Where is the religious debate on overpopulation? This guy seems to get how serious overpopulation is, and yet even here does not mention peak oil. At least now Chevron and Shell are starting to discuss “the end of easy oil” as they call it.

This population article’s design is nicer at original BBC site.

PS: I’m glad everyone is talking about peak oil now, and it’s not just me. It was quite lonely there 12 months ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4584572.stm

Earth is too crowded for Utopia

VIEWPOINT
Chris Rapley

The global population is higher than the Earth can sustain, argues the Director of the British Antarctic Survey in the first of a series of environmental opinion pieces on the BBC News website entitled The Green Room. Solving environmental problems such as climate change is going to be impossible without tackling the issue, he says.

The welfare and quality of life of future generations will be the ineluctable casualty
Ten thousand delegates attended the recent Montreal Summit on the control of carbon emissions “beyond Kyoto”.
That’s a lot of people! The conference organisation must have been daunting; and just imagine arranging the hotel accommodation and restaurant facilities and dealing with the additional human-generated waste.

Imagine the carbon and nitrogen emissions from the associated air travel!

The 40 or more decisions made were announced as an historic success.

Supposing this proves to be so, will it be sufficient to secure an acceptable quality of life for the generations to come?

What about the myriad other planetary-scale human impacts - for example on land cover, the water cycle, the health of ecosystems, and biodiversity?

What about our release of other chemicals into the environment?

What about our massive transport and mixing of biological material worldwide, and our unsustainable consumption of resources?

Big foot

All of these effects interconnect and add up to the collective “footprint” of humankind on our planet’s life support systems.

The consequences of the human footprint extend to the ends of the Earth
The consequences extend to the ends of the Earth (recall the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic) and each is as difficult to predict and as challenging to deal with as the link between carbon emissions and climate.
It would surely be impractical and almost certainly ineffective to assemble 10,000 delegates to address each one of these issues, and especially to do so in the necessary “joined up” way?

And in particular, what about the net 76 million annual rise in the world’s population, which currently stands at about 6.5 billion - more than twice what it was in 1960 - and which is heading towards eight billion or so by mid-century)?

That’s an annual increase 7,500 times the number of delegates in Montreal.

Imagine organising the accommodation, feeding arrangements, schooling, employment, medical care, cultural activities and general infrastructure - transport, power, water, communications, waste disposal - for a number of people slightly larger than the population of the UK, and doing it each year, year on year for the foreseeable future.

Combined with ongoing economic growth, what will be the effect on our collective human “footprint”? Will the planet cope?

Steps to Utopia

Although reducing human emissions to the atmosphere is undoubtedly of critical importance, as are any and all measures to reduce the human environmental “footprint”, the truth is that the contribution of each individual cannot be reduced to zero.

Only the lack of the individual can bring it down to nothing.

So if we believe that the size of the human “footprint” is a serious problem (and there is much evidence for this) then a rational view would be that along with a raft of measures to reduce the footprint per person, the issue of population management must be addressed.
Let us assume (reasonably) that an optimum human population level exists, which would provide the physical and intellectual capacity to ensure a rich and fulfilling life for all, but would represent a call upon the services of the planet which would be benign and hence sustainable over the long term.

A scientific analysis can tell us what that optimum number is (perhaps 2-3 billion?).

With that number and a timescale as targets, a path to reach “Utopia” from where we are now is, in principle, a straightforward matter of identifying options, choosing the approach and then planning and navigating the route from source to destination.

Cinderella subject

In practice, of course, it is a bombshell of a topic, with profound and emotive issues of ethics, morality, equity and practicability.

HAVE YOUR SAY
Only the lack of the individual can bring the footprint down to nothing

As found in China, practicability and acceptability can be particularly elusive.
So controversial is the subject that it has become the “Cinderella” of the great sustainability debate - rarely visible in public, or even in private.

In interdisciplinary meetings addressing how the planet functions as an integrated whole, demographers and population specialists are usually notable by their absence.

