The Ecology of Overpopulation

[GliderGuider]

The Ecology of Overpopulation

One of the more contentious bun fights among environmental and ecological activists is over the role of overpopulation in the anthropogenic deterioration of the natural world. The debate coalesces loosely into two opposing camps: the overpopulation camp and the overconsumption camp.

The former insists that raw human numbers play a decisive role in the growing ecological damage. As evidence, the adherents point to the parallel curves of energy consumption, waste generation, resource depletion and population growth. They argue that aggregate human activity is responsible for much of the damage, and that a reduction in population would automatically result in both less ongoing damage and a greater opportunity for the Earth’s systems to heal themselves.

On the other side of the coin are those who locate the problem in our consumption habits. They point to the relative consumption patterns of industrialized and developing nations (where an American consumes 30 times as much of the world’s resources as a Bangladeshi), and argue that restraint in consumption trumps restraint in population growth.

{...}

Eating is as close to a constant activity across human cultures as we are likely to find. Regardless of where we live or how rich we are, an adult human needs to eat between 2,000 and 2,800 calories a day. Most of us do not need more (though some of us may consume somewhat more, to our long-term detriment) and we cannot survive for long on less. Compared to other human activities such as driving automobiles or working in factories, the amount we eat is influenced very little by either cultural or individual circumstances. What we eat may change from place to place, but the amount we eat always stays in that narrow range of 2,000 to 2,800 calories per day. An Australian or a Finn may consume 50 times more energy than a Bangladeshi, but they all eat about the same amount of food.

{...}

That line of reasoning leads us to the following insight. Given that global levels of food production and consumption are balanced (so there is little overall shortage or surplus), the ecological impact of food production is directly proportional to the global population.

{...}

This whole argument would be moot, however, if the level of ecological damage from food production was insignificant. It’s obvious that this is not the case. Consider the following laundry list of ecological damage related to food production:

* The number of oceanic “dead zones” caused by eutrophication from fertilizer runoff has been doubling every ten years since the 1960s.
* Predatory fish species (the ones we eat) have declined by 90% in the last 50 years. This is due to our over-fishing the oceans for food.
* The estimated extinction rate of plants and animals is at least 75 species per day. This is mainly the result of habitat loss due to human encroachment and the expansion of agriculture.
* Over 75,000 square miles of arable land is lost each year to urbanization and desertification.
* A billion people in over 110 countries are affected by desertification. Agriculture was the main reason for the desertification that has reduced the cradle of civilization in the Middle East and North Africa from lush, fertile lands to the barren sands we see today.
* On the American Great Plains, half the topsoil has been lost in the last hundred years, and the Ogallala aquifer is being drained up to 100 times faster than it is being refilled.
* Indian farmers have drilled over 21 million water wells using oil-well technology. They take 200 billion tonnes of water out of the earth each year for irrigation.

Every one of these and similar impacts is directly proportional to the number of people we are trying to feed.

{...}

What can be done about this predicament? Global population growth rates are declining, of course, and show every sign of continuing to do so. As I have pointed out in other articles though, our growth rate will not decline fast enough to rescue our species from the ecological fires we have already started. Programs of voluntary population reduction that might accelerate the necessary decline run head-on into the problems so elegantly described by the Prisoner’s Dilemma game – nobody wants to risk getting the sucker’s payoff, so nobody is prepared to be a front-runner in the race for less.

From a purely rhetorical perspective though, it remains a fact that there are aspects of our ecological difficulties that are strictly the result of our excessive numbers, and could be alleviated by reducing our population. I hope that this article helps bring some clarity to the debate of consumption versus population as the underlying culprit – it’s transparently clear that population numbers play a major role.

[codjh9]

1. Thanks. I don't have time to read your whole post, but overpopulation AND overconsumption

are BOTH problems, as I'm sure you know. The sad part is that damn few people, of any political/social/economic stripe, even a lot of environmentalists, have any f-ing clue that population is a humongous problem, that it's the cause of most of our problems, whether directly/indirectly, nor that we've gone from 1 billion people about 200 years ago to 6.7 billion now. If anyone thinks that rate of growth can continue, they're insane! Not only that, but it never ceases to boggle my mind when people argue saying oh golly, the Earth can support way more, we could blah blah blah... well first of all they're wrong, but more importantly, I'd like to say 'at what 'quality of life' level are you talking?' - i.e. the more people, the more pollution, deforestation, overfishing, crowding, waiting in lines, heavier traffic, the list is almost endless... so why would we want to do that? Or another way to put it is, 'how many people can you stuff in a phone booth?'.

