The Problem Is Simple: Too Many People, Too Much Stuff
By Paul & Anne Ehrlich, Yale Environment 360. Posted August 7, 2008.
An equitable and humane solution to overpopulation and
overconsumption may actually be possible. [[[ I don't think such a
solution is in fact possible, given human nature, but I think this
article is worth reading nonetheless. / Bill ]]]
Over some 60 million years, Homo sapiens has evolved into the
dominant animal on the planet, acquiring binocular vision, upright
posture, large brains, and -- most importantly -- language with
syntax and that complex store of non-genetic information we call
culture. However, in the last several centuries we've increasingly
been using our relatively newly acquired power, especially our
culturally evolved technologies, to deplete the natural capital of
Earth -- in particular its deep, rich agricultural soils, its
groundwater stored during ice ages, and its biodiversity -- as if
there were no tomorrow.
The point, all too often ignored, is that this trend is being
driven in large part by a combination of population growth and
increasing per capita consumption, and it cannot be long continued
without risking a collapse of our now-global civilization. Too many
people -- and especially too many politicians and business
executives -- are under the delusion that such a disastrous end to
the modern human enterprise can be avoided by technological fixes
that will allow the population and the economy to grow forever. But
if we fail to bring population growth and over-consumption under
control -- the number of people on Earth is expected to grow from
6.5 billion today to 9 billion by the second half of the 21st
century -- then we will inhabit a planet where life becomes
increasingly untenable because of two looming crises: global
heating, and the degradation of the natural systems on which we all
depend.
Our species' negative impact on our own life-support systems can be
approximated by the equation I=PAT. In that equation, the size of
the population (P) is multiplied by the average affluence or
consumption per individual (A), and that in turn is multiplied by
some measure of the technology (T) that services and drives the
consumption. Thus commuting in automobiles powered by subsidized
fossil fuels on proliferating freeways creates a much greater T
factor than commuting on bikes using simple paths or working at
home on a computer network. The product of P, A, and T is Impact
(I), a rough estimate of how much humanity is degrading the
ecosystem services it depends upon.
***The equation is not rocket science. Two billion people, all else
being equal, put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than one
billion people. Two billion rich people disrupt the climate more
than two billion poor people. Three hundred million Americans
consume more petroleum than 1.3 billion Chinese. And driving an SUV
is using a far more environmentally malign transportation
technology than riding mass transit.***
***The technological dimensions of our predicament -- such as the
need for alternatives to fossil fuel energy -- are frequently
discussed if too little acted upon. Judging from media reports and
the statements of politicians, environmental problems, to the
degree they are recognized, can be solved by minor changes in
technologies and recycling (T). Switching to ultra-light, fuel-
efficient cars will obviously give some short-term advantage, but
as population and consumption grow, they will pour still more
carbon dioxide (and vaporized rubber) into the atmosphere and
require more natural areas to be buried under concrete. More
recycling will help, but many of our society's potentially most
dangerous effluents (such as hormone-mimicking chemicals) cannot
practically be recycled. **There is no technological change we can
make that will permit growth in either human numbers or material
affluence to continue to expand. In the face of this, the neglect
of the intertwined issues of population and consumption is
stunning.*****
*****Many past human societies have collapsed under the weight of
overpopulation and environmental neglect, but today the
civilization in peril is global.** The population factor in what
appears to be a looming catastrophe is even greater than most
people suppose. Each person added today to the population on
average causes more damage to humanity's critical life-support
systems than did the previous addition -- everything else being
equal. The reason is simple: Homo sapiens became the dominant
animal by being smart. Farmers didn't settle first on poor soils
where water was scarce, but rather in rich river valleys. That's
where most cities developed, where rich soils are now being paved
over for roads and suburbs, and where water supplies are being
polluted or overexploited.***
***As a result, to support additional people it is necessary to
move to ever poorer lands, drill wells deeper, or tap increasingly
remote sources to obtain water -- and then spend more energy to
transport that water ever greater distances to farm fields, homes,
and factories. Our distant ancestors could pick up nearly pure
copper on Earth's surface when they started to use metals; now
people must use vast amounts of energy to mine and smelt gigantic
amounts of copper ore of ever poorer quality, some in
concentrations of less than one percent. The same can be said for
other important metals. And petroleum can no longer be found easily
on or near the surface, but must be gleaned from wells drilled a
mile or more deep, often in inaccessible localities, such as under
continental shelves beneath the sea. All of the paving, drilling,
fertilizer manufacturing, pumping, smelting, and transporting
needed to provide for the consumption of burgeoning numbers of
people produces greenhouse gases and thus tightens the connection
between population and climate disruption.***
So why is the topic of overpopulation so generally ignored? There
are some obvious reasons. Attempts by governments to limit their
nation's population growth are anathema to those on the right who
believe the only role for governments in the bedroom is to force
women to take unwanted babies to term. Those on the left fear, with
some legitimacy, that population control could turn racist or
discriminatory in other ways -- for example, attempting to reduce
the numbers of minorities or the poor. Many fear the specter of
more of "them" compared to "us," and all of us fear loss of liberty
and economic decline (since population growth is often claimed
necessary for economic health). And there are religious leaders who
still try to promote over-reproduction by their flocks, though in
much of the world their efforts are largely futile (Catholic
countries in Europe tend to be low-birthrate leaders, for example).
