The article quoted and linked to below came out of an idea I submitted to the BBC News’s Green Room. I was lucky enough to contact a wonderfully helpful and supportive editor (Thanks, MK!) and the piece was posted last night. It’s exciting to be able to present the ideas we discuss here and around the Web to the BBC’s worldwide audience! — JF
__________________________________________________________
The growth in human population and rising consumption have exceeded the planet’s ability to support us, argues John Feeney. In this week’s Green Room, he says it is time to ring the alarm bells and take radical action in order to avert unspeakable consequences.
We humans face two problems of desperate importance. The first is our global ecological plight. The second is our difficulty acknowledging the first.
Despite increasing climate change coverage, environmental writers remain reluctant to discuss the full scope and severity of the global dilemma we’ve created. Many fear sounding alarmist, but there is an alarm to sound and the time for reticence is over.
130 responses so far ↓
Paul Chefurka // November 6, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Brilliant. Utterly, transcendently, coruscatingly brilliant. To see so many comments all agreeing on such an uncompromising statement was almost more than this poor heart could bear.
Congratulations, John. You did it.
Trinifar // November 6, 2007 at 11:24 pm
As I said in an email to John, it really boosted my sense of hope that so many people responded so quickly in the comments with so much positive feedback. I was particularly touched by those that seemed immensely relieved that someone could articulate their own concerns so well and actually get these thoughts published in the mainstream media.
There’s an untapped resource out there. That is, there are many people looking for leadership, for others to express their own conclusions in a public forum along these lines, to know they are not alone.
I’m one of those. I thing what John has done here is hugely valuable — path breaking.
Trinifar // November 6, 2007 at 11:26 pm
And of course I had more thoughts on the matter which I expressed here http://trinifar.wordpress.com/2007/11/06/population-growth-gets-some-attention/
John Feeney // November 7, 2007 at 1:11 am
Well I am really, really touched, both by your comments Paul and Trin, and by those under the piece on the BBC.
I first ran the idea for the article past the BBC a couple of months ago and, though definitely encouraged, didn’t allow myself to be too sure it would ever really appear until last week when things accelerated and the editor I worked with made it clear this thing would be happening very soon. (I’m avoiding giving his name publicly simply because it might burden him with inquiries from who knows who. But he was very encouraging. I learned from him about writing for that kind of outlet as well.)
Interestingly enough, it was the BBC which kind of played up the population angle for the article, even changing the title slightly to emphasize it. (There were very few significant edits otherwise.) So they really deserve credit for being willing to feature a contentious topic. It was they, by the way, who featured a piece about population by Chris Rapley as the very first Green Room article a couple of years or so ago.
Brian Czech was right though, in his comment under the article, to point out that it was about more than population alone. It was an attempt to “say it all” in 900 words or less.
Trinifar said:
I was amazed at some of the comments. As an example, there’s one which brought tears to my (and my wife’s!) eyes. It’s the one by Steven Walker. I’m afraid it paints me and the article as something I can’t live up to, but I really hadn’t expected to move someone so deeply. That alone makes the effort worthwhile.
I think there’s a hunger among a great many people for frank discussion of some of these topics which have so far been largely shied away from. I’ve submitted multiple articles in the last six months to certain outlets which have never responded. Yet, under the environmental articles they do publish, I’ve seen commenters cry out for discussion of topics like population, peak energy, and the economic factors tied into all of it. I don’t know if that will change, but it would be great if perhaps my article would move just one editor at one of these sites to consider publishing something a little different, maybe taking a shot with a new voice or two.
Thanks again, guys.
richard jones // November 7, 2007 at 3:07 am
IEA OUTLOOK: Food Security Fears Limit China’s Biofuel Output
IEA OUTLOOK: Revises Up CO2 Energy Growth To 57% By 2030
IEA OUTLOOK: Energy Supply Infrastructure Needs $22T By 2030
IEA OUTLOOK: Coal Resurgence Seen As Oil Prices Take Toll
IEA Numbers Refer To Business-As-Usual Energy Scenario
IEA Revises India Annual Energy Demand To 3.6% Vs 2.3%
IEA Revises China Annual Energy Demand To’30 To 3.2% Vs 2.9%
IEA Sees China As Biggest Energy Consumer Soon After 2010
IEA Cuts Non-OPEC Oil Supply Growth To 0.5%/Yr Vs 0.7% In 06
richard jones // November 7, 2007 at 3:20 am
numbers hit the tape this morning
Magne Karlsen // November 7, 2007 at 4:51 am
John,
We’re fast approaching a collective top of the mountain experience. Problem is: this leaves most people with a strong feeling of despair, anguish, hopelessness, etc., and what we are developing, is, quite simply, an understanding that “this is it” — and that nothing can ever be done about it. I’ve read through the comments on the BBC thread, and I can only see that a lot of people are now acknowledging that the world’s population is faced with too many problems; only one of which is the population explosion.
Now, of course: we’ve been discussing a lot of taboo topics here on your blog for quite a while now. It remains to be seen how we’re coping as more and more people around the world comes along and agrees with us?
Congratulations anyway. You seem to be the hit of the week.
Magne Karlsen // November 7, 2007 at 7:18 am
But then, of course: in order for individual human beings, as well as (and most importantly) whole societies of people, to even start to think about dealing with the problems at hand, we’ve got to first recognise that the magnitude of big ecological problems we are faced with, is indeed disturbing.
I pray that an initial feeling of hopelessness — as easily spotted in the discussion threads on The Oil Drum and BBC — will eventually evolve into a more serious ecological preservation movement. It’s like Steve, Trinifar, you and myself (along with millions of other people; here, there and everywhere) has always and constantly insisted: AWARENESS IS THE FIRST STEP. — – We’re getting there.
Now, after that, the question is: how do “we” go about dealing with the social / cultural (mental, psychologial, spiritual) tendency to deliberately ignoring all warnings?
Steven Earl Salmony // November 7, 2007 at 7:28 am
Dear Magne, Paul, Trinifar, John and Friends,
Magne, you put our circumstances so wonderfully well when you speak of a collective mountaintop experience.
I share your view that we have arrived at the “top of the mountain.” Possibly the time has come just now and is, therefore, somehow right to look at where we go from here.
What I going to present is nothing new to our group; however, I remain convinced that the work of Dr. Jack Alpert has not yet received the attention it richly deserves.
Basically, his work calls out to the human community to immediately begin reversing the current trend of skyrocketing absolute global population numbers by implementing a program of rapid population decline. Rather than near exponential population expansion, he is advocating rapid population contraction.
What his work indicates is the need for a worldwide, “ONE CHILD PER FAMILY” initiative. He is not the only person to be advocating such a plan of action. Alan Weisman, the author of The World Without Us, has come to precisely the same conclusion.
Just for a moment, imagine that the a majority plus one of the human community shared the “top of the mountain” view that what we are doing now by adamantly advocating and relentlessly pursuing certain distinctly human overgrowth activities would eventually lead to the collapse of either human civilization or Earth’s ecology or both. Let us also suppose that this majority plus one agreed that the ethical thing to do was not to keep doing what we are doing now, but something different. If having multiple human offspring was unethical and having not more than one child per family was ethical, in part because such a program of action would have survival value for the human species, its global economy, other species and the integrity of Earth, then it seems to me that humanity would naturally and democratically move in a new ethical direction, along another path, perhaps to a good enough future for our children and generations to come.
Our “mountaintop” perspective makes one thing crystal clear: if humankind chooses to follow the current path of endless economic globalization, endless per human consumption and endless population expansion, a colossal wreckage of some kind is in offing.
In light of the great work being done by the contributors to the GROWTH IS MADNESS BLOG, I would like to ask humbly that you turn your attention to a website, one I presented some time ago.
http://www.skil.org
Once there, I would suggest that you begin by reviewing what Jack calls SKIL Notes. There are now 45 of them and they are mercifully short. These Notes show a certain careful and skillful development of thinking about resolving THE PROBLEM that presents itself to humanity now as the proverbial ‘mother’ of all global challenges, I believe.