Rare indeed are the opportunities for religious leaders, philosophers, moralists, policymakers, politicians and indeed the “global public” to debate the trajectory of the world’s human population in the context of its stress on the Earth system, and to decide what might be done.

Unless and until this changes, summits such as that in Montreal which address only part of the problem will be limited to at best very modest success, with the welfare and quality of life of future generations the ineluctable casualty.

Professor Chris Rapley is Director of the British Antarctic Survey, based in Cambridge, UK

The Green Room is a new series of environmental opinion articles running weekly on the BBC News website.

Thanks David. Interesting article.

Rare indeed are the opportunities for religious leaders, philosophers, moralists, policymakers, politicians and indeed the “global public” to debate the trajectory of the world’s human population in the context of its stress on the Earth system, and to decide what might be done.

This was the bit that struck a cord with me.
What are the moral implications if humanity is near, at, or already passed the carrying capacity of the earth, momentarily dangling at the unsustainable population of 6.4 billion, held aloft by our vanishing fossil fuel energy inputs into agriculture? Once those inputs truly disappear… wow.

Fortunately the Haber Bosch process for obtaining nitrogen fertilizer out of the air can be run on coal, and we have a lot of coal. But if we keep raising the population levels on this artificially inflated agricultural output and reach “peak coal” mid century with 8 or 9 billion.... our kids might see a catastrophe that makes the Irish potato famine look like hunger pains between lunch and dinner.

Without (I hope) appearing to be a contrarian for the sake of it, there is some debate going on at the moment about population decline in many countries.

Europe, the former Soviet Union (or at least the culturally Chrisian bits) and Japan already have declining populations.  Unless the trend is reversed, some nations are likely become extinct.

For instance, Spain’s birthrate is only 1.1 children per woman, which means that the number of Spaniards will all but halve every generation.  Russia and Italy are in much the same position.

Australia is apparently at 1.76 - immigration keeps us growing at present.  The USA is the only industrialised country with a birth-rate [just barely] above replacement level - 2.07.

The consequences of this are quite profound:  what will happen to costly state-funded health and welfare programmes, when there are no longer enough working-age taxpayers to fund them?  What sort of a world will to be, in which Europe becomes demographically - and hence politically, much less significant?

I’m not saying that overpopulation isn’t a problem.  I believe it is.  Of course the growth in populations in Africa and the Muslim World is immense and well and truly cancels out the decline in Europe.

But population decline brings its own problems with it too.

ed. - typos

These are problems of economics which can be overcome.
Overpopulation and overshoot are far more dangerous situations to contemplate.

Jared Diamond wrote the Pulizter prize winning, “Guns, Germs and Steel” which you may have seen discussed on the ABC recently.  (The book was better than the series, apparently). It analyses what happens to kick-start civilization.

His next major work, “Collapse”, looks at the other side of the equation. The bottom line is that a civilization collapses after it grows into a period of declining resources per capita, eats into and then destroys it’s own ecological basis, and the whole pyramid scheme tumbles down like an inverse house of cards.

Jospeph Tainter has taken the same themes and worked on them, refining them to an equation that measures the administrative weight of running a civilization that then collapses under it’s own weight. It’s a similar concept… although his use of the word collapse is sociologically technical, involving the reversion to simpler social systems.

Jared’s collapse is everything but… it’s overshoot and dieoff, Easter island style.

There are some economic and cultural factors that are slowing the population growth in about half the world’s countries. The other half more than make up for it!
Overshoot and sudden collapse are more of a worry than slow decline!

One question here might be what the Bible says on the subject of having children.

Off the top of my head I can’t think of a single verse of Scripture which supports the idea that having many children is anything other than an unmixed blessing.

But possibly the author’s knowledge of his creation may not have extended to the 21st century AD.

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]But possibly the author’s knowledge of his creation may not have extended to the 21st century AD.

That’s right Gordon, Christians are exempt from the laws of thermodynamics! ;-)

I was not aware of that fact, Dave-o.

But still, the question?

G’day Dave,

I think there is some support in the scriptures against the tradition of people heading towards cities and overpopulating the land.

