Paul Ehrlich: Population surge leaves only a 10% chance of avoiding a collapse of world civilization

[GliderGuider]

Paul Ehrlich, a prophet of global population doom who is gloomier than ever

"Among the knowledgeable people there is no more conversation about whether the danger is real," Ehrlich told the Guardian. "Civilisations have collapsed before: the question is whether we can avoid the first time entire global civilisation has given us the opportunity of having the whole mess collapse."

The idea sounds melodramatic, but Ehrlich insists his vision only builds on famine, drought, poverty and conflict, which are already prevalent around the world, and would unfold over the "next few decades". "Of course a new emerging disease or toxic problem could alone (also) trigger a collapse. My pessimism is deeply tied to the human failure to do anything about these problems, or even recognise or talk about them."

Central to the argument of the book ("The Population Bomb")was the idea that Earth has a finite capacity to provide the resources needed to feed and protect a global population which was growing exponentially in numbers and its demands to consume. The book succeeded, slowly, in getting the issue of overpopulation into political and public consciousness, an idea now acknowledged by calculations of the "ecological footprint" of anything from nappies to nations.

Ehrlich accepts his prediction of widespread famine in the 1970s underestimated the "green revolution" which industrialised farming. But he still dismisses hope that technology will allow mankind to stretch resources ever further.

"Can we solve this technologically? Theoretically, since we can't know anything for certain, so we could come up with a magic way of producing food and that could save us. But my answer, always, to that is: we have all sorts of people in despair today. Don't tell me how easy it's going to be to feed nine billion people; let's feed seven billion first, then I'll be willing to talk to you about whether technology will take care of all those people. We could support a lot more people on the planet if humans were willing to share equally, but they don't: we want to design a world where everybody can lead a decent life without everybody being fair."

I've always been on Ehrlich's wavelength. Unlike him, though, I don't see the looming situation as being a "bad" thing. It just is what it is.

Each in our own way, we need to continue working for the higher good of humanity without tying ourselves to expectations of any particular outcome - whether that outcome seems "good" or "bad".

[Delphinus]

1. This is a perfect response from him:

Don't tell me how easy it's going to be to feed nine billion people; let's feed seven billion first, then I'll be willing to talk to you about whether technology will take care of all those people.

[GliderGuider]

2. There's a great analogy of the Green Revolution with the bank bailouts in the GD thread.

Norman Borlaug as Hank Paulson, humans as the 1% and the rest of the life on the planet as the 99%...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2193686&mesg_id=2193686

[txlibdem]

3. Two cavemen are looking at a river. One says to the other, "You'll never build a freeway here!"

The moral of the story: old ideas can never solve new problems, even old ideas amped up on steroids and meth (which is what I call the Green Revolution).

The green revolution didn't solve a single problem of the METHODS of farming, it just put them all on steroids: more water, more and bigger machines, more fertilizer, more pesticides, more herbicides. How many wrongs do you think will make this right???

Don't get me wrong. Apparently, steroids can increase your performance a lot... but it's only a matter of time till the side effects start making things worse.

We will never succeed in feeding 9 billion people with old thinking, nor by cutting down the rain forests we all depend upon. In order to feed 9 billion people (from the around 7 billion today) we need breakthrough thinking, radically different methods, and much, much more energy and water efficiency. We are already seeing the signs of fresh water scarcity.

Since current modern method take up 70 percent of the fresh water, that does not leave much for the rising populations, industry, etc.

[GliderGuider]

4. What about just fewer people, less stuff and less frantic running around?

It seems a lot simpler and more sustainable than busting our balls trying to come up with a new breakthrough every generation or so. Breakthroughs are what got us into this pickle, after all - 10,000 years of "breakthroughs".

What's more important - progress or sustainability? Because I don't think humans in their current configuration can have both.

[txlibdem]

5. Fewer people: will you volunteer to man the machine guns or drop the bombs???

It always sounds so clinical to hear people talk about "fewer people."

My question is: if there *aren't* fewer people are you true enough to your beliefs to start shooting or drop the gas bombs?

[GliderGuider]

6. Nope, just spread family planning clinics world-wide.

Along with a few disincentive plans for having additional kids, maybe. That would take a lot less effort than dropping gas bombs.