Always, with thanks,
Steve
julienx2k2 // November 7, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Hi all,
First, I wanna say that after many days (or months?) of dark thoughts, reading the news and the reports coming out from different international entities, after such a long time witnessing an ecological disaster, I felt hope while reading this article and the comments that spread so far down on the webpage
Yes, there is hope in that an overwhelming majority of readers acknowledge the issue, and are willing to act. Yes, there is hope because when put in front of the facts, people can accept the truth; because the taboos seem to fade away and a discussion has been started. It is still a long way from being addressed on the international level, but this excellent article has showed one critical thing:
There are people out there that share our opinions but who do not know where to look to find support, to express themselves. Eventually they have found it, and for once, growth could be a sign of relief, growth of this community of thinkers recognizing population growth as a fundamental issue that cannot be avoided.
Today, I feel delighted. Might this day be the start of this change we have been waiting for.
Trinifar // November 7, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Have to admit that I too, after enjoying the glow of the positive response to John’s essay, sit here wondering about how quickly we can actually affect positive change.
There is perhaps nothing more difficult in this world of ours than convincing other of the need to reduce per capita consumption and reduce our numbers. To get people to act by motivating them a rather abstract argument (to my mind anything involving math is abstract) is to say the least quite challenge.
I wonder what sort of movement, what combination of existing movements, will be successful in convincing people to have one or no children and to voluntarily forego consumption that all the people around them are enjoying.
Awareness is the first step. I may be way out of line in thinking about the next steps; it might be better to just enjoy the little success of having the BBC publish John’s essay. But that’s not my nature. Ever the engineer, I’m always looking at the future behavior of the system under study.
Andrei // November 8, 2007 at 9:34 am
John,
Great article! I think we should propose a few concrete steps. There are two main sources of unchecked population growth.
People in developed countries live way too long and consume too much of the finite resources. We should ban people from living beyond the age of 60. A number of environmentally-friendly concentration camps can be built in developed countries that would finally solve the overpopulation problem there.
In the developing countries the problem is different. They have way too many children. Mandatory sterilization seems like the only reasonable solution. I’m afraid that a few concentration camps will have to built there as well. We need to do something with irresponsible women who will refuse to be sterilized.
Of course, one-size-fits-all approach will not always work. Obviously people like us should not be exterminated at the age of 60. We are too valuable for the movement to save the Earth.
[Response: I'm responding in line because there are currently a lot more readers here than usual and Andrei's sarcastic comment presents a great opportunity to highlight one of the obstacles to raising awareness of population issues. That obstacle is willful ignorance.
It takes only minutes to look into what research and expert consensus tells us concerning effective approaches to addressing population growth. There's an excellent summary at Trinifar and my own early attempt to summarize similar information remains here on GIM.
That someone like Andrei hasn't bothered to take a minute to learn about the issues, but is willing to assert a sarcastic, completely uninformed viewpoint reflects one of the real hurdles in raising awareness about these topics. How do we get the Andrei's of the world to suppress for a moment their urge to toss around forceful, knee-jerk, willfully ignorant opinions, and instead make the tiny effort to educate themselves minimally on the issues? -- John]
Magne Karlsen // November 8, 2007 at 10:56 am
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deadkennedys/killthepoor.html
Dead Kennedys: “Kill The Poor”
Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It’s nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home:
The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight
Gonna
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor:Tonight
Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate’s gone
Feel free again
O’ life’s a dream with you, Miss Lily White
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it’s okay
So let’s get dressed and dance away the night
While they:
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor: Prophetic Tonight?
Trinifar // November 8, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I’ve no idea what Andrie’s point was. That’s the problem with sarcasm; unless it’s masterfully done, you never really know what it’s trying to say. And I think John was quite right to jump in and clarify yet again his compassionate approach to population reduction.
I hope Andrie hangs around to clarify his thoughts. Could be he actually supports John’s point of view and was making a kind of pre-emptive strike against the those who start to cry about eugenics and the like whenever overpopulation is discussed.
Sarcasm is a powerful technique, but one so difficult to use constructively those of us who are not masters of the form should avoid it or add some clarifying remarks when feeling compelled to use it.
John Feeney // November 8, 2007 at 2:46 pm
A proud moment:
I’ve now been criticized by conservative columnist, Mark Steyn, in the National Review Online.
It’s appears to be a kind of blog posting on the site, and I wanted to jump in to say something about his labeling me some sort of people hater on the basis of this line from the article…
…while conveniently leaving out this one:
Alas, it appears there’s no comment feature. It seems the replies are only from other columnists there.
Still, this is kinda fun!
Seriously, I think prompting someone like Steyn to make public his disingenuous and/or ignorance-based views and letting people compare them with those of anyone seriously investigating these issues can only help.
John Theodorou // November 8, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Hi,
Great website. however I have a couple of questions.
Is it possible to bring human numbers down without a dieoff seeing we are already in overshoot, and what would you consider to be the state of the planet’s carrying capacity for us given how much we’ve degraded it?
Thanks,
John
Krishnaraj Rao // November 8, 2007 at 11:56 pm
John, I completely agree with all that you say here. I would like to hinge my own comment on what you say at the end, “Implementing these actions will require us all to become activists, insisting our leaders base decisions not on corporate interests but on the health of the biosphere.”
I would like to stress that our primary duty now, individually and collectively, lies in TRIGGERING ACTION that actually causes us palpable discomfort.
The myth we all are subscribing to — the myth of UNLIMITED ECONOMIC GROWTH — needs to collapse in all our minds. We all believe that barring a few minor hiccups (’corrections’ in stock-market jargon), a steady rate of GDP growth can be indefinitely sustained even as human population growth can be indefinitely sustained.
Our learned economists really do believe that year after year, the goodies that we consume can grow in volume and quality, and our lives can get better and more luxurious. They base all their projections on this theory. And our governments and we citizens believe in this myth.
The theory of nuclear energy or solar energy replacing fossil fuels as a source of UNLIMITED ENERGY TO FUEL UNLIMITED GROWTH is a corollary to the previous myth.
Folks, these are myths! Let’s face it!
Global Warming is a real emergency! We really must stop hiding our collective heads in the sand, and look at the real solutions. Not just small adjustment-type solutions like ‘Let us educate more people, learn to switch off the lights, conserve bathwater and see what happens’!
The key is: WE ALL NEED TO CUT BACK ON CONSUMPTION ON A LARGE SCALE!
And yes, that is defintely gonna hurt.
Cutting back consumption means coming out of our addiction to credit cards, private vehicles, packaged goodies, the mania for owning the ‘latest model’ of every electronic toy designed for adults — such as camera-phones, flat-screen televisions and more swish cars.
Of course reduced consumption by all those of us who are overconsuming resources will definitely mean NEGATIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH RATES! But this is a necessary shot of bitter medicine, and we have to take it, like it or not!
It also means IMMEDIATELY PUTTING OUR CAREERS on back-burners. Let us forget our obsession with maintaining a nice gradient of promotions, salary raises and increases in quarterly profits, please!
Can some of us please start petitioning our governments to STOP REGISTERING NEW PRIVATE TRANSPORT VEHICLES, which compete with public transport and lower their efficiencies? We need to cap their numbers and then reduce their numbers every year while swiftly stepping up PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE to enable more energy-efficient movements.
We also need to petition airlines to STOP REWARDING FREQUENT FLYERS. We need to fly around less! Let’s try to make do with internet, tele-conferencing, video-conferencing and email-groups, for Chrissake! We need to benchmark so that the numbers of journeys by flights and all means of transport are brought down.
