"Overpopulation is Not the Problem"

[caraher]

I just ran across this New York Times op-ed by Erle C. Ellis that contained the claim, "There really is no such thing as a human carrying capacity."

The idea that humans must live within the natural environmental limits of our planet denies the realities of our entire history, and most likely the future. Humans are niche creators. We transform ecosystems to sustain ourselves. This is what we do and have always done. Our planet’s human-carrying capacity emerges from the capabilities of our social systems and our technologies more than from any environmental limits.

On one level, Ellis is making an unobjectionable, even pedestrian, observation. To the degree there is a human carrying capacity, its numerical value does depend on how humans choose to interact with the rest of the environment, and that, at least in the short term, we are indeed adept at finding ways to support a larger population. But even if &quot n)either physics nor chemistry nor even biology is adequate" to understand how we have come to support 7 billion people (sort of) today, it's at best wishful thinking to imagine those sciences do not impose pretty stringent upper limits!

Apparently he's been doing considerable "clarification" since this piece came out. Tom Murphy has some nice commentary that I largely agree with...

"The succinct answer is that natural scientists are not comfortable with ruthless extrapolation of past trends."

[Turbineguy]

1. That will be one of the benefits of the Tea Party.

The population (in the US anyway) will be much lower after they work their special magic.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Ellis is, apparently, a moron. Such opinions are the matter of religous faith, not science. nt

[caraher]

5. Yet a moron with an academic post and an audience.

The New York Times thought his opinion was worth airing, after all. But you're right that it is basically religious, this blind faith that somehow humans will always find a way to write their own rules.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Yes, and shame on the Harvard Graduate School of Design.

People who fancy themselves visionary.

Here's the future under current and projected technologies:

Waste Land is an absolute powerhouse of a documentary. From the music to the cinematography, and especially in the portrayal of its beautiful characters, this film is a true masterpiece that is not to be missed.
It follows the story of modern artist Vik Muniz as he undertakes his next project to show the world the true beauty and power of the human spirit as displayed through the lives of the people of the Gramacho landfill in Rio De Janeiro- people who eat, sleep and live in garbage. It explores their tragic stories while following their individual transformations brought on by the raw power of art.
If I could give this film more than 5 stars, I would.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11432916

[kristopher]

9. I don't think that's true.

You can take a 'scientific' approach that models based on a different set of assumptions and variables; and this is what I think Ellis has intuitively done. There is no appeal to otherworldly powers or superstitious belief of any kind involved, as far as I can see.

And there is a core argument for his conclusion that makes determining the right set of assumptions extremely difficult - humans have, in fact, been changing the "carrying capacity" of their environment since we started bumping up against the limit that it presented us with.

So, while the fundamental premise of "there are no limits to our growth" cannot rationally be sustained, that is more a function of the absolutist nature of the statement itself rather than any direct proof offered in the physical sciences. That's because any case that can be made showing collapse will inevitably depend on a set of assumptions that are themselves often very difficult to defend against a countervailing set of assumptions.

Does that uncertainty mean we should proceed as if there are no limits? Not at all, since prudence dictates that you don't count your Gallus gallus domestici until they emerge alive and well from their shell.

[caraher]

12. It seems more like motivated reasoning than anything else

Motivated reasoning can be highly sophisticated, but that doesn't make it particularly "scientific" (and no, I'm not naive enough to imagine scientists don't bring a lot of personal baggage to the table that affects which ideas they choose to pursue and which to dismiss).

What's problematic is the way he dismisses what I agree are very difficult to establish carrying capacity numbers, not by presenting an alternative model of how we might plausibly make the required alterations to our societies and environment, nor by pointing out any specific flaws in prominent estimates of limits, but with what is mainly a general appeal to history. Yes, he does point out an important in-principle distinction between us and microbes in a petri dish when it comes to thinking about limits. But from a quantitative standpoint (in a realm where the numbers very much matter!), it's a dismissal that's even less evidence-based than, say, projections of the future obtained from fitting data to arbitrary polynomial functions. I agree that one could try out models based on different assumptions and variables, but disagree that what Ellis did "intuitively" is in any meaningful sense doing so at all. Ellis is expressing a gut feeling rather than a result of research.

It is true that there's no appeal to the supernatural in his argument. I took the meaning of "religious" in this context to be "based on faith." Probably that's too harsh; he is indeed using reason. Just not very effectively. And the takeaway message for too many readers of the New York Times is, "Scientist says not to worry - we'll just get more efficient." This works against the message of prudence.

[kristopher]

13. I agree completely

My post was more of a rejection of the "religion" comment than a defense of what he wrote. It's my feeling that benefit of the doubt should be given until and unless the author shows a more dogmatic attitude than was evident.

[on point]

3. Limited analysis. Only true UNTil we exhausted all unexploited systems

We are no longer living off the interest, we are drawing down the principle the earth provides. Humans can become more efficient and less impact full but until we start drawing on less than what is provided the world will not heal and will continue to get worse.

Reducing our pop in nice peaceful means over time is not just a good idea it is essential

[fitman]

4. I always get a kick out of the line

"You can fit every person in the world in the state of Texas and still have land left over"..yep maybe so but it's that pesky water, infrustructure/agriculture use they don't mention..

[NYC_SKP]

7. Just imagine the smell. nt

[mopinko]

8. eeeewwwwwwwwwwww

i dont wanna.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Interesting graph from Tom Murphy

On the page he produced a bit before the NYT article:



Annual absolute CO2 added as a result of population growth, as a function of the number of people added per year. - See more at: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2013/09/the-real-population-problem/#sthash.iocWppRp.dpuf

India adds about 15 million people per year (wow). China adds a little over 6 million. Nigeria is next, at about 4 million. Then we have the U.S., adding 3 million per year. But of those, the U.S. is the hungriest in energy terms. The graph shows how many petajoules (PJ) of demand are added each year per country due to population growth (other factors can also contribute to energy growth or decline; here we isolate the population portion). For reference, the entire world’s annual appetite is 530,000 PJ. What we see is that population growth in the U.S. is adding energy demand faster than any nation on Earth. China and India are also important (and in absolute terms they are certainly more important energy growers, due to a rapidly changing standard of living). But the answer to the question: who’s population growth is having the largest effect on global energy demand?—it’s the U.S.

One could easily argue that over the lifetimes of the newly added, ultimate energy additions due to China’s present population growth will outstrip those from America because of the changing standard of living. Firstly, it is not crystal clear how long the Chinese juggernaut will last against the unknown challenges of the future. But perhaps more important is that jostling for top position could obscure the glaring outcome evident in the graph. It’s the U.S., China, and India where population growth is driving global increase in resource demand—to the extent that energy is a proxy for generic resources. The rest of the world is of secondary importance on this score. Where is population growth putting the biggest squeeze on resources? It’s these three countries, with the U.S. presently well ahead of the others. Meanwhile, the Ukraine is doing the best job of removing demand from the world.
...
Something moderately interesting happens when we cast the plot in terms of CO2. Because India and China use “dirtier” energy sources, in terms of CO2, the gap between the U.S. and China/India is reduced. The U.S. still stays on top, but less overwhelmingly so. Some Middle-Eastern countries are straining to break away from the pack as well—but not in a good way.

[caraher]

11. Yes, and there are many others in that post

I actually stumbled across the Ellis piece through Murphy's blog.