I think / believe without any substantiated facts, that if we were to spread the population of every person in Oz accross this nation of ours, there would be no problem with overpopulation and I think the same would go for every other nation as well.

While I recognise the pragmatics of jobs etc in the regional centres and cities, I think a lot of that is grown on greed instead of need.

I don’t think we are heading for global over population, instead we have cases of locality specific overpopulation.

Blessings craig b

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]Off the top of my head I can’t think of a single verse of Scripture which supports the idea that having many children is anything other than an unmixed blessing.

Well, there are proverbs which indicate that some children may certainly not be a blessing, for example:

Prov. 17:25 A foolish son is a grief to his father, And bitterness to her who bore him.

Prov. 19:13 A foolish son is destruction to his father, And the contentions of a wife are a constant dripping.

God, in Genesis, said “fill the earth.” My understanding is that it is full.

I don’t think “spreading out” is viable, simply because vase areas of Australia (and other countries) are essentially uninhabitable.

[quote author="Craig Bennett"]G’day Dave,

I think there is some support in the scriptures against the tradition of people heading towards cities and overpopulating the land.

If you headed towards the cities you would depopulate the land!

Anyway, heaven is a city and I hope y’all will join me there. Like a WWI recruiting march from Gundagai to Sydney, only with no war at the end. :-)

the depopulation economic problems are I think overstated. In 2004 the Superanuation Council was pressing the government to legislate that the Superannuation contribution be increased from 10% to 15% on the basis that (as suggested here and relying on some modelling by Acess Economics) the working population would not be able to support the non working.

Max Walsh in the Bulletin (and I do wish the Bully would index its articles) exposed the fallacy in this argument and model: it took no account of the increase in productivity that had occured and it assumed there would be no further increase. He said something to the effect that if the assumption was made that productivity would increase at the same rate it had over the last 30 years (or whatever the period that the Access study had used to obtatin its other assumptions for its model) that the increase in productivity would more then compensate for a decline in workers and in any event people living longer would be more interested in working longer. The Prime Minister is an example of the latter, so are many of the retired clergy ...my favourite is Bishop Neville Chynowth who after retiring as Bishop of Gippsland in the early 80s went on to become an unpaid but very active assistant bishop in Canberra Goulburn (And really according to some senior clergy there kept the diocese running after Bp Owen Dowling got ill and then retired) and is still on the staff of St Paul’s Manuka, he is well into his 80s (he was in 6th Division in Middle East which must put him atleast 83)

2 quotes

I guess this is why I am concerned that the Church seems incapable of discussing this issue without becoming all defensive, especially that great Catholic tradition!

But here we are on the verge of multiple crisis, and we have no expressed guiding statement of theology to address the situation.

I guess the moral imperatives come down to this — does my biblical imperative to have more children because they are a “blessing” to me over-ride my Christian social concern for others that may not be able to eat as a result?

Laws may soon be introduced that mandate a 1 or 2 child policy, and the church can then avoid the whole debate and just obey the law. But in the meantime, as more and more people become aware that:-
1/ Peak oil could soon affect industrial agricultural output
2/ There are more and more people on this planet
3/ The church seems to be to blame for —

(i) coming up with the concept that we are “above” the environment, and can use all it’s resources as we choose without worrying about future generations.

(ii) encouraging population growth as we exercise dominion over the earth

...it seems that it might be a good idea for the church to develop an apologetic that deals with these subjects!

the first accusation above is thoroughly debunked by the JRI website I quote below… and that the biblical imperative of stewardship is careful tending of the garden, not industrial plundering without any thought to stealing from our children. However, even it raises concerns about population growth.

1. To maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems;
2. To preserve genetic diversity;
3. To ensure the sustainable utilisation of species and ecosystems.
The idea of ‘sustainability’ was taken up and came into everyday usage through the work of the Brundtland Commission, whose Report Our Common Future was published in 1987. The Report defined sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Mrs Thatcher paraphrased it by reminding us that “we do not hold a freehold on our world, but only a full repairing lease. We have a moral duty to look after our world and hand it on in good order to future generations.” The Government White Paper already cited commented on this, “That is what the experts mean when they talk of ‘sustainable development’: not sacrificing tomorrow’s prospects for a largely illusory gain today.” Crispin Tickell put it, “Treating the earth as if we mean to stay”; former Secretary of State John Gummer’s version is “Not cheating on our children.”

