You write: “The United Nations predicts world population will peak within 30 years…”

Actually, no, it doesn’t. See this post for the details, but the UN report is widely misunderstood.

However, even if world population were to progress exactly in line with the UN projections (which the authors make clear are very different from predictions) that would mean around a 40% increase above a population that has already overshot the earths carrying capacity by many expert accounts. With world population already too large for the earth, there is not much comfort to be had from the specter of a 40% increase.

“Total population will almost certainly never top 8 billion and might not reach 7 billion, then begin sharp reduction.”

You may be right on that. There is good reason to be concerned, as Lester Brown points out in the current post here, that our overshoot of the earth’s carrying capacity will impose limits on population growth before it reaches the levels described in the UN’s projections. The risk is that population growth will be stopped by disease, starvation, etc. Before many millions of people die by such means, we need concerted efforts to reduce fertility rates in order to stabilize population growth sooner and minimize the damage.

“Japan’s population is already shrinking, just like Russia and half of Eastern Europe. 505 of the world’s population lives in a country with below replacement level fertility and the other 50% lives in a country where fertility is in decline.”

(You meant 50%, not 505, I’m sure.) If you’re going to pose such an argument to challenge what I said, It would be considerate if you’d site your sources. Not only will it strengthen your argument (if the sources are legitimate), but it will allow me to assess it more easily. In any event, I’m aware of the general idea you outline: A few countries’ populations are beginning to shrink slightly, and a few (e.g., in Europe) now have sub-replacement fertility rates. And the rate of world population growth has been slower in recent years. (We can’t actually say it is “in decline,” as we can only examine it in the rear view mirror, so to speak.) Still, world population continues to grow, currently at about 1.14% per year. Though it sounds small, that’s pretty vigorous growth, as you know if you’ve looked at the math of population growth.

That is all good news! But it’s not enough. The earth is finite. It cannot sustain infinite population growth, and many serious estimates of carrying capacity put it somewhere not far from current population levels, often lower. See Joel Cohen, for the most comprehensive survey. He has studied carrying capacity more than probably anyone, and concurs that we are probably beyond the earth’s carrying capacity for any sort of decent standard of living. So while it’s good the population growth rate is slower now, it’s still vigorous, and needs to come to a halt ASAP. Read what scientists have been telling us, and I think you’ll come to the same conclusion.

Your concerns about deflationary economies is misplaced. (I’m guessing you’ve picked up those concerns in right wing, perhaps libertarian, writings.) Adjusting to that will be trivial compared to adjusting to a hard collision with the earth’s carrying capacity. I’ve written here before about the steady state economy and other aspects of ecological economics. We need a whole new economic model, one which recognizes the limits of the ecosystem. Implementing that will be a challenge, but nothing like the challenge of famine, war, disease, etc.

And this isn’t good news! Declining markets and deflationary economics will mean a lack of funds for clean energy initiatives. A declining population will lower interest in conservation and clean energy.

It would be nice to see some progress on getting social scientists, ecologists, and other natural and biological scientists to begin to help reframe the way people treat one and other and the environment.

It all seems to go in bursts, then blowbacks. Maybe that is the only way any progress happens. In the meantime the doomsday clocks keep ticking.

This is a very interesting read. Now, I don’t know what came of it (the proposal was made in August 2004), but I think it’s fair to say that the issues raised back then is being discussed more freely today, in 2007, than it used to be no more than two or three years ago; … although, mainly by independendent actors, bloggers and the like. Well, it’s a start.

“Eco-psychologist” – that’s an interesting term. I have been spending a lot of time on the forums of http://www.theenvironmentsite.org, trying to get people to discuss theses emotional and socio-psychological responses to ecological issues. I have found that it is difficult for most people to discuss the issue. – Some people do, though. It takes courage, I guess. In some cases it takes a few character flaws, as well.

Here’s Ehrlich again:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/su-swd021407.php

Quote: “President of the Stanford Center for Conservation Biology, Ehrlich recently proposed the creation of a global Millennium Assessment of Human Behavior (MAHB), a follow-up to the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and similar climate-change efforts but with a specific focus on human behavior.

“[MAHB] was named to emphasize that it is human behavior toward one another and toward the planetary systems that sustain us that requires assessment and modification,” Ehrlich said.”

It’s sad, really. Realistically, everybody ought to understand that there must be a limit to growth. And realize that we’re rapidly closing in on that wretched limit. – This is another truth that has, quite obviously, been banned.”

