Posts

First Cut: No Five-Kid Presidents

By Brian Czech

(With apologies to the Octomom, who didn’t ask for this kind of attention.)

Brian CzechMention the Octomom, and the first thing that comes to mind is that ridiculous fecundity. If she tried running for President, she’d never make it to the first debate, because everyone would take the 14-kid factoid (yes, she had 6 before the 8) to indicate some type of extremist propensity. More astute analysts would also point out that, as an example for the nation, the Octomom would be a demographic disaster of unparalleled proportions.

Anybody for the second coming of Easter Island?

If everyone bred like the Octomom, the population would double every 11 years!* In less than 50 years, then, the population would be 16 times the current bloated level. And you think your ride to work is congested now? The only good thing about it—regarding congestion at least—is that the vast majority of those offspring wouldn’t be driving to work in the first place. In a country unable to provide full employment now, imagine it trying to provide twice as many jobs, not to mention 4 times as many, then 8 times, etc. And with no more water, soil, and frackable Dakotas than it already has!

Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_2

Five-kid presidential candidate, Donald Trump. Image Credit: Gage Skidmore

So much for Octomom. If she ever had any presidential timber, it was clearcut with the parturition of that last round of 8. For that matter, wasn’t the original 6 (by the age of 28) already a patently poor precedent for a presidential candidate? She still would have been leading the way for a doubling time of 14 years.*

The fact is, no matter what you think about limits to growth, a population growth rate way—way—over the replacement rate is as sustainable as a shrimp at the local Red Lobster. Who wants to vote for an example setter for shrimp-like sustainability?

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t vote for a candidate with any more than 3 kids, and 2 or 1 would be much better. By all accounts, the nation is not yet with me on that. But as a polity, where do we draw the line? Should we—or any country—have a president who is five-eighths of the way to Octo-fecundity?

Well, we have one candidate who has proven precisely that fecund. Shockingly enough, a couple of them are even more so.

Drumroll, please, amidst the falling presidential timber…

Name Kids Analysis
Rick Santorum 7 What the hell? “Champion Breeder for President!”
Jim Webb 6 You got your Octomoms and you got your Sextodads.
Donald Trump 5 Donald Trump, you’re… you know what!
Chris Christie 4 Too much congestion on those bridges already.
Martin O’Malley 4 One to each cardinal direction.
George Pataki 4 Does it really matter?
Marco Rubio 4 Doubling time, 22 years.
Lincoln Chafee 3 May Rhode Island not Easter Island become.
Ben Carson 3 Sing along, “And it’s once… twice… three times, irrelevant.”
Mike Huckabee 3 Presumably a relatively holy trinity.
Bobby Jindal 3 Politically correct enough, again!
Jeb Bush 3 They’re also running for president.
Rand Paul 3 Triple threat to the Federal Reserve!
Ted Cruz 2 One for machine guns and one for bacon.
Carly Fiorina 2 Executive competency.
John Kasich 2 Although one of them can’t recall who Kasich is.
Rick Perry 2 Although Perry can’t recall who one of them is.
Scott Walker 2 He lets them eat cake.
Hilary Clinton 1 Not for lack of effort on Bill’s part.
Bernie Sanders 1 Demographic socialism.
Lindsey Graham 0 Whatever.

 

So there you have it. Vote with your heart and your mind. And with demographic diligence.

 


Notes:

* The population dynamics practiced here are suitable for rough estimates. Doubling times were calculated using a Population Growth Rate Calculator with the reproductive history of the Octomom as summarized at Wikipedia. The primary variable not accounted for in these doubling time estimates is deaths. However, the USA is characterized by high survival rates and relatively long life spans (e.g., the Octomom is 40 years old and each of her children is alive).

 

Maybe It’s Time to Offend a Few Folks

by Alexandra Paul

Paul_AlexandraSpeaking out about human overpopulation is not an easy thing, as I have been told that people get offended. I have not personally experienced offending anyone, but perhaps those folks have been too polite to tell me. I have not read any studies that prove people are offended, but perhaps I have missed them. If I offend you in this video, please let me know.

