Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 3, 2014
As the world’s population grows, are we borrowing from mankind’s future?
Environmental apostles are only too ready to tell us what is wrong with society. But they go mum over the subject of people — specifically, too many people.
Doug Struck
Author Alan Weisman.
One need not drill very far into any given assault on the environment to find an explanation in the world’s hurtling population. The “hockey stick” graph showing the exponential rise in greenhouse gases — the Holy Grail of climate change scenarios — mirrors the graph of the increase in human population.
That is no coincidence.
Our planetary presence was fairly small for 200,000 years, inched toward 2 billion by 1930, and then rocketed skyward. It is now at about 7.3 billion, and expected to rise to 10 billion, give or take a billion, just after mid-century. We are growing, noted author Alan Weisman, at the clip of a million people every 4½ days — tripling or quadrupling our numbers just in the course of one lifetime.
In doing so, we are fouling the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, poisoning the land with chemicals, turning our seas into acid and emptying them of fish, sucking up water and other resources far faster than they can be replenished.
Yet environmentalists have been loath to say the obvious: The world needs to stop having so many babies.
“They don’t want to touch this. It’s very explosive, very sensitive,” said Weisman, who appeared on a panel this week at the Boston Center for the Arts to talk about population. “The idea of not reproducing feels somehow unnatural,” he noted. “And then there is religion.”
Weisman has given a lot of thought about the end-game of the population explosion. He wrote “The World Without Us,” a sobering description of how quickly the traces of mankind would be swallowed by nature if we ceased to exist. (He did not specify the cause of our demise; the suspects make a lengthy list.) Now Weisman has written “Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth?” a prescription for a planet-friendly and smaller population gotten there through birth control, education, and equality for women.
He appeared on the panel as part of a series of talks on “The Future of Nature,” sponsored by The Nature Conservancy.
Preaching for a smaller population leads immediately to the question of who is not supposed to have babies, and that quickly gets into electrified topics of class, culture, affluence, and racism, noted another panelist, Roger-Mark De Souza, a population expert with the Wilson Center.
“There is a history around population issues that is associated with eugenics, with population control programs, with forced sterilization,” he noted. “It brings up questions of abortion, of immigration, of youth sexuality. A lot of environmental organizations say, Why should conservation organizations deal with this? It’s too far from our mission. You have to be very careful.”
But Caroline Crosbie, of Pathfinder International, a reproductive rights group, said the aversion to advocacy of birth control is easing, as education levels increase and strictures relax. “There’s been a change in most developing countries. The US is going in the reverse direction,” she said.
Most religions have some version of “go forth and multiply” among their tenets. But many religions are recognizing the reality of the need for reproductive limits, and even the Catholic Church’s “rhythm method” of birth control is a grudging nod in that direction, said Crosbie.
But the real question for environmentalists — and for society — is how many people are enough people for the earth. Scientists pose the question as the “carrying capacity” of the planet — a vaguely technical term that suggests the answer is a simple matter of calculating the finite resources of earth and determining if we will run out.
Of course we will run out, but the calculation is not so simple. When Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” was published in 1968, society was alarmed by their prediction of massive starvation in the 1970s because, they said, the planet could not possibly support too many more than the 3.5 billion people who lived when the book was published.
But we barreled through that limit at high speed, thanks largely to a “green revolution” of greatly accelerated agricultural production on the back of fossil fuel-based fertilizers. Many feel we have now reached the practical limits of that revolution, and some believe that food made through genetically modified organisms will give us our next burst of nutrition at a yet-unknown risk to other biology.
In truth, most estimates say we already have far exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth, and we are borrowing from mankind’s future. But how much are we borrowing, and how soon will that debt come due? “The correct number,” Weisman noted, “is not one anybody can know for sure.”
