DAVE FOREMAN: IT'S STILL ABOUT POPULATION, STUPID

The Birth Dearth Folly And The 300 Millionth American

As is ususal, Mr. Foreman and I are of a mind.

As my Biology 201 professor pointed out during his lecture on the biology of populations, humans have been unique among species in our ability to stave off the inevitable clash between exponential population growth and ecological carrying capacity, largely through our "advanced" mental abilities and their manifestations in applied technology. I then asked if perhaps there weren't limits to our use of technology in this vein, and that weren't we simply postponing the inevitable. He agreed. I then asked how were we to remain optimistic in the face of this inevitable truth. He replied that, in addition to the development of technologies, our "advanced" mental abilities also gave humans the ability to reason. Hence, we may yet come to the understanding, as a species, that we can voluntarily choose to self-regulate our populations to forego that rather nasty meeting of the population growth curve with ecological carrying capacity. Because we are, after all, biological animals that are ultimately subject to the same laws of nature as all other animals, despite our evolutionary "advances".

I have previously recommended, on this site, the recent book by Jared Diamond entitled "Collapse". It speaks quite eloquently to this topic, and my recommendation bears repeating.

So if decreasing the population is the goal, why do we try to cure AIDS or at least prolong it, or cancer, or do transplants, or provide immunizations, or any of the myriad other things we do to increase longevity?
How do you propose imposing these population controls?

Marion

I'm not sure to whom your questions are directed but, against my better judgement, I'll offer a brief response.

As to your first question, without delving into the can of worms (and important area of academic inquiry) known as bioethics, the short answer is because we can. I think basic human nature dictates that we would want to alleviate the suffering of loved ones, and perhaps try to extend our time here on earth.

My point was not to decry the achievements of modern medicine, but simply to point out that mathematics (as in exponential population growth) and ecological carrying capacity must eventually converge, despite our best efforts to deny the inevitable. What is implied is the notion that it might be best to engage this reality sooner, on terms that are more pleasant to deal with, rather than to wait until the brutal realities of nature force a stricter hand.

Which leads to your second question. I'm pretty sure that most New West readers would agree that "imposition" of population control measures by government or some other facet of human society would not work very well. This is another complex topic, which I would rather not delve into in detail. Nevertheless, I believe folks like Jimmy Carter speak to this issue, in a much more informed and eloquent manner than I possess, leading to the conclusion that empowering women worldwide, achieving greater resource parity, providing better health care and family planning services, etc. will help provide an environment in which humans can begin to take better control of the destiny of our species. But if we choose to ignore biological reality, mother nature will impose that reality anyway. Our choice.

I was directing my comments to Mr. Foreman, since this was his stand. I saw a real conflict between his stand a reality is all. thanks for your comments.
Interestingly enough I worked in family planning, a lot of the failure to plan is just plain not taking the responsibility for doing so. Empowerment does not seem to be a problem. We see the same thing with smokers, drinkers, STDs, folks jsut do not do what they know they should.

I could never understand the concern about the ratio of workers to pensioners. Hasn't almost every retiree paid into the system all their working life?

And do many people understand that the US has by far the highest birth rate in the developed world, while we do the least for families? I could never understand that, either, except that we know that many pregnancies in the US are unintended. By the way, my husband and I are childless by choice, like Dave and his wife, who are about our age.

Here's an interesting link:

http://edge.org/q2007/q07_1.html#carr

Thank you Pete. That is a great link. I am amused by enviros who insist the wolf cannot destroy its prey base becaue thery will limit thier numbers that were increased by trucking them in. But the same people do not think humans are smart enough to adapt to changing conditions....except of course the same enviros who are demanding that they do as they are told and quit having babies.

