Population growth and consumption go hand in hand, historically and now. For a supposedly intelligent person like Monbiot to say that population growth is somewhere down on a list of disasters facing us is, in my opinion, disingenuous, and smacks of opportunism.

I raise again my assertion that the problem is an imbalance int the brain architecture between intelligence/creativity capacity (cleverness) and sapience (judgment – the mental construct basis of wisdom). As a species we have excelled at clever problem solving, including the ability to rationalize our own emotions. What we have failed to evolve in is the capacity to make wise decisions and have a more realistic view of the world. Sapience is the capacity to view the world strategically as well as systemically. And it involves the ability to view the world as it is rather than as we would wish it to be. It is a-ideological.

These capacities are very weak in the vast majority of human beings (as evidenced by the state of the world today). Real sapience involves an ability to look at the whole picture and not just one part or a limited part. It involves the ability to model the whole and think forward in time to recognize consequences of current decisions in that future.

I maintain that humans lack this ability generally (except for a few in the rightmost tail end of the distribution) and that is exactly why we find ourselves in this predicament.

The only way out is via the same way we got here – evolution. Wisdom has to be selected for strongly enough that we begin to see a shift in the proportion of the population that develops larger (or more complex) prefrontal cortices (the master organizer for sapient consciousness). The big question is how shall that selection be done? It seems to me there are only two choices. Either we let nature take its course, which several here realize could lead to extinction of Homo in a massive die-off. Or we could enter into the evolutionary process and effectively engineer an evolutionary bottleneck.

I fully realize the latter is viewed with abhorrence by many. But that is because of historical thinking along with a rationalization of what the future will be like – more of like today. Most people operate under the assumption that Homo sapiens sapiens is an end product of evolution (that is if they even understand evolution) rather than just a step along the way. But the future will not be the same in profound ways. We cannot simply use history as a guide when the phenomena of interest are global in scale. We have to think differently than we ever have before. Otherwise, thinking, on this planet, may come to a screeching halt.

Also, there is no guarantee that evolution will produce a ‘better’ model of the genus. That there has been something like improvement in information processing ability and adaptability is explained by the increasing complexity of the world as it comes into dynamic equilibrium with the solar flux. Evolution is not under any plan to improve the world, only adapt to growing complexity when needed. So a future human species could be a regression rather than a progression (toward wiser folk).

George

Now, this debate is taking up entirely too much time for me as I have a writing project to attend to. It is also a distraction from Albert Bandura’s excellent article. Yet I cannot leave unanswered on my own blog what is, without question, an erroneous assessment of a highly destructive Monbiot article and comments which only add fuel to the fantasy that population isn’t really an urgent or very important issue. I am therefore going to turn comments off for now to give myself time to focus elsewhere.

Perhaps they’ll go back on when I finish, though the plan is to slow this blog down anyway to free up time for writing, so who knows. Such a move is a first for me, but I have to put my time where I think it will have the most impact, which is not in long debates here.

The model is overly simplistic (e.g. I do not include things like age and gender cohorts) but can at least provide a picture of what the dynamics entail.

Of particular interest, I model what I call Plan Z, a draconian, yet humane (meaning it doesn’t increase the death rate) measure to reduce the birth rate to zero! The point being that that represents a boundary condition. Seeing how long it takes to reduce the population at this rate will (should) start people thinking about how the population size plays into any impact model (footprint).

I submit that until you play around with this kind of model you really can’t have much of an opinion on what needs to be done regarding the IPAT formulation. You have to see these things in action to begin to appreciate the significance of reducing consumption or reducing population (or increasing technology for that matter).

You can find the post at:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/riding-with-ed-an-actor-devoted-to-the-green-life/#comments

Mine is #61.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to play with these simple, boundary-establishing models. But you do need to play with them if you want to form some kind of policy opinion.

George Mobus

Okay, the old wound is reopened, but that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. I’d like to find a way of expressing this issue that we could both agree is fair to all.

A Talk with Dr. Paul Ehrlich by Kathy Ricketts Reitinger, July 1999:

Zegrahm News recently traveled to Stanford University to discuss with Dr. Ehrlich his current feelings about the world’s population and his predictions about our future on the planet.

