|
A
Speech by J. Anthony Cassils
Given
to a Luncheon Meeting of the Canadian Association for the Club of Rome
April
19, 2006.
First of all,
I should congratulate all of you for turning out on a fine spring day to
consider the issue of overpopulation.
After all, it is the subject that gave rise to the description of
economics as the dismal science.
It is perhaps doubly dismal for many in this room.
We saw the problem coming decades ago, and gave the warning which
did not bring an adequate response.
As this
audience is particularly well-informed on the issue of overpopulation, I
will keep my comments succinct and limit the talk to about half an hour,
leaving some time for discussion.
Some of the ideas in this presentation are expanded upon in two
recent articles written by me for Proceedings,
one on overpopulation which appeared in the last issue, and the other on
overshoot which will be part of the next issue.
During this
presentation, I will:
- quickly
review historical figures showing population growth so that we have
a common frame of reference;
- explain
why I believe that it is humanity’s defining challenge;
- explore
some genetic barriers that hinder us from finding effective
solutions to overpopulation; and,
- leave
you with a few suggestions that might mitigate the predicament.
Now let’s
look at some of the figures relating to population growth.
The key facts
are:
- Human
population has increased from about 5 million 10,000 years ago to
about 6.5 billion today.
- Human
population quadrupled in the 20th century.
- The
median projection for global population in 2050 is 9.1 billion.
- The
encouraging news is that fertility rates have dropped below
replacement levels in much of the developed world, stabilizing
populations, with major exceptions being the United states and
Canada which are growing like third world countries boosted by mass
migration. While the
United States has a fertility rate above replacement, Canada’s has
fallen below replacement although births are forecasted by
Statistics Canada to exceed deaths in Canada until 2020 because of
the young age structure of the population.
- The
UN Population Division projects, in its medium variant, that global
fertility will decline from 2.6 children per woman today to slightly
over 2 children per woman in 2050.
Fertility of 0.5 children per woman above or 0.5 below that
projected for the medium variant provides the figures for the high
and low population projections for 2050.
- At
the world level, continued population growth until 2050 is
inevitable even if the decline in fertility accelerates.
However, the lower projection of a population of 7.7 billion
would result in much less hardship and social injustice than the
other projections. In
contrast, the high variant would result in about 10.6 billion by
2050.
- Some
analysts consider that the UN report pays too little attention to
the young age structure of the global population.
They calculate that if the global fertility rate of two
children per female had been reached in the year 2000 (the estimated
rate was 2.8 in that year), and stabilized, the world population
would peak at 12 billion in about 70 years.
·
The UN Department
of Economic and Social Affairs has specified which countries need
assistance. Between 2005
and 2050, the population of the fifty least developed countries is
projected to more than double, expanding from 0.8 billion to 1.7
billion. Growth in
the rest of the developing world is also projected to be considerable,
though less rapid, with its population rising from 4.5 billion to 6.1
billion by 2050. In 2004, the global population increased by about
76 million.
·
By 2001, sixty-eight
percent of national governments reported that they had intervened to
modify fertility levels with population policies.
Forty-five percent wanted to lower fertility levels, up from
twenty-seven percent in 1976.
Thirteen percent wanted to increase fertility levels, reflecting
the human ambivalence when confronted with the serious issue of
overpopulation (UN World Population Policies Report, 2003).
In many developed countries where populations have stabilized,
there is still pressure to expand their populations by immigration.
·
While it is a
positive trend that more countries are developing population policies,
they focus on fertility and not on assessing the long-term carrying
capacity of the environment to support existing numbers within each
country.
·
Surprising to many,
Canada too has a population problem since its population increased six
fold in the twentieth century.
It is a mistake to equate the large Canadian land mass with its
potential carrying capacity for human population.
The reality is that much of the land is barren and incapable of
supporting a large population.
It is a reflection of our anthropocentric (i.e. centered on the
human species to the exclusion of all other forms of life) bias to
consider all people-free areas as “empty” when, in fact, they
contain ecosystems that support other species and contribute to the
ecological balance of life on the planet.
