Cultural Change at the Limits to Growth

[GliderGuider]

Cultural Change at the Limits to Growth

Well, humanity certainly appears to be in a bit of a pickle at the moment.

There are already too many of us for comfort (6.6 billion by the latest estimates), our population is still growing (perhaps to 9 billion by 2050), our economic activity and resource use is still increasing, climate change is showing signs of drastic acceleration, we are running into production limits on food and energy, the oceans are knackered and the glaciers on which so many people depend for fresh water are draining away before our eyes. To top it all off, the global financial system appears to be developing some very ominous cracks. To anyone who has been following the news for the last few years, these developments have taken on a very foreboding tone. The name of Thomas Malthus is even reappearing in discussions with greater frequency as the situation becomes ever more dire.

As a result, people are starting to feel a great sense of urgency about coming up with solutions of one sort or another. We are starting to put more effort into technical solutions like wind and solar power. People are agitating for greater fuel efficiency in vehicles, and even fully electric cars. Permaculture and local food production are ideas whose time seems to have come, at least in the West. The idea of reducing consumption through conservation, re-use and recycling is gaining new converts. Even the question of overpopulation, long considered the untouchable black sheep of ecological activism, is being discussed. All these initiatives should be applauded and supported.

The real problem as I've come to understand it, though, is that there is simply no way we can proactively reduce our population or our consumption enough to matter in the time we have left before we run head-first into the reality of biophysical limits. The fact that we are seeing the problems today means the crisis is already upon us, and the only question is how much time we have left before the combined effects begin to impact our civilization’s ability to function.

There are a number of mutually reinforcing factors that will keep us from even undertaking such proactive reductions in consumption or human numbers. In this article I discuss those factors, and propose an alternative approach to our situation.

(more at the link)

[glowing]

1. I call b.s., our society cannot continue to grow and consume at these rates.

We need to use our brains and resources wisely.. Also, people need to start farming again. Farming doesn't normally pay.. we are in a pickle if we continue on the same course..

ALSO, education plays a huge role in containing population growth. Eugenics doesn't play well in my book and that's what this is.

[GliderGuider]

2. Eugenics? WTF?

Did you even read the article? The only way you could get "eugenics" out of it is if you think that any mention of overpopulation is automatically eugenics. That's BS. If you read all the way to the end you'll find I don't say a single bloody thing about forcible population reduction, which is what eugenics is all about. In fact, I say explicitly that we won't make any such voluntary reductions at all, and that wisdom is the key to addressing the changes.

You need to be careful -- jerking your knee that hard can dislocate something.

[nels25]

4. I agree that a snow ball in blast furnace

has a better chance at survival than people (especially in the US) supporting serious alterations to their lifestyle voluntarily, not going to happen.

Having said that though, your overall thesis is not new, the book "Population Bomb" in the late 60's early 70's advocated that thought as did a writer in the late 1700's (I believe that is the correct time frame and believe it was Faust) or early 1800's, just as the so called Industrial Revolution was beginning to pick up steam.

Only time will tell who we handle this.

[phantom power]

5. a couple comments on Population Bomb

1) The world essentially pushed back the predictions of Pop-Bomb by throwing very large amounts of very cheap oil at agriculture. The cheap easy oil is, of course, evaporating before our eyes.

2) Looking at the big picture, if the Pop-Bomb was off by 40 years or so, that's nothing. Even being off by 200 years isn't really anything.

[nels25]

8. Can not argue with that

the logic behind the thesis of Pop Bomb is sound.

Simply we will grow to big for the earth to feed,keep us warm etc.

Although GOd told man to go forth and prosper, one wonders if this is what he had in mind.

Of course you are correct about oil helping cheap agriculture, of course I would also add advanced technology had an impact.

I sure hope the K-faction is 200 years not 40.

With 200 I believe we may have time to adapt, not so much with 40.

[phantom power]

9. Heh. I was thinking 200 years from Malthus.

[GliderGuider]

10. Malthus and Ehrlich were both confounded by the same factor -- the effect of oil on agriculture.

Their underlying perceptions were identical, and equally sound. Did you see that Colin Campbell has pulled his Peak oil date in from 2010 to 2007?

http://www.aspo-ireland.org/contentFiles/newsletterPDFs/newsletter89_200805.pdf

1040. Revision of Depletion Model
The Depletion Model, used herein, is subject to continual revision as new information, however unreliable, and insight come in. It does not pretend to offer a definitive picture but rather an evolving approximation. Nevertheless, despite the uncertainties of detail, the overall pattern can be presented with some confidence.