What does ‘sustainable development’ mean in practice? It certainly can NOT mean ‘sustainable growth’. The only way for growth to occur is by adding new resources (or substituting new assets for existing ones such as when renewable energy from wind, wave, tide or ‘biomass’ replaces fossil fuels). A vivid picture of sustainability is given by the idea of an ‘ecological footprint’ which is the area required to support indefinitely (that is, sustainably) a human population with a particular standard of living; it is the balance between resources we consume (food, fuel, land and its use, building materials) and the impacts we have (waste, greenhouse gases, water, etc.). Globally, the mean footprint per person is 2.2 ha; the mean capacity from biological production is 1.9 ha/person. In the UK, we have a greater deficit: our footprint is 4.6 ha/person, the biocapacity of the UK averages at 1.5 ha/person. We are taking three times our ‘fair share’.

—The John Ray Initiative (JRI) is an educational charity that develops and communicates a Christian understanding of the environment. Find out Who’s Who in JRI, and about John Ray. Investigate our Associates programme, Briefing papers, JRI Resources and our Gateway, an annotated directory of resources.

http://jri.org.uk/resource/Environmental_Ethics_RJBerry.htm

The following information is also worth reading. Secular scientists have just stated the facts as they see them. Does this challenge make us Christians anachronistic and even dangerous in this age?

World Scientists’ Warming to Humanity
The earth is finite. It’s ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair. Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any effort to achieve a sustainable future.

—From World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), written and signed in 1993 by more than 600 of the world’s most distinguished scientists, including a majority of the living Nobel laureates in the sciences.
http://www.ucsusa.org/

A landmark study released today reveals that approximately 60 percent of the ecosystem services that support life on Earth – such as fresh water, capture fisheries, air and water regulation, and the regulation of regional climate, natural hazards and pests – are being degraded or used unsustainably. Scientists warn that the harmful consequences of this degradation could grow significantly worse in the next 50 years

—The MA is governed by a Board comprised of representatives of international conventions, UN agencies, scientific organizations and leaders from the private sector, civil society, and indigenous organizations. A 13-member Assessment Panel of leading social and natural scientists oversees the technical work of the assessment supported by a secretariat with offices in Europe, North America, Asia, and Africa and coordinated by the United Nations Environment Programme. More than 1350 authors from 95 countries were involved in four expert working groups to prepare the global assessment and hundreds more are undertaking more than 30 sub-global assessments.
http://www.maweb.org/en/Article.aspx?id=58

[quote author="Enkidu Jones"]
God, in Genesis, said “fill the earth.” My understanding is that it is full.

I’d have room for one or two more at my place Enkers.

Why do you think the earth is full?

Just say “Ditto Dave” if you’re following his arguments. ;-)

Yes, I’d like to know too why Enkidu thinks the earth is full. Has he not visited Tasmania, New Zealand or Montana? There are plenty of uninhabited perfectly habitable stretches of land.

As for resources, there’s plenty enough food to go around. Starvation is primarily caused by corruption, not over population and drought. If you look at country wealth vs population, you’ll see little correlation.

For years theorists have argued about the earth’s population capacity. Some have predicted 450 billion, others just a few million. Who is right? It’s difficult to say; there are so many factors to take into consideration, add to that the changing rates of these factors (eg as someone mentioned earlier, the changing rate of technology for food production).

Peter, I thought that when the superannuation guarantee levy was introduced by the Hawke/Keating government it was meant to rise to 15% as the experts said that this was the level needed to assure a worker of a reasonable annuity on retirement.

It is because it is essentially a tax on employers and therefore a potential hindrance to employment that the Coalition has stopped any increases; and nobody seems to be suggesting the rate be increased any more.

The idea that superannuation should actually provide people with a retirement income seems to have been just silently abandoned by all parties.