I once asked the executive director of the Rainforest Action Network why RAN didn’t discuss the huge number of people on the planet as a factor in rainforest devastation and encourage smaller human families, as everyone in that nonprofit organization probably understands that the demand for resources from 7 billion people on the planet is causing extensive damage to the earth. They know that if the UN projection of 10 billion people on the planet by 2050 is right, it will be disastrous for forests everywhere. She admitted, abashedly, that she did not want to alienate donors.

RAN is an organization whose members break into corporate offices and hang banners out the windows excoriating Big Oil, yet they are afraid to talk about human overpopulation in their pamphlets or on their website. If RAN won’t admit the link between diminishing natural resources and a population that grows by 220,000 people every day, then what large environmental organization will?

It turns out, none.

Is it really impolite to promote smaller families?

Is it really impolite to promote smaller families?

Even within the population community, there is disagreement on how to approach the topic of lowering fertility. Some activists believe that the word “overpopulation” is too strong, even though by all accounts the world IS overpopulated: An article in the journal Nature reports that the global groundwater footprint is about 3.5 times the actual amount we have in our aquifers. Scientists have estimated that humans consume 50% more of the earth’s resources than she is able to restore each year. If people continue to consume the planet’s resources at this rate, by 2030 humanity will need two planets worth of resources to support the world’s population.

My message is clear: I recommend one child per couple to lower the population, avert future famines, and avoid wars over water. If that sounds radical, then maybe it is time for radicalism. In a culture that bemoans a falling fertility rate because it will damage the economy — instead of praising smaller families because it means less crowding, more nature and better quality of life for all — there is great need for more voices of sanity. Voices like Edward Abbey who said, “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”

For those of us in the United States, this message is especially important. Although our families average 2 kids per couple, our consumption outweighs that of larger families in Africa and Asia. The average American consumes 20 times more resources than someone from Mozambique and generates 169 times more carbon dioxide than a Bangladeshi. We have even outdone ourselves: a family of four today lives in a house twice as large as one the family would have occupied in 1950.

I believe that we must stabilize and then lower the world population if humans are to survive on this planet. If advocating a culture that encourages smaller families is offensive, then I must offend. Too much is at stake to be polite.

Alexandra Paul is an internationally recognized actress and an environmental and social activist.  To hear Alexandra speak about overpopulation, please see her TEDx video.

Population and a Dose of Common Sense

by Blake Alcott

It isn’t true that population size (relative to the size of the earth and its resources) is the “main cause” of unsustainable environmental impact, or the “main problem” when it comes to depletion, pollution, and other concerns over health and happiness for people today and in the future. It also isn’t true that “the real problem” is too much consumption per person by rich people. It is both. It is P x A in the formula:

Impact = f(Population, Affluence, Technology), or simply IPAT.

Many researchers have measured the relative contributions of population and affluence to various kinds of impact. However, since decreases in population can be offset by increases in affluence, and vice versa, changes in either factor do not necessarily lower impact.

Can we be complacent about population size? Can we count on declining birth rates to stabilize or even lower population, now over 7 billion and increasing by 80 million per year (the size of Ethiopia’s population)? We are also, after all, experiencing declining death rates, and rising life expectancy counterbalances declining fertility to some extent. The deeper question is whether a population of 7 billion — or 8 billion or even 11 billion (low and high projections) — exceeds the earth’s carrying capacity.

The number of people that can live on earth obviously depends on how much food we can produce now and over the long term. The evidence suggests that we cannot count on food production to keep pace with population growth:

  • Very little land remains to be converted into agricultural hectares;
  • Such land conversion incurs high costs;
  • Yields per hectare can rise significantly only in Africa and South America;
  • Soil degradation and groundwater depletion curtail production;
  • Petroleum scarcity will increasingly constrain food production because agriculture requires fuel for machinery, water-pumping, and transport as well as oil-derived fertilizers and plastics.

A population’s sustainability depends on its affluence. Therefore, before any society can compute its carrying capacity, it must first decide what material lifestyle it wants — how much it wants to consume. Does it want to eat meat (and not just grain), or use land for sports and entertainment (and not just agriculture), and does it want wilderness for other species? If so, its maximum population is proportionally lower. Once a society has politically decided its desired level of affluence, it can assess appropriate technologies for producing its goods and services most efficiently. Only then can a number be calculated for a desirable and sustainable population size.

