Page added on April 24, 2014
In 1944, the United States Coast Guard released a herd of reindeer on St. Matthew Island off the coast of Alaska so top naval personnel could hunt them for recreation.
The reindeer population grew exponentially. From the 29 creatures initially released during World War II, the island’s reindeer population reached 6,000 by 1963.
By that year’s end, however, the reindeer had munched their way through all the forage on the island, and virtually the entire 6,000-strong population died from starvation.
“When you have a population growing exponentially in a closed environment, collapse is inevitable when resources run out. That will be us,” warned noted ecologist William Schlesinger. “We can either orchestrate that in some kind of a sensible way or we can blunder along until it happens.”
William Schlesinger at Cammilleri Hall (USC Photo/Erica Christianson)
The inaugural speaker of the Sustainability Task Force’s Distinguished Lecture Series at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, Schlesinger titled his seminar “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.”
Speaking to more than 100 faculty, postdoctoral researchers, and graduate and undergraduate students from across the university who packed Joyce J. Cammilleri Hall inside the Dornsife Neuroscience Pavilion to hear his lecture, Schlesinger described how human population growth, resource use, growth economics and biodiversity loss are the major obstacles in creating a sustainable future.
The first horseman threatening that future is population growth, said Schlesinger, president of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, N.Y.
“The current human population is above the caring capacity of the planet and, although the growth rate may be slowing, it’s still growing and we need to take that seriously. We can’t sweep the population issue under the rug.
“The solution to this is to have every child on this planet a wanted child,” he said. “We can do that by promoting family planning, empowering women around the world educationally, culturally and economically and by preserving their right to choose. With fewer of us, there is no question that each of us will have a chance at a better life.”
The second threat, Schlesinger said, is the global emphasis on economic growth.
Each year, the human population extracts fossil fuels from the crust of the Earth equivalent to roughly 400 years of past agro-activity on the planet, Purdue University researchers have determined.
“We are burning every year what the Earth grew in 400,” Schlesinger said. “That fossil fuels pie has finite boundaries to it. We are exploring the edges of that with fracking and other ways of getting at fossil fuels that we couldn’t before, but essentially we are running down a finite resource at the rate of 400 years to one.”
Economic growth, coupled with population growth, has put us on an unsustainable course, Schlesinger said.
“ ‘Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist,’ ” he added, quoting early environmental economist Kenneth Boulding.
Schlesinger described his third horseman — resource use — as “riding the waves of greed.”
“There’s no question that we homo sapiens like ‘stuff.’ We want our stuff fast, and we assume our children will have yet more it.”
We are not the only ones unwilling to break old habits and make do with less, Schlesinger added. Corporations are also resistant to change.
Citing corporate defense of lead in gasoline, phosphates in detergents and pesticides that adversely affect bees, Schlesinger spoke of the difficulty in changing corporate thinking or behavior once production methods are established.
“Once started, it becomes almost an act of God to get them changed because too many people have a stake in them,” Schlesinger said. “It’s a tough arena when you are trying to say ‘No, this has got to stop’ when you’re facing a full line of defense attorneys, deep pocketed industries and Darwinian behavior on the part of corporate executives.”
Schlesinger favored introducing environmental scientists into the corporate decision-making process as soon as possible.
“This is something a school of sustainability could do here at USC — train the kind of people who will be at the decision-making table as a new industry comes in.”
Other issues complicating change include the fact that environmental policies are often seen by politicians as job killers, especially in times of sluggish economic recovery.
Global agreement can also be problematic. To illustrate the argument of those who say we do not have the right to tell sovereign nations how to behave on global issues, Schlesinger told a story.
“There are two men in a rowboat and one begins to drill a hole in the bottom of the boat. The other says, ‘Stop! You can’t do that,’ and the guy with the drill replies, ‘Oh, shut up, the hole is under my own seat.’ ”
That, Schlesinger said, is how we often think about our pollution of the global atmosphere if told to stop.
On average, a third of carbon dioxide growth in the Earth’s atmosphere results from population growth and about two thirds from increased resource use.