We need to petition banks to stop rewarding BIG CREDIT-CARD SPENDERS and indeed, to cap the growth of credit cards at existing levels! We need to consume what requires less manufacturing, less packaging and less transportation. For instance, let us replace that bottle of coke with a nice home-brewed cuppa tea!
And last but not least, citizens of developed and developing nations need to take the lead in forcing their governments to ACTIVELY SEEK NEGATIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH RATES for a few years as a way of shaving the head off the CO2 emissions, and reducing the rampant consumerism that we all are habituated to!
I’m looking for thinking people to join me in actively triggering and leading a movement to spread this mindset of cooling down our individual and collective economic habits. (I already have a small group that includes a professor of climatology and a young entrepreneur. I am also on the Global Warming Committee of a chamber of commerce here in Mumbai, India, and I’ve been talking my head off at all sorts of fora… but we need lots more to generate a momentum for activism.)
We need to do lots more than just spreading awareness, and we need to do it NOW! Please let us stop pretending that this is a problem that we can deal with at our leisure, post-retirement.
I really do mean business, and have no time for pussy-footing around this issue. Anybody who stands convinced that this is an urgent problem that is crying out for action, please contact me now at friendlyghost.kk@gmail.com.
My websites are: http://globalwarming.rediffiland.com and http://backfoot.rediffiland.com.
Let us act now!
Krishnaraj Rao // November 9, 2007 at 12:01 am
Oh yes… and John, a footnote: I shall most happily promote your blog from my own blogs. What you state here in calm, reasoned tones needs to be widely thought about and understood.
Warmest Regards,
Krish
Magne Karlsen // November 9, 2007 at 4:51 am
Andrei is being sarcastic, of course. Just like the Dead Kennedys.
But it should not surprise you too much, if Andrei is merely saying that many, many people actually (but quietly) think! That the whole issue of overpopulation as a dominant factor to “getting” the ecological problems of this planet, is simply too much, man … too much, too much …
Steven Earl Salmony // November 9, 2007 at 9:24 am
Dear Friends,
We are beginning to notice in many places that ominously looming global challenges array themselves before humanity in the offing. Because these challenges appear to be derived for certain overgrowth activities of the human species, perhaps leaders of the human community are called upon to propose and adopt changes in theirs and our behavior, according to the practical requirements of biophysical reality. Please consider NINE TENTATIVE PROPOSALS as a Summary for a Plan of Action:
1. Free, immediate and universal access to contraception;
2. Open and readily available access to family and health planning education for everyone; and
3. Economic and social empowerment of women.
4. As a means of accelerating the present downward movement in birth rates in some countries, a VOLUNTARY policy of one child per family would be initiated worldwide.
5. The many people who are suffering the unhealthy effects of obesity will share their overly-abundant resources with many too many people who are starving.
6. Every good idea to conserve energy and scarce material resources will be implemented.
7. Substantial economic incentives are necessary for the development of safe energy resources as alternatives to fossil fuels.
8. Overhaul national tax systems so that conspicuous per human over-consumption of resources is eschewed and seemingly endless, soon to become unsustainable production/pollution activities of big business are transformed into Earth-friendly, sustainable enterprises.
9. Humanity needs a modified economic system, one that is sufficiently subordinated to democratic principles and practices, one that more adequately meets the basic needs of a majority of humanity who could choose to live better, simpler lives with less resources than the rich, powerful and famous among us consume now.
Overall, what is to be accomplished is a fair, less complicated, more equitable, and evolutionarily sustainable distribution of the world’s tangible (e.g., food) and intangible (e.g., education) resources, as soon as possible.
Thanks for your consideration.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on the Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Trinifar // November 9, 2007 at 11:10 am
Yeah, getting a mention on NRO means you’ve really arrived!
How about asking Mark Steyn to guest post here and engage in the discussion? I’m serious. It would be an opportunity to really engage with people of very different views.
myriad views on overpopulation « Trinifar // November 9, 2007 at 6:16 pm
[...] by Boris Johnson, a conservative MP running for Mayor of London. Reading this on the heels of John Feeney’s essay on BBC News site (that link links to the BBC article, see here for my post on John’s essay), I couldn’t [...]
population growth gets some mainstream attention « Trinifar // November 9, 2007 at 6:24 pm
[...] excellent essay “Humanity is the greatest challenge” on the BBC site. [Update: also see here for John’s post on his site Growth is Madness! and the comments there.] In it, he tackles the [...]
Darryl // November 9, 2007 at 9:08 pm
You all are crazy wacko environmentalists. You really don’t care about the environment; all you care about is controlling people like a socialist or marxist. Is John Feeney related in any way to Stalin? If you want to rid the planet of humanity, get rid of yourself first.
helen // November 10, 2007 at 12:04 am
Thank you so very much for your well presented article. I find that whenever I bring up population as an issue with friends it is frequently met with disbelief, hostility and denial. I am saddened by this as these are generally caring, thoughtful people but we seem to have an enormous blindspot….and this concerns me greatly. Of course, the 1st world-centric notion that it is “not our problem” doesn’t help. Hopefully if the subject was aired more it may sway a lot of people especially if arguments are presented in such a calm and reasonable manner ( mind you, I’m quite uncalm about it).
Magne Karlsen // November 10, 2007 at 5:44 am
(March 2007): http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00051.htm
“We should be working at war-time speed, but there seems to be a collective blindness.”
“As humans, we are dependent on natural ‘ecosystem’ services to a far greater degree than most people realise. With their business-as-usual stance, politicians hardly consider the enormously destructive effects of their policies. When they talk of ‘the economy’ and the need to protect it, they are talking only of the sum total of human consumptive activities. The ecological structure supporting this economy is forgotten and/or overlooked. Economic growth is seen as a good thing.”
- Robert Anderson
Steven Earl Salmony // November 10, 2007 at 9:17 am
Dear Magne,
Momentum is building. Many are the signs of forward movement and nascent change.
We will overcome humanity’s momentary collective blindness; our ineffectual leaders; the ignorant naysayers and rankled denialists; and the hysterically deaf, willfully blind and electively mute among us as well as those more clever ones who speak with forked tongues, who peddle disinformation, half-truths and outright lies.
As intelligent fools with power often do, they widely disseminate and repeat false statements often enough so as to make them appear believable.
Always,
Steve
Magne Karlsen // November 10, 2007 at 9:59 am
“This is a list of languages, ordered by the number of native-language speakers, with some data for second-language use. Languages are listed for secondary locations only when spoken by more than 1% of the population.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers
… and this is a joke:
http://metalhajj.blogspot.com/2006/10/resign.html
- “Oke mas, kalo gitu kapan saya mulai kerja?” eeh si manajer malah bingung. Asem!
Magne Karlsen // November 10, 2007 at 10:06 am
Question: Is some sense of togetherness needed in order to adress the issue of climate change? If so: how are we going to go about achieving the necessary sense of togetherness here, on a global level?
Answer: The above question is just plain stupidly put. - Give it up, man!
Magne Karlsen // November 10, 2007 at 11:20 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries
Just for the record: there ain’t no sense of belonging to the world; we are citizens, all of us, first and foremost. And expected to be patriotic about it, too! - A full disc of national anthems would have been splendid.
Magne Karlsen // November 10, 2007 at 12:19 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups
As a social anthropologist by education I feel like exclaiming: “Whoooah! Check this out!”
- —
John Feeney // November 10, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Helen,
Yes, absolutely.
That’s the hope. As others are saying, I think we’re seeing some renewed interest in the subject. Let’s hope it only grows (even though growth is madness!
)
John Feeney // November 10, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Trinifar,
Yeah, I’ll think about asking Steyn to do that. It does help to put the two views side by side in order to help readers weigh their respective merits. On the other hand, I’m also concerned about the problem of making it look as though the other side has a legitimate argument. It’s much like the problem climatologists have in publicly entertaining the views of climate change deniers. You even get major broadcast outlets presenting both “sides” as equally weighted when the reality is that the denier side is tiny compared to the scientific consensus. I think if the population debate were confined to natural scientists the skew would be similar.