Sorry, I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I'm a long-time member of ZPG (I don't like their wimpy newer name, Pop. Conn., but I did read and reluctantly understand why they changed it :^). A friend of mine is also a member of NPG, which you may know about.

[GliderGuider]

4. Most western environmentalists are afraid of being accused of racism

If they point out the fact that population is a problem, their opponents point out that population growth is now largely a third-world phenomenon, so identifying population growth as a problem is inherently racist. As a result, population problems tend to get short shrift -- it's much safer to just address the consumption side of the equation.

What this article attempts to do is provide a rational basis for arguing that population levels are a problem regardless of culture, wealth or skin colour.

[codjh9]

6. Of course you're right - and another reason that's true is that although our growth is muc

slower, we consume more shit than anyone. Every human adds to the world's overconsumption problem, but not at an equal rate. And I know you know that...

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. However, that doesn't seem to acknowledge that meat production uses more resources

than arable farming, when land can be used for either; and Western diets contain significantly more meat.

"The production of a calorie of food can therefore be considered to have a fairly constant ecological cost that is relatively evenly distributed across the overall production activity" does not seem to have much basis for it.

[codjh9]

7. Yep, another good point that most people are unaware of.

[stuntcat]

20. yes, thank you!

People should be taught EXACTLY what their meat consumption does to the world.

[Morgan Wick]

47. Except...

A chunk of meat production's greater resource use could be reduced through going organic, buying locally...

[zazen]

3. last time I raised this I was called a eugenicist who didn't think black babies had a right to live

It was with a former friend--I was really floored--because I had said nothing, ever, about his grandchildren, who happen to be African American, but he claimed I didn't think they had a right to live because they were born out of wedlock. I was raising issues just like you were, and didn't bring race up at all. (I think because he's white he thought he "knew what I was thinking," which was preposterous.) I also pointed out, since my ex-friend is a supposed radical feminist, that when women receive educations across_ all systems_ (and not just pro-capitalist educations) they _always_ historically, as a whole, chosen to have fewer children to the degree choice is available to them (by fewer I mean like down from 10 to 2-3). I can't imagine it's any fun in a third-world country having 9 children and watching them starve, esp in a highly patriarchal system with little healthcare (where dying in childbirth is a lot more common), where you have little choice about your reproductive rights, little control over your marriage and violence in the household, and where in traditional Muslim societies custody goes to the father. In fact, population studies have shown that births increase in times of scarcity, so we're exacerbating their problems through climate-induced drought, stealing their natural resources, etc.

But, bring this up and risk being branded a racist eugenicist and cast off by the politically correct of the radical left wing. It doesn't matter how much you also know and say that our gross overconsumption is destroying the planet and has contributed to their post-colonial poverty. Population issues are TABOO.

I'm well out of it. I'm sick of walking on eggshells.

[GliderGuider]

5. That's precisely the problem.

I've experienced the same kind of response, which is why I wrote this article. It should be bit easier to argue the population issue if you can point to a set of problems that depend just on population numbers, and are obviously independent of culture, wealth or skin colour.

[NoFederales]

8. Racism and Religion will dominate this problem and possible solutions.

But gee, I wonder if there are powerful groups in play that are using endless war, biologically pandemic or otherwise, to re-negotiate population trends?

Too harsh, even with a full load of coffee--I need to do some serious hard labor to dull these painful runaway thoughts.

NoFederales

[GliderGuider]

9. Ah, you want to talk about solutions? Well, that's a whole different kettle of carp.

There is no easy solution to this one, and possibly no human-driven solution at all. It's a wicked problem.

I've settled for trying to help people understand the problem more clearly. Maybe someone vastly more clever than I will have an "Aha!" as a result.

[NoFederales]

10. I'm embarrassed not to have better, or clearer understandings about how

to address solutions to overpopulation. I know Nature will have a stunningly abrupt accounting for us--that worries. I also worry about the manipulations that the "human-driven" elements will attempt. I don't want to be a carp in a kettle because, well, I'd probably never have that "Aha!", and because people shoot at fish in "kettles", and because carp are kind of repulsive, and neat, all at the same time, and because I'm now casting into Sarah Palin drivel............at least the day ends well--the storm damaged tree I had to fell today is finally down, and not on top of me, although had it been otherwise, the world population would have been N - 1.

Thank you for the topic.

NoFederales

[joshcryer]

11. Vertical farming for one.

Hydroponics, in vitro meat, the list goes on. The key is that human energy usage pales in comparison to most other life forms on the planet. Algae beat us: http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1013-fsu.html

The problem is in resource utilization and recycling. Nature has evolved species that produce and consume one another in a natural cycle (see the carbon, water, and nitrogen cycles). Good old artifical selection.