That captures it very well. If you make statements such as the one Einstein made, you’re called an “alarmist,” or a “doomsayer.” If you say much less, you’re simply ignored.

And yes, it really should be so simple to see that there are limits, that the earth is finite. But denial is powerful.

I was watching a little video which will (probably) appear in my next essay here (coming up very soon) which included comments from a couple of “eco-psychologists.” This was a new term to me despite my past training as a psychologist. As I understand it, they deal with our psychological relationship to the environment and our emotional responses to. ecological issues. I wonder if they’d see the near “banning” of certain topics, as you mentioned, as an aspect of a larger collective denial. I think it may be.

- —

On a different note: here’s what Dalai Lama had to say – back in 1989 – about the challenges our generation is faced with.

http://www.tew.org/dalailama/hhdl.nobel.html

“We all know the immensity of the challenges facing our generation; the problem of overpopulation, the threat to our environment and the dangers of military confrontation. (…) Freedom is the real source of human happiness and creativity. Only when it is allowed to flourish can a genuinely stable international climate exist.”

Unfortunately, it seems to me like the political, economical, and even scientific milieus of this world have grown ever more sensitive toward any version of “the truth” that might include bad implications for the future of mankind.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm

If Albert Einstein was alive today, I bet you he would hardly be allowed to make this simple statement in public: “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.” (1949)

As if today, this statement has somehow become politically and economically incorrect. Those who make such statements today will always be tagged as “doom-and-gloom” enviro-fanatics of the meaner mould.

It’s sad, really. Realistically, everybody ought to understand that there must be a limit to growth. And realize that we’re rapidly closing in on that wretched limit. – This is another truth that has, quite obviously, been banned.

Heh, I could talk about our years in San Diego too. I got there around ’83, which I think was sort of the tail end of its having been more or less a laid back surf town. From there it just sprawled tremendously. It’s still a nice city, I think, but without the character from what it once had.

Yeah, that equation is a great help in clarifying things. The better known equation is I=PAT (which I touched on in a footnote to the article). But the one I focused on has to be understood anyway to understand I=PAT.

BTW, just a few days ago I received a journal article which appears to be *the* most current one to make use of I=PAT. I need to look at it more closely, but I think their conclusions are in line with what I described in the post. I may write a post about it or add it as an update to the one above.

“This topic of social science really was off limit.”

Interesting story. It’s a troubling sign. Science really should be able to explore freely any legitimate topic. But then I guess there are some which carry so much political or emotional baggage that even scientists (who should ideally exercise some sort of scientific neutrality) shy away from them. And when one wants to deal with such a topic, others try to discourage it. That’s the troubling part.

I was there during the tech boom. One of the more ironic happenings: as more and more of GM’s EVs appeared on the highways the number of SUVs and Hummers exploded. I also got to experience California’s rolling blackouts, a result of power deregulation and Enron’s manipulation of the market.

It was hard to meet anyone in the Bay Area who actually grew up there — because so many people moved in. The area between SF and San Jose used to be filled with small towns and orchards. Even 20 years ago it was fairly bucolic. Now it’s one solid mass of housing and businesses, and the sprawl on the other side of the bay seems completely out of control as well. Everywhere a BART station opens up a spurt of rapid growth begins. And on that side of the bay most of the growth was displacing some of the best topsoil to be found anywhere in the world.

I used to sit with a Buddhist meditation group there. One night in response to a question there was a show of hands. Of the 100 or so people in the room, more than 80 worked in hi-tech. Most of us turned to meditation at least in part to cope with the hectic nature of our lives. We’d drive through the dense rushhour traffic after a long workday at the middle of a 60+ hour workweek in order to spend 90 minutes in a calm, quite environment — irony abounds. Certainly gave meaning to the Buddhist notion of refuge.

Back to the topic…

So, yes, there are many places where we can see rapid growth right here in the USA. And some of us are horrified by our view of what economists call the opportunity cost. Where I see the Porche dealership on the strip outside of Denver as an exemplar of insane consumerism displacing a section of cherished openspace, a hundred others see it as an indicator of a healthy wealthy community and, if confronted about growth, merely point to vast sparsely populate area that is western Colorado.

Most people struggle when faced with a problem with many variables: water, soil, global warming, energy, pollution, living space, taxes, consumption, landfills, …. That’s why I was so taken with the E = p * e equation — just two variables. It’s a great tool, a bit like putting training wheels on a bicycle, a way to get to started so you can begin to aquire a more nuanced view.

Response: “Would that really be necessary?”

I explained myself, and the man frowned at me. This topic of social science really was off limit.