Why the intense reactivity towards the suggestion of lowering population? Antagonists are so quick to jump on the stupid gas-bomb-machine-gun-eugenics meme. It makes those who hold the position sound irrational, manipulative and mendacious.

[txlibdem]

8. We already *have* family planning clinics worldwide - population is still going up

With the exception of "Dubya's reign" when he withheld funds from family planning clinics if they mentioned the word "abortion," we've had them all around the world for decades and the population growth has slowed but not stopped.

Next failed plan, please!

[GliderGuider]

9. One child policies appear to work, and they haven't been widely tried yet.

According to Wikipedia:

After the introduction of the one-child policy, the fertility rate in China fell from over three births per woman in 1980 (already a sharp reduction from more than five births per woman in the early 1970s) to approximately 1.8 in 2008 and 1.54 in 2011.

Doesn't sound like that one failed.

[txlibdem]

10. So your "solution" is for every nation to turn into Communist China???

They are the only ones who've successfully implemented a one child per family rule.

[GliderGuider]

11. There are plenty of other ways to incentivize smaller families.

For example, the tax system could be used to make it progressively more expensive to have more children, without explicitly forbidding it. People are quite inventive when it comes to problem-solving, you know. ;-)

I don't think such policies will actually happen, but then I don't think we really need to find a "solution" because I don't think there will be a "population problem" for much longer. The combination of climate change induced limits to food supplies and the accelerating global economic meltdown is going to limit our numbers within the next 20 years. It will happen the same way it did in Russia at the end of the '80s - women will make choices not to have kids, and life expectancy will begin to decline somewhat in vulnerable countries. I expect we will peak at 8 billion or a little less, then begin to decline - all without much policy action of any kind.

First gas bombs, and now Communist China? What brings up such outrageous boogey-men in you?

[txlibdem]

14. First gas bombs, and now Communist China?

I cringe every time I read a population reduction or population limitation post. People have been talking about this for a hundred years and there has been nothing in the history of Man (short of wars, famine, or genocide) that has succeeded in reducing population.

My take on population is why fight it? Why not begin pro-actively setting policies and start construction of the infrastructure, etc., that the increased population will need.

[Karenina]

16. Because in today's political and economic environment

that is NOT going to happen.

[txlibdem]

19. Today's "Political and Economic Environment" is nearing its end

Capitalism has at most 20 years left. They have robbed, raped, stole, lied to, cheated, and stabbed in the back just about everyone in the world. Who is foolish enough to believe in Capitalism today??? The only way to get to be a "top Capitalist" is to have NO REGRETS, NO CONSCIENCE, NO EMPATHY. That is the clinical description OF A PSYCHOPATH.

Capitalism is headed by the most heinous psychopaths the world has ever known. Should we bow down before them? Or should we put them into an institution for proper and humane treatment??? You choose.

There is no country in the world (save isolated parts of Africa) that hasn't been ravaged by American and European Capitalists. Who is left to steal from???

20 years. If you are a staunch believer in Capitalism I suggest you savor those years. They will end and they will end with a hard fall.

Now the question becomes "what can humans achieve once freed from the shackles, foolish quintuple redundancy, and false scarcity of Capitalism???"

[GliderGuider]

31. If capitalism comes apart at the seams (an outcome devoutly to be desired, IMO)

Do you think that the repercussions resulting from the destruction of the world's entire economic system would leave anyone thinking about coordinated international efforts to do much of anything? The operative phrase for quite a while during such turmoil would be, "Sauve qui peut."

OTOH, the fall of capitalism would probably put the whole world on the path followed by the Soviet Union at the end of their days - one of dropping birth rates and climbing death rates. Our "population problem" could end up in the same grave as capitalism.

It's a conundrum - if capitalism stays intact we choke on our own consumption, if capitalism fails we die in the aftermath...

[txlibdem]

7. "Breakthroughs are what got us into this pickle"

Only breakthroughs that did not take into account all the consequences of their use or manufacture.

We have the knowledge today and the technology *today* to end poverty, hunger, inequity, lack of education, scarcity of any and all resources... forever. It takes scientists working with leaders who all understand the technology and how to use it most effectively and most efficiently.

[The2ndWheel]

12. That'as a good definition of hubris

[txlibdem]

13. You speak of your own post

Thinking that you know all, thinking that everyone else MUST be wrong because you are always right. What do you call that???

