“The world could easily support 20 billion to 30 billion people.”
“The world’s entire population, with 1,000 square feet of living space each, could fit into Texas.”
It’s one thing to see statements like these in online forums and blog comments, quite another when they appear in the New York Times. The article, now a couple weeks old, is Malthus Redux: Is Doomsday Upon Us, Again? by science reporter Donald G. McNeil Jr. which not only was selected for the Week in Review section of the paper but also referred to approvingly by NYT columnist and science writer John Tierney:
Before any other readers post another comment about “overpopulation” and doomsday scenarios, I suggest they take a look at my colleague Donald McNeil’s excellent article on Malthusian mistakes.
I understand exaggeration and misdirection in political speech but not in science reporting, and especially not when it concerns important science topics. When I went to the trouble of cataloging odd and troubling responses to population pressure I was thinking more of pajama warriors rather than science writers in the mainstream press.
Here are McNeil’s words in context:
…over the last 200 years, with the Industrial Revolution, the Transportation Revolution, the Green Revolution and the Biotech Revolution, Malthus has been largely discredited. The wrenching dislocations of the last few months do not change that, most experts say. …
Right now, there is enough grain grown on earth to feed 10 billion vegetarians,…
Theoretically, there is enough acreage already planted to keep the planet fed forever, because 10 billion humans is roughly where the United Nations predicts that the world population will plateau in 2060. But success depends on portion control; in the late 1980s, Brown University’s World Hunger Program calculated that the world then could sustain 5.5 billion vegetarians, 3.7 billion South Americans or 2.8 billion North Americans, who ate more animal protein than South Americans.
Even if fertility rates rose again, many agronomists think the world could easily support 20 billion to 30 billion people.
Anyone who has ever flown across the United States can see how that’s possible: there’s a lot of empty land down there. The world’s entire population, with 1,000 square feet of living space each, could fit into Texas….
The parts in bold text are false and/or offered without any evidence which, given the nature of the article, is egregious.
Malthus said that a population that grows faster than its food supply is in trouble, nothing has discredited that. The UN has made no predictions of future population but rather offered a spread of projections based on a variety of possible conditions that may or may not hold in the future. And “most experts” and “many agronomists”? That’s the sort of rhetorical device one expects from the pajama warriors not NYT science writers. I have never heard of an agronomist who would, with a straight face, claim “the world could easily support 20 billion to 30 billion people.” Easily support?
Science writers, to have any credibility, must be aware of systems analysis and the kinds of errors that are easily made when just one part of a system is studied in isolation.
Modern industrial agriculture is part of a system in which it needs inputs like good soil (in short supply), water (also in short supply), and fossil fuel (problematic on several fronts) for transportation and fertilizer. It produces outputs like subsidence from over-pumping ground water, decrease in biodiversity from monocropping and habitat loss, pollution from pesticide and fertilizer runoff, and greenhouse gas from fossil fuels used in production and transportation. There’s nothing sustainable about large scale agriculture. McNeil must know this yet fails to even mention it.
Oddly he notes the there’s enough food to sustain 2.8 billion people at the North American level of consumption. But there are 6.7 billion people in the world and all of them want that level of consumption — exactly the Malthusian dilemma that McNeil is trying to dismiss in this sophomoric piece.
To wrap up, a word about fitting the population of the world into Texas with room to spare:
Among the pajama crowd this comes up again and again with Australia, Florida, France, and various other areas substituting for Texas. Responses range from ignoring it to any of several more or less colorful insults. I’ll try a reasoned one.
Again, it’s about systems thinking. Your house is a system. Let’s assume it’s 2,000 square feet (a nice size house) and hooked up to city water and sewage supplies. It’s probably on a road of some sort, a road used by you to come and go to your job and by various businesses to deliver you services. All the businesses you interact with and they interact with are also systems that need space. The landfill needs space, farms need space, the sewage treatment plant needs space, …. Office buildings, shops, parking lots, hospitals, playgrounds, roads, parks, rivers, forests, lakes, mountains, hillsides — everything needs space.
Once you start portioning out all that on a per person basis, guess what? We fill up Earth and are already a bit crowded. If everyone lived like North Americans we’d need several more Earths, but all we’ve got is this one. That’s the Malthusian dilemma in spades.
McNeil also tackles the problem of water shortages:
Water? When it hits $150 a barrel, it will be worth building pipes from the melting polar icecaps, or desalinating the sea as the Saudis do.
And if he can figure out where will the energy come from and how to mitigate the environmental damage from such projects, I’ll concede the point.
Related posts on Trinifar:
Systems thinking, analysis, and approach to problem solving is not something many people really understand. How Tierney magically turned into a science columnist is beyond me. He should have stayed on the op/ed page where political biases count for something. McNeil I don’t know about.
But you are right. Systems thinking is what we sorely need for problems of this sort.
