[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Confronting the inevitable

[Bill Totten]

Population reduction, voluntary and otherwise

by J Kenneth Smail

Culture Change (May 05 2008)


Editor's note: One can run into a good report on a critical subject,
only to find the author has a deficit of understanding on peak oil, for
example. Or one may encounter the delusion that population growth is a
problem basically in "Third World" countries. Not with this new essay
for Culture Change. Professor Ken Smail has put together the best
argument for facing depopulation.

Its full title was Acknowledging and Confronting the Inevitable: A
Significant Shrinkage in Global Human Numbers, and Other Inconvenient
Truths. Some readers may find Ken's timing-scenario for depopulation
optimistic  -  picturing it further off into the future than the 21st
century  -  but he acknowledges its possibly being played out earlier
due to today's "toxic brew" of crises.- Jan Lundberg


Assuming then, my postulata as granted, I say that the power of
population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to
produce subsistence for man. -- Thomas Malthus (1798)

It has become increasingly apparent over the past half-century that
there is a growing tension between two seemingly irreconcilable trends.
On one hand, moderate to conservative demographic projections indicate
that global human numbers will almost certainly reach eight to nine
billion by mid-21st century, only two generations from the present. On
the other, prudent and increasingly reliable scientific estimates
suggest that the Earth's long-term sustainable human carrying capacity,
at what might be defined as an "adequate" to "moderately comfortable"
developed-world standard of living, may not be much greater than two to
three billion. It may in fact be considerably less, perhaps in the one
to two billion range, particularly if the normative life-style (level of
consumption) aspired to is anywhere close to that currently
characterizing the United States.

As a consequence of this modern-day "Malthusian dilemma", it seems
reasonable to suggest that it is now time  -  indeed, past time  -  to
think boldly about the midrange future, and to consider alternatives
that go beyond merely slowing the growth, or even the stabilization, of
global human numbers. In this brief essay, I shall argue that it has now
become necessary for the human species to develop and implement, as
quickly as possible, a well conceived, clearly articulated, flexibly
designed, broadly equitable, and internationally coordinated program
focused on bringing about a very significant reduction in global human
numbers over the next two or more centuries. In simple quantitative
terms, this effort will likely require a global population "shrinkage"
of at least two-thirds to three-fourths, from a probable mid-to-late
21st century "peak" in the nine to ten billion range to a future (23rd
century and beyond) "population optimum" of not more than two to three
billion, or perhaps even fewer.

Obviously, a demographic change of this magnitude, whether brought about
by conscious human design or ultimately by forces beyond human control,
will require a major reorientation of human thought, values,
expectations, and lifestyle(s). Unfortunately, there is no guarantee
that such a program will be successful. Moreover, if humanity fails in
this effort, it seems likely that nature's even harsher realities will
almost certainly be imposed. Speaking as a professional physical
anthropologist/human evolutionary biologist, it is entirely possible
that this rapidly metastasizing  -  yet still partly hidden  -
demographic and environmental crisis could emerge as the greatest
evolutionary/ecological "bottleneck" that our species has yet encountered.


Validating the Hypothesis

It is important to recognize that this admittedly controversial
proposition  -  that there must be a very significant reduction in
global human numbers over the next two or three centuries  -  is
presented here in the form of a testable scientific hypothesis, one that
is amenable not only to continued empirical confirmation but also to
potential falsification. Specifically, this hypothesis may be quickly
and easily rejected (that is, empirically falsified) if it can clearly
be demonstrated that ongoing estimates for global population size over
the next few hundred years will not exceed what will presumably be
increasingly accurate projections of both current and future optimal
human carrying capacities.

However, this hypothesis is confirmed if future global population size
continues to exceed (by a significant margin) these same carrying
capacity estimates. Moreover, such confirmation would be true regardless
of whether human numbers continue to grow at current rates, grow more
slowly, stabilize, or even begin to decline. For example, even if future
research shows that the two to three billion optimal carrying capacity
utilized in this essay has been significantly underestimated (that is,
is "off-target" by a factor of two or more), the argument put forth here
loses little if any of its persuasive power, nor is the above hypothesis
in any way invalidated. The reason for this is simple. Even a global
population optimum of four to five billion, approximately double the
figure recommended here, would still necessitate a very substantial
reduction (of some fifty percent or more) from the nine-plus billion
projected for the mid-to-late 21st century.

