Recently one of my friends has been offended by my idea that the total human population needs to shrink (and, in my estimation, to about 1 Billion or less). He has endless bogus arguments against this, such as:
The economy will collapse!
We'll be back to 18th century technology!
And, therefore, we won't be able to develop the space travel we need to survive!
It'll be all old people, with not enough youngsters to take care of them!
(*BTW, I have no racial or ethnic preferences in this. My own races of European Whites have been globally destructive for centuries if not millenia and are way overextended, perhaps more than others. But the mix is not my concern here. I'm fine with either applying new low birthrate rules universally OR permitting adjustment from previous uneven growth, as a fully representative world congress decides. Supposedly, all us population limitation theorists are high order racist/fascists. But that's because the other guys like me, like the original Club of Rome, get no airtime, and the growth Mafia wants to paint all anti-Growth types in evil colors. My current proposal is to require that every child have 4 unique "parents," two biological, and two otherwise childless Guardian parents, to reduce the child rate to less than 0.5 per biological couple, to meet sustainable population targets within 200 years.)
Under communism, just as in a family, it's harder to accommidate growth than shrinkage, if your goal is quality of life.
If your goal is ever greater dominance, as in Capitalism's profit motive, no growth is ever enough, and ultimate collapse in total ruins is the only possible outcome (and where we are now headed, full steam, with the possibility even of ruining the environment so badly no future intelligent species may be possible here. BTW, intelligent in futurist contexts is a term of art meaning capable of advanced technologies such as radio, computers, and space travel--which I don't deny is important in the very long term. Otherwise, and quite often it seems to me, "intelligence" is stupidity, and vice versa).
I'm not disallowing the possibility that a Socialist society may, sadly, be growth oriented, and possibly even for wrongheaded "defensive" reasons. But under Capitalism, there basically is no other choice, and the rise of Capitalism with the Industrial Revolution with the combination of the two making endless growth socially possible is no coincidence.
But there are, I confess, endless philosophical, theoretical, and practical problems with deploying a negative growth regime pursuant to developing a fully Sustainable and Wonderful World.
One of these I have thought about endlessly, and sometimes heard argued, but more often assumed away. And this is a sort of philosophical question, of the kind I created this blog for, because, frankly, I can't do much else here.
And this is the argument which comes up in various ways. But it's basically the idea that if we are good enough, we can get by with a large human population, perhaps even far larger than the human population on earth today, so we don't have to concern ourselves with socially restricting fertility, as I advocate. What we need to concern ourselves with is instead moving human society and industry into sustainability.
The Limits to Growth theorists explored such possibilities back in 1970 (and onwards, with supplements). The effect they show is generally that greater sustainable practices do not prevent total collapse. They extend the period of time before the final collapse, typically in very small amounts, like a few years or decades. But then, the collapse occurs, and is usually a more complete collapse, because the longer run before the collapse permitted more growth of one kind or another, including especially human population, so now even greater recovery from human overgrowth or overdevelopment is required.
They concluded the only way to avoid collapse, it to systematically shrink the human footprint to the correct size as quickly as is socially responsible. (I'm not advocating shrinkage from war, disease, or death camps. I am arguing for the social regulation of reproduction, which in fact already exists, but is not working for the benefit of human society at large, only for the imperialistic and self-serving goals of sub-groups of human society, who naturally want to dominate them by outgrowing them, or at least feel a need to keep up.)
And the correct size, they estimated, was 500 million to 1 billion. They did not see this as hampering future technological or other human development. In fact, they say this correct sizing as fostering ever greater human development, rather than endless war and exploitation. In fact we have a very sick society now, and creating a sustainable negative-to-no-growth society of the right kind would be a huge step forward.
If I were a mere advocate, and not a philosopher, I'd stop right here.
One crankish blogger, can't remember the name now, boldly proclaimed that Peak Oil (and Peak Everything) was immediately coming on (as did many serious theorists...the Peak Oil was only somewhat premature and misplaced...Destructive CO2 was the actual danger, then and present). And, ,given that adopting minimal (or even quite extensive) efficiency measures would only delay the collapse, with far greater suffering the result. So, pedal to the metal, he advised. Buy that gas guzzler and max it out.