But much of the responsibility must go to ignorance, which leads
mainstream media, even newspapers like The New York Times, to
maintain a pro-natalist stance. For example, the Times had an
article on June 29 about a "baby bust" in industrialized countries
in which the United States (still growing) was noted as a
"sparkling exception." Beyond the media, great foundations have
turned their "population programs" away from encouraging low
fertility rates and toward topics like "changing sexual mores" --
avoiding discussion of the contribution demographics is making to a
possible collapse of civilization.
Silence on the overconsumption (Affluence) factor in the I=PAT
equation is more readily explained. Consumption is still viewed as
an unalloyed good by many economists, along with business leaders
and politicians, who tend to see jacking up consumption as a cure-
all for economic ills. Too much unemployment? Encourage people to
buy an SUV or a new refrigerator. Perpetual growth is the creed of
the cancer cell, but third-rate economists can't think of anything
else. Some leading economists are starting to tackle the issue of
overconsumption, but the problem and its cures are tough to
analyze. Scientists have yet to develop consumption condoms or
morning-after-shopping-spree pills.
And, of course, there are the vexing problems of consumption of
people in poor countries. On one hand, a billion or more people
have problems of underconsumption. Unless their basic needs are
met, they are unlikely to be able to make important contributions
to attaining sustainability. On the other hand, there is also the
issue of the "new consumers" in developing economies such as China
and India, where the wealth of a sizable minority is permitting
them to acquire the consumption habits (e.g., eating a lot of meat
and driving automobiles) of the rich nations. Consumption
regulation is a lot more complex than population regulation, and it
is much more difficult to find humane and equitable solutions to
the problem.
The dominant animal is wasting its brilliance and its wonderful
achievements; civilization's fate is being determined by decision
makers who determinedly look the other way in favor of immediate
comfort and profit. Thousands of scientists recently participated
in a Millennium Ecosystem Assessment that outlined our current
environmental dilemma, but the report's dire message made very
little impact. Absent attention to that message, the fates of
Easter Island, the Classic Maya civilization, and Nineveh -- all of
which collapsed following environmental degradation -- await us all.
We believe it is possible to avoid that global denouement. Such
mobilization means developing some consensus on goals -- perhaps
through a global dialogue in which people discuss the human
predicament and decide whether they would like to see a maximum
number of people living at a minimum standard of living, or perhaps
a much lower population size that gives individuals a broad choice
of lifestyles. We have suggested a forum for such a dialogue,
modeled partly on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
but with more "bottom up" participation. It is clear that only
widespread changes in norms can give humanity a chance of attaining
a sustainable and reasonably conflict-free society.
How to achieve such change -- involving everything from demographic
policies and transformation of planet-wide energy, industrial, and
agricultural systems, to North-South and interfaith relationships
and military postures -- is a gigantic challenge to everyone.
Politicians, industrialists, ecologists, social scientists,
everyday citizens, and the media must join this debate. Whether it
is possible remains to be seen; societies have managed to make
major transitions in the recent past, as the civil rights
revolution in the United States and the collapse of communism in
the Soviet Union clearly demonstrate.