Notwithstanding the numerous difficulties in addressing a problem of
such complexity, it is nonetheless surprising how little scientific and
public attention has been directed toward establishing empirically
quantifiable, scientifically testable, and socioculturally agreed-upon
parameters for what the Earth's long-term human carrying capacity  -  or
flexibly defined "optimal population range"  -  might actually be.
Unfortunately, with only a few notable exceptions, many otherwise
well-qualified scientific investigators and public policy analysts have
been rather hesitant to take a clear and forthright position on this
profoundly important matter, certainly destined to become the
overarching issue of the current century.

It is difficult to say whether this unfortunate reticence is due to
ingrained investigatory caution, concerns about professional reputation
and advancement (particularly among younger investigators), the
increasingly specialized structure of both the scientific and political
enterprises, personal qualms about reaching conclusions that have
potentially unpalatable social and political ramifications, or other
unspecified (and perhaps deeply-rooted) ideological, moral, or religious
reservations. Or perhaps, given its global nature and seemingly endless
ramifications, the chief difficulty in dealing with the complex
population/environment conundrum represents little more than a
manifestation of "scale paralysis", that enervating sense of individual
and collective powerlessness when confronted by problems whose magnitude
seems overwhelming.

Certainly the rough approximations of global human carrying capacity put
forth during the past century show considerable variation, ranging from
fewer than one billion to well beyond twenty billion (an order of
magnitude or more). It is, however, important to note that over the past
two decades there have been a growing number of investigators and
organizations who have put forth reasonably well-thought-out positions
on future global population optimums. Interestingly enough, these
estimates have all clustered in the one to three billion range. This is
an important development, since it is patently obvious that it will be
difficult to engender any sort of effective public response to the
above-mentioned global crisis if future population goals (that is,
desired demographic optimums) continue to be imperfectly understood and
poorly articulated.

Quite frankly, I hope the above hypothesis is wrong and that various
demographic optimists are correct in their recent claims that human
numbers will begin to show a "natural" stabilization and subsequent
decline somewhat sooner than expected. Presumably, when this welcome
demographic trend is coupled with "enhanced efficiencies" in energy
production, resource utilization, and materials conservation, and is
further reinforced by efforts toward significantly reduced per capita
consumption levels (particularly in the developed world), it might allow
for somewhat larger carrying capacities, or optimal population sizes,
than we currently imagine.

But this sort of optimism is warranted only by corroborative data, that
is, only if the above-mentioned "irreconcilable numbers" show
unmistakable evidence of coming into much closer congruence. And it is
now increasingly apparent that any such optimism should be further
tempered by an honest and full consideration of the problems surrounding
at least two other rapidly emerging (and converging) "inconvenient
truths", global phenomena whose powerful downstream effects will
undoubtedly become manifest within the next few decades:

(1) the broad-scale ecological and environmental consequences of ongoing
"climate change", or increasing "climatic instability" (or more
popularly, anthropogenic "global warming"). Based on the evidence
provided by extensive scientific research and analysis over the past two
decades, these wide-ranging climatic effects are empirically quite
well-documented, certainly resting on an overwhelming "preponderance of
evidence" as they come ever closer to the level of "beyond all
reasonable doubt".

(2) the unpredictable consequences  -  including the potential for
widescale political, economic, and social destabilization  -  of passing
the global "production peak" of oil, gas, and coal. For it seems quite
likely that the "post-carbon" world will very soon be engaged in a
massive struggle to adapt to a steady and significant decline in the
supply of cheap and abundant energy derived from fossil fuels (that is,
the aptly named "ancient sunlight", or "one-time bonanza", that for the
past two centuries has fueled the exuberant growth of modern
industrial/technological civilization).

More specifically, the evidence from recent "peak energy" research and
analysis increasingly suggests that by the middle of the present century
humanity could well be faced with a global population of some nine
billion, struggling to maintain  -  or in several instances still trying
to acquire  -  some semblance of modern (first- world) civilization on
but one-fourth to one-third of the oil and gas the world currently
produces, exacerbated still further by a notable deficit of "proven" or
"environmentally benign" energy substitutes (renewable or otherwise) on
anywhere near the scale that would be necessary.