Pete,

I'm enjoying the exchanges here, and much appreciate that link--I'd read it in the Economist, but had forgotten about it. Carr has some good things to say. But this paragraph, taken from the essay, gives me pause:

None of this means that the eventual human population of, say, ten billion will be easy for the planet to support. But such support will not be impossible, particularly as it is also the case that economic growth in rich countries is less demanding of natural resources for each additional unit of output than is the case for growth in poor countries.
End quote

I think that is a very, very questionable statement.
Also, I know that an individual soldier almost never understands the big picture of the war, but I am in the midst of some traveling for family reasons, and have crossed the country to Alabama(Marion: I know, I know, I'm burning fossil fuels, and sadly doing it with pawnshop cash) . From the huge feedlots of Nebraska along the almost dry Platte with streaming consecutive lines of loaded coal trains always in view, to the surreal traffic of Kansas City, mile after mile of office buildings, dozens of stories tall, in St. Louis, through the sprawl of Nashville into places that I remember as tobacco, cattle and
hardwood hills, to the places here in Alabama where I used to hunt and fish and explore, now all under subdivisions, all the creeks channellized to red mud ditches, at least one fatal traffic accident a week on a road that was a long stretch of empty nothing along the Flint River 20 years ago, something huge is happening. It is called population growth. No theory, no rationale, no talk, can change what I am seeing with my own eyes.

If your single criteria is the production of and constant redistribution of wealth, things are great and getting better. 300 million people eat alot of cows, buy a lot of dental floss, need alot of things that they can buy at the Super store. But there are big sacrifices being made, in the darkness just behind the arc lights of the superstore parking lot. It is not enough to just take the contrarian view, every time.

Hal

How do we get from human population issues to wolves? Labeling those whom you disagree with is a common "grade school tactic" that is a substitute for reasoning & thought. After enviros & liberals is it going to be "wolvers".

On to my main point. Is there a greater irrational act than for a society to promote "eternal human growth" in a finite world? In order to solve problems, they must first be daylighted. Thomas Jefferson upon learning about the immense empty land that lay to the west is purported to have said: "it will take a thousand American generations to populate it". It took five. America is now the third most populated country in the world, only China & India are larger. How many people want to move to India or China?

It is difficult to know the "tipping point" where quality of life is merely replaced by quantity. However most, if asked, would choose quality over quantity. And millions, who have the financial means, are making this choice. They are fleeing from the urban disorder of our mega urban areas to the remaining open spaces of the west seeking pristime landscapes & a quality of life that can no longer be found in areas of extreme human densities. As it is impossible to precisely define what moderation is, it is, therefore, difficult to define human limits. Of course you know it when you see it, but then it is too late.

The force of our devouring economy brushes aside meaningful debate about this subject. The false belief that we must "forever" grow the economy implies that moderation & restraint will lead to cultural discinergration. Depletion & exhaustion are not the part to a better life. When you couple American's population growth with our outrageous consumption habitats then you begin to understand the magnitude of this problem. We are five percent of the world's population consuming 25 percent of the earth's resources. It can't continue.

I must add a second comment to Hal Herring: Excellent comments, you "cut to the bone" & it hurts!

Hal:

We are in a race to see if the worlds poorest can become rich enough fast enough to spare the environment (and much of the planets biodiversity). We may not win.

But this much we know: across time and across cultures poverty is the worst polluter.

The devastating effects of poverty are clear. National Geographic reported that the populations of western African apes and gorillas declined by more than half between 1983 and 2000. Illegal hunting is responsible. Over a million metric tons of “bushmeat“ are taken each year from African forests. The result is the “empty forest syndrome” -- a seemingly healthy landscape devoid of wildlife.

This situation will not improve as long as tyranny and civil war preclude more constructive social institutions and opportunities. Only when people can provide the basics for their families (e.g., shelter, food, and security) will they turn their attention to environmental quality. “These wild things,” Aldo Leopold reminds us in A Sand County Almanac, “had little human value until mechanization assured us of a good breakfast.”

It is a common perception that economic growth exacerbates environmental problems. In fact, however, economic progress is a prerequisite for improving environmental quality. Research shows that as countries begin to industrialize, their environmental quality initially declines.

However, once income and economic development reach a certain level, countries devote increasingly larger portions of their resources to environmental protection. As a result, environmental quality improves as per capita gross domestic product (GDP) rises. See the figure in his link.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba570/

That some 5% of the world's population creates 25% of the world's wealth and yet has the land left over to recreate pre-human environments seems to indicate that there's something to be said for the American model.