We'll continue to hope and work for a cultural transformation in
how we treat each other and the natural systems we depend upon. We
can create a peaceful and sustainable global civilization, but it
will require realistic thinking about the problems we face and a
new mobilization of political will.
Paul and Anne Ehrlich are in the Department of Biology and the
Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University, where he is
Bing Professor of Population Studies and Professor of Biological
Sciences and she is Senior Research Associate. Their latest
book,The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment
(Island Press), focuses on the issues cited in this article and
includes references.
The above was posted to an internet discussion group by
Jack Alpert
(C) 913 708 2554
(O) 913 248 0016
http://www.skil.org
Comments to the above article:
There are some "impossible" things that we must determine by fiat to be
possible, because the alternatives are impossible in the sense of horrible
beyond all imagining.
And we know (1) from the principles of quantum
mechanics that in an absolute sense, nothing is impossible, and (2) from
our personal experience and the concepts of right and wrong and the rule of
law, that the existence of human free will has not been definitively
disproven or abandoned.
Therefore, the only proper question with regard to
Jack's proposal for RPD through small family size, is not whether it is
feasible but how it will be implemented.
Perhaps apropos, I had a conversation today with someone about a means for
preserving the incredibly beautiful landscape in which we live. She
remarked, with some indredulity, "You certainly think outside the box."
After chewing on this for an hour or so, I responded, "The box is defined as
follows:
Statistically, all things beautiful are ultimately destroyed.
The Sabbath is upon us. Please pray to your God and ask Him, 'Was it Your
intent that all things beautiful ultimately be destroyed? If so, why
should I maintain my continuing loyalty to You? If not, was it not your
intent instead that we think outside the box?' Please report back to me on
Monday what you learned." An OK excercise, no matter Who our God may be,
even if His name is "Eternal Growth,"
Nick
PS. Jack, I am fascinated by your remark that you persuaded ZPG [Zero Population Growth] to change
it name. At the time of the name change, I interpreted it from afar,
apparently erroneously, as the foremost population-control organiztion's
device for joining the major environmental organizations' conspiracy of
silence on population control. My interpretation was later "confirmed" in
my head by statements (maybe from Lester Brown, then at Worldwatch?) that
population "balance," the apparent new goal of he former ZPG, included
population growth where appropriate economically, including in Russia,
therefore allowing "sustainable growth" to replace both zero growth and
negative growth as goals. Was I totally wrong in my somewhat cynical
interpretation of the made-over "ZPG"? Even NPG [Negative Population Growth] in its public statements
in recent years has seemed to court the concept of "sustainable growth."
> [Original Message]
> From: Jack Alpert
> To:
> Cc: Britt-Marie's eco list ;
> Date: 8/9/2008 2:27:05 AM
> Subject: Re: The Problem Is Simple: Too Many People, Too Much Stuff - by
Paul and Anne Erlich
>
> Thanks Steve,
>
> I did submit a reply. Paul and Anne shaped my life and I know them
> personally.
>
> -- here is what I submitted---
>
>
> I like the Ehrlichs. I have known them since my first meeting with
> them at Stanford in 1976, where I said, "ZPG is an oxymoron because
> if we had it today it would not create the future conditions hoped
> for in the mission statement of the organization. Yes, Anne threw me
> out of the office. (It took me until 1998 to get ZPG to change its
> name.)
>
> I study why people don't understand that the good future, almost
> everyone wants for their kids, requires rapid population decline.
> Maybe down to less than 100 million people globally.
>
> How do we create that level of RPD? Paul and Anne may have the first
> part right. "People will starve." The next parts might be caused
> by disease, social conflict and even genocide.
>
> However, my preference to achieve RPD is universal "None or one child
> per family" behaviors. That could half the population every 25
> years. Sure it is hard to implement. But do you like the
> alternatives better.
>
> Jack Alpert
> www.skil.org
> On Aug 8, 2008, at 5:20 PM, Steve Kurtz wrote:
>
(Thanks to Bill T)
http://www.alternet.org/water/94268/?page=entire
|
previous
ecostory 
86/2008
next
of 12 billion people by 2050 is at odds with the usual prognostics of 8 to 9 billion by the middle of this century.
to 
halt 