Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 14, 2014
Is the Earth overpopulated?
Recently I’ve been facilitating two groups studying global warming. (I will send my annotated 10-book syllabus to anyone who asks for it). Our current discussions are based on Alan Weisman’s new book, “Countdown.” While the book contains statements indicating it is not so simple, Weisman’s main point is that overpopulation is at the core of our environmental problems.
I’ve also been reading Clive Ponting’s “A New Green History of the World.” Ponting concludes that: “The current environmental problems in the world can only be understood in the context of the nature of the world economy produced since 1500.”
At first glance these points of view appear to restate the old argument between Malthus and Marx. Malthus argued in 1798 that food production could never match population growth, and so, the masses were doomed to starvation. Marx, on the other hand, maintained that there would be enough for everyone if the earth’s resources were distributed fairly. He attacked Malthus for placing blame on the victims of capitalist exploitation rather than on the capitalists, who were the real culprits.
Raised by two sets of Old Left parents, and coming of age as a New Left Marxist, I initially rejected all claims that we could eliminate poverty and environmental damage through population control. However, in 1798 when Malthus first staked out his position, there were fewer than one billion people on the planet, and when Marx critiqued him there were no more than 1.5 billion. The world’s population has recently topped 7 billion, and is headed for nine or ten billion in the next several decades. Marx was right that when Malthus propounded his theory it was a self-serving defense of inequality, but since then, overpopulation has become a major problem.
I also agree with Ponting that the world’s current unequal distribution of resources is responsible for environmentally-devastating first world overconsumption and mass human suffering. But capitalism’s love affair with increasing population is a key part of the current global economy. More people equals more workers willing to work for less as they compete with each other. More consumers buy more, generating more profit. A system based on perpetual growth serves its principal beneficiaries when individuals consume more AND there are more individuals doing the consuming. Is it possible that Weisman and Ponting are both correct?
Seven billion people are way too many, and 10 billion will just hasten disaster. Weisman’s point is well-taken; we must and can bring down the population through universal education, and government assisted family planning programs, and doing so is a necessary condition of controlling global warming. Weisman, laments that all we lack is the political will to do so. He writes: “why [are] health decisions about Mother Nature … made by politicians, not by scientists who know how critical her condition is.” But as Ponting makes plain, the nature of our global economy means that politicians serving multinational corporate masters will continue to make such decisions. As long as the world’s economy is driven by competition, profit and growth, efforts to reduce substantially either our population or consumption will be ineffective.
It is not a question of one or the other. Both are essential and we must address them in conjunction.
11 Comments on "Is the Earth overpopulated?"
rollin on Fri, 14th Mar 2014 1:42 am
Mass advertising campaigns such as commercial radio and TV, along with newspapers and magazines were purposely funded by corporations willing to produce anything that would sell. Those advertising campaigns did not just sell products, they sold lifestyles.
Everything was supposed to be better when we bought all those products.
Guess they were wrong about that.
The whole stuff your life with junk movement was promoted by big business. It worked for them and was funded by the newly created credit lines that popped up everywhere. That turned out to be quite profitable for business.
Essentially a lot of business is quite toxic to the consumer and the world.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Fri, 14th Mar 2014 2:14 am
“why [are] health decisions about Mother Nature … made by politicians, not by scientists who know how critical her condition is.” But as Ponting makes plain, the nature of our global economy means that politicians serving multinational corporate masters will continue to make such decisions. As long as the world’s economy is driven by competition, profit and growth, efforts to reduce substantially either our population or consumption will be ineffective. It is not a question of one or the other. Both are essential and we must address them in conjunction.
Life is never so simple. I see the whole overshoot of our carrying capacity as a product of a self-organizing system. We have evolved into what we are now as a people and by extension an economy. Has economy ever been something besides competition, profit, and growth? Even hunter gathers followed these economic principals in a relative way. It is the nature of organisms and the nature of man. The better nature of man comes out in his family or tribe but as you ascend the organizational structures to cities, regions, and countries this economic reality is inescapable. The problem now is not this human disposition the problem is when you turbo charge it with fossil energy for a few hundred years. You then see the results of rapid economic and population growth. We can blame and complain but the facts point to a self-organizing species following the same cyclical structure all species have always followed. We think because we are exceptional with knowledge and self-awareness we are different and we are special. We are now witnessing the fallacy of these assumptions. Our crash will come as it does with other species. Systems cycle in finite worlds. Our human ecosystem has had a long march up the cycle arch because of fossil fuels and stable climate. It will crash down hard and quick if we as a species don’t get our shit together.
Makati1 on Fri, 14th Mar 2014 2:27 am
95+% of what is found in shopping malls is unnecessary junk.
90% of what is found in modern Western grocery stores is processed sugar and chemicals, food junk.