George
http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/population-forum/12892-population-explosion-challenging-piece-knowledge.html
There is not much everyday people can do. The consequences of the probable, possible, and inevitable problems concerned with the population explosion must be focussed on, seriously, as a structural matter that we are all faced with as human beings; both on a local, national, regional, and global level. Because there is nothing anyone can do to stop the world population from reaching more than 9 billion souls by the year 2050. Nothing! And that is why we must start to deal with the issue in a rational way, and not like now, acting like deaf, dumb, and blind.
It is not as if the population explosion is something that our ruling class can just choose to ignore! But that is exactly what it does!
I put this to you: there is only one thing about the future we can say for certain, and it is that the population explosion is going to keep happening, and make us reach a number of 9 billion souls, globally, by the year 2050. For some unfathomable reason, this is an issue that politicians, diplomats and so-called intellectuals do not want to adress! And it makes you wonder. WHY?
- —
In the western world populations have stabilized. It is good news indeed. But in the third world (let me repeat myself) there are persistent cultural and traditional ties to the extended family system. In large parts of the third world, it is very uncommon to find families with less than five children per unit. This is something that is ingrained in society. It is what is expected by every family! To bring five, seven, or nine children into the world. It’s expected. And it’s desirable. It’s a question of culture and tradition first and foremost.
Now, the end result of this tradition is conflict over land! And what comes next is food and fresh water problems. What comes is a lot of problems concerned with local societal infrastructure.
I mean: we’re talking about countries / regions of this world in which TOWN PLANNING is nothing but a word. It’s never put into practice. And these are things that the authorities of these countries / regions do not take seriously. Politicians and diplomats of the western world do not give a damn about the population issue. And this is plain crazy. We can’t choose to ignore the most important social change that is upon us: namely the fact that the world’s population is going to rise by a staggering 40% in the next forty years! Without planning for it! Without even making the simplest attempt at figuring out what is in store for us, on a local, national, regional and indeed global level. We ignore the problem, and we do so deliberately. It is not smart. In fact: it is stupid.
- —
(We must not forget about) the fact that extended family and clan based cultures around the world have a strong tradition for giving birth to a lot of children. This is not something that can be changed overnight.
In the meantime, while waiting for the time when populations might start to stabilize, I think it would be a good idea to bring into analysis the effects of the inevitability of the population explosion as it plays out on a local, national, regional, and global level. This is not being done, and it is downright irresponsible. Local and regional political systems authorities and international organisations alike are choosing to close their eyes to the one thing we can be absolutely certain about as concerns the future of all; namely the fact that the world’s population is going to rise by 40% in the next forty years. It’s irresponsible, and it’s stupid.
It is not easy to be too certain about too many things which pertains to the future. Population growth is not one of those things. We know that the world’s population will reach 9 billion souls by the year 2050, and when it comes to the year 2050, that’s just about the only thing we can be certain about.
We should be able to plan for the inevitable! – Which is that the world’s population will keep exploding for quite a while. And it is the opposite of a collapse! Yes! It is not as if the world’s population is about to die off! It’s the opposite! It is a majestic increase of population we are talking about here! And it leaves us with a lot of problems which can never be solved unless politicians and other administrators start taking the issue seriously. Which they don’t! In fact: the whole topic is taboo! It’s hardly ever mentioned by anyone. Not by politicians. Not by UN diplomats. Not by any member of the press.
IT IS NOT SOME DOOMSAYER’S WARNING we are dealing with here! Not at all! This is reality. These are facts. But we allow ourselves to choose to just close our eyes to the fact of a population explosion which is going to transform the world in the next 40 years, ignoring the issue deliberately.
UNDER RATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, a lot of social research programs should be put in place; aimed at covering all the probable, possible, and inevitable consequences that are connected to the population explosion issue, and as seen both from local, national, regional, and global perspectives. Land issues. Food issues. Water issues. Sanitation issues. Town planning issues. Security issues. Crime control isses. All sorts of issues that are going to rise from a most basic fact of reality: the population explosion. As it happens on a local level at the same time as it is, quite naturally, a global matter. But the truths that pertain to population dynamics have somehow become taboo. And it is just plain crazy. We just don’t want to deal with the most basic fact as concerns the future of all! – How can this be explained?
Fertility is China is below replacement (and was headed that way even before the one child policy). India is trending in that direction. That mops up a lot of the non “western world”.
Although even the poor countries these days are having less kids (than they used to) there is still a reasonably good correlation between wealth and declining fertility. So wealth creation is a good thing in more than one way (few people would suggest pursuing a poverty strategy).
The governments of the world could help things along by not only removing trade barriers but also by enabling demographic flexibility. They could do this in part by reforming immigration policies to pursue more free immigration agreements with compatible nations. For an example see the agreement that New Zealand has with Australia or else take a look at the following article.
http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1210832895_document_60-1_humphreys.pdf
More free immigration agreements or even a move to immigration tariffs (or even a hybrid of the two) would provide more flexibility of movement and would allow the world population to better manage it’s own distribution. It would also allow people to more readily vote against dud governments by being more free to use their feet.
China’s still projected to grow by a 200 million or more people and India more than that before their populations stabilizes however. (And the US by 100 to 180 million.) The 2050 projections world population range from 8 to 10 billion which is 1.3 to 3.3 billion more than today’s 6.7. Just clarifying. I’m aware you are not claiming otherwise, Terje.