This of course is in addition to dealing with growing constraints and
pressures due to other important "limiting factors": the above-mentioned
climatic instability (all too likely enhanced by increasingly heavy
reliance on coal); availability of fresh water; adequate food supplies;
ongoing topsoil degradation; shortages of various minerals and
materials; continuing biodiversity and wilderness losses; enhanced
geopolitical competition over essential resources; and the growing power
and influence of various "non-state" actors.


Acknowledging Our Dilemma

Clearly, assertions that the Earth might be able to support a population
of ten to fifteen billion people for an indefinite period of time at a
standard of living superior to the present are not only cruelly
misleading but almost certainly false. Notwithstanding our current
addiction to continued and uninterrupted economic growth, surely the
dominant political mantra of the 20th and early 21st centuries, it is
essential for humanity to recognize that there are, after all, finite
physical, biological and ecological limits to the Earth's long-term
sustainable carrying capacity (that is, the "natural capital" that
supports us). And to recognize further that we are now drawing down on
the principal, as well as the interest, of this precious "capital", as
many of these finite limits have already been reached (and in a number
of instances surpassed).

Consequently, since at some point in the not-too-distant future the
negative ramifications and ecological damage stemming from the mutually
reinforcing effects of excessive human reproduction and over-consumption
of resources could well become irreversible, and because there is only
one Earth with which to experiment, it would undoubtedly be better for
our species to err on the side of prudence, exercising wherever possible
a cautious and careful stewardship.

Perhaps it is time to suggest that the burden of proof on these matters,
so long shouldered by so-called "neo-Malthusian pessimists", be
increasingly shifted to the "cornucopian optimists". In other words, for
those who might be inclined to ignore (or summarily reject) the
hypothesis put forth here, the scientific "burden of proof" should be
quite clear: What is the evidence that the Earth can withstand  -
without irreparable damage  -  another two or more centuries during
which global human numbers and per capita consumption greatly exceed the
Earth's optimal (sustainable) carrying capacity?

In any event, having established in this essay a "quantifiable and
falsifiable" frame of reference, it seems obvious that it is now time to
go one step further, and at the very least begin to make the case that
current rhetoric about "slowing the growth", or even the
"stabilization", of global human numbers is clearly insufficient to the
task that lies before us. Quite simply, both the empirical data and
inexorable logic suggest with increasing clarity that what will be
required for the foreseeable future  -  the "default position" for the
next two or three centuries  -  is a very significant reduction in
global human numbers.

Admittedly, this presents a vexing "temporal disconnect" that may be
difficult (perhaps even impossible) to resolve, particularly in a manner
that will be perceived as equitable, voluntary, and humane. It seems all
too likely that the period of time  -  two centuries or more  -  that
will be minimally necessary for population stabilization and subsequent
significant reduction, eventually to a desired "global optimum" in the
one to three billion range, is clearly inconsistent with the much more
"restricted" time frame suggested by the rapidly swelling chorus of
those who project significant fossil-energy production declines, and
steadily growing problems associated with global climatic change,
appearing within the next generation or two. I refer here to the
distinct possibility of an environmental "critical threshold", or
quasi-evolutionary "bottleneck", or cascading political, economic, and
social "breakdown", or global "synchronous failure", all emerging over
the next several decades (by mid-century or before), while demographic
momentum remains an active force and global human numbers continue to
increase.

I am therefore only cautiously optimistic that the human species will be
able successfully to confront the complex and interrelated problems we
have managed to create for ourselves  -  what some have begun to
characterize as an ecological, economic, political, sociocultural, and
moral "perfect storm". In fact, when I see how little traction various
mitigating (or ameliorative) efforts have gained over the past thirty to
forty years, I have become increasingly pessimistic that humanity  -
potentially some nine-plus billion of us within our children's and
grandchildren's lifetimes  -  will be successful in staving off some
very difficult times over the next several generations (throughout the
21st century and beyond).

Put bluntly, the synergistic combination of declining "post-peak" energy
supplies (and other essential resources), a still growing global
population, increasingly apparent finite limits on food production and
the availability of fresh water, unpredictable and likely deleterious
climatic instability, potentially destabilizing challenges from various
(non-state) terrorist organizations, and increasingly massive (and
largely uncontrolled) third-world to first-world patterns of human
migration, is surely a "toxic brew".