“Homo sapiens — you and me — have had enormous impact on the chemistry of our planet. This is reflected in the common areas in the atmosphere we breathe, the water we drink, across the whole sweep of chemical elements that are important to us. It is reflected in the pollution of our streams, mercury in fish and the origins of acid rain.”
Schlesinger is a strong proponent of introducing a carbon tax on fossil fuels, arguing that by making nonsustainable resources more expensive than alternative energies, such as wind or solar power, the situation will regulate itself.
“We didn’t end the Stone Age because we ran out of stones, but because we thought of something better to do,” he said.
From left, William Berelson, Schlesinger and Douglas Capone (USC Photo/Susan Bell)
The fourth horseman is biodiversity loss. One third of the species present on this planet is likely to become extinct with climate change as a result of losing critical habitat.
“We should take every effort we can to preserve every species we can to support the biodiversity of the planet,” he said. The literature of ecology is full of examples showing how, as the productivity of ecosystems climbs, the species in those ecosystems are lost.
“I look at a world without wood thrushes or the humpback chub or the pearly mussel; it won’t be as interesting as it is today but it’s also not likely to function in ways I want it to.”
Schlesinger pointed out a gaping hole in our species preservation efforts.
“We punish individual actions, like shooting a protected bird, but not collective actions that are much more threatening to the species we are trying to preserve, but for which no one is obviously to blame.”
While acknowledging that his lecture contained a fair amount of doom and gloom, Schlesinger said the situation was not yet hopeless.
“When the populace puts its mind to it, we can see the results,” he said, citing reduced levels of acid rain in New York due to the Clean Air Act and the gradual recovery of the ozone hole over Alaska.
“It’s not that we can’t do it. We don’t have to throw up our hands in despair. It takes good science, long-term studies and a collective will to make it happen.”
William Berelson, professor and chair of the earth sciences department at USC Dornsife and a member of the USC Dornsife Sustainability Task Force headed by Wendy Wood, vice dean for social sciences, helped bring Schlesinger to USC for the lecture.
“A talk like this is motivational if it inspires people from natural sciences, social sciences and even the humanities to get involved in the sort of real cross-disciplinary activities we would like to see in this area,” Berelson said.
18 Comments on "When resources run out — averting the apocalypse"
J-Gav on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 2:55 pm
How to equitably apply (and enforce) a carbon tax? That’s something of a teaser …
Schlesinger’s right to point out that biodiversity loss will likely have a much higher cost than is generally recognized today.
Cross-disciplinary studies would certainly be an improvement over the every-department-for-itself mentality which reigns today in academia. Still, those counting on academia to find ‘the solution’ are liable to be in for some disappointment when the full measure of our predicament is taken into account.
vulcanelli on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 5:08 pm
This article reflects the kind of anthropocentric fantasy that dominates our western culture. It promotes the idea that we are off course that the laws of nature which control population rise and fall can be manipulated to an end that we design. We like to imagine we are smarter than other species and that we can control our destiny. The control fantasy projects that if only we could pull together, get the right policy makers in place to make the right policy we could turn this around and not have to suffer the course of empire. If this were possible why has it not happened yet? It hasn’t happened and won’t happen because our mandate is the same as every other life form, to expand to the maximum. We will consume every last bit of energy and pollute every space we can, not because we are evil, we are no more evil than the herd of reindeer used as an example. They just followed there impulses and so are we. The reindeer did not reach a comfortable population, pause, have a meeting and decide, ‘hey, there are enough of us, let’s stop here and be happy.” That some see what we are doing and call it out will have no effect.
Kenz300 on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 6:07 pm
Quote — ““When you have a population growing exponentially in a closed environment, collapse is inevitable when resources run out. That will be us,” warned noted ecologist William Schlesinger. “We can either orchestrate that in some kind of a sensible way or we can blunder along until it happens.”
——————————–
So why is there so little conversation about reducing the rate of population growth? Every year the world adds 80 million more people to feed, clothe and house and provide energy for…… that is unsustainable.
Vasectomies need to be available to all that want them.
