Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on December 10, 2013
Population growth rate bodes decline in living standards
In 1972 a group of scientists, known collectively as the Club of Rome, constructed a detailed mathematical model to test whether population growth and economic development could continue indefinitely and if not, what the limits to growth and its manifestations would be.
Their findings were published in a report called The Limits to Growth. The standard future scenario in their computer projections showed positive growth in both the population and the economy until the mid-21st century – and then a decline. The public responded firstly with a mixture of alarm and scepticism, and then disinterest. But in recent years there has been renewed interest in this body of work, including a recent article in The Conversation, with updated studies showing that we are on track to realise the standard scenario in The Limits to Growth.
Our current trajectory suggests that the world system will realise a decline in living standards. There needs to be a shift in the global economy that moves away from wellbeing measures based on GDP, and which embraces new meaningful measures of progress, as well as better accounting of resources and people.
In population growth we are now beyond the point of inflexion. For tens of thousands of years the rate of population growth has been increasing. But since midway through the second half of the 20th century this rate has been decreasing. Most population modellers anticipate population rates midway through the 21st century to remain steady, or decline.
The rate of economic growth also appears to be slowing. In standard macro-economic models, slower population growth also translates to slower economic growth. The other key driver of economic growth, productivity, usually requires capital investment and borrowing from future generations, but this too would be hard to support with a declining population.
Against this backdrop it is a good time to revisit The Limits to Growth. We have the data and computational power to answer questions such as: where are we now? and where are we going? But we also need to answer: where do we want to be? What do we need to do to get there? Our default scenario is surely not ideal. Is it possible to construct a new world economy that can deliver a more optimal outcome?
Many leading thinkers around the world have begun to address these issues. One of the lead authors of The Limits to Growth, Jorgen Randers, has re-examined future scenarios in 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years.
He argues that rich nations should change their goal from one of economic growth to that of “increased happiness in a situation of stable income and declining population”. This sentiment is echoed by both Graeme Maxton, leading economist and author of The End of Progress, while Charles Sturt University Professor of Public Ethics Clive Hamilton observes that in our developed economies, “people buy things they don’t need, with money they don’t have, to impress people they don’t like”.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has been leading the world in developing new measures of progress and wellbeing. ABS Deputy Australian Statistician Peter Harper is overseeing Measures of Australia’s Progress (MAP), which moves away from using GDP as a key measure of a nation’s progress and instead considers progress to be “multi-dimensional covering a range of economic, social, environmental and, more recently, governance concerns”.
Peter Victor, a Professor of Environmental Studies at York University, and author of Managing without Growth: Slower by Design, not Disaster, has undertaken detailed simulations of the Canadian economy without economic growth as a goal. He finds that “it is possible to have full employment, eradicate poverty, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and maintain fiscal balance without economic growth”.
Another important step to progress towards a sustainable economy with improved wellbeing is to build better connections between resources and people and the economy. This has been the driving message of Columbia University economist Graciela Chichilnisky, the architect of the carbon emissions trading scheme underpinning the Kyoto Protocol. In Australia, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, led by Director Peter Cosier, has recently developed a tool, Accounting for Nature, which connects the state of the environment and the economy in an accounting framework. These economic reforms can drive investment in sustainable technologies.
We live in a time unprecedented in human history, where the limits to growth are in clear sight. It is time for an intelligent and informed discussion that goes beyond political horizons.
7 Comments on "Population growth rate bodes decline in living standards"
DC on Wed, 11th Dec 2013 1:30 am
Do they not teach math anymore@Phys.org? The RATE of increase might be down slightly. That does NOT mean that population is dropping, not even close. My country, to satisfy corporate demand for lower wages and more consumers, adds 250k a year. The US, still adding over a million. The world, as we all well know here, +80 million.
Nor do there conclusion match any know facts. The decline in living standards is a function of depleting resources+increasing numbers, not the slight decline in the *rate* of population growth. Smaller slice of the resource pie for more people and all that. If anything, a lower population would lead to *increased* standards of living. But since the population is NOT decreasing, which bizzarly is what phys.org seems to think, living standards will keep declining.