This revision (see table and graph on Page 2) is based on an update of the deepwater situation, revising the previous version made in 2005. The model considers the four main deepwater countries (Angola, Brasil, Nigeria and USA) and lumps the remainder together. The previous version came to a total ultimate production of 68 Gb, which has been increased to 85 Gb. The earlier model was based on Hubbert depletion profiles, but this has been abandoned in better recognition that the rate of deepwater production is likely to be constrained by the capacity of floating production facilities delivering more of a plateau than a peak. Deepwater oil is very costly to produce, and investment limits are a constraint.

The new deepwater model has the effect of advancing the date of the overall peak of all liquids from 2010 to 2007, and is actually good news insofar as the lower and sooner the peak, the gentler the subsequent decline. The precise date is of no particular significance since it is not a high isolated peak, being no more than the maximum of a fairly gentle curve. But if correct, it might carry a certain psychological impact to recognise that the Second Half of the Oil Age has begun. Certainly this is consistent with the current world financial crisis, soaring oil and food prices, deepening recession, and consequential riots and political tensions in many countries. New military threats are being made against Iran, as the consumers become increasingly desperate for access to oil supply, much of which lies in the Middle East.

Mr Malthus must be turning in his grave.

So if increasing oil gave us increasing food...

[Nihil]

7. Your title seems schizophrenic

> I call b.s., our society cannot continue to grow and consume at these rates.

The second part of it is totally agreeing with the OP article and yet the
first part of it is calling it BS ...

:crazy:

> Eugenics doesn't play well in my book and that's what this is.

I don't know where you are getting the "eugenics" accusation from
but I think that you've either misinterpreted the article or simply
not read it.

I agree with the rest of your post though! :hi:

[navarth]

3. I don't get the eugenics comment either.

Maybe I missed something. I thought the article well thought out.

[glowing]

6. Its not the article....

But its the synopsis with allowing people to think that its ok to let people die out. It evaporates really any need for humanitarian issues. Why feed the world, let them starve? Why give them medicine, let them die? I'm not saying that we shouldn't address what type of society we should have, what type of society supports the most efficiently... but this is a worldwide discussion.. this is a worldwide decision to enjoy equality and peace...

As of now, we are fighting wars, cutting off funding to feed people, less medical access.. Seems to me some people at the top have decided our fates for us. They don't want to share and they will cull the heard.. and the "whacky enviros" will help.

I had this same discussion with my Prof. in college. I told him the logic didn't sit right with me; and it still doesn't.

[Bigmack]

11. Thoughtful Analysis

I like this. Your analysis of why "we" too seldom pay close enuf attention to relatively "abstract" analysis and reasoning rang true to me. Thanks for taking the time to think this thru and to post this. Ms. Bigmack

[GliderGuider]

12. Thanks, Ms. Bigmack. For those who might be interested, here's an outline of my current position.

I've pretty well given up on trying to quantify the future, which was my main focus in the past couple of years. Every time I try, the scale of the problem and the uncertainties involved overwhelm my puny skills, not to mention my fragile spirit.

It really looks to me as though all the well-meaning analysis and advice in the world will not (actually can not) make a difference in our overall behaviour until our immediate circumstances have visibly deteriorated. And that means there is no likelihood of significant change until after TSHTF. Then it will turn into a scramble to adapt.

Based on that assessment, I've completely re-directed my efforts to promoting personal attitude changes that may or may not be directly linked to a comprehension of the crisis. Pure consciousness-raising, if you will. Having a seed-stock of aware people is a winner no matter what happens. I think it's a much better bet than trying to coax people into physical preparation directly -- someone who is aware will figure out for themselves what they need to do given their own circumstances. I'm going to be dedicating my remaining efforts to helping people climb the ladder of awareness.

Unfortunately, based on the analysis I have done, it looks to me like we have only 5-10 years left before the crunch really bites. It's hitting now in marginal regions, but the entire globe will be in crisis within a decade. That's not a lot of time for either physical, intellectual, emotional or spiritual preparation.

Good luck to us all.

[tom_paine]

13. Consider this: it is something of a "Unified Field Theory" for humanity's problems

Here it is:

Many of the evolutionary adaptations and mechanisms human (and perhaps all sentient advanced species, but I have only one sentient, advanced species to look at...homo sapiens) beings evolved for survival during prehistory become turned-around into maladaptations that hasten extinction if not modulated by reason.

