Will the amphibians survive? Perhaps the African Clawed Frog (that vile harbinger of chytridiomycosis), for it's too valuable a research organism to let go extinct! Will the songs of scarlet tanagers, hooded warblers, common yellowthroats, and wood thrushes be silenced forever, only to be replaced by the obnoxious, monotonous cheeping of house sparrows? Who will the starlings have left to mimic?
Bottom line: sustainability cannot happen without stabilization of human population growth rates, and likely decreases. So how do we want to go about it? With our big brains we can (theoretically) foresee things like this. We can predict much more complex phenomena, so why is Overpopulation so commonly ignored? Perhaps because it's an uncomfortable topic. If "culling" is out of the question, then what? Birth limits (worked great in China!)? Forced sterilization? Well, making birth control/family planning available to third world countries is certainly a great start. But then again, the birth rate in America isn't even at that target net value of 0 (at least), and to top it off we're consuming a disproportionate amount of resources. How can population be seriously discussed and ethically addressed?
Hopefully we figure it out soon. As unorthodox as random sterilization sounds, it's a hell of a lot better than half the world starving to death.
So why are humans starving to death a problem exactly? After all, I did provide an example of how it's natural for starvation to stabilize population size (those poor foxes). Why should humans be any different? No, it's not because we're more valuable, or important, or because we have more of a right to live and be comfortable (as much as the vast majority of people would like to believe). The real danger is that humans have become such damn good competitors that, in securing resources for our own species' survival, we will degrade and destroy ecosystems and cause a disturbing numer of species to go extinct.
We're not the only species that can potentially do this; an example that immediately springs to mind is swarms of locusts destroying every living plant in a given area. The difference is one of scale; the locust destroys 10 acres, 100 acres, 1000 acres, perhaps even 1,000,000 acres. There are always new sources, however. The destroyed region becomes a sink population, but there is always a source to re-populate it. What happens when the scale of destruction is global, though?
It amazes me how much time and money people spend redecorating their houses, mowing their lawns, etc. and yet many of these people don't give a damn about the environment. Clearly they have some concept of taking care of the place that they live, so do they just not realize that they live on Earth too? What makes it even more absurd is that the "little boxes" that they care so much about are relatively easy to replace (if, for example, it were to burn down). Just move somewhere else! The Earth, on the other hand, is all that we have. Either people are ignorant of that fact, or they truly (and childishly) believe the Sci-Fi balderdash that we'll colonize other planets when Earth simply isn't enough. Perhaps they just don't believe that it will happen in their lifetime. But what about their children's lifetime? Don't they want to secure the continuity of their genes (why else would they breed at all)?
Denial isn't constructive.
To quote Abbey again, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." And we all know what happens to the "host" of a cancerous population of cells, when said growth becomes too prolific.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Thanks for the links! I'm definitely interested in reading up on alternate approaches to economics. I'll admit that my background in economics in general is rather lacking; as someone who tends to think in ecological terms modern economics has never quite clicked with me.
Your point about efficient use of finite space is an interesting one, and if your assumption that it would lead to increased unemployment and poverty is correct then it would be a huge death blow to the environment. Recent trends linking poverty with poor stewardship has lead to an encouraging environmental strategy whereby alleviating poverty also helps the environment. This is critical in gaining the support of people who question the acts of environmentalists, asking "how can you fight so hard to save a few trees when millions of people around the world are starving to death?" It's always seemed an odd question to me, since the existence of one worthy cause shouldn't nullify the worth of another, just because the majority of people believe one to be more important. Tackling both issues simultaneously is, I think, the key to widespread success. And if it provides one more argument against our current economic system all the better!
Brian, instead of a "death blow" for the environment, I see this theory as an "ultimate weapon" for environmentalists - an economic case for a reduced population. One of the reasons that environmentalists are focused so heavily on improvements in efficiency and reductions in per capita consumption is that they have no answer for economists who claim that population growth is a prerequisite for economic growth, and that man is ingenious enough to overcome any obstacles to growth, be they resource shortages or environmental degradation. All of this in spite of mounting evidence that they're probably wrong.
But now, with this theory, we have an economic argument for reducing our population, allowing more people to enjoy a high standard of living with less stress on resources and the environment.
I should emphasize that my approach to such population reduction would take place slowly, over many decades, and primarily involves the use of economic incentives for people to choose smaller families, but leaving them free to choose however many children they deem appropriate - totally noncoercive.