Anyway, yeah, I’m weighing the options…
Magne Karlsen // November 10, 2007 at 12:59 pm
“Cogito ergo sum.”
Dear John,
This article is the best article on “the world problematique” that I have ever read. You have provided us with a most thorough description, or holistic analysis, of the problems at hand. Now, philosophically speaking: I can certainly agree with you, in that “humanity is the greatest challenge.” You’ve managed to wrap it up for us, in the most compelling manner. But you see: this leaves us with a new and unspoken challenge … I don’t know … maybe it’s unspeakable? …
Question: “WHAT IS HUMANITY?”
John Feeney // November 10, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Thanks Magne! Well I should mention that the original title of the article was “Waking up to humanity’s greatest challenge.” That would have left me free not to grapple with your question. But the BBC played up the population angle a bit. Hence the different title. That was fine by me, but now I have to deal with impossible questions.
John Feeney // November 10, 2007 at 1:54 pm
John Theodorou,
Those are very tough questions. They’re debated by capable minds on both sides. So I can offer no easy answer. Some of it may even come down to how we define a die-off. For instance, if you accept that the Iraq war as well as some other recent crises involve resources and ecological issues, then you can link many deaths already to our ecological challenges.
But the question of a massive die-off is very tough. Catton’s book, “Overshoot,” as one example, is very well argued and suggests some form of collapse is inevitable. Yet there are certainly well informed voices arguing otherwise.
It’s also pretty hard to estimate how much current overshoot is degrading remaining carrying capacity. I suspect Rees and Wackernagel, of “ecological footprint” fame, could take a credible shot at that. But I’m not going to try.
John Feeney // November 10, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Krishnaraj Rao ,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I will definitely look more closely at your websites as soon as I can!
Magne Karlsen // November 11, 2007 at 5:11 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature
“Human nature is the fundamental nature and substance of humans, as well as the range of human behavior that is, believed to be invariant over long periods of time and across very different cultural contexts.”
- —
http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml
“Human nature is one of those things that everybody talks about but no one can define precisely. Every time we fall in love, fight with our spouse, get upset about the influx of immigrants into our country, or go to church, we are, in part, behaving as a human animal with our own unique evolved nature—human nature.”
“Like it or not, human nature is simply not politically correct.”
Magne Karlsen // November 11, 2007 at 9:58 am
Google: “fear of change necessity”: http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q=Fear+of+change+necessity&meta=
- —
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/climate-change-and-the-politics-of-fear/
Mr. Gourevitch did not portray himself as a skeptic of climate change, but he argued, “What the science cannot tell you is what our political and social response should be.” Science cannot determine whether humans should focus on mitigation or adaptation, he said.
Mr. Gourevitch quoted Al Gore as describing the climate change not only as the most urgent issue of our time, but also as a unique opportunity for current generations to affect the course of history. Mr. Gourevitch summarized this approach as “the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the human need for transcendence.”
- —
http://www.corporatespiritaustralia.com/fearofchange.html
“Individuals respond differently to the prospect of change and often react to change by resisting or avoiding it or blaming others for the change.”
- —
I’m thinking: when the prospect of change comes around as a necessity, the people’s fear of change becomes enormous. Social change is easy when it is wanted, but it is virtually impossible when it is a necessity; in this case according to the natural sciences. Under these circumstances the idea of social change gives rise to a lot of other forms of fear. The fear of failure, for one. - A taboo topic of sorts.
Steven Earl Salmony // November 11, 2007 at 10:45 am
Too many politicians and corporate CEOs are ignominiously disregarding consistent and overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming and other pernicious forms of climate change. What is woefully inadequate, what is unconscionable, is the dearth of reasonable and sensible leadership by those who have assumed the responsibilities of positions of power in the political economy.
Business-as-usual that adamantly and relentlessly favors unbridled industrialization and unrestrained economic globalization could be approaching a point in history when the huge scale and rapid growth rate of endlessly expanding business activities are soon to become patently unsustainable on a relatively small, finite, noticeably frangible planet the size of Earth.
Perhaps now is the time for national leaders to acknowledge a nest of world problems, the reality of which most leaders remain in denial.
Given the probability that certain dimly visible but identifiable global problems can be expected to fall into the laps of our kids, it appears somehow not quite right both to willfully leave these problems unattended and, even more disturbing, to fail in the exercise of a DUTY TO WARN our children: a duty to warn them of potential dangers to life as we know it and to the integrity of Earth.
Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
http://journals.aol.com/sesalmony/HumanandEnvironmentalHealth/
Magne Karlsen // November 12, 2007 at 10:49 am
The fear factor: “Oh Lord! What in God’s name have we done?!”
- —
Social, political and economic institutions and organizations still go to great lengths in order to suppress or repudiate the science on which knowledge of environmental hazards is based. And ordinary everyday people go privately to great lengths in order to do the same: suppress all knowledge about environmental degradation and global warming. The truth about humanity’s irresponsible acts of violence on the natural environment on which we all depend, is simply too inconvenient to even contemplate. Normal, everyday people (unlike myself) do not want to know. Knowledge about environmental hazards is scary. The soothing belief in natural cycles is a much easier idea to cling to. — And thus — in this simple social / cultural fashion — the social, the political, and the economic status quo is forever secured. — Why? Because all forms of positive change is very easily interpreted as a bad omen.
What I argue is that we don’t have to suppress knowledge at all. The open pursuit of knowledge must be our greatest weapon against the dangers of environmental degradation.
But again. All I need to do in order to convince myself that I’m fighting a losing battle, is to turn on the television and listen to the news, which is always about millions of dollars.
Magne Karlsen // November 13, 2007 at 7:25 am
HOW CAN PEOPLE BE INDUCED TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR? The Path from Persuasive Communication to Binding Communication.
- Robert-Vincent Joule, Fabien Girandola, Francois Bernard
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00018.x?cookieSet=1
“Many prevention, education, and communication professionals suppose that as long as the information ‘goes down well’, and/or as long as the arguments are ’strong’ enough, the proper behavior will automatically fall into place. Social psychologists have long been aware, however, of the limits of such an assumption. Informing and convincing are not enough, as ‘good ideas’ don’t automatically lead to ‘proper behavior’.” (p. 1 - 2)
“According to the circumstances, subjects will feel more or less bound by the act they were induced into doing. We can therefore understand why Kiesler chose to define commitment as the link between people and their actions. It is quite easy to grasp, for instance, that the link will be stronger when the person acts in a context of freedom rather than in one of constraint.” (p. 9)
Magne Karlsen // November 13, 2007 at 9:54 am
THE LOSS OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: A Group Relations Perspective on Our Failure to Take Collective Action
- Trudy Heller, Dana Kaminstein
http://www.execed-environment.com/loss_of_the_natural_env.pdf
“This paper seeks to contribute to our understanding of American society’s failure to take collective action in the face of substantial loss to our natural environment. We argue that Group Relations Theory is an essential perspective for understanding this inaction, as it allows us to see how social structures function to protect us from the unpleasant emotions provoked by realization of the environmental crisis.
We present evidence of how the defensive mechanisms of splitting and denial serve to defend us against the unpleasant emotions evoked by the loss of the natural environment. We find evidence of these defense mechanisms in the way we idealize technology while marginalizing critics of technology, in the way we export our dirt and in the way we maintain environmental secrets. We explore practical methods, suggested by the Group Relations perspective, for enabling collective action.”
Steven Earl Salmony // November 13, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Hi Magne,
As a psychologist, you can imagine how much I enjoyed your post, just above. I find the perspective of the Object Relations theorists, beginning with Dr. Melanie Klein, particularly appealing.