Example #1: The Discount Rate
Great during prehistory to keep us surviving in the face of terrible odds, harsh weather, and a continent full of large predators. Not so great when trying to survive complex long-term global climactic problems.

Example #2: Male (and to a lesser degree, Female) Human Reproductive Imperative
Again, great during prehistory to keep our species from dying out in an age of 70% infant mortality and life expectancy of 25 years. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, "In an age over 6.6 billion human beings...not so much."

Those are just two examples. I guess I have just fleshed out this idea and haven't thought it fully through but now as I think again I see

Example #3: Selfishness and greed
Human animal evolutionary adaption to harsh hypercompetetive environment, I think, or just "business-as-usual" in the animal kingdom that we carry with us and yet to evolve out of?

So now three examples. Paul, are there any examples of prehistoric human survival adaptations that are positive in helping us deal with the problems of today? Is this a "Unified Field Theory" I wonder, just a generalization with some exceptions, or an invalid point?

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter, on my three examples, and whether you think I am on to something here or not.

Don't get me wrong. Our animal natures most definitely have a place. Biology is where much of what makes life worth living can be found, sex not the least of it. Love. Pleasure in family and friends. Fun. A hundred, a thousand other things.

It would be a terrible world in which our animal natures were fully euthanized or destroyed, if that was even possible. But there has to be a happy medium where we keep the animal in us on a personal level, but get it out of the running of our societies) clearly, these adaptations turned maladaptations seem to be leading us now over a cliff.

One more thing to add, a bit off topic but generally true.

Let us not forget that, even though they are not readily obvious to us now, there may be additional waves of the technological "deux ex machina" that torpedoed Ehrlich's initial predictions in the 70s.

Don't get me wrong, eventually the string will run out if only because it is up against some implacable mathematics and human biological imperative. As was mentioned above, technology has delayed the "ecology" of Malthus 200 years and the predictions of Ehrlich for 40 years. Even though it is not likely (neither did it seem likely to Malthus and Ehrlich back then), it may be that Malthus/Ehrlich can be delayed another 100 years.

[GliderGuider]

15. We're heading in the same direction, all right.

On the discount rate, obviously I agree with you completely.

On reproduction: All biological species over-reproduce. Their numbers are kept in check by resource shortages, predators and disease. We are no different. We've managed to overcome all three of those constraints to some extent with our clever monkey brains. However, sustainability issues are going to bring resource shortages back to haunt us, and diseases are showing remarkable abilities to circumvent our defenses. We have managed to kill off all our predators except for the viruses, though. Yay.

On the question of selfishness and greed, I agree that it's a factor, but I disagree that it's intrinsic, especially to all animals.

This is one area where Dan Quinn's writing has influenced me the most. He makes the case that before the development of totalitarian agriculture, humans did not live greedily and selfishly. In fact, for several hundred thousand years we did not take the greedy, selfish step that style of agriculture represents. He claims, and I agree, that no other species behaves greedily and selfishly. His definition of that behaviour is "locking up the food". That means refusing other species the right to food, killing them systematically if they insist on eating "our" food, and controlling which members of our own species get to eat, and under what circumstances.

Quinn claims (and again I agree) that this behaviour is cultural rather than genetic. His support for that position is that there is no evidence of analogous behaviour in other species or in human hunter-gatherer societies -- it seems to be purely a by-product of the Agricultural Revolution.

Of course, whether this sort of behaviour is cultural or genetic doesn't make much difference to our present circumstances. If it is cultural, the supports we have developed for it have given it the force of genetics. On the other hand, if the roots of this behaviour are cultural and it's just our socioeconomic and political support mechanisms that keep us behaving this way, reducing the strength of those institutions will allow for some shift in belief patterns, and it doesn't take much of that for an entirely new culture to arise -- one that marches to the beat of a very different drummer. For instance a culture that embraces sustainability instead of over-exploitation.

And sustainability is at the root of all our problems. The technological advances that flummoxed Malthus and Ehrlich were decidedly unsustainable. Another one might push the horizon back another hundred years, but what's one more century in the face of human history? It still won't change the shape of the box we're in.

[Locrian]

14. spot on

I think your position is pretty close to what I have concluded as well. We (as a species, whatever) have not evolved to be able to process information that is not "immediate" ie statistical, long term etc.

Consciousness-raising is exactly right. We have spent the last industrial revolution years "engineering" and advancing technology and very little (some agree, but not much) increasing our awareness and consciousness.