Canadians like to brag that their land is one of almost limitless
resources. The myth
is in fact an integral part of Canadian national pride.
In reality, even our much vaunted tar sands, which contain an
estimated 170 billion barrels of oil, would only meet the current global
consumption of oil for about five or six years.
The east coast cod fishery has collapsed.
The west coast salmon may soon follow.
Our boreal forest is in deep trouble from exploitation, fire, and
disease. the huge
demand of global exponential growth could deplete Canada in a decade or
two. It is no time
for complacency.
Now I will explain why I
consider overpopulation to be humanity’s
defining challenge.
We humans are probably deep into overshoot, with human demands exceeding
the long-term productivity of the earth by about 20%. This estimate is supported by Limits to Growth: the 30-year Update published in 2004, and by
the UN Environment Programme in its report: Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 released in March 20, 2006.
This UN Report warns that humans have provoked the worst spate of
extinctions since the dinosaurs were wiped out sixty-five million years
ago. It emphasizes
that we are currently responsible for the sixth major extinction event
in the history of earth. A
rising human population of six and a half billion is destroying the
environment for thousands of other species with the global demand for
biological resources now exceeding the planet's capacity to renew them
by twenty percent.
The
Report sums up current conditions as follows:
“The changes made to ecosystems have contributed to
substantial gains in human well-being and economic development, but
these gains have been achieved at growing costs.
These costs include the degradation of many ecosystem services,
increased risk of abrupt changes, and increased poverty for some groups
of people. These problems,
unless addressed, will substantially reduce the benefits that future
generations get from ecosystems.”
In our
behaviour to date, we are acting like all life forms, taking advantage
of any short-term opportunity regardless of the potentially negative
long-term consequences.
Even though
we are supposed to be conscious of the risks, so far, our collective
response to early warnings has been to press on the accelerator instead
of the brakes. With
globalization in full swing, resource hungry corporations, hyperactive
consumers, and restless migrants threaten to pick the planet clean.
As a species,
we have to do something that is not inherent in our nature. We need to back off, show restraint, stop killing off
thousands of species of plants and animals, and curtail our own
expansionary drives. We
need to assert our intelligence over our instinctual selves, and become
less anthropocentric and more ecocentric.
We have to recognize our place in nature, to acknowledge that our
expansion is at the expense of many other life forms some of which make
our lives possible. Are
we conscious enough to make such profound changes? The continuation of life as we have known it depends on
such a transformation. It
is our defining challenge.
The question
then arises why we have responded so inadequately to this challenge when
it has been facing us for at least half a century.
It seems that there are some genetic barriers that hinder us from
finding effective solutions to overpopulation.
If we take a
historical perspective of the issue of overpopulation, it becomes
evident that humanity has responded in ways that might aptly be
described as bi-polar. These
often-conflicting responses are wired into our brains.
While brains keep organisms alert to dangers and opportunities,
they also serve as a buffer against environmental variation
our intelligence warns the human species about external threats
that may require wrenching change.
But our brain is also conditioned to resist it.
The
development of the brain to a level of complexity we enjoy depended on
the establishment of the human family as a social and a reproductive
unit. While, as individuals, we may be keen observers, we are
also social animals. And
the tendency of human societies is to press for the expansion of human
numbers and consumption and to resist changes that are perceived as
unpleasant in the short-term.
In the past
two centuries, this tension between these two different functions of the
human brain has given rise to two perspectives that I will identify as
the scientific observers and
the social reformers.
These perspectives are juxtaposed throughout the history of the
debate on population.
In the late 1700s, some scientific
observers began to identify signs of global limits to human
expansion and foresaw a harsh future for many people, especially the
poor. The debate
about population started in earnest when Thomas Malthus published his
“Essay on Population” in 1798.
At the time, England was in the midst of rapid population growth
and there were many poor. Malthus stated that, in nature, plants and animals
produce far more offspring than can survive, and that humans too are
capable of overproducing if left unchecked.
