Recent Reflections

I haven't posted for awhile.  It isn't because the problems of resource depletion have gone away, however.  I just lost faith in the power of logic and rational discussion to overcome the insurmountable optimism emanating from the exponents of capitalism and technology.  Uncontrolled resource consumption, and its unavoidable side-effects, resource depletion, climate change and over-population, is not just a consequence of our lifestyle it has become a primary goal for the planet.  There will be no logical stepping away from our idiocy.  There evidently will be no further discussion, period.

In particular, I can see no one in a position of power in our society making a case for reduction in consumption of hydrocarbons.  The discussion is all about more digging (in whatever form that takes with today's extraction technology), energy company tax breaks and removing whatever constraints might be in place to protect our environment from the consequences of this activity.  Politicians are pointing to all of the jobs that are generated producing "harder to extract" oil.  No one has pointed out that all of those new jobs and industrial activity is what is making oil more expensive.  We are locked into this mode of thinking and I really do not think it will ever change in time to provide any sort of relief from resource depletion's worst case scenario.

Time is not on our side.  If we wait until it hurts, there will be no relief.  The crazy weather has already begun.  Probably most of the political unrest in the Middle East and economic upheaval going on in Europe today is related to our unrestrained  consumption.  A few years ago when I became aware of the resource depletion issue and the Peak Oil/Climate Change dilemma,  I was convinced we would recognize the dangers and modify our behavior towards its moderation.  I am no longer so convinced.  There is no real pathway to that outcome.  Any discussion towards that end should probably be categorized as fiction or maybe even fantasy.

Related articles

• Clinton: Warn voters of scarcity
• Do You Have To Believe In Climate Change? [Casaubon's Book]

The Oil Drum: Campfire | Population Growth Must Stop

 

Population, consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow until we either face up to the fact that there are limits on our finite Earth or we are confronted by a catastrophe large enough to turn us from our current course.

I have written about population before.  Most mainstream media sources still won’t touch the subject but it finally appears to be a subject worth approaching in some quarters.  I have a feeling the “population question” will become more loudly discussed in the future.

Most of us don’t want to worry about population.  If we can afford to raise a child, or many children, that should be the end of the discussion.  Why should anybody care?  I live in, and love, America.  In America we are free to make those kinds of personal decisions.  I don’t want to think that it is anybody else’s business either. 

But there are other concerns if we care to think about ourselves as members of the human race.  In fact, living in America means that our babies are going to be using up an enormous share of the resources available to all of mankind.  We like to think that we are free to do that too, if we can afford it.  If everyone in the world consumed as we do in the U. S., however, worldwide consumption would have to increase by nearly an order of magnitude.  It is somebody else’s business I’m afraid.

At some point the unbridled growth in population and the cultural need to consume ever more resources as a mark of the good life will run headlong into the absolute finiteness of our supply of resources.  At precisely that point we will have to answer the “population question” or we will be handed the default solution.  It would be nice to think that we might find a cultural or social way out of this dilemma.  I am not optimistic.

The Oil Drum: Campfire | Population Growth Must Stop

Population Taboo – Bid It Adieu!

The cultural taboo on discussing overpopulation renders politicians, scientists and other opinion leaders reluctant to mention population when discussing both causes and solutions of modern challenges.

This is a good thought but I don’t think I give it much of chance for success.  Population control is very much like abortion.  There is absolutely no middle ground.  If the scientists speak out they will merely be ignored or, worse, scorned.

Population Taboo – Bid It Adieu! « GrowthBusters

Birth control could head off climate crunch

[Link: Reuters] Birth control and new technologies -- not lifestyle change alone -- may be needed to head off a combined climate, food and energy crunch later this century, said the head of Britain's science academy Martin Rees.

It is amazing how we can't talk about population control. I really don't think we will ever find a way to do it either. We are programmed to reproduce just like we are programmed to breath air, and limiting reproduction is an ultimate threat. But that doen't change the fact that there will soon be more of us than there are resources to support us. Population that we can't control will be controlled by natural processes and natural population processes are generally not very pretty.

On American Sustainability - Anatomy of Societal Collapse (Summary)

[Link: The Oil Drum]

"As the historically abundant and cheap resources upon which our American way of life depends become increasingly scarce and expensive, a scenario that is already in process, the total level of natural resources and derived goods and services available for our consumption will decline dramatically, as must some combination of our population level and material living standards.

Absent immediate fundamental changes to both our distorted worldview and our dysfunctional resource utilization behavior, American society will collapse—not in 1000 years, or 500 years, or even 50 years; but almost certainly within 25 years. America, as we know it, will cease to exist well before the year 2050."

This article makes a strong statement about the true consequences of the sustainability quandary. Sustainability is not a direction of travel but rather a destination. As children of the age of growth, if we think about limits at all, we tend to think about ceilings. How much is too much? As a society that is living far beyond its means, however, we should be thinking about floors. How far do we have to fall?

All of the trappings of a modern, industrial society are interrelated. Both our products and our means of production are fed by unsustainable resource consumption. Somehow we will have to learn to produce sustainable products using sustainable production methods with sustainable sources of power if we are to maintain a functioning sustainable society. In addition we will probably have to figure out how to limit our actual numbers. None of this is a likely result, if we wait until the unsustainable resources are gone, or even until society realizes that they eventually will be gone.

All of this seems somewhat obvious to me. And yet, honestly, I cannot find a way to drop my lifelong habits and move towards a non-consumptive, or even lower consumption existence. The built in prejudices from living my life in a powerful, industrial society are difficult to ignore. For the vast majority of people even the concept of limits is still impossible to embrace. I think the author is right, the inevitable readjustment we are facing will, almost certainly, come as a surprise and we will probably never know what hit us.