Ricketts: You introduced the equation, I=PAT, which illustrates the impact of any human group upon the environment: Impact = Population x Affluence (consumption) x Technology. When you first proposed this equation, you felt that “P” was the most critical in controlling and reducing human impact on the Earth. Do you still think that population growth is the most critical problem facing us today?

Ehrlich: Not anymore. Although the world is still vastly overpopulated, the past 30 years have shown that population can be controlled. People can be convinced that it may be in their best interest to produce smaller families. However, no one has any idea of how to convince humanity that it is in their best interest to consume less, instead of more. Even if ‘P’ is reduced, the steady rise of ‘A’ in the Impact Equation means that our crushing impact on the Earth will continue to increase.”

I like the way Ehrlich puts it. Rather than pouring salt in the wound like Monbiot does with his “not even near the top of the list” phrase, Ehrlich just notes we have seen progress on population* but none at all on consumption. If I have multiple injuries I hope the EMT takes care of the cut in the femoral artery before tending to my broken arm. If there are two EMT’s around, they can attend to both.

Ehrlich’s advice is to attend to both:

Don’t have families with more than one or two children. Encourage religious institutions to support birth control and family planning; encourage politicians to support the same. Reduce consumption. …In a nutshell, do as much as you can, in whatever arena you can.

*Progress on population: world pop growth rate has been declining for 40 years. Several large countries now have zero or negative native growth rates.

As I see it, the most important thing right now, and in the next few years as well, is the question of whether or not we are going to start reducing emissions satisfactorily or not. If we do not get started on making large scale emissions cuts, I am afraid to say that the population problem is of no real interest at all. It is the combination of overpopulation and industrialism which is the problem. The population problem can only be solved in the long run, while the pollution from industries, private homes, cars and air travel (among other sources of emissions) had better be solved as quickly as possible. I say we need to teach people about the population explosion while at the same time push on for reductions in emissions, and I say reductions in emissions are more important, right now, than the big issue of population explosion will ever be.

Magne,

I’ll quote ecologist Mark Bush yet again since people seem not to be appreciating this point:

Given that population growth continues for 20-30 years after birthrates have been reduced to replacement level, it is imperative that programs designed to limit population growth be initiated very quickly.

Imperative. Very quickly.

From Magne:

The population problem can only be solved in the long run

As I indicated, the long run begins now. Again, because it takes time to influence population numbers, it’s imperative we begin as soon as possible.

I say reductions in emissions are more important, right now, than the big issue of population explosion will ever be.

And do you not see the connection between human numbers and emissions? Do you realize we’re seeing a convergence of several problems, some of which may be just as serious as climate change? Is it clear to you that the combination of these problems is far more serious than climate change alone, and that there is no larger or more ignored cause of the whole mess, including climate change, than population (enabled of course by such things as agriculture and the industrial revolution and today’s civilization itself)? Do you see that overshoot tends to be followed by die-off even if in the absence of climate change? And how many millions of species do you want us to eliminate while we under-attend to population? (See the Ehrlich quote I provide below.)

_________________________________

Trinifar,

If I have multiple injuries I hope the EMT takes care of the cut in the femoral artery before tending to my broken arm. If there are two EMT’s around, they can attend to both.

What if you have a cut in the femoral artery as well as another equally urgent injury? And in the case of population and emissions, we do of course have “two EMT’s.” What we lack, among other things, is awareness or acknowledgment of the gravity of either problem and the will to do much about them.

I’m familiar, BTW, with that interview with Ehrlich from 9 years ago. I don’t think he’s making that “not anymore” comment these days. He may have shifted his emphasis for a time when signs of a slowdown in birthrates became apparent. And sure, he does talk about how per person consumption (not “consumption,” per person consumption) has emerged as a new critical issue. But since that interview the indications and recognition that we’re in overshoot have increased, including the Footprint Network data and the Redefining Progress data. From what I can see, Ehrlich now again speaks decisively about population – which is hard not to do when you consider the consequences of being, already, far into overshoot. Here’s an interview with Ehrlich from last year where you will hear him speak once again more forcefully on population. A couple of quotes relevant to the things you and Magne are saying:

Many people don’t seem to understand, climate may not be the most serious of our environmental problems. [emphasis added] It is a very serious one, but there’s others connected to it which may turn out to be much [emphasis in the original] more serious: Land use change, the deterioration of our epidemiological environment that is our continuing population related vulnerability to brand new epidemics of the AIDS sort, the loss of biodiversity which are the working parts of our life support systems without which we would have no economy and basically no humanity. And that of course is partially connected to climate change, but land use change is just as large. The toxification of the planet…

People don’t realize what getting “green” really has to mean… It’s not everybody buying a Prius, it’s, first of all, gradually reducing the size of our population, [emphasis added] because most of us can’t see, with anything like the consumption patterns that people seem to desire, keeping even 6.5 billion people going for long.