Although this next link is not on our current topic, I trust those of us who are thinking globally might find something useful in the Abstract that follows.
http://askeric.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?getdoc+ericdb2+ericdb+902293+61+wAAA+%28bigotry%29
As ever,
Steve
Magne Karlsen // November 13, 2007 at 2:10 pm
http://cac.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/42/3/321
“A lack of trust in the capacity of states and other actors to tackle environmental issues leads to international environmental insecurity. Awareness of such incapacities is widespread and is increasing in `modern risk societies’.”
- Monica Tennberg
John Feeney // November 13, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Magne and Steve,
Yes, these are definitely key points. We defend against awareness and recognition of the truth, and there will have to be attention paid to how to get around that to allow for change.
It goes hand in hand, I suppose, with the large obstacle of getting these issues into the mainstream media.
I’ll be interested in reviewing those links.
Magne Karlsen // November 14, 2007 at 7:54 am
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2569823.html
Now, here’s an even greater challenge!
“A US police chief has stockpiled chainsaws - in case his city is invaded by zombies.”
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher // November 14, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Those here, including Jim Feeny “PhD” and everyone else here with their happy face - woe is me Humanitarian approach to life, are likely not going to like what I write about this article and the comments that have followed it, especially if they simply read what I write for how they might be offended by my words.
I am offensive for a reason. You are all vile and vain sinners.
However, my skin is thick, my hair is still curly, if a hoary white, and I personally don’t care what anyone here thinks. And, because I want you all to think, and remember what I think, I will speak the truth as I know it, coarse, and insulting to all of you. You will all read, because I write well enough, and you will all come to your own silly conclusions about what I have written because you are human. You are not gods. You are not immortal. You are not even prescient. We all wheedle our lives away sleep walking through life oblivious to everything about which we are not already dreaming about, wet dreams or nightmares, and so very rarely brushing up against reality, the thing in itself, it is as if we were never here at all to perform any of our lofty but otherwise until now impossible free will. Everyone here is but an automaton, punching their Humanitarian card daily with their thoughts, feeling good about themselves, but wholly unable to affect their free will because they know not what is moral.
Would you affect your free will to be immoral? No. That is an easy enough rhetorical question coming from the hurdy gurdy droning language that means nothing much or most of the time it is used… You can answer that question can you not? Would you claim to have affected your free will if you did something that was immoral? No. Hooray! We are awake, or so it seems.
Well then, how do you know you have affected your free will, if you do not know what is moral?
You don’t know what is moral, exactly, do you?
Do you think you do? Then what is moral?
Morality is not relative, as you all assume, and as you have been endlessly taught by the schools that teach that everything will be uncovered for you through empirical science as if there, as if there you would find some sort of truth.
It is a lie. It is a fraud. Empiricism itself is but a more complex and thorough witchcraft. There are no moral tenets inherent to anything empiricism. And, none of you could possibly affect your free will by your knowledge of any of it, the now vast and vastly dangerous empirical knowledge set.
You have shaved away, and honed your empirical models in an attempt to recreate the reality of the thing in itself that you have never known except by your enfeebled senses, sleepwalking through life as you all do, each of you with this vile belief that empiricism reveals truth. Did witchcraft reveal any truth? Empiricisms have revealed no more.
How could you affect some of your lofty free will, if you do not know what morality is? How could you know what is truth, and what is a lie, if you cannot and do not even know what is moral?
Jim Feeny, who until not too long ago was “little Jimmy Feeny” down the street, or up on the hill, and who will soon enough be Old Jimmy Feeny, the old codger who used to live down the street or up on the hill…
Jim Feeny in his article has spoken a horrific lie of silent assertion, as if there were nothing wrong with his perception, and he has handed his vile lie of silent assertion to countless others as truth through the BBC.
Jim Feeny does not know what is moral. And because he does not know what is moral, he, like the mindless automaton he is, speaks this lie as if it came from on high. And thus he leads humanity down the path toward the destruction he himself thinks he has effectively decried in his article.
Here is Jim Feeny’s lie of silent assertion:
“We’re out of our league, influencing systems we don’t understand ”
And while I understand what he is saying, I am appalled by the lie, a lie of silent assertion that this statement represents. This lie of silent assertion could not be better phrased by Lucifer himself seeking to entangle humanity in a web of deceit about the reality of the situation. Jim Feeney has performed a vast disservice to he world for which he writes with this lie.
By this lie of silent assertion Jim Feeny calls forth an empirical messiah to give answer to his quest to know how to do these things! No empirical messiah will come. It is all a fraud.
The truth is, humanity has always been out of its league trying to affect systems it cannot and will never adequately understand. That is the nature of the thing in itself. And until we understand what is moral, we will not even be able to restrain ourselves from uttering such lies, and from acting so immorally as we do.
The truth is, Mr. Feeny, the promise of science to make life better, is a fraud. Who here thinks they can make life better? You are a fool if you think you can. No one can make life better. Life is the ultimate good and the ultimate truth all wrapped up into one. How do you make that better?
Another rhetorical question emerges for the weak minds here. Be not ashamed of your weak mind, for we all, every human, we all have weak minds.
We are so utterly ignorant, we believe that if we have heard or read a lie, there is some logical means by which to know the truth derived from the experience of hearing or reading a lie. Pshaw!
THERE IS NO LOGICAL MEANS TO KNOW THE TRUTH BASED UPON HEARING OR READING A LIE! THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF LIES WHERE TO THE SAME QUEST THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH.
The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.
That is the answer to Kant’s query about there possibly being a Categorical Imperative. I answered his philosophic query about there being a categorical moral imperative he left unanswered in 1804 when he died. I only gave answer to this conjecture in 2006.
The Moral Imperative of Life is categorcially true.
You can test it yourself. The Moral Imperative of Life is true in every instance with no exception.
No empirical knowledge can meet that test.
From The Moral Imperative of Life alone you can learn how to express your free will. With it you can become civilized in the first instance of humanity’s civilized civilization. For The Moral Imperative of Life is by far the most important discovery in the history of human discovery.
From the moral imperative, if you take the time to consider what it means, as I have over the last year, you will find The Moral Imperative of Life means until now, humanity has been at best an empirical barbarian.
Oh! Oh! He speaks the truth! He speaks the truth!
Shut up, and listen, Fools.
As empirical knowledge was once considered to laud over superstition (The Enlightenment), so now Categorical Knowledge now trumpets much more convincing than any empirical knowledge.
Categorical Knowledge arises from The Moral Imperative of Life.
For it is simply immoral to gamble when the wager of the gamble is in any sense the prospect for the future. Such failures here for humanity are cumulative, and they add one to the next with a continually more grave debasement of humanity in the future.
And you fools who are Humanitarians believe it is moral to do unto others as you would have then do unto you… You selfish bastards.
Life is a party. And you dare complain for yourself, your own needs and wants, or, the needs and wants of others at this party? You want to paint over some of the pictures? Rearrange some of the furniture? Throw some of it out?
The host of the party is the future.
What do you think they are going to think of their party guests when they arrive here and see the place trashed and over-populated as it is?
What will they think if you burn the place down?
And The Moral Imperative of Life says otherwise, quite otherwise.
The Moral Imperative of Life says, do unto the future as you would have had the past do for you.
That is free will.
And I am not afraid to say it, Feeny. I am for a negative growth economy.
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
John Feeney // November 14, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Hi Don,
I don’t know the whereabouts of the Jim Feeny guy you refer to, but since my name is similar, I’ll respond.
Your comment is probably the longest anyone’s ever left here. But beyond that, I’m not sure what you think is so offensive. You call people fools and make a few angry remarks, but none of it rings genuine to me. I think you’re just a teddy bear in disguise.
What you end up describing is really the definition of “sustainability” as it’s understood by the most uncompromising environmentalists today. I see little to disagree with! Yes, we should “do unto the future as you would have had the past do for you.”