Population and affluence are both components of overall environmental impact.  Credit: www.TheEnvironmentalBlog.org

Many countries, if they were to estimate these parameters, would conclude that they are overpopulated, especially if they remember that sustainable size takes into account the rights of future generations and the desirability (on either utilitarian or ethical grounds) of leaving room and resources for non-humans.

Once overpopulation has been recognized, the search for appropriate population policies begins. In the rich countries (the ecological footprint of a rich child, ceteris paribus, will be greater than that of one born in poverty) one could end subsidies for child-bearing, including tax breaks, salary bonuses, parental leave from work and even one-off payments for having a child. Any policy change must consider the rights of already-born children and the goal of gender equality. In poorer societies there is unmet demand for the means of preventing pregnancy. Birth control “technology,” if available to all who want it, would cut today’s 80 million excess of births over deaths by perhaps two-thirds.

Whether rich or poor, a country could also choose to adopt direct policies. Some possibilities, as promoted by many ecological economists, are:

  • Ending subsidies after a couple’s second child;
  • Offering payments for sterilization;
  • Imposing tax penalties for large families; and
  • Setting quotas for child-bearing.

These measures however raise the question of whether a society has the right to legislate how many children its members can have. On this issue, two questions are often confused: (1) the legitimacy of restrictions on individual procreative freedom itself, and (2) the legitimacy of the political process deciding them. If it is an inalienable right to have as many children as one wants, then quotas and other constraining policies would be out of bounds. Treating procreation in this way fits well with the laissez-faire, individualist philosophy of our time. The opposing view holds that reproductive freedom has limits, that at some population level, the interests of society are harmed, and restrictions that support the common good are acceptable and even desirable. Population size, moreover, is one of many issues affecting living beings without a vote, namely other animals and future humans. Concrete proposals have included the right to one child, with permits being transferable (for free or for a price) to someone else.

Such direct policies can be decided democratically or autocratically, and it is the latter that leads many to think immediately of “compulsion” or “coercion” when imagining them. However, every law, by definition, coerces us, so let us just agree to use a democratic process and reject the option of an authoritarian eco-regime. The question then becomes: is it legitimate for a majority — say, 51 or 60 or 66% of the voters — to restrict everybody’s procreative activity? A majority cannot, after all, legitimately legislate the incarceration or death of all red-heads.  But red-heads don’t pose the same problems that overpopulation does.

There is truth in the statement, attributed to David Attenborough, that one cannot conceive of an ecological problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people. For example, in poorer countries, hunger and environmental degradation could immediately be mitigated if there were less demand for resources. The issue is to figure out first how many fewer people we’re aiming for, and second how to make a transition that is democratic, compassionate, and fair.

For more details on this topic, see the full paper, which raises more questions and offers many references for further reading.

Alcott, Blake, 2012, “Population matters in ecological economics,” Ecological Economics 80: 109-120. (accessible at www.blakealcott.org > Publications)

What if We Stopped Fighting For Preservation?

A Response to Murray

by Tom Butler

Tim Murray’s essay “What If We Stopped Fighting for Preservation and Fought Economic Growth Instead?” is provocative for sure. Murray is a compelling writer, and I admire his unflinching focus on the root causes of ecological collapse including human overpopulation, consumerism, mass migration, and the religion of endless growth. He’ll get no argument from me about these factors as systemic drivers of biodiversity loss, and I share his frustration that many reform-minded environmentalists and large NGOs often are unwilling to acknowledge the fundamental contradiction between wild nature’s flourishing and the intrinsic logic of a techno-industrial growth society based on corporate capitalism. Certainly conservationists of all persuasions should be more vocal about challenging the growth machine that is chewing up wild nature.

But for Murray to turn his wrath on protected areas, and suggest that preserving places for wildlife and wild processes to thrive unmolested is futile or even counterproductive as a conservation strategy, is a dangerously misguided idea. I hope it will be rejected by everyone who cares about the health of the biosphere.