Note that “land use” is tied directly to population.

In the same interview Ehrlich says he still stands by the World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, in which the section on population contains the statement:

No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.

That was 1.5 decades ago.

From Trinifar:

Ehrlich’s advice is to attend to both

Which has been my advice the whole time (!), while you’ve claimed an ability to prioritize between absolutely fundamental and equally deadly issues, putting emissions (and even things like “decoupling government from big business” ) ahead of population due to a notion that, despite being deeply into overshoot, population can wait. And all the while you have supported, and refused to reject, Monbiot’s advice to put population somewhere way down the list while attending to other things (which he doesn’t even realize are fueled by population).

This is also what George Mobus has been trying to say. There is no room for prioritizing when we may have already waited too long to intervene on a number of these issues, each in itself enough to cause collapse and the end of life as we know it. If it’s too late, then the best we can do is soften the blow. And clearly limiting population growth is central to that. But if there’s any chance it isn’t too late, then certainly it’s close and there’s no room to fool ourselves into thinking we have time to prioritize. Did you read George’s comment (which he linked to) about where population might reasonably be in 2100 with a birthrate of zero? (I can’t get his model working in my spreadsheet software, but just what he posted is enough to give the hint.) Still likely unsustainable. He’s right that we need radical action, not waiting around on one thing while we focus on another.

How soon do you guys think we need to start getting really serious about population if we want to achieve even the UN’s low variant of 7.8 billion by 2050, which is just further growth, not low enough to prevent collapse (let alone George’s “Plan Z” mid-century population size of something under 5 billion – which would be hugely better for our long term prospects, if we do in fact have any)?

And again, in the scenarios which see collapse as inevitable, births prevented now will prevent not only the suffering of children born into such a world, they will will save the lives of others with whom those children would have had to compete for sustenance. Note for instance the conclusion Paul Chefurka came to about an Africa in collapse (prior to removing all conclusions from his essay). It was essentially that our best action would be to ‘blanket the continent with condoms and schools to educate girls’ (if I recall the details correctly).

My sense is that you may fail to appreciate the implication of the fact that we are now and have for some time been in overshoot, and it may even be too late to prevent some serious level of collapse. Whatever shred of a chance there may be that it’s not too late tells us prioritizing, as you are doing, is suicidal. Population can no more wait than can emissions. I fear, though, they will both be under-attended to, in part because of this sort of notion that only one issue could really be serious enough to be deemed a dire emergency or even to have perhaps sealed our fate already. At best, we’re dealing with multiple interacting emergencies. Just as likely, maybe more so, is the possibility that we have in fact have passed the point of no return.

THE GIST: Most of the above is secondary. This started with Monbiot’s blatantly erroneous math (comparing a factor with a product), applied in an effort to diminish the importance of population, and his assertion and erroneous attempt to demonstrate that population is “nowhere near the top of the list.” I’m sorry, but your continued support of and refusal to repudiate his article is disappointing and astounding. It’s as though he said, “Day is night and pigs fly,” and for some mysterious reason you can’t bring yourself to say he was grossly wrong. Any support of such an article is not only logically wrong, but fuels the avoidance of a fundamental issue with the potential to cost untold numbers of lives.

“describes the efforts to promote family planning as “a drop in the ocean” and goes on to explain the reasons to do with culture, religion and lack of education which have created a big divide between the high birth rate among India’s poor families and the much lower birth rate for middle class women.”

According to my admittedly simple estimations, if humankind keeps doing just as it is doing now, without doing whatsoever is necessary to begin modifying the business-as-usual course of our endless-growth-oriented civilization, then the Earth could sustain life as we know it for a time period of about 5 more years.

