Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on June 10, 2014
There are not enough resources to support the world’s population
The world’s population is now well over seven billion and growing. We have reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain our population exceeds what is available, argues Professor John Guillebaud from University College London.
Many years ago, as a second year medical student, I attended a lecture on human population by my tutor at Cambridge, Colin Bertram. He argued as a biologist that relentless population increase by any species is always ultimately unsustainable; numbers increase to the limits of the carrying capacity of their environment and when they overshoot this, their numbers always collapse. If we allow unremitting population growth to continue we humans cannot escape the same fate; however cleverly we might adapt to all the different environments on earth, we only have one finite planet to live on and 70 per cent of it is salt water, and half of the remainder is desert, mountain, icecap or fast-disappearing forest.
Dr Bertram’s lecture startled me and established the direction of my medical career. I felt some guilt that doctors had inadvertently caused the population problem through vastly better death control while birth rates remained high. I decided that, as an about-to-be doctor, I should try to restore balance, and what more appropriate medical specialty could there be than family planning? So I arranged higher training in gynaecology (specialising in hormonal and intrauterine contraception) and also in surgery (hence my career total of 5000 vasectomies and ongoing research into a new male pill).
On a finite planet sustainability is not an option, it’s just a matter of how it is achieved. Will the imbalance be corrected by literally billions of deaths or by fewer births?
John Guillebaud
None of us in those days was worried specifically about climate change. As we’ve just been reminded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that environmental problem is terrifying enough, especially given the risk of runaway positive feedbacks, caused, for example, by methane release from permafrost. Even so, that is far from being the only life-threatening global problem. The UK government’s chief scientist and the last president of the Royal Society have highlighted the imminence of a ‘perfect storm’: water, food and fossil fuel scarcity. Reliable reports on the planet’s health such as The United Nations’ Global Environment Outlook have found water, land, plants, animals and fish stocks are all ‘in inexorable decline’. Already by 2002 it was calculated that 97 per cent of all vertebrate flesh on land was human flesh plus that of our food animals (cows, pigs, sheep etc), leaving just three per cent for all wild vertebrate species on land. Not to mention the obliteration of wild life in the oceans through acidification, pollution and massive over-fishing.
Regarding human numbers there is some good news: the total fertility rate or average family size of the world has halved since 1950, when it was over five, to about 2.5 (where 2.1 would be replacement level). The bad news is that despite this, the 58 highest fertility countries are projected to triple their numbers by 2100. In a majority of all countries there is also persistent population momentumcreated by ‘bulges’ of young people born in high fertility years.
Therefore, the UN warns bluntly that world population, now well over seven billion ‘has reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available’. The annual population increase of over 80 million equates to a city for 1.5 million people having to be built, somewhere, every week—with, inevitably, ever more greenhouse gas emissions and the continuing destruction of forests and wetlands, with their multiple habitats for the web of life on which all species depend.
This is not exactly a bundle of laughs, yet it is solidly evidence-based, as any impartial scientific observer will attest. Those who are not so impartial routinely prefer to ‘shoot the messenger’ or behave like an ostrich.
The Worldwide Fund for Nature calculates that by 2050, humankind will need 100 per cent more of the planet’s total biocapacity (forestry, fisheries, croplands) than there is. What are the prospects of finding another planet for humans to plunder by 2050? On a finite planet sustainability is not an option, it’s just a matter of how it is achieved. Will the imbalance be corrected by literally billions of deaths or by fewer births? How strange, given the evidence, that population growth and contraception remain largely taboo.
Those who consume way beyond their share, the rich over-consumers in every country, must certainly massively reduce their environmental footprints, but the ‘number of feet’ is also relevant. Often statements like this are assumed to refer to the poor, but our organisation, Population Matters, stresses that affluent parents must also seriously consider having one less child than they may have planned. The guideline is just two for replacement.
Listen: Apocalyptic concerns over world population not new
All this is hardly rocket science: indeed you could hardly have a better example of Ockham’s razor. Surely, continuing business as usual involves far more unrealistically optimistic assumptions than the precautionary approach. The precautionary approach requires proper resourcing of voluntary family planning services, which still receive a derisory less than one per cent of world aid for reproductive health, and the removal through education and the media of the many barriers that continue to stop millions of women from having the choice to access methods of contraception. This is not an alternative to the other crucial precautionary measure: reducing the size of humanity’s mean environmental footprint. Both are vital; they are two sides of the same coin.