Humans, on the other hand, get nitrates from a big hole in the ground and spread it all over our land to grow vast crops. The same nitrogen that could be found in our waste water is sent flooding down our rivers and into our oceans.

There are plenty of solutions, it's just that there's no current desire to seek them, and certainly the market isn't going to fix the problem any time soon.

At least not until the Great Midwest Aquifer starts to seriously dry up and real options are going to have to be considered lest we starve (building greenhouses is one solution since it allows us to save the vast quantities of water that otherwise would have evaporated into the air).

Population isn't the problem, the culture of authoritarianism is. The idea that we should exploit others, the idea that we should exploit nature, without regard to either. We are at this point in our society where neither process need be the case. We don't have to clear cut forests, but we have to have the *will* to move beyond such archiac means and create technological solutions which mitigate the problems.

Just so ya know I don't think nature is going to 'weed out humanity' for its problems, I think that in the end humanity will adapt and find solutions, and if any 'weeding out' is done it will be those lowest on the economic scale of things. Which is why it's important for future thinking individuals who care about others to start working on the problems now rather than later.

[GliderGuider]

12. There are five things to keep in mind when evaluating proposed solutions

1. Scale. Does the proposal match the scale of the problem it addresses?
2. Timescale. Can the proposal be implemented in time to address the problem?
3. Capital requirements. Will enough capital be available to implement the proposal (including any required infrastructure changes)?
4. Side effects. Are there areas outside the immediate problem domain that would be affected by spillover effects?
5. Constituency. What stakeholders have control over the implementation of the proposal, and what is the likelihood that they will champion it?

Most of the proposals I've seen for technical mitigation of our ecological and energy problems (not to mention population reduction proposals) fail on enough of these counts to make them non-viable at anything beyond the local scale. That doesn't eliminate their usefulness, of course, but it emphasizes that we shouldn't expect global "Deus Ex Machina" solutions to save our BAUcon.

[joshcryer]

16. Well, I agree with you, which is why I don't find it likely that the market will intervene.

It's still more profitable to get nitrates from a hole in the ground than it is to recycle nitrates.

I think massive greenhouses fit time and scale, though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/11/greenbuilding.food

It's just that it requires massive infrastructure, that which is not supported by the markets which do things cheap, quick, and easy (which tends to coincide with polluting, destructive, and hard to reverse).

[tama]

85. Nitrogen fertilizers

are nothing but destructive scam. Peas, beans, clover etc. tie nitrogen from atmosphere to ground. As does mulch and compost that worms and other little critters eat.

Greater problem is phosphate to keep pH at good productive level. Mining and moving phosphate around is not sustainable in the long run. Ashes from burned wood does fine. Also multilayerd gardening with edible trees with deep roots helps. Every environment is different and overgeneralizing should be avoided, as well as the hubris that we know better than nature.

[Nederland]

13. Right facts, wrong conclusions

Here are your facts:

* The number of oceanic “dead zones” caused by eutrophication from fertilizer runoff has been doubling every ten years since the 1960s.
* Predatory fish species (the ones we eat) have declined by 90% in the last 50 years. This is due to our over-fishing the oceans for food.
* The estimated extinction rate of plants and animals is at least 75 species per day. This is mainly the result of habitat loss due to human encroachment and the expansion of agriculture.
* Over 75,000 square miles of arable land is lost each year to urbanization and desertification.
* A billion people in over 110 countries are affected by desertification. Agriculture was the main reason for the desertification that has reduced the cradle of civilization in the Middle East and North Africa from lush, fertile lands to the barren sands we see today.
* On the American Great Plains, half the topsoil has been lost in the last hundred years, and the Ogallala aquifer is being drained up to 100 times faster than it is being refilled.
* Indian farmers have drilled over 21 million water wells using oil-well technology. They take 200 billion tonnes of water out of the earth each year for irrigation.

I won't dispute any of these. The problem is that they are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is global food production, and that has been steadily going up for as long as it has been measured. In fact, global food production has nearly doubled since Paul Ehrlich told us in 1969 that billions would all starve to death due to overpopulation.

[IrateCitizen]

14. So, you don't believe there is a link between these trends...

... and future food production?

Do you believe that ecological predicaments do not eventually cause agricultural predicaments?

Given how agriculture is ultimately dependent up the earth -- available freshwater, biodiversity, soil health, etc. -- I cannot understand how you dismiss such concerns as "irrelevant". I'm not flaming here -- I just don't understand how you perceive a disconnect.