I would say that there are not too many people, just too many thoughtless consumers. We waste(d) our chance for a great future on our trips to Walmart.
andya on Fri, 14th Mar 2014 4:15 am
I would have to say there are too many people, and to many thoughtless consumers. Population is growing, and so is consumption. Things will get worse, not better.
Though if you want to factory farm humans, and just grow the population as much as you can, then sure plenty of room for more people. Malthus argument was that population grows exponentially, while food production grows linearly. If we all lived like factory farmed chickens, receiving only enough calories to remain productive, and having the minimum possible space to remain productive, then there are not too many people. I’d rather not go too far in that direction.
Arthur on Fri, 14th Mar 2014 9:41 am
According to NASA there are 61 trees per human on this planet. Nobody ever complained that there are too many trees, on the contrary, everybody (says he) is worried about the declining Amazon rainforest. So, what’s the concern with ‘too many humans’? Answer: there would not be a problem if humans behaved as if they were trees, if they would spend their lives as if they were British grenadiers, standing on guard in front of Buckingham Palace. All human ‘trees’ would fit in a forest the size of the tiniest Dutch province Zealand, one of the twelve provinces of about the tiniest state in Europe, Europe being the tiniest ‘continent’ on the planet. The trouble is, humans have two legs, rather than a root and these legs ‘want to go places’, preferable with a car, or better with a plane, to the opposite side of the planet, as far away as possible. Just because it is possible and we don’t want to miss anything, now do we?
Are there too many humans on the planet? No.
Is the current way of living sustainable? No.
Are we going to ‘see the light’ and change behavior, just because some tax subsidized millionair like Al Gore says we should? No.
At some point the average consumer will drive into the gas station, have a look at the per gallon price tag, says the f-word, and decides to drive his clunker to the junk jard and will start to rearrange his life accordingly. And that’s the end of the story.
http://deepresource.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/amsterdam-1952
dsula on Fri, 14th Mar 2014 12:21 pm
Makati1: 95% of what is found in supermarkets is unnecessary junk
Yes, but what would life be if you only had what is necessary?
Kenz300 on Fri, 14th Mar 2014 12:22 pm
Quote — “Seven billion people are way too many, and 10 billion will just hasten disaster. Weisman’s point is well-taken; we must and can bring down the population through universal education, and government assisted family planning programs, and doing so is a necessary condition of controlling global warming”
————————–
Access to family planning services needs to be available to all that want it.
If you can not provide for yourself you can not provide for a child.
J.R. on Fri, 14th Mar 2014 3:34 pm
Question: Is the Earth overpopulated?
Answer: Yes.
Question: What do we do about this then?
Answer: Nothing.
Question: Why?
Answer: Because the solution is already underway.
The Earth cannot sustain (in the true sense and meaning of the word) 7 billion. Resource depletion and serious pollution has been the result. Climate change is now so serious a problem that feeding 7 billion will become virtually impossible.
Civilization has always been about food production, which in turn is what actually permits increased populations. Food production has now reached maximum capacity, and despite “savings” through additional efficiencies and food waste management, increased food production has flattened out.
Notably, the real increase in food production came from the modification of specific strains of grain and the heavy application of petrochemicals. This methodology has now reached its climax and there is little to none increase in yields.
This means that we cannot increase our food production anywhere near the same scale as what the last 80 years permitted, while population is “projected to increase”, but this isn’t not an actuality, it’s just an economists way of saying “growth will continue”. But population growth categorically requires increased food production and there is no data whatsoever that indicates we can increase the world’s total food supply.
Projections indicate we would need at least twice as much food production capacity as we have today – a figure that is quite absurd given the unfolding climatic disasters now taking place and the increasing energy shortage.
Climate change is now wrecking havoc on world food production. Moving “north” to escape infestation, heat, drought won’t work either, soils in the north are poorly suited for food production and would be quickly depleted if used.
The sum-total is population decline due to disease, malnutrition and the resulting die-off (starvation). The Earth will never acheive 9 billion as projected for these reasons (and many more, such as energy shortage, environmental degradation, etc).
We are now past peak civilization and peak population. Population may increase yet slightly, but not for much longer.
GregT on Fri, 14th Mar 2014 4:58 pm
dsula:
Q: “Yes, but what would life be if you only had what is necessary?”
A: Sustainable.
Makati1 on Sat, 15th Mar 2014 12:19 pm
@dsula, it would be just fine. After all, if you are 69 as I am, you started life with just necessities. I would not miss any of the junk we are told to consume today. Even the internet is going to go and I would go back to my book library with ease. I still spend much more time reading paper books than I do on-line.
FriedrichKling on Sat, 15th Mar 2014 1:45 pm
Human beings will modify their behavior in a meaningful manner only when the specter of death is up-close and personal.