When the camel collapses with a broken back, the last straw did not really do it. It was the fault of all the straws. To achieve environmental sustainability, everyone must be involved.
When a field of common land is right at the point of being over-grazed, Garret Hardin called it ‘the tragedy of the commons’. This is because each herdsman continues to find it advantageous, personally and for his family, to put yet one more cow on the land, and another and another—even if the later new arrivals are thinner and less productive than before—right up to the point that the grazing limit is finally exceeded and all the cows die and all the families suffer. Fishermen behave similarly when there is a nearly over-exploited fishery. Given any resource that is held in common, the private gain of the individual is thus at the shared cost of the whole group, progressively and ultimately catastrophically.
Hardin said the way to avoid these tragedies was ‘mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon’, meaning everyone agreeing to be regulated by peer-pressure, along with agreed fiscal incentives and disincentives. So in the fishery example, each fisherman takes an agreed smaller quota, which is sustainable. However, not every relevant thing that happens in the environmental commons can be so regulated. The multiple decisions made by each individual about cycling or walking rather than going by car, switching off air conditioners or choosing to have a small family are difficult to influence. When push comes to shove—especially when we see so much continuing gluttony in energy use by large corporations—all of us can feel wonder what the point of helping the environment is when it seems like nobody else does
Which brings me to my own project, the Eco Time Capsule. Generally, time capsules record a particular time and place for posterity, and are buried without any future date for unearthing in mind. The time capsules we buried in 1994 were different. The concept came to me through that well-known saying: ‘We have not inherited the earth from our grandparents, we have borrowed it from our grandchildren.’ I reflected on how angry our grandchildren are likely to be if we continue to wreck their loan to us. With 25 years as the usually accepted average duration of a generation, our grandchildren would be people living 50 years ahead. So this project was addressed to the people of 2044.
The time capsules contained environmentally-relevant items and were buried with letters of apology at significant sites around the world: in the Kew Gardens in London and Ness Gardens near Liverpool, in Mexico, Pietermaritzburg in South Africa, the Seychelles and at Mount Annan near Sydney.
Children were—and still are—central to this project, since they are the prime stakeholders for a decent, sustainable future. In 1994 more than 1,000 entered two competitions, one for the best brief letter or poem addressed to the finder in 2044; the other for the most striking and original ideas for appropriate artefacts to go in the capsules. My own choices for sustainability symbols were a bicycle pump and a packet of contraceptive pills.
We felt it was essential to apologise. However, more important and empowering was the pledge to do everything possible to save the planet by individual and united action. The goal is that the finders of the capsules in the year 2044 will wonder why we apologised.
John Guillebaud is Emeritus Professor of Family Planning and Reproductive Health at University College London. Ockham’s Razor is a soap box for all things scientific, with short talks about research, industry and policy from people with something thoughtful to say about science.
31 Comments on "There are not enough resources to support the world’s population"
Beery on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 5:37 am
“We have reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain our population exceeds what is available”
Well, the fact that our population exists at the level it’s at kinda argues against that.
“Those who consume way beyond their share, the rich over-consumers in every country, must certainly massively reduce their environmental footprints”
Nonsense! The rich will continue to consume way beyond their share and they’ll continue to impact the environment unfairly until they are not rich anymore. Humans never “voluntarily” reduce their share of the pie – that’s just not how we work.
Look, the population will automatically level off at a sustainable level – it can’t do anything else. Worrying about population overgrowth isn’t going to change anything.
Kenz300 on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 5:39 am
Every year the world adds 80 million more people to feed, clothe, house and provide energy for. This is not sustainable.