15 Comments on "As the world’s population grows, are we borrowing from mankind’s future?"
DC on Sat, 3rd May 2014 6:31 am
‘We’ have been borrowing form the future since at least 1980, or earlier. We are definitely doing it right now-every single day. The area I live in has paved over some of the best topsoil in the province to build roads, strip malls and ‘retirement communities’. 200k plus people that are supported entirely by energy, and more importantly, food, from ‘somewhere else’. If the system crashed, I doubt 20k could survive in the entire valley, and even that number is likely highly optimistic.
Norm on Sat, 3rd May 2014 6:46 am
I hate stupid articles like this that admonish all the Ph D chemists rocket scientists and heart surgeons to not have any kids. In truth its all the stupid people who breed, too stupid to spell their own name, but have 6 kids and 18 grand kids. And they breed on welfare all the Section 8 welfare mammies. Tell THOSE idiot retards to stop breeding and get rid of their welfare checks. But this article just hassles smart people to mot have any kids.
Kenz300 on Sat, 3rd May 2014 7:15 am
Quote — “Environmental apostles are only too ready to tell us what is wrong with society. But they go mum over the subject of people — specifically, too many people.”
“Environmentalists have been loath to say the obvious: The world needs to stop having so many babies.
“They don’t want to touch this. It’s very explosive, very sensitive,” said Weisman,
——————————–
The world adds 80 million more mouths to feed, clothe and provide energy for every year. This is not sustainable.
The worlds worst environmental problem is OVER POPULATION.
Birth Control Pictures: Types, Side Effects, Costs, & Effectiveness
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/ss/slideshow-birth-control-options?ecd=wnl_day_050114&ctr=wnl-day-050114_ld-stry_2&mb=dtfWIHfXZxtqE9pudELmLeHnVev1imbCq%2f0xB3s74mA%3d
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sat, 3rd May 2014 8:13 am
It is obvious we are in overshoot in multiple areas and these areas of overshoot are inclusive and reinforcing. We are in a bottleneck trap with no options other than a die off. The big question is when. We have a number of brick walls ahead for the train wreck. The first is a financial crisis, second energy crisis, 3rd a climate crisis and all of these crisis are present now and influencing the others. These are just primary issues in front of us that will wreck status quo BAU from its normal behavior. You need to add to this geopolitical risks, nuk waste and wmd’s, pollution, food/water stress, and other vital resource depletions. The biggest issue is the systematic risk of running a complex interconnect global system supporting most locals. The system will break down without complex distributions, control, and confidence in exchange. Things will shut down economically with major disruptions in multiple ways that reinforce the decent. All the variables are in place to initiate a “Minsky Moment” event not unlike 2008. Yet this does not have to be a financial event it could be an energy event but almost all events lead to the financial element breaking down. Without trade, exchange, and physical goods distribution food security and control security break down. “When” is the million dollar question not IF!
Boat on Sat, 3rd May 2014 9:36 am
I would guess wars will disrupt distribution networks in areas affecting everything. I feel bad for the Ukraine. The last thing the world needed.
GregT on Sat, 3rd May 2014 10:52 am
“are we borrowing from mankind’s future?”
No we are not. We can only borrow something if there is a possibility of giving it back. We are taking, or probably more accurately, stealing from our children’s futures.
Just as ‘curiosity killed the cat’, greed will kill the human beings. Billions of them.
Boat on Sat, 3rd May 2014 11:15 am
Back in 1880 the US 50% average family had 5+ children and farmed. 35% of families had 7+ children. Now the avg. is around 1.9. It takes 2.1 to break even. Now over 50% of the population has 1 or 2 per household. So given this dramatic change why would we assume the change won’t continue.
Immigration is the only thing raising the population. Why we cling to growth for growth sake as policy I don’t fully understand but it seems common sense isn’t involved.
I have these ideas those who run a business want more. Anyway to make a dollar getting subsided by the entire population for the greed of sustainable growth.
If I own a restaurant and I need a cheap dishwasher, I don’t care where it comes from. Just don’t ask me to pay for that kids education and health care.
GregT on Sat, 3rd May 2014 12:55 pm
Boat,
As long as we have a fiat based monetary system, with attached interest to be repaid, we are tied to a system that requires infinite exponential growth. When growth slows, like it already has, the system becomes riddled with debt, like it is. When growth is no longer possible, the system will collapse.