Malthus maintained that actual population growth is kept in line
with the growth of food supply by what he cheerfully called the
“positive checks” of famine, pestilence, and disease, or by
preventive checks, for example, the postponement of marriage.
These days, we would include the whole range of contraception in
the category of preventive checks.
Malthus was
criticized with justification by social
reformers when he concluded that the poor could not be helped except
by an elevation of the death rate or a lowering of the birth rate. Social reformers
countered that we could distribute resources more equitably for the
betterment of humankind. Social reformers from the early 1800s to the present day believe
that with proper social structures, most human ills can be eradicated.
This has led to experiments with democracy, communism, socialism,
and more recently to the widespread application of the doctrine of the
market forces. In the
global perspective of our times, the concern for the poor has expanded
to encompass the poor of the world.
Social
reformers seem to have
higher expectations of what the living earth can supply to meet human
demands. Politicians like to deliver promises of a better life
for all and have tended to side with the social
reformers. This
preference for growth receives support from most institutions, such as
major religions and corporations, which have been designed for growth.
Scientific
observers and social
reformers have a different perspective of time. Social reformers
say: “provide more nurture for the species now.”
Scientific observers
suggest: “nurture the planet that nurtures the species.” The demands of the social
reformers are more immediate and direct.
The warnings of the scientific
observers are more long-term and the perceived benefits, indirect.
Malthus had a
profound influence on Charles Darwin’s “the origin of species” and
on Paul Ehrlich’s book, The
Population Bomb, published in 1968.
The book Limits to Growth, sponsored by the Club of Rome and published in
1972, followed a similar vein.
In 1987, the
Brundtland Report, Our Common
Future, also known as
the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, tried
to bridge the two perspectives but did not succeed in my view.
After a
brilliant analysis of the state of the global environment, the report
proposed a strategy for sustainable development based on the three
legged stool of economic growth, social equity, and environmental
protection. While more
environmental protection responded to alerts sounded by scientific
observers, more economic growth and social equity met the demands of
social reformers.
The report took an indirect approach to overpopulation by
adopting the questionable demographic transition theory that rising
prosperity lowers fertility rates, suggesting as a global target “a
modest European standard of living.”
This would require a massive increase in global economic growth
between 1987 and 2070. Recent information suggests that it is very
unlikely that the biosphere could support such a massive increase of
economic growth without severe environmental deterioration.
This would defeat the intent of the report by reducing long-term
carrying capacity. Clearly,
the Report underestimated the effects of rapidly rising population.
Another
example of bi-polar thinking comes to us from a recent UN initiative.
In 2000, the United Nations set out The
Millennium Development Goals which built on the perspective of social
reformers. The
goals are: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal
primary education; promote
gender equality and empower women;
reduce child mortality;
improve maternal health; combat hiv/aids, malaria, and other
diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and, develop a global
partnership for development.
Reflecting on
these goals, it is likely that they will add to population and not
reduce it, although improved social conditions may lead eventually to
lower fertility rates. It
is reassuring that “ensure environmental sustainability” has been
included as one of the goals. However,
similar statements have been made in recent decades, and, overall,
environmental conditions are worse than ever.
In support of
The Millennium Development Goals,
a Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Study was undertaken to provide a sound scientific basis for future
human development. This
study was published in early 2005 and it presented some sobering
information. It states that
humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively in the past
fifty years than in any other period.
Some sixty percent of ecosystem elements supporting life on
earth, such as fresh water, clean air or a relatively stable climate,
are being degraded or used unsustainably.
According to the study, the situation could become significantly
worse during the first half of this century.
To give the
report a positive spin, the Board of Directors of the Study stated that:
“The overriding conclusion of this assessment is that it lies within
the power of human societies to ease the strains we are putting on the
services of this planet, while continuing to use them to bring better
living standards to all.” In
other words, they hold out the promise of more for all while easing the
strains on the planet, and the conflict between the social
reformers and the scientific
observers remains intact.