Overpopulation facts – the problem no one will discuss: Alexandra Paul at TEDxTopanga – YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNxctzyNxC0
Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 6:30 am
We see in complex system that when a break occurs from strong forcing and disequilibrium that system’s failure is catastrophic and there is no recovery hence it enter a new state normally at a greatly reduced state of complexity. This is most true in the realm of artificial systems like our current human system. I say artificial because it is a system that has managed a partial short lived decoupling from nature and has created its own dynamics based upon technology, energy intensity and command/control. Yet, our vital ecosystems of support for example the ocean or the tropical rainforests are nearing a collapse. Our most productive agricultural regions are experiencing pollution, water stress, development pressure and soil loss. We are in all practical measures at the limits of growth facing predicaments that have reached diminishing returns. They are intractable problems that are not being solved. It is just a matter of time before our financial system breaks from disequilibrium and energy production falls from peak oil dynamics. Population most likely will suffer a die off to some extent either long or short term depending on the drop in economic activity. We can be sure that the weak link of food availability and vital distribution of food will be stressed leading to food insecurity, hunger, and most likely third world famines. Food is the weak link and will influence the failure of states and regions. This failure of states will destroy the financial system and the interconnected just in time global system. When BAU corrects so will population. Efficiency and the energy intensity of the current food system will not hold and cannot continue to support population growth. Water stress is also right there and a partner with food stress. Expect food issues also from AGW. So “NO” population not grow much and will go into decline much sooner than the academics forecast with their fancy graphs and predictions. When chaos enters a system dysfunction and irrationality result. These issues are a dangerous combination in a highly brittle complex system that has maximized efficiency at the expense of resilience and sustainability. The end of BAU is near and so is population growth.
Makati1 on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 6:54 am
“There are not enough resources to support the world’s population”
Well, actually, there is, IF they were equally divided. And, IF we stopped eating beef, (grain and water that would feed 3+ billion humans) it would be even more plentiful/possible. The energy wasted on the Western life style would go a long way to pull up the other six billion of us. Instead, they choose to come down to 3rd world level the hard way …
I already hear the exclamations of “Bullshit”! But it is ALL coming from that spoiled Western world. The ones who have used the world’s riches to only try to get richer at the expense of all the rest. Sorry, your denials fall on deaf ears… LMAO
Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 7:11 am
Just look around to countries like the Philippians for excessive wealth inequality, food insecurity, environmental decay and destruction, and climate change pressures. Multiply that worldwide and especially in overshoot Asia. The writing on the wall is clear there is not enough resources for any growth fairly distributed or otherwise. Even the current wealth transfer of the poor to the rich is not sustainable. Asia has ruined the global BAU with its population overshoot and increased wealth. We have the worst of both population pressures in Asia of overconsumption and over population and growth. This may be fair in a competitive world but it does not take away from the fact that it is Asia that is not only consuming more but it is overpopulating more. This is by a wide margin and causing the worst of the new pollution and ecosystem destruction. This combination is lethal for any hope of a normal functioning global system. Asia is the end of BAU and this paradoxically is a good thing. The sooner BAU snaps the sooner we may be able to soften the decent. There are those on this board that glorify Asia for ideological reasons. It is people like this in the world today that ensure any reform will be muted by the blame game. No effort will be made unilaterally in a blame game.
dave on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 7:18 am
Without much exaggeration the problem can be summed up in one word…Africa. Only a few nations outside of Africa make the list. Most of these are special situation countries like Afghanistan. Fix sub-Saharan Africa and you’ll have largely fixed the problem.
yellowcanoe on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 7:27 am
Gosh, we can’t talk about birth control because that might lead to the topic of abortion.
The problems caused by over population would seem to be more evident than climate change so it amazes me how people can be in denial about it.
westexas on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 8:19 am
Interesting coincidence. Total global new* vehicle sales–around 80 million per year–is about the same number as estimated net increase in global population per year.
*Net increase in vehicles would be lower due to scrappage of older vehicles.
eugene on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 8:27 am
Almost defies my imagination as the problem is so self evident. I truly enjoy the comments of those who say things like “not too many people, we just don’t share right” or “it’s those Africans”. Gotta be American to think like that.
meld on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 8:55 am
@Beery – exactly. You’ve hit the nail on the head
fran on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 9:12 am
How about putting some responsibility on the ignorant Roman Catholic Church. Those morons conveniently take one sentence out of context from the Bible and hang their collective immoral hats on that! How about sending all the excess population- unwanted unloved children back to Rome. Let the Vatican deal with them instead of busing their overpop to the US Texas Arizonia etc.
fran on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 9:14 am
oh and what about the “freedom loving” Chinese folks. They seek relief from China’s vastly more intelligent “one child” rule and they escape to the US to express their “reproductive freedom” and have 3, 4, and more kids…. nevermind the rest of the world– just so long as THEIR family “name” survives.
fran on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 9:15 am
OH and thanks for bringing up this very important topic.