I saw then the problem with these kinds of certain predictions. The fact is, we don't know all the possibilities, our "models" are only based on what we know, and future knowledge may change them.
We have to live with uncertain knowledge, and always weigh risks carefully.
Given uncertain knowledge, it's wise not to make extended bets. So, betting that a quick collapse is going to be the better one, is not a responsible thing to do. Generally, the more time we have to respond to things coming up, the better off we are.
And so, even knowing that it is nearly 100% certain that there is now human overgrowth and development, which will one day collapse to a tiny fraction of it's current size, there is hope that if we have more time we may be able to work out a solution somehow. So it is far less than 100% certain that the most socially responsible thing to do is push us over the edge as quickly as possible, and I don't think you could be blamed for NOT doing that, but more likely the reverse.
But that's different from looking at the big chart, and seeing that all the half measures we can think of only create a greater doom. We have to go for the full deal, the big plan, the Green New Deal and then some, even more which we'll need to think of in the future, all the things which couldn't even fit into any model, to have a chance of making it to the future.
And the full deal, includes sustainable population size regulation, in my opinion, especially because we are never going to get the full deal in other areas either.
So, here, the nutshell of what I'm trying to get to today is how the difficulties of making a human society sustainable INCREASE dramatically as total human population rises above one billion. Given the uncertainty and difficult of making those larger populations sustainable, the smaller population is the only reasonable choice.
The first datapoint is obvious. We are WAY beyond sustainability now. We have created a new Great Extinction, the endpoint of which is not clear but could (though my friend will say this is Impossible!) result in the extinction of the human species.
And we see that as so important, of course.
But meanwhile huge numbers of species have already become extinct as a result of human actions, and the process is accelerating. We have proven ourselves to be totally irresponsible planetary guardians by making that happen. A truly ethical species would make itself extinct before making others extinct. A slighly less irresponsible species might see the species loss happening, and adjust it's ways to stop that as quickly as possible.
Anyway, this current datapoint is:
with current techologies as currently used (including distribution)
with the current human population
we are in accelerating crisis (highly unsustainable)
There are two basic ways you could try to adjust this. Change the ways technologies are used, or reduce the total human population.
For the past 50 years, some good people, sometimes, have been adjusting the ways they have used technologies. What has been the result of this half measure? Everything is FAR WORSE, CO2 emissions are way up over 1970, everything else that was tolerable is now veering off the charts. What is the main reason things have gotten far worse despite vast improvements in many areas? GROWTH in the numbers of people enjoying the modern lifestyle.
So much for that approach, right? So what are we doing now? Certainly the global political leadership, and especially the near-global "leadership" in the USA, wants to do less and less to stop collapse, either by deploying sustainable technology (which would diminish the profits of the fossil industry), or even by making contraception and abortion more (and not less) available.
Now, perhaps, if we were to all become vegan monks,living in self-contained domed cities eating waste recycling fungi), would 10 billion people be sustainable? Or the 20 billion we might reach this century?
I don't know, but is it conceivable that human society would all become vegan monks living in domed cities?
I don't think so.
I think it's far more imaginable to socially limit human reproduction. It is possible to do it fairly, and it needs to be done, along with every other kind of sustainability change we can possibly do.
From the standpoint of the vast species we are making extinct, it would seem to be the least we could do.
Now I think begins to illuminate the problem space here.
For each distribution of technologies and practices, the maximum sustainable human population may differ.
But the burden should be on those who argue that we don't need to socially restrict human reproduction to show how sustainability will be achieved with current high and still higher levels of population.
In the real world, livings need to be made and people need to make them. And part of living is many other activities, some highly destructive, which people are loath to give up, as well. We are a vortex of destruction, every person occupies not only their homes but vast fields growing food including food for animals raised for food, mining, manufacturing, producing energy, and endless other activities, including war. We allow few limits other than practical on our repurposing the planet for the needs of human corporations to profit endlessly. It seems to be ours to scorch.
As long as there is population growth, or vast areas of population where modern technology hasn't yet been deployed, new roads and power stations will be built, etc, etc. That will continue regardless of our wishes unless and until we are willing to address the root cause---already far too big human population. (Although, there is no good reason to build fossil or nuclear power stations any more. From now on, they should all be renewable! Still, even renewable power has a ecological footprint, which increases with the population size.)