Two geologists on saving the earth

[Link: Energy Bulletin] "Our economic system is entirely based on the creation of materials. Material wealth comes out of the earth and the level of our lifestyle is entirely based on our consumption of resources. The thing that has allowed that to accelerate so there is even a middle class in many countries, including our own, is cheap energy. Petroleum. If that becomes less available, less cheap because it’s less available, that is going to limit everything that we do. It’s going to have a major impact. It’s going to limit whether we can produce non-petroleum alternatives."

This is a good discussion of the problems that we are going to be facing from now on in our society. The primary disconnect between our ambitions and our resources. We can have a materialistic culture with a few people or live frugally with a lot of people. In the long term our choice is to limit our numbers or our appetite. Unfortunately we have become so many that the long term is knocking at our door.

Bubble Isn't Price Driver, Poll Says

WSJ.com: "The global surge in food and energy prices is being driven primarily by fundamental market conditions, rather than an investment bubble, say the majority of economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey."

If you spend a little time trying to understand the dynamics of our population and the mechanics of our consumer culture you will have no trouble accepting this conclusion. We are beginning to test the limits of our ability to extract increasing quantities of raw materials from our planet. These limits relate to the primary capability of extraction, the secondary ability to convert the raw materials to usable forms (including provision of infrastructure) and the tertiary ability to deal with the negative ramifications of the raw material's use (global warming). These limits can only be avoided by reducing population or reducing the individual consumption of a vast majority of the population. As far as I know, there are no known political means to accomplish either of these effects. That leaves the natural method. It will probably start with rising prices for raw materials and products that critically depend on their use. I would guess that would be oil and food.

Rising prices threaten millions with starvation, despite bumper crops - Green Living, Environment

"All the familiar signs of impending disaster are here, and in spades. Across the developing world already hungry people are now having to eat even less. Food stocks have plunged to record lows. Food prices have scaled new heights. Food riots are spreading around the globe. Yet the world is still harvesting record amounts of grain."

[Link: Independent.co.uk]

This is exactly what over-population should look like. The pressure is from the number of consumers not the supply. When we have no way to limit the numbers of people (or even the growth rate of the population) or the amount they consume, we will eventually reach the point where we cannot produce fast enough to keep up. Many have said this all along. More have scoffed.

World Energy and Population

[Link: World Energy and Population]

This article is the first of two articles on global availability of energy through the first half of this century. This article discusses the actual energy likely to be available and the second article delves more deeply into the consequences of these trends and is shown here. This is not the only attempt to approach this subject in the popular press. Several writers, most of the peak oil variety, have done these same sorts of projections. Some of those articles are more strident than this one and I consider that a plus. We don't need additional reasons to fear the future. I like the scope of this presentation though, because the author has tried to isolate the effects without overly complicated or hopeful assumptions about future developments in the field.

With gas and heating fuel prices heading for the sky we have all begun to feel that something new and momentous is happening. When new circumstances arise unexpectedly, it is sometimes difficult to keep from looking for a magical cause or maybe even hoping for a magical cure. Forget it. That won't happen this time either. The best we can do is try to understand what is really happening. Articles like this can help with that. A rational solution can only be derived from a realistic perception of the problem at hand.

Global over-population is the real issue

"The UN last year revised its forecasts upwards, predicting that there will be 9.2 billion people by 2050, and I simply cannot understand why no one discusses this impending calamity, and why no world statesmen have the guts to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves."

[Link: Telegraph]

I have actually seen a few articles in the media recently on the subject of population. It is about time. It is probably way too late in fact. As the author of this article recalls, there was a time a few decades ago when the subject was discussed but the moment quietly passed. Today we are not only neglecting to discuss the subject we are purposefully avoiding it.

The world is facing a myriad of problems today but most, if not all, of those problems can trace their roots to over-consumption of resources by humans. Even the global warming problem is derived from excessive burning of hydrocarbons and the subsequent loading of the atmosphere with carbon compounds. Consumption is, in turn, a product of both increased living standard and, most importantly, increased population. A few are suggesting that we should voluntarily reduce our living standards but not as many are suggesting that we should similarly limit our population in order to curtail consumption. In fact, it will probably need to be both.

Let's face it. Most exercises in population control are not only controversial they are actually unpleasant. Simply put, either less people have to be born or more people have to die. One solution toys with the very essence of humanity and the other smacks of murder. That is probably why we can't talk about it but it shouldn't be the reason we can't do any thing about it. That is because the other side of the coin is that we will all die if we don't.

We are how many we are essentially because of the use of hydrocarbon fuels, insecticides and fertilizers in the growing and delivering of our food. Without hydrocarbons we would not be able to achieve nearly the crop yields we have become accustomed to. But hydrocarbons are soon to be less available than they have been in the past. We must find a way to limit our numbers consistent with that reduction and/or we will suffer a proportional reduction in living standard. It is that simple. I cannot say that any woman (or family) should be denied the opportunity to procreate. That is what being human is all about. But I am willing to ask that everyone consider the possibility of limiting one's contribution to the human gene pool. If I were to put it in a simple phrase it would be: Have two if you must but one is best with the understanding that it is admirable to remain childless. More than two children today is unfair to the future. Even with this constraint it will be decades before any serious population reduction will occur but we should think of it as preparation for the real future. We will never again have the energy resources we have today. Clearly, there will be a way to keep our population in line with this new reality. It is up to us to make that way our choice rather than nature's.