For sure its the elephant in the room 🙂
Aire on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 9:55 am
Actually he didn’t hit it on the nail. The article clearly states our population is not sustainable – that is correct. Our current high of population will come crashing down and will be quite short lived in the history of man. Just because we are making it happen doesn’t prove anything but that we managed to screw our selves over. Secondly, Beery argues it the “West” that has destoryed everything. Although the West does damage the most, they tend to have some sort of regulations at home protecting the environment. 3rd World nations could care less about preserving their environment thus causing a perfect scenerio for planetary environment destruction. The Rich use the Poor to destory the world and the Poor are so poor they give 2 shits about the environment. The Poor will deforest all their land in order to eat – it’s alrdy been happening. And lastly, Beery states it’s useless to try and change anything – maybe so but it’s worth the effort considering what he says a balance by Mother Earth. A nightmare for many of us humans. We are smart enough to make sane decisions at times so just maybe by some miracle we can collectively come to an understanding we need to soften our crash a tad
noobtube on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 10:08 am
If the Middle East, South America, and Africa were to disappear today, the West would be destroyed.
Why? Because they would have nothing to steal or destroy.
Africa and South America do not NEED the United States, nor Europe.
Without the South, the West is finished.
Until the population problem is solved in the West, the Earth is finished for human life, as we know it.
Perk Earl on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 10:27 am
“Look, the population will automatically level off at a sustainable level – it can’t do anything else. Worrying about population overgrowth isn’t going to change anything.”
True enough, Beery. People simply do what they can with the resources available, not what intellectually seems right for the planet. That photo of people piled high on to a train is reflective of a complete lack of concern for limits. Humans come first and everything else comes last or extinct, whichever comes first.
That’s not being negative, just accepting things the way they are by way of observation. It doesn’t take long to realize greed always wins out. Here’s a real simple example: California Chrome won the derby and Preakness with nasal strips to improve air intake. This is illegal in NY horse racing, but they made an exception for the Belmont stakes. Why? Greed. Allowing a potential triple crown winner to race in NY increased race day attendance and TV viewership generating more money.
Another example: Canada claimed to be environmentally conscious, unlike it’s southern cousin the US. But when it came to tar sands, zippadeedoodaday, it’s ok to cook it with NG to extract the oil, because there’s so much money in it, even though it is an environmental disaster.
Mike Tyson wasn’t suppose to box in certain locations like Atlantic City, NJ, because of his felony conviction. Ah, but he did box there. See what happened?
China had a one child policy until that interfered with GDP growth.
Northwest Resident on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 10:32 am
“But it is ALL coming from that spoiled Western world.”
Makati1 — All blame, all the time.
Makati, in the earth’s animal kingdom — which includes yeast all the way up to humans — the biggest, strongest, smartest and most capable specimens always dominate the weaker specimens and consume more of the resources — food, water, whatever. That’s life.
Would you please stop all your whining and blaming and just accept reality? Watching you cry and blame America five or six times daily in almost every post you make gets a little old — kind of like listening to a baby cry nonstop all day long.
It is a crying shame that humans, who possess a sense of morality and who can decide between right and wrong, did not collectively agree to “play nice” and “share” — but in the real world and owing to the fact that humans tend to give birth to sociopathic “alpha dogs” who crave power and wealth over others, AND due to the fact that GOD created humans with an intense competitive nature, “playing nice” isn’t something that humans tend to excel at.
I’m sure there were thousands if not millions of people subjugated by Rome back in antiquity who whined and cried about how unfair and selfish Romans were. You’re just carrying on the proud tradition of losers whining and crying and blaming the big dog for being so mean. But if you could just give it a rest every so often, that would be great.
noobtube on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 11:03 am
Survival of the fittest, eh?
Might makes right.
How did that turn out for the Nazis?
Americans are some degenerate scum.
Northwest Resident on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 11:20 am
noobtube — In human history, many civilizations have risen to ultimate power over others and then dissolved into nothingness. Survival of the fittest is a relative term, but in general, it is a fundamental truth of nature. In fact, in the real world, in reality, might often does make right. The Nazis were not nearly as mighty as they thought they were — a clear-headed German general could have predicted ultimate defeat before the war even began. Degenerate scum tend to see others as degenerate scum — YOU for example, are most certainly degenerate scum.