And it certainly doesn't help that this deteriorating state of affairs
-  with a few notable exceptions  -  has been further exacerbated by a
generalized lack of political, economic, social, and moral foresight and
cooperation on both a national and a global level, not to mention a
recalcitrant human nature all too prone to both individual and
collective denial. Nevertheless, to the extent that humans universally
share a deep-rooted and powerful "investment in immortality"  -  however
we might individually or collectively choose to define it  -  it is
essential that we keep trying to bias the future in a positive direction.


Final Thoughts

And so, the crucial question ... Is it naive to suggest that the
evidence is now sufficiently convincing that a "critical mass" of
concerned and motivated investigators should quickly begin to put
together a serious, legitimate, and empirically well-documented case for
what appears to be a rapidly emerging global catastrophe? If so, it
would certainly become much easier  -  or more "palatable"  -  for still
other scientists, as well as environmentalists, politicians, economists,
moralists, and other concerned citizens of the planet, to speak
forthrightly and with ever greater confidence about humanity's
responsibility to rapidly and resolutely address this burgeoning
existential crisis. Surely it is essential that elected public
officials, civil servants at all levels of government, academics from a
broad range of disciplines, representatives of the news media, religious
leaders from all the major faith traditions, and spokespersons for
national and international environmental organizations not feel as
though they are committing political, professional, or moral suicide by
bringing these matters to public attention. For time is becoming
increasingly precious, and our "window of opportunity" for effective
remedial action may be quite short, if it has not already passed.

I very much hope that this all-too-brief essay has helped to clarify an
important and often underappreciated point: that ongoing population
growth has a significant influence on, or connection with, nearly every
other issue that humanity currently faces. I hope it is also obvious
that this influence is both reciprocal and mutually reinforcing,
resulting in numerous and interconnected positive feedback (or deviation
amplifying) systems and subsystems, many of which are imperfectly
understood. It may thus be entirely appropriate to characterize the 20th
and early 21st centuries' rapid and continuing population expansion as
the critical factor underlying many, if not most, of our species'
growing political, economic, social, environmental, and moral difficulties.

Until demonstrated otherwise, I would therefore argue that unchecked or
"insufficiently restrained" population growth should perhaps be
considered the single most important feature in an admittedly complex
(and synergistic) physical, ecological, biocultural and sociopolitical
landscape. It should by now be unassailable that the limitation of human
population size, and subsequently confronting the numerous problems that
will be engendered by its eventual and inevitable contraction, should
occupy a central position within the "modern problematique", and as such
should be dealt with much more forthrightly, and much more promptly,
than has heretofore been the case.

More than half a century ago, at the dawn of the nuclear age, Albert
Einstein suggested that we shall require a new manner of thinking, if
humankind is to survive. Even though the aptly named "population
explosion" is neither as instantaneous nor as spectacular as its nuclear
counterpart, its ultimate consequences may be just as real (and
potentially just as devastating) as the so-called "nuclear winter"
scenarios promulgated in the early 1980s.

That there will be a large-scale reduction in global human numbers over
the next two or three centuries appears to be inevitable. The primary
issue may well be whether this lengthy and difficult process will be
comparatively benign or unpredictably chaotic. More specifically, is
modern humanity capable of a comprehensive organized effort to
compassionately reduce global human numbers, or will brutal
self-interest prevail  -  either haphazardly or selectively  -
resulting in an unprecedented toll of human lives? Clearly, we must
begin our "new manner of thinking" about this critically important issue
now, so that Einstein's prescient and very legitimate concerns about
human (and civilizational) survival into the 21st century and beyond may
be addressed as rapidly, as fully, and as humanely as possible.

Don't speak to me of shortage. My world is vast
And has more than enough  -  for no more than enough.
There is a shortage of nothing, save will and wisdom;
But there is a longage of people.
-- Garrett Hardin (1975)

_____

Ken Smail (PhD Yale, 1976) is Professor of Anthropology (Emeritus) at
Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio 43022 (smail at kenyon.edu).

http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=168&Itemid=1


TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/