I am not sure exactly what relevance this has, Monty and others,
but I think there is a window on this in yesterday's Washington Post story "In Mexico, 'People Really Do want to Stay.'" In that story, which is about how globalization has driven millions of small town and rural Mexicans north to find jobs, there is an individual who describes how much better his life is in Mexico ("clean air and wide vistas of Jalisco") than the lives of his peers living in "the devouring economy" (Monty's words) of the US... I think the story would be of real interest to anybody who posts here, for a variety of reasons.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/06/AR2007010601265.html?nav=rss_business


Hal

Hal:

This is a vitally important piece. It points out, among other thing, the importance of institutions to well functioning societies. Something, unfortunately, Mexico has only just begun to understand.

Pete--

I'm on the way out, but wanted to thank you for taking the time to post that for me. Your points here are excellent, and I take them as further fodder for the mill. As you probably know, I'm a big fan of the American model. I try hard, however, not to let my fan status blind me to any weaknesses that may be inherent in its assumptions, given what's at stake.

Hal

Pete: I would remind that the twin horns on the bucking bull are population and consumption. As Diamond articulates so well in Collapse, the inability of societies (that arguably were the most prosperous and advanced technologically of their day) to keep their resource consumption in check, vanished from the face of the earth due to their unsustainable methods. While few would disagree with the notion of wealth creation and prosperity, it's how that wealth is ultimately distributed and whether it's built upon a mantle of sustainability that will survive the test of time. The US has a magnificent engine of agriculture and an advanced ability to produce food through technology, true, but we also have growing Dead Zones in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Pacific Coast; we are facing huge problems affecting our futurre productivity with topsoil loss on the plains and sucking down of finite aquifers; here in Bozeman we have trophy homes built over the best soil in the state. And then there's China. The headlong and in some ways blind scramble to create wealth in China is producing environmental disasters, the likes of which humanity has never seen. If China survives and passes successfully through the bottleneck, billions will be better off. If not, this is an emerging disaster that is going to cascade globally and we're all going to pay for it. With all due respect, what's needed from the free-marketeers is a dose of theoretical reality. They need to get out more. Let them raise their families in China and then maybe their absolutism will be tempered and brought down to Earth. I'm not opposed to a free market or earning more money—what American would be?—but I want a free market with a brain attached that has a social conscience and a ledger sheet of costs and benefits with a far broader accounting of the world than one calculated from our cushy lives in Bozeman, Montana. I encourage you: Visit China as I have and plan to vist again, and then report back.

This is a great debate, even if pretty far afield from mandatory birth limits.
The wolf comment was in reference to those "wolfers" who insist that nature and instinct will limit their population naturally, but they don't feel humans are as smart and must therefore be controlled by those capable of knowing what is "good for us".
None of the control of human population discussion has dealt with the part that medicine has played in population growth.
Hal, have a good trip, just don't come back complaining about the greedy oil companies and wanting to stop drilling.

Hi Todd:

I’d like to go to China.

I know that you know that what I’m taking about goes well beyond simply advocating for “free markets.” This is theoretical construct that exists only in Ayn Rand novels and during cocktails at the Libertarian party’s annual convention.

And lest not forget, the former Soviet Union had a planned economy, by and for “the people,” to produce material prosperity and economic and social justice, without harming the environment. It failed miserably. So the appropriate question when evaluating means to organize society is “compared to what?”

Good economists never argue that the market is a magic elixir of near perfection. It is not and will never be. Markets coordinate wonderfully as they drive toward narrow efficiency, but they ignore much that is intangible and often destroy that which has no price and no owner. Business, by its nature, is rapacious when not held accountable. That's why we need environmental regulations.

China, of course, has nothing resembling a free market. To see their problems and as an indictment of capitalism is to make an incomplete analysis. Cronyism and the corruption it breeds combined with a desperate attempt to provide employment for those fleeing rural areas (as the country transitions from agricultural to industrial economy) fuels most of China’s woes. If you compare unmarked photos of Pittsburgh in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries (http://www.pghphotos.org/) and many places in China today, bet you’d have a hard time telling them apart.

"By the way, my husband and I are childless by choice, like Dave and his wife, who are about our age."

Thank you. There are plenty of us out there.... obviously not enough.


-Californiamontanacan

Is this a good time to ask for money for retroactive vasectomy research?