The economy will collapse!
We'll be back to 18th century technology!
And, therefore, we won't be able to develop the space travel we need to survive!
It'll be all old people, with not enough youngsters to take care of them!
(*BTW, I have no racial or ethnic preferences in this. My own races of European Whites have been globally destructive for centuries if not millenia and are way overextended, perhaps more than others. But the mix is not my concern here. I'm fine with either applying new low birthrate rules universally OR permitting adjustment from previous uneven growth, as a fully representative world congress decides. Supposedly, all us population limitation theorists are high order racist/fascists. But that's because the other guys like me, like the original Club of Rome, get no airtime, and the growth Mafia wants to paint all anti-Growth types in evil colors. My current proposal is to require that every child have 4 unique "parents," two biological, and two otherwise childless Guardian parents, to reduce the child rate to less than 0.5 per biological couple, to meet sustainable population targets within 200 years.)
Under communism, just as in a family, it's harder to accommidate growth than shrinkage, if your goal is quality of life.
If your goal is ever greater dominance, as in Capitalism's profit motive, no growth is ever enough, and ultimate collapse in total ruins is the only possible outcome (and where we are now headed, full steam, with the possibility even of ruining the environment so badly no future intelligent species may be possible here. BTW, intelligent in futurist contexts is a term of art meaning capable of advanced technologies such as radio, computers, and space travel--which I don't deny is important in the very long term. Otherwise, and quite often it seems to me, "intelligence" is stupidity, and vice versa).
I'm not disallowing the possibility that a Socialist society may, sadly, be growth oriented, and possibly even for wrongheaded "defensive" reasons. But under Capitalism, there basically is no other choice, and the rise of Capitalism with the Industrial Revolution with the combination of the two making endless growth socially possible is no coincidence.
But there are, I confess, endless philosophical, theoretical, and practical problems with deploying a negative growth regime pursuant to developing a fully Sustainable and Wonderful World.
One of these I have thought about endlessly, and sometimes heard argued, but more often assumed away. And this is a sort of philosophical question, of the kind I created this blog for, because, frankly, I can't do much else here.
And this is the argument which comes up in various ways. But it's basically the idea that if we are good enough, we can get by with a large human population, perhaps even far larger than the human population on earth today, so we don't have to concern ourselves with socially restricting fertility, as I advocate. What we need to concern ourselves with is instead moving human society and industry into sustainability.
The Limits to Growth theorists explored such possibilities back in 1970 (and onwards, with supplements). The effect they show is generally that greater sustainable practices do not prevent total collapse. They extend the period of time before the final collapse, typically in very small amounts, like a few years or decades. But then, the collapse occurs, and is usually a more complete collapse, because the longer run before the collapse permitted more growth of one kind or another, including especially human population, so now even greater recovery from human overgrowth or overdevelopment is required.
They concluded the only way to avoid collapse, it to systematically shrink the human footprint to the correct size as quickly as is socially responsible. (I'm not advocating shrinkage from war, disease, or death camps. I am arguing for the social regulation of reproduction, which in fact already exists, but is not working for the benefit of human society at large, only for the imperialistic and self-serving goals of sub-groups of human society, who naturally want to dominate them by outgrowing them, or at least feel a need to keep up.)
And the correct size, they estimated, was 500 million to 1 billion. They did not see this as hampering future technological or other human development. In fact, they say this correct sizing as fostering ever greater human development, rather than endless war and exploitation. In fact we have a very sick society now, and creating a sustainable negative-to-no-growth society of the right kind would be a huge step forward.
If I were a mere advocate, and not a philosopher, I'd stop right here.
One crankish blogger, can't remember the name now, boldly proclaimed that Peak Oil (and Peak Everything) was immediately coming on (as did many serious theorists...the Peak Oil was only somewhat premature and misplaced...Destructive CO2 was the actual danger, then and present). And, ,given that adopting minimal (or even quite extensive) efficiency measures would only delay the collapse, with far greater suffering the result. So, pedal to the metal, he advised. Buy that gas guzzler and max it out.
I saw then the problem with these kinds of certain predictions. The fact is, we don't know all the possibilities, our "models" are only based on what we know, and future knowledge may change them.
