The Problem Is Simple: Too Many People, Too Much Stuff

[marmar]

via AlterNet:



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.




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. .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/environment/94268/the_problem_is_simple%3A_too_many_people%2C_too_much_stuff/

[DangerDave921]

1. so are we taking volunteers for euthanasia?

[XemaSab]

2. I was thinking it would be a more Swiftian form of population reduction

:9

[opihimoimoi]

3. mega die offs resulting in extinction at worst, or, near extinction ...happens all the time

We did it to too many insects, animals, etc and should realize it also can happen to us...but we don't...NFL, NBA, etc divert us.

The Swing toward Reality & Sanity from Fantasy is slowly occuring...will the shift be in time???

[tavalon]

26. Per history, no the shift won't be in time,

but those that are left will likely get it.

[GliderGuider]

6. The limits to growth will make active measures unnecessary.

Overshoot is not a situation that can be maintained indefinitely.

Mother Nature will do the heavy lifting of population reduction as resource limits and climate change gradually close in and start reducing the global food supply.

[GliderGuider]

13. What the hell is it with "euthanasia"?

The instant anyone starts talking about human population levels perhaps being too high, someone drags out this contemptible red herring.

I have yet to read a single population analyst who favoured euthanasia. The term seems to be used like the accusation "conspiracy theory" is used in other arguments, as an attempt to stifle an uncomfortable debate by using an emotionally-loaded misdirection.

It's a shoddy debating tactic, and deserves to be roundly dismissed every time it appears.

[DangerDave921]

15. Chill, my friend

I was kidding. I thought the notion of volunteering for euthanasia was silly enough that it would be recognized as humor. Because who would actually volunteer for such a thing?

[GliderGuider]

16. Sorry for the knee jerk

"Volunteer for euthanasia" is a standard comeback -- I've seen it half a dozen times now, and it gets pretty old. I didn't realize you thought it was original. Sorry. :hi:

[SheilaT]

4. I've been saying for thirty years or so

that there are too many people on the planet. And have been for at least that long. If we don't somehow reduce our numbers voluntarily, a mass die-off will eventually happen in some way. It always does, when a species exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment.

[DangerDave921]

7. What is the ideal number?

How many is too many?

[GliderGuider]

9. About 1 billion

The same number that the planet supported before the fossil fuel craze got rolling.

[DangerDave921]

10. How do you arrive at that number?

Why is that the ideal number?

[GliderGuider]

12. Here's how

It's probably the maximum number of humans the planet can support over the long haul. The ideal number might be somewhat less, depending on how much room we wish to leave for other species.

This article on my web site lays out my thinking on the topic in reasonable detail. I'm convinced that we are near the top of the population curve, and that the next century will see a drastic, but involuntary reduction in our numbers to somewhere near the long-term sustainable level of a billion.

[Terry in Austin]

17. Carrying capacity

The crucial idea of carrying capacity has given rise to the lively science of pherology, which tries to arrive at that ideal number. The figures I've seen range from about 1 billion to 3 billion.

GliderGuider's article is a good example of pherology in action. Highly recommended reading.

As you might imagine, much rests on assessing the minuses of environmental degradation versus the pluses of knowledge that's been gained since 1859 (year 1 of the petroleum age).

[GliderGuider]

18. I didn't know this stuff was already an -ology.

Thanks for the link to that article. It looks like I have a bunch more reading to do...

[kestrel91316]

21. Can't you read?

".....The same number that the planet supported before the fossil fuel craze got rolling....."

Are you DELIBERATELY thickheaded?

[Howzit]

20. Isn't this like asking what the ideal global temperature is? N/T

[Terry in Austin]

24. Sorta, but not so much

It's still a good question, if we take "ideal number" to be a loose way of saying "maximum number sustainable." That's inherent in the idea of "capacity," after all. It's worth noting that "capacity" in these discussions refers to the "natural" carrying capacity -- i.e., without industrial-scale, nonrenewable energy inputs.

Determining the number is a much more complicated project than determining the ideal global temperature range, since we already pretty much know what that is. Much of the new science of pherology is devoted to assessing Earth's carrying capacity.

[DangerDave921]

8. question

how do we reduce numbers voluntarily?

[GliderGuider]

14. We can't

We might be able to reduce our growth rate, but voluntarily reducing our total numbers has so far proved to be beyond the reach of mortal man. There are simply too many cultural and genetic imperatives arrayed against such action.

In any event, the degree of population reduction we would need to come back into balance with the planet's carrying capacity within the next hundred years vastly exceeds human capabilities. The example I always use is WWII. That all-out global war killed about 10 million people per year for six years. To bring our population down from 6.7 billion to 1 billion by the year 2100 would require about 100 million excess deaths per year, every year. It would be like having 10 simultaneous world wars raging on the planet continuously for the next hundred years. We are simply not capable of bringing (or even wishing) that degree of misery on ourselves.

That's why I say that if it happens, Mother Nature will do it. She has no scruples and far greater power than we do.