Juan Pueblo on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 11:24 am
IMO, a global population of no more than 50 million humans would be best, at this time, based on our current average intelligence, violence, ambition, and other evolutionary traits.
strummer on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 11:50 am
@NR: “a clear-headed German general could have predicted ultimate defeat before the war even began”
There were many who did, most prominently admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the head of german military intelligence.
bobinget on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 11:58 am
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/10/a_texas_sized_climate_crisis_water_wars_break_out_across_state_partner/
AG is already in deep shit in Texas.
bobinget on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 12:03 pm
“Degenerate” a word favored by both the Communist and Fascists in the 1930’s to describe modern art and music.
bobinget on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 12:25 pm
http://californiawaterblog.com/2014/05/19/severe-drought-impacts-to-central-valley-agriculture-forecast-this-year/
By 2016, if current conditions persist the US will be facing permanent food shortages… at anything approaching affordable prices.
Solutions? Texas, California agriculture…
noobtube on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 12:26 pm
American Exceptionalism…. how about the American Accident?
“The race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise nor wealth to the brilliant nor favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.”
America, through chance and fortunate circumstance, fell ass-backwards into an energy abundance, not known nor seen in the history of the Earth.
With such a bounty of cheap energy, what did the United States do with it?
They spent it all screaming about how they were better than everyone else because of their rugged individualism (an excuse to rampage the land and the people), freedom (in a country created as a slave state), Democracy (where there is no right to vote in their Constitution), and the American Way (Americans will murder you if you don’t do what they say).
The only advantage Americans had, was the vast natural abundance that they are determined to squander on destroying the planet.
Might makes right is a stupid way to live and always has been. It is the refuge of the maniac, the insane, the degenerate, the scumbag, and the psychopath, and the mass murderer.
No one is mighty forever (or even during their limited time on this Earth). Ask any Dictator that ever lived.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 12:28 pm
Noob ,the reference to the Nazi’s is a demonstration of your unimaginative mental functions. Please try to be more creative and inovative. You are such a bore!
Oakley on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 1:29 pm
Makatiai1 says:
“Well, actually, there is, IF they were equally divided. And, IF we stopped eating beef, (grain and water that would feed 3+ billion humans) it would be even more plentiful/possible.”
I disagree with you on both counts. If resources were equally divided most output would be consumed currently and little reinvested in capital goods with the result that future production would decline. What we need is a bell curve distribution of output so that it is not all consumed, but shared as nature dictates with those at the top end of the curve reinvesting. Neither the current skewed distribution, which resembles one big slave plantation, or the communist equal share for everyone concept works very well, both producing poverty for the majority.
On the cattle issue, here is an interesting old man by the name of Allan Savory who might change your mind:
https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change
As for eating grain, unless you desire a shortened, unhealthy life, I would avoid all of it. Omega6 fatty acid has as its toxic breakdown product 4-Hydroxynonenal – look it up.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 10th Jun 2014 1:36 pm
Oakley, don’t listen much to what Mak says, he is an Ideologue bent on anti-American propaganda. Nothing wrong with American criticism but his is warped and the usual boring fare of bashing the west and glorifying the east. His contempt for beef is way off the mark. Much of the postindustrial Ag environment will be heavily invested in animals for animal power, soil fertility, and beef production. There is significant marginal lands only good for grazing. I would like to ask Mak what he thinks should be done with that marginal land. There is nothing wrong with grass fed beef. It is the high intensity grain fed beef that must end.
rockman on Wed, 11th Jun 2014 6:58 am
I like to leave such concepts as simple as possible: there have never been enough resources available to provide a reasonable existence for everyone on the planet. Pick any time frame…say 1950. There were hundreds of millions living in poverty and lacking the most basic medical services and the world was full of resources. But resources those folks couldn’t afford.
As been said before the demand for resources will always be met with sufficient supply. Pricing will assure that: those who can pay the price for a commodity will be able to acquire it. Will there be more that won’t be able to pay the price? Well, da!. LOL. In the last 10 years when the price of oil increased 300%+ there were many millions added to that count. The dynamic hasn’t changed: the same today as 100 years ago and as will be in the future IMHO.
Kenz300 on Wed, 11th Jun 2014 7:18 am
The worlds poorest people are having the most children. They have not figured out the connection between family size and poverty.
Endless population growth is not sustainable and only leads to more poverty, suffering and despair.
Wrap it up………
India Overpopulation Documentary – YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERpT1Bq8AA
Kenz300 on Wed, 11th Jun 2014 12:13 pm
Vasectomies —- safe, cheap, and worry free…….
Men need to take some personal responsibility……
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