And when I wrote, “We’re out of our league, influencing systems we don’t understand,” I did not mean to imply that with just a little more science or tinkering we would understand them. What will we understand in a thousand years, if “we” are still here? I wouldn’t pretend to know. But I suspect we will still be out of our league if we’re still trying to “run” or dominate the earth.
Sorry Don, I’m afraid I’m not particularly offended.
I agree with too much of what you say.
Let me suggest, though, that many more people will read your comments if you’re a little more concise. That’s just kind of how it works in the blog world.
John Feeney // November 15, 2007 at 1:21 am
Magne,
Are you saying you don’t have your anti-zombie chainsaws ready? Just in case? You need one of these, man!
http://www.horrorstew.com/images/Chainsaw003.jpg
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher // November 15, 2007 at 1:48 am
John Feeney!-
Yes. Just a Teddy Bear in disquise. I mean no harm. I simply have not the education or interest to express myself other than as I do, for it comes entirely out of a lack of any respect for what an “education” represents.
To keep it short as you suggest, I will advise you and everyone else that reads here, every knowledge set given to us by empirical science, including the knowledge set of the environmental scientist, has and will always be a Pandora’s Box.
It is always an immoral choice to open it for others and the future.
And while you may not see your statement, “We’re out of our league, influencing systems we don’t understand ” as a challenge to develop more powerful tools, techniques and to tinker even more with the planet, some other empiricist certainly will.
Politicians will someday run on a platform claiming that they will take the risk to correct the problems with the environment that John Feeney dicovered!
Thank you Mr. Feeney for the inspiration.
Have you not heard of bio-tech, genetic engineering, the genome project, nanotechnology, and advanced particle physics, lasing matter or, brain implantaion experimentation, psychology and the Tuskeegee Experiment? Oh, of course you have. So? What? Just an aberration? What, an aberration like the effects of lead, arsenic and mercury in the drinking water?
Have you not read what the cell phone is doing to a very sure percentage of our young peoples’ brains? An aberration, like that?
Have you not considered economics is merely the empirical science of how to more efficiently destroy the world? An aberration more like that?
All the empirical sciences are little more than witchcraft. They are all immoral.
An empirical education, and, even the very development of empirical knowledge sets are both categorically immoral. They are wagers against the clear probability of human nature using these dangerous empirical knowledge sets, immorally, and causing a cumulative harm to the future.
This sort of thing is going to happen, every time.
Thank your lucky stars, kids, that Ted Kaczynski
was neither a bio-engineering student or an environmental engineer!
Oh… Let’s make this a little longer with the following analogy…
Were I a scientist who found I had invented a bomb from relatively simple components, and components that anyone could easily purchase and assemble into a bomb, and, if this bomb would destroy one third of the world’s surface rendering every living thing larger than a cricket within its effective range lifeless, would it be immoral for me to publish the results of my scientific inquiry on the Internet?
Oh just think how empirically famous I’d be! I can see it now, The Robertson Prize for empirically destroying the world, yet again! Me and Albert Noble would rest comfortably together in Valhalla.
Few, if any, scientists would argue that were I to publish such a discovery on the Internet, that my dangerous act would be amoral, the typical though dubious scientific claim to the non-immoral nature of their work. Scientists would generally each probably agree that there are human beings out there who would build such a bomb, and let it off, destroying the world.
But from this analogy, in order to show scientists are not and cannot be moral, or even amoral, whether they are environmental scientists or the bio-engineering students who make bio-weapons or perfect empirical knowledge sets so others can make bio-weapons for the government, we then only need to ask, is there not such a bomb possible in the continually growing knowledge sets of every empirical science? And will not one of these irresponsible individuals find making these bombs possible? And do it?
Human nature says, Yes, dearie. Yes, someone will do it.
And as we come to the inescapable conclusion that science itself is dangerous and very much akin to witchcraft, the typical “science is amoral” defense of scientists for their immoral development of empirically derived knowledge sets that imperil all humanity melts away.
The notion that the environmental scientist is a breed apart and moral, a monk of Humanitarian good, also equally seems a swimming puddle on the floor.
Get a haircut, you immoral, empirical, environmentalist Einstein!
Again, you can have it your way.
I will remain adamant, your statement reeks of an empirically reckless immorality. It will be the cause of someone else wreaking havoc upon the planet. Oh! I know… You meant well when you went on meddling where you had no morally good reason to go in the first place, like my hypothetical scientific inquiry into how to built the next great bomb!
“We’re out of our league, influencing systems we don’t understand ” simply implies it would be a good thing could we understand these things.
It is not even a good thing to say it is impossible, defining the next empirical experiment for those unscrupulous individuals who might take the querying notion on, of exactly how to go about it for their PhD thesis project.
PhD students are typically looking for something impossible, aren’t they? Again, human nature… The immorality of the empirical barbarian is encouraged by education. Dump the alphabet soup of your vile education if you want credibility in my eyes.
The Moral Imperative of Life will take you, or anyone else here more than a year, and likely your entire lifetime to simply digest what the implications are. I have spent well more than a year with it, and I am still continually surprised.
And, I have not lost an argument yet. (To my own satisfaction anyway. But again, human nature lets some of my quary escape. They call me an idiot. Yes, I am an idiot. Are not all humans?)
The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.
The Moral Imperative of Life is not simply a statement of a “definition of “sustainability” as it’s understood by the most uncompromising environmentalists”.
The Moral Imperative of Life because it is categorically true, true in every instance with no exception, it is a new kind of knowledge. The Moral Imperative of Life opens the door to Categorical Knowledge.
And where empirical science was until the recent discovery of Categorical Knowledge the most fundamentally radical religion on the planet, it will seem quite tame as Categorical Knowledge picks up a head of steam over the next millenium.
When you can say, this, that or anything else is categorically true, there’s not a lot of wiggle room left.
And I’m telling you straight up, despite the common posturing, environmental scientitists are just as immoral as every other empirical scientist on the planet, worse, because their subject matter is literally the very destruction of the planet!
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
Magne Karlsen // November 15, 2007 at 5:28 am
http://www.offthemarkcartoons.com/cartoons/1993-08-31.gif
. ..
Ed Friesen // November 15, 2007 at 7:12 am
After I read the article, I wanted to call out “Oh, rubbish!”
But I won’t.
Instead, I’ll make a few points, perhpas overstating the case at times, but it’s in a good cause!
“Despite increasing climate change coverage, environmental writers remain reluctant to discuss the full scope and severity of the global dilemma we’ve created. Many fear sounding alarmist, but there is an alarm to sound and the time for reticence is over. ”
THINK ABOUT THIS: Who put “environmental writers” in charge of anything, anyway? Even just one isolated aspect of the environment, like climate, is so complicated that the entire community of scientists can’t explain — let alone predict — something as basic as what the weather is going to be like in Geneva two weeks from now. So speculative professional ‘writers’ or journalists (the self-appointed prophets of our age) are certainly in no position to lecture anyone, let alone ring the global alarm bells.
“We’ve outgrown the planet and need radical action to avert unspeakable consequences. This - by a huge margin - has become humanity’s greatest challenge.
If we’ve altered the climate, it should come as no surprise that we have damaged other natural systems. From deforestation to collapsing fisheries, desertification, the global spread of chemical toxins, ocean dead zones, and the death of coral reefs, an array of interrelated declines is evidence of the breadth of our impact. ”
THINK ABOUT THIS: No arguments on any of these details. But we also shouldn’t assume that, until humans came along, nature basked in stable bloodless tranquillity. Nature is “red in tooth and claw”; stability is achieved following cataclysms, after hundreds or thousands of generations have struggled, reproduced and died young.
“Add the depletion of finite resources such as oil and ground-water, and the whole of the challenge upon us emerges.
… Billions could die. ”
THINK ABOUT THIS: Billions will die. In fact, chances are, not a single one of us will still be alive 150 years hence. Sobering thought, isn’t it?