[kestrel91316]

22. Don't have so damned many kids, for starters. And let

people die when it's time to die, rather than keeping their corpses breathing.

[GliderGuider]

23. That may work on the personal or community level

I doubt whether it's a solution to the global problem, though. Until we outstrip our food supply I doubt we'll be able to slow the train much.

Voluntary behaviour changes by individuals doesn't count for much when there are 6.7 billion individuals, each marching to the beat of a different drummer.

[SheilaT]

11. What GliderGuider says.

Maybe even fewer than a billion any more, since we've wrecked so much of the economy and used up so many of our natural resources.

[jody]

5. Too many people and as scientists link genes to desirable traits, society will be able to produce

designer babies.

Genetically modified foods are replacing hybrids and natural foods and soon genetically modified people will do the same.

It's just a matter of time. :shrug:

[Terry in Austin]

19. Overpopulation, the "brick wall" issue

We're used to encountering "problems" and automatically start looking for "solutions." It's a habit that usually serves us well.

The, ah, problem here is that human overpopulation occurs at a scale that's pretty much out of reach of the constituent humans. On the level of population, human populations are not appreciably more clever than yeasts. In other words, like the man says, Momma Nature will do all the heavy lifting in the matter of population control.

Does this mean Give it up, it's hopeless? No, not really. There are plenty of macro-problems we can't really control, but still manage to steer our way through to lessen their impact on us. Hurricanes, floods, plagues. I think we're just beginning to grope around for ways to steer through this one.

We haven't come up with much so far -- it still looks like a brick wall ahead. Birth-control programs, "one-child" policies, and the like still need to happen, but we shouldn't raise expectations about their providing any significant "solutions." That's a box we probably need to think outside of.

Any ideas?

[tinrobot]

25. Reminds me of the plague and the end of the Middle Ages.

A third of Europe died within a few years.

Obviously, it was a catastrophe, but the plague triggered a big change in consciousness in the survivors, which ended the Middle Ages and lead to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

I think we're due for another big change in consciousness.

[Gregorian]

27. There's a lone voice in the wilderfness.

I just don't know why there is such ignorance and silence over this issue. Zero Population Growth all but disappeared. Population Connection is busy watching Congress, but doing nothing essentially.

I've posted nearly identical words as what are found in Ehrlich's article, on DU, and often receive rebuttals from those who deny the truth.

This is the single most important subject there is. All others neccisarily follow. War, consumption, politics. War is debatable. We've always fought. But the situation is aggrivated by larger numbers.

We may have become an unchallenged specie, but we don't rule the planet. It's infuriating for those of us who are aware to watch.

[Nederland]

30. It ended for a good reason

The data on population growth changed. When the data changes, you have to adjust your conclusions. To do otherwise is ignorant.

[AwakeAtLast]

28. I'm gonna bet that the Duggars haven't read this

:shrug:

[Nederland]

29. The Ehrlichs have been wrong so many times

...its a wonder anyone listens to them anymore. A sampling:

Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make, ... The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." Paul Ehrlich in an interview with Peter Collier in the April 1970 of the magazine Mademoiselle.

By...<1975> some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." Paul Ehrlich in special Earth Day (1970) issue of the magazine Ramparts.

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death." (Population Bomb 1968)

"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (1969)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." (1976)

"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." (1969)

"By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million." (1969)

[Gregorian]

31. Ehrlich was essentially correct.

And things are not alright. I was in Los Angeles when one couldn't see the street signs, back in the early 60's. I was in Mexico city in 1974 when one could look directly at the sun.

When Ehrlich was making these statement, you have to remember we were still using slide rules.

What he said in this article is crucial. The West is handing the baton over to the East. And they're running with it as fast as they can. Even though his specific predictions didn't come true, we are heading in the exact direction as he predicted. We've just managed to engineer our way further into the corner.

[OneBlueSky]

32. Ehrlich may have been wrong about the specifics, but . . .

in general he hit the nail right on the head . . . population IS the problem, as is "too much stuff" . . .

[Nederland]

33. I guess we just disagree

This is not a matter of making a prediction and having it be off by a percentage point or two. This is more like predicting something will go left and it goes right--it's being 100% wrong. England thrived in the years after Ehrlich's prediction, as opposed to ceasing to exist. The American population rose after Ehrlich's prediction, as opposed to dropping to 22.6 million. Key minerals became more readily available and cheaper, as opposed to becoming more scarce (which is precisely why Ehrlich lost his bet with Simon).

When a real honest scientist forms a theory that makes objective predictions, and those predictions do not come true, that scientist goes back to the drawing board to figure out why s/he was wrong. The Ehrlich's have utterly failed to do this.

[Kablooie]

34. But... but, it's God's will. You know that birth control is an afront to God.

He wants us to be crowded onto a dead world run by mega corporations.

I don't know why, God works in mysterious ways, but it's what he wants
so who are we to disagree?

And always remember, He loves you.

He may hate the human race, but YOU he loves.