The effect of
seratonin on human behaviour is another likely genetic barrier shaping
our responses to environmental threats.
Serotonin is made from the amino acid tryptophan.
The human body cannot make tryptophan, and must obtain it from
dietary sources. Research
has shown that tryptophan deprivation alters brain chemistry and mood.
In the human body, serotonergic neurons act like the thermostat
of a house to maintain a comfortable equilibrium.
There is a diversity of serotonin levels in primate populations. Researchers have discovered that animals with higher
serotonin levels are more stable, confident and enjoy more social
status. Those
with low levels of serotonin tend to have greater sensitivity to rewards
and risks in their environment but are more irritable and inclined to
lash out at other animals. The low serotonin primates have a role in the group,
since their restless, exploratory behaviour helps the group to find new
food sources and to avoid dangers.
Applying the
finding of this research to the human context, it is likely that our
leaders have high serotonin levels that make them confident.
They are also likely to play down warnings of extreme danger, for
example the recent prediction by James Lovelock that by the end of this
century, climate change will render the planet largely uninhabitable
leaving a few people scratching for a living at the poles. In human groups there is a tendency to
reward moderates and to put trust in those who might respond to a
warning with the words: “Oh, it’s not so bad.”
In this case, a leader takes the role of playing down the threat
of environmental variation which few people want to experience.
Therefore the emotional bias favours the denial of the problem.
Another
hurdle to timely human
response to environmental threats is active
repression. All
brains, including the very simple integrative mechanisms in bacteria,
receive a diverse array of inputs that must be combined in such a way to
produce a very much smaller set of behavioural outcomes.
Since humans are very sensitive and intelligent, our senses bring
in too much information, which threatens to overwhelm us.
This triggers the active repression of many thoughts especially
of those that terrify us, such as the prospect of overshoot and die-off.
And the ability to repress successfully is probably tied to
higher levels of serotonin.
So we will
have to become much more aware of our genetic biases if we are to
respond adequately to environmental threats.
At this
point, I would like to end by offering some suggestions
that, if followed, might mitigate a grim outlook.
- The
first step is for world leaders to agree that overpopulation and
overshoot are life-threatening problems that will lead to
detrimental changes in all societies.
- Next,
human expansion in all its manifestations must be stopped and the
human footprint reduced. This
will require the end of economic growth, the elimination of
non-essential consumption, and population shrinkage.
It will be better for per capita well-being if population
shrinks faster that the supply of natural resources.
- We
should build on the example of the Montreal Protocol, which limited
the production of ozone-depleting chemicals, but lengthen the
perspective to catch serious problems earlier.
The depletion of the ozone layer was too close a call.
- We
should encourage and build on examples and trends that show the
potential to shrink the human footprint, such as:
- China’s
one child policy;
- Japan’s
tolerance for a no-growth or slow growth economy and its
acceptance of an ageing population which is an essential step
towards population reduction; and,
- welcome
below replacement fertility wherever it occurs.
- We
should realize the promise of exponential shrinkage.
A one child per couple policy for three generations would
bring the global population to less than one billion and allow the
living Earth to restore itself.
- Wealthy
countries should make all forms of family planning available to
those in poor countries and might consider paying couples in poor
countries to have one-child families, giving them some of the
security they have sought traditionally by having large families.
- International
migration should be severely curtailed so that countries that reduce
their populations can enjoy the benefits and to bring home to
countries with high birth rates that they will face the consequences
of overpopulation at home.
They cannot run away from it.
This will reinforce that the Earth is finite, and that
national populations must adjust to carrying capacity.
- It
will take persistence to profoundly change the relationship between
humanity and the rest of life, for we live in a pluralistic society
with no single reference point and many competing views.
Those intelligent enough to perceive the implications of
overpopulation and overshoot must strive to keep these issues in the
eye of public awareness.
- Finally,
we need to move from an anthropocentric perspective towards
ecocentric ethics revealing a new understanding of our place in
nature. Our
actions must reflect the truth that the living Earth is the only
home we have.
|