Having a child that you can not afford to provide for is cruel. The worlds poorest people are having the most children. They have not figured out the connection between their poverty and their family size.
Roman on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 6:36 pm
No normal man wants a vasectomy. The worlds “poorest” live in the wild and are subject to natural laws aren’t the problem.
MSN fanboy on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 7:15 pm
No normal man wants a vasectomy. The worlds “poorest” live in the wild and are subject to natural laws aren’t the problem.
Exactly! aside from the global warming which will gradually destroy there way of life the worlds poor wont fall: They start at the bottom already.
Its a pretty bad deal to be poor, not only are you blamed for population but you’re going to be the ones that bear witness to the beginnings of mans mistakes with the climate.
And as for this article: Obvious. When collapse happens at around 10 billion people (my prediction / crystal ball gazing) were going to have to shed over 9/10 our numbers. (SHED=Four Horsemen) if not further as the environment that was once was abundant even for 500 million will be scared.
On the upside we get to witness the greatest avoidable disaster in human history. We live in the best of times.
Davey on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 7:31 pm
Roman, child support payments are a good vasectomy motivator
I concure with your thoughts Vulcan
Makati1 on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 8:01 pm
In a balanced ecology every species has a predator that keeps it in check. It is the species called homo sapiens that has wrecked that balance buy being more clever than other species.
We kill off our control predators to keep us ‘safe’, while we set up our own destruction. But it will end either by Mother Nature or Nuclear war or both. We shall see. Either way, there will be a lot fewer of us to pick up the pieces after, if any.
vulcanelli on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 8:25 pm
Vacestomy’s to reduce population? Get real. Do some research. This is not even on the radar as a factor for reducing population. The only thing that affects population is food supply. When there is food it expands when there is not enough food it contracts.
Keith on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 8:28 pm
Makati1,
Predators don’t keep species in check. Food is the factor that always determines the carrying capacity of any populations numbers. A great example is the hare-lynx relationship.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 9:06 pm
Agreed Vulcan/Keith. Food will be the global worlds “poison pill” I am amazed how well food supply has held up recently. All it would take is a couple of years of bad drought in the wrong places to create some serious havoc.
Makati1 on Fri, 25th Apr 2014 2:08 am
Keith, I think there would be a lot fewer of us if diseases and the predator animals had not all been killed off. After all, the rabbit has no way to kill off their predators and they seldom get out of control unless man has done it for them. If we couldn’t leave our homes without being subject to bears, lions, or other killers like cholera or leprosy, would we be 7+ billion today? I don’t think so.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Fri, 25th Apr 2014 5:03 am
Mak, you have a point about man’s biggest predator “disease”. Neither of you mention predation by hostile and competitive humans. Not cannibalism but genocide for purposes of land and resource conquest for “lebensraum”. Mak, throughout man’s history we have been the top predator without equal. Maybe pre-modern man/ape yea maybe true.
simonr on Fri, 25th Apr 2014 5:08 am
Just a thought, who here will guarantee me a pension, as post peak maybe investment in children is a good investment.
Standing by for the firestorm 😉
Davy, Hermann, MO on Fri, 25th Apr 2014 5:13 am
Simon, children and animal husbandry! Talking with you I understand you are on your way to this kind of real pension unlike many with their digital pensions.
simonr on Fri, 25th Apr 2014 6:08 am
Yep, but with two girls, I am hoping for big strong sons in law 🙂
Davey on Fri, 25th Apr 2014 7:00 am
Simon, and rich with a good post industrial attitude…ok maybe wishful thinking
Arthur on Fri, 25th Apr 2014 7:16 am
Not sure why reindeer should serve as a model for humans. Reindeers are too stupid to plan for the next harvest. Humans solved that problem 10000 years ago when they started agriculture in the Caucasus. That capacity is not going away, even when industrial society is going to be downsized.
Davey on Fri, 25th Apr 2014 7:49 am
Art, the reindeer species is evolutionarily smarter. Maybe when we are gone or greatly reduced they can eek out a life somewhere habitable dispite our species ecosystem sterilization.