Let’s consider his points:

Murray contends that “Each time environmentalists rally to defend an endangered habitat, and finally win the battle to designate it as a park …the economic growth machine turns to surrounding lands and exploits them ever more intensively, causing more species loss than ever before, putting even more lands under threat.”  Here Murray is casting blame in the wrong direction—the parks and preserves secured by activism—and not toward the growth machine itself. By his logic, if there were no protected areas anywhere, no parks or preserves or wilderness areas of any kind, the growth machine would treat the entire landscape with less rapaciousness and the overall status of the Earth would be better. I know of no evidence to support this opinion and much to refute it. The ecosystems showing the most health, beauty, and integrity left on the planet correlate well with designated protected areas.

It is a little startling to hear a conservationist like Murray echo a talking point of the pro-exploitation forces who regularly oppose protected area designations. Timber industry boosters in my home state, for instance, have fought new wilderness areas on public land by claiming that “locking up the land” here meant they’d then have to go cut trees elsewhere in the world where regulatory oversight is even weaker than on US national forests. Should conservationists bow to that perverse threat, or work ever harder to mount a defense to industrial resource extraction everywhere it is proposed?

Murray says that two acres in Canada are developed for every acre conserved. I don’t know enough about that country’s development patterns to argue with his numbers but if that ratio of new protected areas to developed land is correct, the destruction to preservation equation in Canada is far preferable than the status quo in most parts of the world. It may be bad, but could be and would be a whole lot worse without tenacious activists working to establish protected areas. Absent those legal safeguards, the growth machine would chew up every acre.

That protected areas alone are not sufficient to halt the extinction crisis does not mean they are unnecessary. Protected areas are crucial, the best available tool for slowing the extinction crisis in the short term until its root causes (human overpopulation, technology, worldview, and growth-based economic organization) can be changed. Murray essentially argues that environmental action is a zero sum game, that conservationists can’t address symptoms and systemic drivers concurrently, so quit treating symptoms. When a heart attack victim gets to the hospital, the doctors don’t say, “this fat bloke eats poorly and doesn’t exercise; it would be silly for us waste any time saving him. Let’s direct all our energy to childhood nutrition and physical exercise programs.” As in a medical crisis, the first job in nature conservation sometimes is to treat the symptoms.

Historically, conservationists who have worked to save parks and wilderness areas have often highlighted the threats to nature inherent in the growth economy. When Robert Marshall put out his call in the 1930s for a new organization of “spirited people who will fight for the freedom of the wilderness,” he said that such people were “the one hope of repulsing the tyrannical ambition of civilization to conquer every niche on the whole earth.” The genesis of The Wilderness Society came as an explicit reaction to the growth machine.  Every wilderness area, park, or nature preserve established today, places where natural processes rather than humans will direct the ebb and flow of life, are tangible examples of resistance to the ideology of limitless growth spread by the dominant culture.

What about Murray’s contention that environmentalists “are like a fire brigade that never rests, running about, exhausted, trying to extinguish one brush fire after another, year after year, decade after decade, winning battles but losing the war”? Are we losing the war? Sure. It is indisputable that the overall trajectory for wild nature is toward destruction, but winning some battles (saving specific wild habitats) is certainly better than losing every battle by choosing to quit fighting. To extend Murray’s metaphor, he would have the fire brigade simply abandon the fire fighting business. Or, to be fair, redirect its energies to the root causes of fire, namely oxygen, fuel, and heat.

But what if the fire brigade has only marginal capacity to affect those underlying factors? Or, more immediately, what if it is your house that may burn up tomorrow? Would the caribou of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s coastal plain care about our high-minded strategic shift if conservationists gave up defending that landscape from the oil and gas industry? We could name a thousand other places where wild habitat and the creatures who call it home would be immediately extinguished if conservationists stopped “fighting brush fires,” as Murray suggests. On the day we make that decision, the conflagration burning up the earth’s wild beauty will flare ever hotter, and the people who benefit from the inferno will grow even richer and more powerful.

What should we make of Murray’s central point, that if environmentalists and conservationists would “stop investing time and effort in fighting for park preservation, and instead direct that energy into stopping economic growth,” then the growth machine would have been halted in its tracks and a wonderful steady state utopia would be at hand? Murray confidently claims: “If the same energy that has been put into battles to save the environment piecemeal had been put into lobbying for a steady state economy, development pressure everywhere would have ceased, and habitat would be safe everywhere.”

