The Ugly Truth

[Guest guest]

Raconteur at Large

 

Stephen P. Pizzo

 

 

Forget An Inconvenient Truth

How About The Ugly Truth

 

 

" If a path to the better there be, it begins with a

full look at the worst. "

-- Thomas Hardy

 

Here's something you won't read about any where but in

obscure scientific journals and on bogs run by the

kind of survivalists that make you happy you're

unprepared and will therefore not have to share the

planet with such folk, should they turn out to be

right.

 

Nevertheless this unmentionable is IT -- the whole

banana. Everything else bad, flows from it. It's the

headwaters of bad -- war, energy shortages, pandemics,

terrorism, global warming. Those things, as annoying,

frightening and dangerous as they are, are not THE

problem, but simply symptoms of THE problem. Whats

THE problem? Since we are all in jeopardy, I will

frame answer in the form of a question:

 

“What's the maximum carrying capacity of the earth?â€

 

Any livestock feedlot operator knows exactly how many

animals he can maintain at once. Above that number

both the facility and animals begin to degrade. It's

not just feeding them. More food can always be shipped

in. The problem is that, within the confines of a

finite facility, living conditions deteriorate once

you exceed it's maximum carrying capacity. And once

past that tipping point conditions deteriorate at an

exponential rate from that point on.

 

Like it or not, we have something in common with those

feedlot animals. We humans too are fenced into a

finite space. Yet we keep adding more load every

passing second. This week, for example, the US

achieved a dubious milestone. There are now 300

million of us. How many more head can we add to our

section of the world feedlot? No one is asking.

Because, for some reason, population control has

become a taboo subject, a sign of intolerance,

xenophobic or selfishness when someone seriously poses

the question. (Even the first group to try and address

this crisis, Zero Population, had to change it's name

to The Population Connection because the " zero "

business upsetted the religious right in the West,

African and Muslim nations.)

 

But the real reason no one wants to explore this

question is that, instinctively, they know the truth

they will discover is about as ugly as truth gets.

Here it is:

 

 

There are currently about 6.6 billion humans on earth,

eating, breathing, craping, farting and, increasingly,

driving. New Zealand scientists at the Central

Institute of Technology are among the few willing to

do the numbers. They say the present global population

is about 30% more than the earth's biological capacity

can sustain at present standards of living. And they

are being upbeat about it. I would say, they actually

sugar coated this bitter pill.

 

 

Those who have dared to venture deeply into this

matter have not come up with a single answer when

asked to precisely set the sustainable carrying

capacity of earth. That's because the answer depends

on from what standard of living level one begins the

calculation. (See table below) But they predict a

range from half a billion to 6 billion, at current

western standards of living. The lowest sustainable

population levels assume everyone in the world has the

kind of basics of a civilized society; good health,

nutrition, prosperity, personal dignity and freedom.

But note... this calculation (here) assumes a

population for the US of something between 100 and 200

million. Here in the US we've already stumbled blindly

past the maximum by a cool 100 million souls, and

counting.

 

Despite growing warning signs that humans are already

overtaxing earths life support systems, there are

billions more on their way. Here's a look at various

population maximums based on various standards of

living:

 

 

Maximum Global Population Guesses

 

Each of these assumes that the current depletion of

fossil fuel reserves has continued to completion. No

fossil fuels are left, except possibly for a small

stock, priced high, and used for limited durable uses

such as new plastic production and for some

pharmaceuticals.

 

 

1. Everyone at the current U.S. standard of living and

with all the health, nutrition, personal dignity and

freedom that most Americans currently enjoy [Pimentel,

1999]. 2 billion

 

2. Everyone at the same affluence level as in 1, but

with few restrictions on commerce, pollution, land

use, personal behavior (within current law), etc.