Infinite exponential growth, in a finite environment, is not only unsustainable, it is impossible. Policy makers understand this. They have no choices other than continuing to promote unsustainable growth, or to promote collapse. Any politician that promoted collapse would never be elected. Collapse will happen chaotically, on it’s own, when limits to growth are met.
We are already pushing up against the limits to growth.
energyskeptic on Sat, 3rd May 2014 1:00 pm
John Howe makes the case that not even 1 child per woman in the USA would keep us under the depletion curve:
http://energyskeptic.com/2014/john-howe-on-1-child-per-woman-still-too-high-to-stay-under-oil-depletion-curve/
Still, that would lessen the number of people dying overall, and perhaps allow for some political and social stability, or much less evil dictators coming into power…
Boat on Sat, 3rd May 2014 1:34 pm
People will spend money for value. A better product that has more features. People will spend money to save money. I don’t think it takes an intellectual leap to think we could manage degrowth even if we don’t have a history of it.
A smaller population and a smaller carbon foot print for a cheaper price does not have to be doom for an economy.
Boat on Sat, 3rd May 2014 2:01 pm
Let’s take a mind trip and look at the US military. We have what? 1,700 nuclear weapons? In the 60’s we had what was it? 36,000. I don’t know if it’s accurate but I read that if 10 large cities were nuked the resulting ash would put the world in climate freeze. So what if we kept 200 (still capable of killing the world many times over). Yes drop of jobs. Yes drop in GDP. Yes still a deterrent and no weakening of the military. These folks that make and deploy these weapons receive a lot of training so lets assume they are trainable. So what if we didn’t immigrate the number of employees that lost their jobs and retrained them. How is that not a win win all the way around. Wouldn’t this be called managed degrowth that would be a positive?
Have you read about the rail gun? Couldn’t that tech possible displace tanks, a lot of the navy, artillery?
What about a flat/consumption tax. We would no longer need tax accountants? Make up for their numbers by no immigration? A net win win. Still no loss in strength in the military, only a more efficient one with less manpower and cheaper deterrents.
I bet each of you could find dozens of big changes that have more value for less manpower, smaller cost, more efficient and still be more effective footprint. Why this seems so impossible to many I haven’t figured out yet.
GregT on Sat, 3rd May 2014 5:08 pm
Boat,
You clearly do not have an understanding of how our monetary system works. The system requires growth or it ceases to exist. Degrowth is not possible within the current system.
While I do agree that degrowth is the only way forward. The current system must collapse, or be collapsed first.
Boat on Sat, 3rd May 2014 5:15 pm
So tell me GregT. What constitutes a crash? 2008?, the great depression? or does 98% of humanity have to die and only those with spear chucking skills survive.
GregT on Sat, 3rd May 2014 5:48 pm
Boat,
The great depression would seem to me to be a good example, at the start. As transportation fuels become less affordable, and less available, the situation will continue to degrade further. Food production and distribution will become very problematic.
Our entire societies have been built up around one key resource. When that key resource goes into decline, so does everything that relies on that key resource. Look around you, and describe all of the items that haven’t become available to you because of oil. In the room that I am currently sitting in, I can’t find a single one.
Chris Martenson has a good introduction to our predicament. It can be found here:
http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse
He explains how our monetary system works, and most importantly, the relationships between energy, economics, and the environment.
There are a plethora of good books, videos, and internet resources available. I have been studying this subject for the past 14 years, it is somewhat difficult to summarize in a few sentences, or paragraphs.
Spear chucking might be OK, but I myself personally have invested in more modern technologies.
Newfie on Sat, 3rd May 2014 6:11 pm
We are not borrowing from the future. We are stealing from it. We are destroying the future. Man is the species that destroys the future.
“The most significant characteristic of modern civilization is the sacrifice of the future for the present, and all the power of science has been prostituted for this purpose.” – William James