Of course there is no way to prove or disprove this opinion but even a cursory examination of the idea suggests it is wildly implausible. How much “energy” could be generated to lobby for a steady state economy, and how effective might these land conservationists-turned-lobbyists really be? What form, precisely, might this steady state economy take that they are to lobby for? As that is just now a ripe area of discussion among progressive economists, with no consensus view, how could the environmental movement have been lobbying for it in past decades? (Those decades when, if Murray is right, we’ve been wasting our time saving parks.)

In the present socio-political landscape, it is industrial growth based on corporate capitalism that generates the surplus affluence which makes charitable giving possible; every large NGO depends on philanthropy derived from the growth economy. The idea that all large conservation and environmental groups could be convinced to directly, publicly, and effectively oppose the growth economy is fanciful. But for argument’s sake, let’s say every habitat preservation group from local land trusts to The Nature Conservancy got on board with Murray’s agenda, every wildlife advocacy group from Patagonia to Ottawa signs up too. These organizations, in total comprising the conservation movement, have not even been able to reform industrial growth civilization, only stave off its worst abuses. What gives Murray such confidence that if they just tried, they could abolish it entirely?

Moreover, assuming this new mass of environmental organizations became a unified growth monster-fighting coalition, what are the specific mechanisms for them to direct their energy into killing the beast? What are the practical levers of engagement and influence that the coalition could wield to counter the existing global model of economic organization? There are relatively few, and if one of the most important means of resistance—direct work to preserve and defend wild habitat—has been abandoned, then the ability of activists to fight the growth monster is greatly hampered.

Even if every self-identified environmentalist joined Murray’s “lobbying” campaign (he doesn’t say who that lobbying effort would target) it would do little to slow down the techno-industrial growth economy. The tiny fraction of the population worldwide that would fit in this camp has so little leverage politically and economically that it would be insignificant. The growth economy will fail (it is already faltering) of its own terrible weight, brittleness, and complexity, regardless of active opposition or active support. It will fail because it must, as an economy based on unlimited expansion on a finite planet is a practical impossibility.

It is well and good for anti-growth agitators to agitate, for anti-globalization forces to organize, for creative thinkers to develop visions and models for a steady state economy—and for environmentalists to support those efforts. But the relatively small number of dedicated conservationists active in the world—particularly those who have a biocentric worldview and will work hard for wilderness and wildlife—are most effective using their time and energy to save particular places. Real habitat, real creatures, as much and as fast as possible, so that when the big unraveling comes there will be the seedbed of recovery for wildness to begin the long dance of evolutionary flowering again after this dark episode of human-caused extinction.

Can these protected areas remain secure during a time of economic and political collapse, should that come to pass? That will be difficult for sure, but again, nature is likely to fare better during civilizational collapse if big, wild, interconnected systems of conservation lands (at least some of which are far away from population centers) are already established and enjoy a historic legacy of public support.

Over the past 150 years, a relatively small number of visionary conservationists have preserved many thousands of protected areas around the globe. Those places, and the intellectual foundations of the conservation movement built by Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, Aldo Leopold, Arne Naess, and others are what makes this kind of dialogue about strategy possible. Without them, we’d not even have the philosophical, legal, and tactical tools to oppose the growth machine. Without the parks and wilderness areas earlier conservationists protected, we’d not have a broad base of cultural appreciation for wildlands and wildlife. The wilderness movement, in asserting that some places should be self-willed, unyoked from human dominion, free to exist for their own sakes, offers the best hope to counter the growth economy’s underlying philosophy that the world is a commodity for human use and profit.

What if we stopped fighting for preservation? In the short term, that would consign many wild places and creatures to destruction. It may seem a Sisyphean labor to Murray, but wilderness conservation and defense is work that matters, and hopefully, endures. Abandoning it would be bad strategy, and an ethical breach with our fellow members of the biotic community.

***

Writer and wilderness advocate Tom Butler is the former editor of the journal Wild Earth. His books include Wild Earth: Wild Ideas for a World Out of Balance, Wildlands Philanthropy, and Plundering Appalachia. He currently serves as the editorial projects director for the Foundation for Deep Ecology and the president of the Northeast Wilderness Trust, a regional land trust.