Yes, what I meant by "death blow" was that if our current economic growth were to continue, and poverty and unemployment did continue to rise, then the environment would become less and less of a pertinent issue to the majority of people and thus would be exploited ruthlessly. I agree that presenting this scenario as a picture of the future resulting from business as usual would indeed be a great tool.
I am a bit curious as to why environmentalists currently have "no answer" for pro-population growth economists, when you mention that there is "mounting evidence" that they're probably wrong? Is the problem that modern economists simply ignore this evidence, citing that the current economic system has worked up until now and future advances will allow it to continue to work (as they have in the past)? Essentially, ignoring data in favor of an uncertain hope (though they undoubtedly don't view it as uncertain). Are they just trying to protect their own livelihoods by defending what they've been doing? Personally I see this self interest as a likely motive, as people just want to continue on as they always have until the shit really hits the fan, so to speak, and hope that it happens after they're retired. And it's understandable that they would fear such a radical change in the system, especially since population alleviation is not likely to be a popular subject with the masses. However, adaptability will be necessary at some point, so either economists need to step forward, accept that and start to initiate change, or they need to be "proven" wrong (or even incompetent), and then suitable replacements found.
I'm particularly interested in your ideas for noncoercive population control, since that it obviously ideal (and the only socially acceptable way to go about population control). Your book has been added to my long list of books that I need to read (funny how books lists never seem to get shorter, no matter how much you read).
Brian, sorry it took me so long to reply.
Economists have essentially taken a vow to never again consider the effects of population growth. In 1798 economist Thomas Malthus theorized that population growth would outstrip food production. When, instead, food production outstripped population growth, the field of economics was mocked by the other sciences. They told economists, "while you were wringing your hands about the threat of overpopulation, we applied real science and did something about it." In response, economists essentially said, "you're right; we'll never consider population growth again." To this day, anyone who raises concerns about overpopulation is immediately dismissed by economists as a "Malthusian."
My approach to achieving population stability and, eventually, reductions in the U.S. relies heavily on two approaches: dramatic reductions in the high rate of immigration to the U.S. (both legal and illegal) and, to achieve a slightly lower birth rate, tax incentives that would encourage families to choose fewer children. Instead of paying a reward in the form of a tax deduction for every child, we could start with a lower base tax rate and then impose a tax "penalty" of sorts for each additional child, a tax penalty that would apply permanently, not just while the child is a dependent. Such a "penalty" might not need to be very large to achieve the desired effect. Also, the number of children could be used as a factor in calculating property taxes, since a large percentage of property taxes is used for school funding. These are just a few ideas. The goal is not to generate additional revenue, but to use the method of generating the revenue to influence behavior. Such methods could easily achieve population stability without resorting to the kind of abhorrent practices employed in other places like China and India.
Hmmm, so economists were mocked by other sciences for worrying about population. Now, however, the global situation is very different from what it was like in 1798. It's rudimentary logic that population growth cannot continue indefinitely, assuming a planet with finite space. The existence of carrying capacity is inevitable. In modern times, evidence is indicating that population will be a problem in the near future. But because they were mocked in 1798, economists are essentially blindly ignoring data. Wow, it sounds like it's about time for the economists to be mocked once again!
Science is all about getting things wrong, and then using that new knowledge to improve your understanding of the system. Sure, individuals may fear being ridiculed, but to have an entire field of science crippled by that fear is astonishing to me.
On a more enthusiastic note, I really like your ideas for imposing a tax penalty on additional children. My understanding is that families living in economically destitute areas (inner cities, for example) tend to have more children. Not only would a tax penalty contribute to population stability, but it will likely improve the social situation for those under the poverty line as well (assuming they don't continue having children regardless).
One concern that I can see is that people who are rendered unable to work (through an accident, disability, etc.) would have difficulty with a permanent tax penalty that extends beyond when a child is no longer dependent. Some care would be required in dealing with situations like these, and ideally revenue gained from the "child surplus" tax could be used to fund welfare for situations like these.
I agree that such an idea would require some refinement, Brian, to address issues like the one you've raised.
I should also mention that such a tax system should be progressive, such that the wealthy have as much incentive to choose smaller families as poor ones. Otherwise, such a plan would be seen as class warfare or even racist.
I want to emphasize that the goal is to reduce the overall birth rate, leaving families completely free to choose the size of their family. Under such a plan, if a particular family is willing to make the financial sacrifice to have four children, while another chooses only one, then we needn't judge the former any more harshly than the latter.
Ultimately, most people choose to limit the size of their families for financial reasons anyway. So why not tweak the financial calculation slightly to influence those decisions toward slightly smaller families on average?
Post a Comment