“At the very least, we risk our children inheriting a bleak world, empty of the richness of life we take for granted.”
THINK ABOUT THIS: Actually, not our children, though perhaps their children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children. True, that doesn’t make it a good thing for us to poison and exterminate the tiger, the dolphine, the elephant, the okapi, and many lesser critters.
“Alarmist? Yes, but realistically so. ”
THINK ABOUT THIS: “Realistically alarmist” is an oxymoron. (NB alarmist is not the same as alarming.) Alarmism leads to panic.
“The most worrisome aspect of this ecological decline is the convergence in time of so many serious problems. Issues such as oil and aquifer depletion and climate change are set to reach crisis points within decades.”
THINK ABOUT THIS: Well… let’s take just the first issue he mentions. The price of oil is now twice what it was after the mid-1970s “oil shock”, and world economies are apparently not suffering from it. As oil gets scarcer, it will grow dearer, and the resulting economic incentive to improve efficiency and move to alternatives will bring about the change in course that some people think should be legislated by government.
“Biodiversity loss is equally problematic. As a result of their ecological interdependence, the extinction of species can trigger cascade effects whereby impacts suddenly and unpredictably spread. We’re out of our league, influencing systems we don’t understand. ”
THINK ABOUT THIS: Species have been emerging and disappearing since life began.
However, it is certainly true that we are influencing systems we don’t understand. There are genuine hazards in re-engineering lifeforms, for example, but one shouldn’t confuse things by lumping oil prices, biodiversity, superbugs and global warming together.
“One thing is certain: continued inaction or half-hearted efforts will be of no help - we’re at a turning point in human history.”
THINK ABOUT THIS: This is anything but certain. If we don’t understand the systems we are tinkering with, appointing a different tinkerer is no guarantee of success!
“Though few seem willing to confront the facts, it’s no secret how we got here. We simply went too far. The growth which once measured our species’ success inevitably turned deadly.
Unceasing economic growth, increasing per capita resource consumption, and global population growth have teamed with our reliance on finite reserves of fossil energy to exceed the Earth’s absorptive and regenerative capacities.”
THINK ABOUT THIS: Um…. the ‘Earth’s absorptive and regenerative capacities’ do not come with a gauge that says “Maximum economic growth exceeded”.
Resources, by their nature, are forever being depleted; witness the effects of deforestation in ancient Greece, in Britain, or in Haute Savoie, where unregulated use of the resource led to an economic crisis to which the societies reacted and adapted. Human ingenuity finds new resources when old ones disappear. And regeneration takes place, by definition, with each generation.
“We are now in “overshoot”; our numbers and levels of consumption having exceeded the Earth’s capacity to sustain us for the long-term. ”
THINK ABOUT THIS: It’s true that if all of humanity insists on owning two horses and having a personal jet plane, we run the risk of a horrendous increase in airplane and riding accident. But we don’t. And there’s no point in legislating against these things, because the simple economics of owning two horses and a Learjet goes a long way towards mitigating the problem.
“And as we remain in overshoot, we further erode the Earth’s ability to support us. ”
THINK ABOUT THIS: “Overshoot” is not a technical term. A dumbed-down graph illustrating a hoary Malthusia canard is no replacement doesn’t tell us anything useful.
“Inevitably, our numbers will come down, whether voluntarily or through such natural means as famine or disease.
So what can get us out of this mess? First comes awareness. Those in a position to inform must shed fears of alarmism and embrace the truth. “”
THINK ABOUT THIS: I’m sorry if this offends, but I think this is sanctimonious nonsense. True, humanity is destroying many separate bits of its environment, and may even be undermining parts of the foundation; but alarmism is precisely what one needs to avoid. Alarmism leads to panic, which leads to ill-advised action. “Embrace the truth” is OK out of the mouth of a preacher; but if my car is broken and the mechanic urges me to embrace the truth, I should change mechanics.
“We need a complete transition to clean, renewable energy. It can’t happen overnight, but reliance on non-renewable energy is, by definition, unsustainable. ”
THINK ABOUT THIS: It’s depressing, but the people using non-renewable energy don’t care if it’s sustainable or not. In the case of car drivers, they only care that oil should last as long as it takes for the industry to come up with a better way of powering vehicles. In the case of countries, they only care that oil should be available at a relatively affordable price that allows their national economies to prosper, relatively speaking, for as long as the situation lasts.
Oil today is obviously cheap enough to make it attractive for all sorts of uses, or it wouldn’t be getting used. Those people, and countries, who nonetheless choose to reduce their use of oil, may be doing their neighbours a marginal favour (by leaving more of the resource available for those who want to consume it now). However, they are not going to fundamentally change the dynamics: oil will continue to be pumped, refined and burned, until it becomes too scarce and too expensive, compared with some alternative.
“But there is a caveat: abundant clean energy alone will not end our problems. There remains population growth which increases consumption of resources other than energy…. As a promising alternative, the field of ecological economics offers the “steady state economy”.
THINK ABOUT THIS: A “steady state economy” sounds suspiciously like a reservation, a hedged-off area that humans mustn’t stray outside. Anyone who thinks the human race will impose a budget on its use of water, coal or titanium for the sake of all future generations has obviously never tried to impose a budget on a family of four.
“We must end world population growth, then reduce population size. That means lowering population numbers in industrialised as well as developing nations.
[...]
Fortunately, expert consensus tells us we can address population humanely by solving the social problems that fuel it. ”
THINK ABOUT THIS: That’s a relief! (I was afraid he was going to prescribe mass executions.) Population doesn’t get “fuelled” by social problems, it just grows naturally in traditional societies in the absence of external curbs such as disease, famine, war and other disasters. In industrialized countries population growth would be negative, if it wasn’t for immigration. But this isn’t due to development aid; it’s due to contraception, consumerism, the elimination of traditional roles for women (removing the stigma from childless women and making it more attractive for them to work), the disintegration of traditional family structures, the ban on child labour…
Implementing these actions will require us all to become activists, insisting our leaders base decisions not on corporate interests but on the health of the biosphere.
THINK ABOUT THIS: Er, no. What he calls ‘the health of the biosphere’ requires that wolves kill baby caribou; bull caribou cripple each other in fights over the cow; the cow kicks to death the calf of another mother; the rabbit frantically fornicates its way into an early grave, while its descendants, in the absence of lots of ruthless predators, multiply until starvation and disease ravages the population (at which point they will have attracted lots of ruthless predators from neighbouring lands, who will end up starving in their turn).
The fact is, humans, insofar as they are rational, have outgrown the rules of the biosphere, for better or for worse.
Emotional arguments like this one, based on a romantic vision of a primitive idyll and a fundamental misanthropism, only distract us from a sober contemplation of the issues.
Steven Earl Salmony // November 15, 2007 at 9:14 am
Dear Don and Ed,
Please know that your views and your ways of expressing them are ones with which I am in complete disagreement.
In the course of the past seven years I have unfortunately seen too many e-messages like yours. If only I could believe what you are presenting helps anything or anyone.
Then, again, perhaps I am one of the ones who completely fails to sufficiently understand not only the way the world in which we live works but also to adequately enough grasp how the human species fits into the natural order of living things on Earth.
Godspeed,
Steve
Paul Chefurka // November 15, 2007 at 10:20 am
Ed,
“I don’t get it” would have saved the lives of a lot of innocent electrons.
It’s interesting - some people “get” John’s argument at an almost instinctive level (I’m one of them), while others seem to have a structural inability to understand it. I don’t know what makes that difference, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t reside in neocortex. The logical part of the brain is great at coming up with defenses for what the deeper parts of our brain have already decided on. This applies to those on both sides of such an argument, and I think it’s intrinsic to the way we’re wired. It’s the same response pattern we see in discussions about abortion for example.
That divide can not generally be bridged by rational discourse or logical argumentation - what’s causing it lies too deep for mere reason to access.