[The2ndWheel]

15. Sounds like the same thing

Probably why the sayings "history is written by the victors", "to the victor go the spoils", "might makes right", etc, all exist.

[txlibdem]

18. Except that we are talking about technology. Haven't you heard of Moore's Law?

Technology has been progressing in leaps and bounds in all the needed fields to provide clean food, air and water to all the humans this Earth can hold. That is with technology that exists today: Hydroponics, aeroponics, filtration, nutrient dosimeters.

We can also provide safe, clean, comfortable dwelling space for well over 9 billion people. These dwellings would contain all of the technology that a typical American or Western European enjoys today. Renewable energy would supply the energy for the buildings and for transportation as well.

Transportation networks can be installed and maintained to give all the peoples of the world the freedom to travel and the ability to quickly and safely arrive for work when needed.

This is possible today... actually, this is about half of what we are capable of today. I don't have time to go through all of the technology that you should easily be able to search google and youtube for.

[txlibdem]

28. I should have added something to this post, now too late to edit

We can do all of this *today* without stretching the bounds of our knowledge one bit. There are no new technologies that need to be invented. We can support 9 billion today and in 10 years our technology will have advanced enough that we will be able to support 20 billion humans -- without destroying the natural environment.

That may mean that some of us need to give up their Hummers and some others need to give up their mansions and unearned millions. Small price to pay to bring the entire human species up to a decent living standard.

[bananas]

17. You might be interested in the work of Frances Moore Lappe'

I agree with your statement: "We have the knowledge today and the technology *today* to end poverty, hunger, inequity, lack of education, scarcity of any and all resources... forever."

Frances Moore Lappe' has done a lot of work in this area, and I think she has it right.
A lot of people are familiar with her book "Diet for a Small Planet", her views have evolved since then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Moore_Lapp%C3%A9

Frances Moore Lappé (born February 10, 1944) is the author of 18 books including the three-million copy Diet for a Small Planet. She is the co-founder of three national organizations that explore the roots of hunger, poverty and environmental crises, as well as solutions now emerging worldwide through what she calls Living Democracy.

<snip>

Throughout her works Lappé has argued that world hunger is caused not by the lack of food but rather by the inability of hungry people to gain access to the abundance of food that exists in the world and/or food-producing resources because they are simply too poor. She has posited that our current "thin democracy" creates a mal-distribution of power and resources that inevitably creates waste and an artificial scarcity of the essentials for sustainable living.

Lappé makes the argument that what she calls "living democracy," i.e. not only what we do in the voting booth but through our daily choices of what we buy and how we live, provides a mental and behavioral framework of goods and goodness that is aligned with our basic human nature. She believes that only by "living democracy" can we effectively solve today's social and environmental crises.

<snip>

In 1987 in Sweden, Lappé became the fourth American to receive the Right Livelihood Award, often called the Alternative Nobel. In 2003, she received the Rachel Carson Award ...

<snip>

Historian Howard Zinn wrote: “A small number of people in every generation are forerunners, in thought, action, spirit, who swerve past the barriers of greed and power to hold a torch high for the rest of us. Lappé is one of those.”

<snip>

She's not a doomer, so they don't like her at www.DoomerUnderground.com

[txlibdem]

20. Thanks. I'll look into her. "Living Democracy." Love it!!!

That is exactly what we need.

There is a shoe company here in the states that gives a free pair of shoes to a kid in a poor region when you buy a pair at retail price here. I forget the name but I love the concept. Is that close to what you mean???

[bananas]

29. That, Occupy Wall Street, Bank Transfer Day, etc... nt

[txlibdem]

21. "Can we solve this technologically? Theoretically, we could come up with a magic way..."

From the OP:
"Can we solve this technologically? Theoretically, since we can't know anything for certain, so we could come up with a magic way of producing food and that could save us. But my answer, always, to that is: we have all sorts of people in despair today. Don't tell me how easy it's going to be to feed nine billion people; let's feed seven billion first, then I'll be willing to talk to you about whether technology will take care of all those people. We could support a lot more people on the planet if humans were willing to share equally, but they don't: we want to design a world where everybody can lead a decent life without everybody being fair."