Humphrey says free immigration agreements (FIAs) “could be negotiated with countries that share our basic values (rule of law, democracy) and only in situations where there is no expectation of a large surge of immigration.” I think he’s probably got that part right and thus FIAs won’t do much to address circumstances involving billions of people — Which is not to knock FIAs themselves, just saying they aren’t going to help with this vast increase in the number of people and the social problems that are sure to ensue.
When I was a boy, we were taught that each generation had responsibilities to assume and duties to perform with regard to the acknowledgement and acceptance of the challenges that are presented to us, so that the next generation can have a chance at a better life. Under no circumstances, would it be correct to pose as willfully blind, hysterically deaf or electively mute in the face of any challenge, as many too many in my not-so-great generation are doing in these days.
What has happened to the misguided leaders of my generation? So many in the elder generation have determined to let the looming challenges in our time fall into the laps of our children. At least to me, today’s leaders show an astonishing unwillingness to examine the prospects of a good life for those who directly follow us, let alone coming generations.
After my single, not-so-great generation finishes the `missions’ (ie, fools’ errands) the leading, self-proclaimed “masters of the universe” among us have set before the human community, what resources will be left for our children to consume; how many more people will have to share what remains of the dissipated and degraded resources; where will they find clean air to breathe, clean water to drink? I shudder when thinking about what our children might say about what we have done so poorly and failed to do so spectacularly, all for sake of selfishly fulfilling our insatiable desires for endless material possessions and freedom without responsibility…..come what may for the children, coming generations, global biodiversity, the environment and Earth’s body.
How could one generation go so wrong? Here are some of the ways.
First, the leaders in my generation of elders wish to live without having to accept limits to growth of seemingly endless economic globalization, of increasing per capita consumption and skyrocketing human population numbers; our desires are evidently insatiable. We choose to believe anything that is politically convenient, economically expedient and socially agreeable; our way of life is not negotiable. We dare anyone to question our values or behaviors.
We religiously promote our widely shared and consensually-validated fantasies of `real’ endless economic growth and soon to be unsustainable overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities, and in so doing deny that Earth has limited resources and frangible ecosystems upon which the survival of life as we know it depends.
Second, my not-so-great generation appears to be doing a disservice to everything and everyone but ourselves. We are the “what’s in it for me?” generation. We demonstrate precious little regard for the maintenance of the integrity of Earth; shallow willingness to actually protect the environment from crippling degradation; lack of serious consideration for the preservation of biodiversity, wilderness, and a good enough future for our children and coming generations; and no appreciation of the vital understanding that humans are no more or less than magnificent living beings with “feet of clay.”
Perhaps we live in unsustainable ways in our planetary home; but we are proud of it nonetheless. Certainly, we will “have our cake and eat it, too.” We will own fleets of cars, fly around in thousands of private jets, live in McMansions, exchange secret handshakes, frequent exclusive clubs and distant hideouts, and risk nothing of value to us. We will live long, large and free. Please do not bother us with the problems of the world. We choose not to hear, see or speak of them. We are the economic powerbrokers, their bought-and-paid-for politicians and the many minions in the mass media. We hold much of the world’s wealth and the extraordinary power great wealth purchases. If left to our own devices, we will continue in the exercise of our `inalienable rights’ to outrageously consume Earth’s limited resources; to recklessly expand economic globalization unto every corner of our natural world and, guess what, beyond; and to carelessly consent to the unbridled global growth of human numbers so that where there are now 6+ billion people, by 2050 we will have 9+ billion members of the human community and, guess what, even more people, perhaps billions more in the distant future, if that is what we desire.
We are the reigning, self-proclaimed masters of the universe. We enjoy freedom and living without limits; of course, we adamantly eschew any talk of the personal responsibilities that come with the exercise of personal freedoms or any discussion of the existence of biophysical limitations of any kind.
We deny the existence of human limits and Earth’s limitations.
Please understand that we do not want anyone presenting us with scientific evidence that we could be living unsustainably in an artificially designed, temporary world of our own making….a manmade world filling up with gigantic enterprises, virtual mountains of material possessions, and boundless amounts of filthy lucre.
Third, most of our top rank experts appear not to have found adequate ways of communicating to the family of humanity what people somehow need to hear, see and understand: the rapacious dissipation of Earth’s limited resources, the relentless degradation of the planet’s environment, and the approaching destruction of the Earth as a fit place for human habitation by the human species, when taken together, appear to be proceeding at breakneck speed toward the precipitation of a catastrophic ecological wreckage of some sort unless, of course, the world’s colossal, ever expanding, artificially designed, manmade global political economy continues to speed headlong toward the monolithic `wall’ called “unsustainability” at which point the runaway economy crashes before Earth’s ecology is collapsed.
Who knows, perhaps we can realistically and hopefully hold onto the expectation that behavioral changes in the direction of sustainable production, per human consumption, and propagation are in the offing…..changes that save both the economy and the Creation.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, est. 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php