So thanks for your contribution to the debate, but I suspect you won’t find many of the readers here to be on your side of the chasm.
John Feeney // November 15, 2007 at 10:37 am
Ed,
I was beginning to leave a point by point response in your comment, but Paul got to the gist of it so incisively that little more need be said. (Thanks, Paul.) I’ll just touch on one small point as a token example:
Such a comment is telling. That species have always been emerging and disappearing has no relevance whatsoever to today’s mass extinction.
Most of your other comments are about on a par with that one. Anyone here who might decide to read through all of them can assess them and come to their own conclusions.
John Feeney // November 15, 2007 at 10:46 am
Okay, Ed, Don, and anyone else inclined to leave exceptionally long comments:
I’m going to have to start editing your comments for brevity or, if time is short (more likely), just blocking or deleting them if you don’t make them much, much more concise. Obviously, as you can see above, I’m not inclined to block a commenter just because s/he disagrees with me. But this is a blog. While discussion is encouraged, the comment field is not the place for miles-long treatises and diatribes. Those actually tend to stifle discussion because most readers don’t read them. They tend just to sit there as dead weight — too much to read over coffee, too much to respond to, etc.
No doubt, you won’t like the results if I edit your stuff for you. So be reasonably brief or don’t bother to comment.
I may have to institute a comment policy, but am hoping people can just use common sense and common courtesy. Okay?
Don Robertson // November 15, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Thanks John.
Three times I’ve unsuccessfully tried to say all that elsewhere on the net, each time, where it would count. Each time I became more shrill in my exasperation caused by cowards and liars.
I am shrill for many reasons, but not the least of which is the dishonesty I have found such an ubiquitous part of human nature, and most often sorely ascending in severity as educational levels rise.
You have passed that test as well as I would hope I would pass it myself, given half the chance.
Thanks again. You have restored some of my surely misplaced faith in humanity to be more than the barbaric species we both know we all are part of.
Life is too short to be cordial about any of it, has been my long experience.
I hope and trust we all now have much more to agree upon.
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
Ed Friesen // November 16, 2007 at 1:42 am
Dear John,
I apologize for not being more concise, and for adopting a tone that was rather provocative at times. I appreciate your sense of fairplay in not ditching my comments, on either count!
Ed
Steven Earl Salmony // November 16, 2007 at 4:15 am
Dear Don,
For me, what you are saying and doing is confusing. I do not understand.
I am for everyone speaking out loudly and clearly, but somehow the way you do so leaves me cold.
It does please me that you have felt heard. That is important. Who knows, maybe it is vital for you. If so, that is good.
I do not know which of us is older, but in my long experience, one lesson I have learned is to reasonably and sensibly persist in saying what you see to be true. Never give up. The best way to overcome resistance to unwelcome ideas is by persistence.
Go forward,
Steve
John Feeney // November 16, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Don and Ed,
My thanks to both of you for your constructive replies. I’m glad we’re all thinking about these issues, even if we may take somewhat different paths in doing so.
Steven Earl Salmony // November 17, 2007 at 6:32 am
If empirical evidence from the great men, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri and Dr. Mohan Munasinghe, and their 2000 colleagues in the International Panel on Climate Change, regarding global warming, is not junk science, and not the hoax many people have assured us it is, then the political, economic and ecological ramifications of “staying the course” could be profound.
If humankind chooses to continue doing what we are relentlessly doing now by overconsuming, overpopulating, and endlessly expanding production capabilities of the artificially designed human economy, our children could unexpectedly come face to face with colossal problems, ones involving the perilous breakdown of the global political economy or the dangerous degradation of Earth’s frangible ecosystem services and limited resources, or both economic and ecologic collapse.
We see and hear in the news day after day about national security and economic security. I can understand that attention is focused upon these things. They are vital. What is difficult for me to grasp is the failure of people to openly and adequately discuss environmental security. That is vital, too, I suppose.
Let me add, in closing, that it will be pleasing to see expressions of concern for Earth’s ECOLOGY be presented in the mass media as often as words of concern for the manmade ECONOMY. I am also expecting that such parity will eventually lead to ECONOMIC wealth being directed to ECOLOGIC maintenance, dollar for dollar. That is to say, every dollar from sustainable economic development would be matched with a dollar directed to ecologic protection.
Magne Karlsen // November 17, 2007 at 9:21 am
http://www.peace.ca/organizationdysfunction.htm
“While collective sanity tends to involve relatively simple and consistent patterns, craziness is entertainingly diverse.”
- Karl Albrecht
John Feeney // November 17, 2007 at 10:43 am
Thanks to Bill Ryerson’s email list:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/29/AR2007102902179_pf.html
“Last week at his library, in a speech at a Slate conference honoring top philanthropists, Clinton sounded almost critical of the presidential candidates, including his wife.
His complaint? None has put the subject of population control in a world with shrinking resources on the 2008 agenda.
“Now, nobody’s going to talk about this in the election this year — in either party — but I ain’t running for anything, I can do it,” he said, saying the world population will be 9 billion by the year 2050.”
Magne Karlsen // November 17, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Very good.
- —
In actual fact, I’ve spent the last hour thinking about some political “spearheads” like Hitler or Stalin’s possible response to the ugly question of population overshoot. - And here you are, citing William J. Clinton: a saxophonist of world fame, and not a person who would be expected by anyone to dwell on genocidal ideas. -
Krishnaraj Rao // November 18, 2007 at 12:38 am
I see a lot of conversation happening here — thoughts flying back and forth. My warm compliments to John for painstakingly allowing every shade of opinion to live and breathe and be acknowledge, including outright hostility.
In connection with Helen’s comment: ‘Of course, the 1st world-centric notion that it is “not our problem” doesn’t help’ — I would like to say something in this connection.
Here in India, I face the same kind of public resistance and sometimes subtle hostility while speaking of how GDP growth is inimical to the environment. The idea that global warming is “not out problem” is not a 1st-world-centric notion; it is UNIVERSAL. To shirk responsibility, to argue that the onus of making sacrifices is someone else’s — this is a generally human tendency.
People in India argue that Americans have 20 tonnes of per-capita carbon emission to Indians’ one tonne per capita; and therefore it is their responsibility to take the first cuts in growth. My fellow-citizens in India (and probably other developing nations like China) feel that developing nations are interested in calling a halt to fossil-fuel-guzzling growth as the latter have finished growing to an optimal level.
Needless to say, I don’t endorse this kind of tunnel-vision; I feel that developing or developed, we ALL have a responsibility to stop growing. Indeed, this is a good time for all of us to rise above finger-pointing and to rise to take a ‘Gods-Eye-View’ of the planet.
Warm Regards,
Krish
Steven Earl Salmony // November 18, 2007 at 7:25 am
Dear Krish,
Your words are inspiring.
The news from the IPCC about the world we inhabit is forbidding. The unwelcome evidence appears to relate to aspects of stark biophysical reality that have been uncovered by good science and reported repeatedly by IPCC in recent years. If I may say so, the apparently unforeseen news from the IPCC is not good, even though this news is gained from the practice of good science.
I prefer to rely on good science and to eschew self-interested-thinking when it comes to sharing an understanding with our brothers and sisters about the way the world in which we live works and about an adequate enough grasp of the “placement” of the human species within the natural order of living things.
All the widely agreed to self-interested-thinking, from the fantastic to the preternatural, we see in the world today, when taken together, cannot be favorably compared to even one single thought derived from good science.
From my perspective, we have a remarkably large and loud number of people, many of them are our leaders, who are denialists and naysayers with regard to the science of global warming. They have been doing what they are doing now during much of my adult life. What they are saying and doing, I suppose, is derived from one form or another of self-interested-thinking. At least one consequence of their widely shared and consensually validated way of viewing the world could lead the human community into danger. Let me say more now about what I mean.
Self-interested-thinking is potentially da