24,000 children die of hunger each day so the author is making a good point. At the height of the Green Revolution, when 40% of our food rots at some point from the field to the fridge, we can't figure out how to get food to places where it's needed. And even in the "richest nation in the world" millions of children go to bed hungry.

It sickens me when I know that we have the ability to stop all of that.

[GliderGuider]

22. That kind of says that technology is not the problem

And more technology probably isn't the solution, either. The solution, if there is one, lies in the human realm. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[GliderGuider]

23. Proportion of malnourished in the world, from 1970 to today

From http://www.peopleandplanet.net/



This translates to the following proportions:



The proportion of the world population that's malnourished is starting to rise, after getting better for 25 years and bottoming out only 5 or 6 years ago. The sharp rise in 2009 is attributed to the recession and rising world food prices.

[txlibdem]

25. Wasn't 2008 also the year that the rice harvest failed as well as 2010?

2011 should go down as a high crop failure year also.

[txlibdem]

24. You forgot to read the last paragraph: it isn't a lack of food, nor deficient technology

There is no excess population either.

It's a failure to use the technology and resources that exist today and are readily available. Period.

[GliderGuider]

26. As I said, it's a human problem - not population, but international politics and global culture. n/t

[txlibdem]

27. Funny. I thought your argument has been that technology could never achieve it

Now it's a "we just don't have the political will???" Which I agree, our politicians don't give a rats a$$ about starving Africans unless there's a shit pot full of oil to be stolen from the region.

[GliderGuider]

30. None of the problems we have today (or have ever had for that matter) are technological

They are problems of the human spirit. Every last one of them.

[wtmusic]

32. If something can't be addressed, it's not a problem.

It's a given.

Hunger is a problem.

[GliderGuider]

33. A look through history suggests that hunger might actually be a given...

We have no evidence that hunger can be universally addressed. None. We have beliefs, wishes, desires and a whole lot of complacency and outrage, but zero evidence.

[Nederland]

34. Poor Paul Ehrlich

Even forty years later, he still doesn't know (or won't admit) why he was wrong. Ehrlich would have you believe that the widespread famine he predicted would have occurred if only the pesky Green Revolution hadn't miraculously saved humanity from certain doom. In reality, the Green Revolution had already been in full swing for over 15 years when Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb. Apparently he was just incapable of doing the simple math that would have told him that the famine he was predicting would not happen. Now one could easily forgive someone for making one mistake early on, but unfortunately for Ehrlich he continued to cling to his Malthusian theories of population growth for decades after they had been clearly proven wrong.

The root cause of Ehrlich's error comes from the fact that he is a biologist. As such, he tends to lump all of humanity into the same category, failing to recognize the unlike every other species on the planet, the living conditions, resources, and demographic trends of human beings vary widely. Most importantly, humans are the only species where you see the rate of population growth drop when food resources increase. A quick look at the richest nations of the world reveals that the first world, which produces a majority of the world's food, has birthrates below replacement. This simple observation leads to the inescapable conclusion that famine in the first world simply will never happen. Lots of people in the third world may die of starvation in the future, and people from the first world may be doomed for a variety of other reasons, but the famines that Ehrlich has been predicting for decades now will never occur.

[wtmusic]

35. I guess most people would consider starving a "bad" thing

but if you're going to do it, the trick is not to tie yourself to a particular outcome, like living ("good") or dying ("bad").

It is what it is! :D

[GliderGuider]

36. Hey, now you're getting it!

:hi:

[GliderGuider]

37. To be less flip about it, that approach is used very effectively with cancer patients.

It is often used by compassionate doctors and hospice workers, who find that it alleviates psychological suffering and fear very effectively.

Doctors who take an engineering approach and see the patient in terms of their disease rather than as a human being tend to focus on the mechanics of the treatment and fail to take the patient's whole situation into account.

Whether that would work with starvation would depend on the circumstances, I suppose. Starvation is usually a reversible condition, while terminal cancer often isn't.

On edit: Whether this approach is appropriate for an individual's reaction to the state of the world at large would depend in their perception of the course of events. If one views the trajectory of civilization as one of inexorable worsening, from which recovery is unlikely or impossible, this would be analogous to the situation of the terminal cancer patient, so coming to terms with it is a good solution to avoid suffering. If one views this state of the world as temporary and open to remediation through human effort, then that psychological response would certainly be less attractive or useful.