The great red herring of overpopulation - Part 3

While a more equitable society can undoubtedly sustain more people with the same resources, that (the same resources) is not an available option given depletion of non-renewable resources, inevitable mismanagement of renewable resources regardless of the economic system, and natural and anthropogenic climate change and other environmental changes. To say that the sustainability of a population or an economy is more of a social issue than a matter of hard physical limits is simply hubris. They are both important.

As for Lovelock, he was obviously talking about one thousand million, not one million million. If he was talking about the population under a capitalist system at average North American standards of living, he is probably overestimating. I don't know how many people the Earth can sustain indefinitely under the best possible economic system and nobody else does either. Which means no-one can say that a population of 7 billion is sustainable under any conceivable system either.

Lovelock was talking about one thousand million. His books sell all over the world. And he would not be imagining the consumption habits of the average American with cash to spare. I don't believe he has any expectation of that being realized. That is why he also writes (wrote) about the effects to be expected from rising temperatures driving populations northward on the continents - and why the British defence ministry, taking his numbers seriously - decided to maintain their nuclear arsenals. Gwyn Dyer reported that on the publication of a new book some five years back. And of course, belief systems and budgets that rule out measures of contraception - even though there's no sign of dieout of libidinal urges - suggests those northern cottages may become year-round residences. :) (please don't take that seriously, just trying to break the pall of pessimism).

Marie Antoinette would have loved the population fetishists. Imagine:

"Your Majesty, hundreds of millions of people have no food security; their foodlands have been turned into monoculture croplands for export to the imperialist metropolises; they are dying of preventable diseases; their water resources are being depleted and poisoned by industrial agriculture, manufacturing, and mining; their forests are being cut down to make way for mining and pasture land; their energy resources are dwindling; their children are maimed and poisoned from working in sweatshops and factories; they can't even afford to buy the electronic gadgets they help manufacture for export to North America and Europe; their fisheries have been decimated by unsustainable factory-ship practices; they can't afford to buy the genetically-modified, patented seeds they need to grow food crops; climate change is devastating their habitats with floods, droughts, and monsoons; they are forced to live in refugee camps because they have been displaced by proxy wars backed by western imperialists."

"Let them stop having babies. Here, give them some of these condoms and birth-control pamphlets. Once they get the message, they'll be able to live just fine on what they've got with fewer mouths to feed. And send them copies of my latest speech on the need to reduce our personal consumption."

And natural gas, which is turned into fertilizer.

Wow. Debate brought to a new hitherto unplumbed level.

 

I'm sure he just wanted to get that out of the way.

I don't know Unionist. I think we have been here before.

And I don't know who this is directed at:

"It is commonly believed that overpopulation is some absolute phenomenon and will only get worse in the future..."

But I am arguing AGAINST the notion that it is one absolute phenomenon.

Well M. Spector, that might be because my name is not Schwartzman.

In fact I agree with a great deal of what they and you are saying about global inequality, affluent nations over-using resources, and inefficiencies in our food production,

Yes, I recognize that some people (though perhaps not 98 percent of scientists) do blame overpopulation and see it as a single thing, but I do think there are far more people who recognize that there are many factors at play, as I do.

And I also agree (and in fact said) that the best way forward is raising the standard of living, and making reproductive health services and education available to those who want it (as opposed to either coerced sterilization, or denial)

I guess one area where I am not so sure is the assumption that there are no limits at all that we need to be concerned with - that switching to different energy sources is as easy as writing it. The green revolution which has allowed us to keep ahead of global population is, after all driven by oil.

And I am not that sure, either, about the future availability of water - something which is not so easy to move to places where it is scarce, and  which the Schwartzmans did not mention at all as a drinking or agriculture resource. 

And I think I have made my other arguments on this clear enough.

 

I find this a straw man argument, as Wackernagel and Rees' work on ecological footprints suggests not that the Earth is overpopulated, but that humans are in overshoot because of the modes of production and consumption. Given that we agree that the statement that the Earth is overpopulated is not an absolute, inelastic truth, what is the probability that the current population can be sustained even if the modes of production and consumption were quickly put on a more sustainable and equitable footing? I ask this because environmental conditions are not a constant, and the damage done by unsustainable modes of production and consumption will likely not be repaired quickly. For example, even if humans stopped emitting greenhouse gases immediately, there is still a significant possibility that we will still experience a 2 degree global mean temperature rise. And the evidence suggests that the current level of food production is not sustainable even under current environmental conditions.

 

I don't know the answer to that question, and nobody else does either. What I do know is that the probability is significantly greater than it is under the current capitalist system of production and environmental exploitation, and that's why the fight for ecosocialism is so important.

It is quite possible that capitalism has so despoiled the earth that we have reached (or soon will reach) certain irreversible tipping points - in climate change, soil degradation, aquifer depletion and contamination, and the life in the oceans, to name but a few possibilities - that will make it impossible under any system of political economy to avoid a catastrophic die-off of human populations. It is in fact certain, in my mind, that such tipping points and resultant die-offs (as well as widespread barbarism among the surviviors) will occur if capitalism is not eradicated, and we don't have much time left. Certainly not enough time to make drastic cuts in population levels without committing mass murder and abolishing reproductive rights altogether - and even cutting the world's population in half would not stop the profit-driven plunder of the environment that continues apace in the present system. It could at best "buy more time" - but for us to do what? Continue with the current profligate and unsustainable system, but with fewer mouths to feed, and fewer hands to do the labour?

Humanity needs nothing less than a revolution, and population reduction is no substitute.

It does at that, but in such a way as to avoid as much as possible the reductions that would certainly flow from direct and violent confrontation.

i don't know if poor people have babies to feel powerful...it's more likely connected to the lack of education/access to resources and contraception/access to safe abortion/etc. that lead to a higher birth rate.  Also the need for a large family to work the family business/farm and especially with higher infant mortality rates...

perhaps if we in the west didn't prolong life past reasonable, natural limits to the point where we're alive but can't function or really LIVE, we'd do the earth a favor?

I found this quite a thoughtful reply. We must assume/hope that the probability that an increased population can be sustained if the modes of production and consumption are put on a more sustainable and equitable footing is non-zero, or at least if it isn't the result of doing that will result in a gradual reduction in population rather than an abrupt die-off. This probably does mean an ecologically-oriented economic democracy, whatever form that takes (and it will likely take and need to take different forms in different places).

Putting production and consumption on a more sustainable and equitable footing may eventually produce population reductions in a gradual way, with a viable civilization, whereas business as usual will likely produce a population crash with widespread barbarism amongst the survivors, if not extinction.

Humanity does need a revolution, which doesn't necessarily mean a violent one, but more of a social one.

I agree, Policywonk. On the last point, history unfortunately shows that the ruling classes do not give up their wealth, power, and privileges without a fight. In the case of capitalism, they will resort to fascism if necessary in order to do so. And we are looking at the most powerful ruling class that has ever existed on earth, in terms of wealth and weaponry. They don't have all those cops and soldiers for nothing.