We have to live with uncertain knowledge, and always weigh risks carefully.
Given uncertain knowledge, it's wise not to make extended bets. So, betting that a quick collapse is going to be the better one, is not a responsible thing to do. Generally, the more time we have to respond to things coming up, the better off we are.
And so, even knowing that it is nearly 100% certain that there is now human overgrowth and development, which will one day collapse to a tiny fraction of it's current size, there is hope that if we have more time we may be able to work out a solution somehow. So it is far less than 100% certain that the most socially responsible thing to do is push us over the edge as quickly as possible, and I don't think you could be blamed for NOT doing that, but more likely the reverse.
But that's different from looking at the big chart, and seeing that all the half measures we can think of only create a greater doom. We have to go for the full deal, the big plan, the Green New Deal and then some, even more which we'll need to think of in the future, all the things which couldn't even fit into any model, to have a chance of making it to the future.
And the full deal, includes sustainable population size regulation, in my opinion, especially because we are never going to get the full deal in other areas either.
So, here, the nutshell of what I'm trying to get to today is how the difficulties of making a human society sustainable INCREASE dramatically as total human population rises above one billion. Given the uncertainty and difficult of making those larger populations sustainable, the smaller population is the only reasonable choice.
The first datapoint is obvious. We are WAY beyond sustainability now. We have created a new Great Extinction, the endpoint of which is not clear but could (though my friend will say this is Impossible!) result in the extinction of the human species.
And we see that as so important, of course.
But meanwhile huge numbers of species have already become extinct as a result of human actions, and the process is accelerating. We have proven ourselves to be totally irresponsible planetary guardians by making that happen. A truly ethical species would make itself extinct before making others extinct. A slighly less irresponsible species might see the species loss happening, and adjust it's ways to stop that as quickly as possible.
Anyway, this current datapoint is:
with current techologies as currently used (including distribution)
with the current human population
we are in accelerating crisis (highly unsustainable)
There are two basic ways you could try to adjust this. Change the ways technologies are used, or reduce the total human population.
For the past 50 years, some good people, sometimes, have been adjusting the ways they have used technologies. What has been the result of this half measure? Everything is FAR WORSE, CO2 emissions are way up over 1970, everything else that was tolerable is now veering off the charts. What is the main reason things have gotten far worse despite vast improvements in many areas? GROWTH in the numbers of people enjoying the modern lifestyle.
So much for that approach, right? So what are we doing now? Certainly the global political leadership, and especially the near-global "leadership" in the USA, wants to do less and less to stop collapse, either by deploying sustainable technology (which would diminish the profits of the fossil industry), or even by making contraception and abortion more (and not less) available.
Now, perhaps, if we were to all become vegan monks,living in self-contained domed cities eating waste recycling fungi), would 10 billion people be sustainable? Or the 20 billion we might reach this century?
I don't know, but is it conceivable that human society would all become vegan monks living in domed cities?
I don't think so.
I think it's far more imaginable to socially limit human reproduction. It is possible to do it fairly, and it needs to be done, along with every other kind of sustainability change we can possibly do.
From the standpoint of the vast species we are making extinct, it would seem to be the least we could do.
Now I think begins to illuminate the problem space here.
For each distribution of technologies and practices, the maximum sustainable human population may differ.
But the burden should be on those who argue that we don't need to socially restrict human reproduction to show how sustainability will be achieved with current high and still higher levels of population.
In the real world, livings need to be made and people need to make them. And part of living is many other activities, some highly destructive, which people are loath to give up, as well. We are a vortex of destruction, every person occupies not only their homes but vast fields growing food including food for animals raised for food, mining, manufacturing, producing energy, and endless other activities, including war. We allow few limits other than practical on our repurposing the planet for the needs of human corporations to profit endlessly. It seems to be ours to scorch.
As long as there is population growth, or vast areas of population where modern technology hasn't yet been deployed, new roads and power stations will be built, etc, etc. That will continue regardless of our wishes unless and until we are willing to address the root cause---already far too big human population. (Although, there is no good reason to build fossil or nuclear power stations any more. From now on, they should all be renewable! Still, even renewable power has a ecological footprint, which increases with the population size.)
No comments:
Post a Comment