Basically a libertarian, laissez faire economy, with

only limited environmental restrictions. This points

out that there is a population price to pay for the

current American way of commerce. 0.5 billion

 

3. Everyone at the same affluence as indicated in 1,

but with many and onerous restrictions on freedoms

relative to behaviors leading to environmental

degradation.

In order to accommodate populationlevels greater than

2 billion, restrictions such as the following would

have to be instituted: Massive recycling. Driving

restrictions (gasolene rationing, fuel rationing even

to mass transit systems). Restrictions on the

transport of food (food transported no more than 100

miles for example to its point of retail sales).

Prohibitions against cutting of trees on one's

property. Limitations on the burning of fossil fuels

in order to save these complex molecules for more

valuable or durable uses, such as in the manufacture

of plastics and pharmaceuticals.

Limitations on the areas of open spaces that can be

converted to renewable energy power plants, such as

solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind energy

systems.

This latter results from the need to preserve natural

areas for atmospheric oxygen generation and food

growing. Of course many rooftops can accept solar

energy systems and this scenario basically assumes a

nearly complete saturation of coverage of roof tops

and covers over parking lots for solar energy

production. 4 billion

 

4. Only people in the U.S. and Europe at current level

of affluence. Everyone else at the current prosperity

level of Mexico. 6 billion

 

5. Everyone in the world at Mexico's current

prosperity level. 20 billion

 

6. Everyone in the world at the current " prosperity "

level of Northwest Africa. 40 billion

(Source)

 

So, how's that stack up with actual population trends?

Not so good.

 

You can see that, even if the maximum population

numbers in the table above are wildly pessimistic, we

are still producing humans at a rate that is clearly

unsustainable. The early proof of that pudding is

already giving us camps.

 

So, while Al Gore's great film, An Inconvenient Truth,

is laudable, and will bring both red and blue state

voters into the green camp, it falls short.

Gore's film, like most pro-environment pitches,

steers well clear of the touchy matter of population.

Oh sure, most of them speak of the social benefits of

family planning and limiting the size of families.

What no one is talking about, except in China, are

programs capable of not just slowing population

growth, but reversing it.

 

If governments can pass laws to limit greenhouse gas

emissions, why is it so wrong to also enact programs

designed to reduce the number of humans who, just by

living, create pollution, exasperate food shortages,

build on and/or erode tillable acreage?

 

And just being less consumptivc is not the answer.

 

For example, the average US citizen, for example,

requires about 9.7 hectares to provide resources and

space for waste, 205% of what the country can provide.

 

China, which has far more folks per square mile than

the US, requires just 1.6 hectares for the average

Chinese.

Great you say. But that's still 201% of the country's

capacity.

India uses 0.8 hectares for the average Indian, or

210% of the country's capacity.

 

So, it's not just teaching folks to use less and be

less wasteful. The number of booties on the ground

matters much more than simply improving our

stewardship of " Spaceship Earth. "

 

If we really want to reverse global warming, and stop

repeated famines, and make sure future generations

have clean water to drink, the nations of the world

need to initiate programs that lead to negative

population growth for at least the next century. Then

hold population growth to sustainble levels

thereafter.

 

So far only China has taken this problem seriously,

not because they wanted to, but because they had to.

China is on the point of the population spear. And,

thanks to it's one-child law and a peddle-to-the-metal

family plainning programs, only China will have fewer

people in 2050. Everyone else will have more. Lots

more. (See here)

 

I remember a psychology class I took many decades ago.

The professor showed a film of an experiment on the

effects of over-crowding on white rats. They crammed

more and more rats into a confined cage. First the

rats get grouchy.\

Then they start getting on one another's nerves big

time. Fights broke out over nothing. The end of the

film showed dozens of the rats hanging from by their

teeth from the top of the cage, in search of some

semblance of privacy, safety and peace.

 

That haunting image has stayed in my mind for 40

years.

 

The only difference today is that now I find myself

understanding why those rats considered hanging by

their teeth a reasonable alternative to what was

happening around them.

 

http://newsforreal.com/