Which is what we saw happening after the black death culled Europe’s excess population during the dark ages. With a 1/3 of population gone, more land was available, more food per person, wages went up. But, even if the population were to magically stabilize of is own volition, the dream of mush-headed ‘liberals’ everywhere, living standards will still decline since a ‘stable’ population of 8-10 billion will keep trying to increase living standards on a depleting resource base.
I think the author should go back and a complete rewrite. I have to grade this article an F.
BillT on Wed, 11th Dec 2013 1:33 am
“Population growth rate bodes decline in living standards”
WOW! Really! Who could have guessed!
Of course it will, but only for the 13% using 60# of the world’s resources. The other 6,000,000,000+ will have their living standards improved a bit.
It is the Westerners and their wannabes that will feel the pain, and about time! It has already started for most of us and is only going to get worse for the rest of our lives, so adjust!
dashster on Wed, 11th Dec 2013 3:07 am
@BillT – How will living standards improve in the third world?
rollin on Wed, 11th Dec 2013 3:29 am
These people think in term of smooth functions and extrapolations. World population could start increasing at a rapid rate or more likely decreasing rapidly (due to significant predicaments). The change can occur in a very short time and be more of a sawtooth than a smooth curve.
DC brings up a good point concerning increased standards of living on a depleting resource base.
Even with a smaller population base, resources can be overrun by extravagant and wasteful lifestyles. Society needs to change it’s modus operandi to form a balance between resources and use.
DC on Wed, 11th Dec 2013 3:59 am
Yes, exactly that was what I was getting at. The Black Death is probably about best example we have that we can study concerning the effects of a rapid population die-off. Now, you would think, that losing 1/3 of the you entire continents population would be an um-mitigated disaster no? TEOTWAWKI? Complete collapse of European Civilization?
We know from historical accounts, that no doubt to the average person and probably even a few of the ruling elite, probably thought jus that. But what actually happened, was not a collapse. In fact, quite the opposite happened. Land was freed up, new opportunities were created were few existed before, wages went up for the working class for the first time in well…pretty much since the fall of Rome. Its also helped kick start the long march out of the dark ages. The obstructionist and ignorant Catholics Church’s power was severely weakened, which again, helped smooth the way for the Renaissance.
However, civilization, even in the dark ages was obviously more resilient than than even they gave themselves credit for. Europe came out of a full 3rd of the population dieing off better for it.
Contrast this with todays attitude about population growth. Many of our so-called ‘leaders’ absolutely go into fits if the rate of population *growth* slows even a little. No plagues, no pox, no four horsemen, and our ‘leaders’ start pissing themselves at the mere thought of population growth tapering off, even in the absence of anything near as dramatic as a plague. These days, our media and pundits characterize it as a crisis merely because the population is getting older.
Dark ages Europe made it though the worst pandemic in history, without the aid of any medicine and Xtian priests running around screaming about ‘gawds judgement’ and generally being no help whatsoever. They did however do one thing useful, and that was die in great numbers. If modern civilization faced a sudden 1/3 loss of its population, I have serious doubts we could survive it. The sudden loss of 1/3 of the population could just as easily take the other 2/3′ with them as well. We are far less resilient than our ancestors in too many areas.
No, the only way out, is a natural, but steady decrease in our numbers. Not just small drops in the rate of increase lol! Small localized plagues, wars and famines would help speed things along-provided none of them got too out of hand.
dashster on Wed, 11th Dec 2013 10:36 am
Historians will marvel at how population growth and peak oil were both of so little concern at this point in time. Although it might not make any difference. Many many people are concerned about global warming, and yet nothing is done about it.
Juan Pueblo on Fri, 13th Dec 2013 4:19 pm
Great comments!
@DC: I agree with everything you said except your conclusion that a 1/3 die off would have bad consequences right now, I think it would slow climate change and buy some time for the survivors. the effect would be similar to the plague. The end eventually will be the same: total environmental destruction.
It is distressing to be put in a situation where one has to consider that the sudden death of billions might have a positive effect on life on Earth.