It appears to me that all the happy talk of a benign path through a ‘bottleneck’ to population stabilization, and to good times ahead in 2050, is not more than wishful and magical thinking.

I see the next 5 years as the period in which we need to see significant action reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world which can only happen if we decouple politicians from business lobbies and recouple them with science and their duty to serve the people who vote. Without serious action beginning in the next handful of years we risk climate change effects that can not be reversed for hundreds or thousands of years, loss of species, rising seas, etc. At least this is how I understand the IPCC.

(Not to reopen old wounds, but this is also why (I think) Monbiot says population is not near the top of the list of immediate concerns. Of course it is a incredibly serious concern, but the time scale in which it plays out is greater than 5 years. If the world population started a downward trend today (or even 10 years ago), “the relentless degradation of Earth’s frangible environment” would still occur. Our level of consumption is that great.)

To reduce our damage to the environment quickly means taking on the core principles of the modern economy: (1) the endless quest for growth in profits to the exclusion of the well-being of the people who the economy is supposed to serve, and (2) allowing, even approving of, the concentration of wealth and the power it brings in the hands of a few. I only see one way to change such deeply embedded guiding principles quickly enough.

We want our rights and we don’t care how /
We want our revolution now
[from "Homage to Marat" in Marat/Sade]

I’m not hopefull we’ll get our revolution in time to avoid serious damage. Surely this is a case where things must get much worse in the day-to-day lives of Americans to prompt action. Thinking that honest, critical reasoning will carry the day is — and I cringe to say this — naive.

Not to reopen old wounds, but this is also why (I think) Monbiot says population is not near the top of the list of immediate concerns.

That is clearly not the case. Despite having written about a variety of environmental, social and other issues, Monbiot has virtually never written about population. This is good evidence that he just doesn’t get it. Besides, he’s a good enough writer that if the reason you suggest were his reason for saying it’s “nowhere near the top of the list,” he would be fully capable of saying so. He didn’t.

Of course it is a incredibly serious concern,

Monbiot called it “nowhere near the top of the list.”

“Incredibly serious” ≠ “nowhere near the top of the list.”

but the time scale in which it plays out is greater than 5 years.

No, that’s wrong. It plays out over 5 years. And longer. That’s the reason an ecologist such as Mark Bush writes:

Given that population growth continues for 20-30 years after birthrates have been reduced to replacement level, it is imperative that programs designed to limit population growth be initiated very quickly.

Were we not deeply into overshoot now, there might be time to wait on population. But since we are, we have no time whatsoever to delay. Delay will cost untold numbers of lives in the coming decades. As analyses such as Paul Chefurka’s indicate, it’s possible the lives saved by addressing population would be merely a softening of the blow of collapse in places like Africa. But addressing population now is central to softening that blow.

If the world population started a downward trend today (or even 10 years ago), “the relentless degradation of Earth’s frangible environment” would still occur.

Can’t you see that that every birth prevented today is going to save lives in both the very near and longer term future?

Moreover, your statement holds true for addressing climate as well.

Also, there is likely to be a point of no return on population just as there is on climate.

Another point is that the current mass extinction is just as big a threat to life on Earth as climate change. And it is directly tied to population, as is climate change.

We need to get out of the mindset that (a) we can reduce emissions effectively over any meaningful time frame without tackling population (which means we have to start now), (b) that there are not other extremely dire consequences associated with every additional year we attend insufficiently to population, and (c) that we can in any way prioritize between several fundamental issues (population vs per capita consumption… ) on which we may already have waited too long to act effectively.

At any rate, there is no evidence in Monbiot’s article that your idea concerning the question of urgency was his point anyway. He’s simply always avoided the population issue, and sought in that article to rationalize it. He is, in that way, not unlike many writers on the left who put political correctness ahead of human lives. (Which is not to excuse a differently motivated dismissal of population from those on the right who put profits ahead of human lives.)

Excusing (and even supporting!) Monbiot’s dismissal of the importance of population is just playing right into the forces which will be responsible for an unprecedented loss of life if they are allowed to continue to dominate the discussion.

That is especially so in today’s climate of widespread population denial. Promotion of the population issue needs every speck of help it can get. Supporting statements like Monbiot’s works against that.