From my perspective, it seems to promote the view that our agricultural processes have been significantly removed from natural processes. I do not share that view in the least.

[Karenina]

19. SO HAPPY to see you!!!

:hi:

[Nederland]

23. What I know is this

The Malthusians have been predicting imminent global famine for 30 years and they have always been wrong. I see no reason to believe they are right this year.

[IrateCitizen]

34. Are you only looking at "this year"?

Based on currently available data and historical trends, do you ever try and project beyond a short-term time frame? Or is it a year-to-year focus?

I think that very few of these "Malthusians" of whom you speak are predicting global famine "this year." Note: I say that as someone you would probably lump into that category.

Personally, I don't think the green revolution can go on all that much longer, let alone indefinitely. We've long past the limits of ecological interest -- that is, the use rate of resources that the earth's ecosystems can regenerate -- and burned through a significant amount of ecological principal. How much longer can we keep overstressing these natural systems upon which we depend and still address the needs of an overpopulated planet? What about when an exponentially growing population is also figured in?

I'm not saying I have all of the answers -- I'm more trying to ask questions about our current predicaments. However, saying that I can't answer these questions definitively does not translate into "everything will be OK into the future."

[Nederland]

38. Read Post #37

I think it explains quite well why I think it is perfectly possible to see rising global food production rates for the next 30 or 40 years.

[codjh9]

57. OK, so maybe there is no global famine, but there are many other HUGE impacts of our equally

HUGE population that are a far cry from being 'irrelevant'. It always disappoints the hell out of me to talk to Democrats who are as out of it on population as Republicans, but I think damn few people of any stripe are awake on this issue, and I'll never, ever, understand that. Too many people are the root cause of most of the world's problems, and hugely affect *the quality of life* for many, many as well.

[tama]

87. Dunno about Malthusians

Do you know the story about the boy who cried wolf? It doesn't end with the words "and the wolf never came".

And let's remember that analogy is not a logical proof. If somebody shoots at you ten times and misses every time, that does not prove that he misses also next time and there's no worry.

[GliderGuider]

15. Rising food production is what has caused all those negative trends.

Of course food production has been rising. It's been rising consistently since 8,000 BC. I'm not making any claims here about whether it will continue to rise in the future or not. I am claiming that as long as it continues to rise the trends I list will continue to worsen.

[joshcryer]

17. Well, at least until it hits an upper limit.

Once that limit is reached adaptablity will have to be done, it's just a matter of time. I mentioned the Great Midwest Aquifer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

It's either do or die, I mean, there's no arguing it.

[GliderGuider]

18. It seems intuitively obvious that constant growth on a sphere would eventually bump into limits.

You'd have to be an economist not to get it.

[joshcryer]

22. Yeah, but we're no where near hitting any natural limits.

As I said algae use more energy than us, thus, intiutively, there is more than enough to go around, we merely have to have technological solutions to these problems.

Stop polluting, and by that I mean wholesale, across the board, and you have found it. Until we can have a culture that recognizes the value of our waste water, we won't be able to stem the problems of our society.

[Nederland]

25. That is my point as well

Yes, of course there are limits. The problem is that the Malthusians have consistently underestimated where those limits are. You see them throw out numbers like "the maximum sustainable population for the earth is 1 billion people" without any explanation as to how that number was arrived at. The result is that any intelligent person must question their ability to accurately analyze data and draw correct conclusions. I can only conclude that they are biased by a belief: a belief that the world is over-populated. That belief skews their ability to do good science.

[joshcryer]

27. The arguement about algae isn't mine, but it's a damn good argument.

I mean think about it, that same vast society of algae swarms is utilizing iron, potassium, calcium, everything that every single human being on the planet needs to exist. Water, carbon dioxide (oxygen in its other stable gaseous form), everything.

Yet they are at equllibrium with the rest of the ecosystem, just like any other naturally evolved species. Humans have the unique capacity for higher intelligence, so we go out of our way to fuck stuff up, not intetionally, not in some sort of conspirator type of way, but as a side effect of "getting stuff easy."

It's inarguably 'easier' to get nitrates from some third world country in a hole in the ground than it is to recycle or synthesize nitrates from our waste water.

[bananas]

30. Speaking of algae ...

We've heard a lot recently about algal biofuel,
but algae can also be used for food:

"The United Nations World Food Cenference in 1974 lauded Spirulina as the 'best food for the future'."

"Large scale algaculture of the oceans, as well as similar culture of other plankton, is proposed as a future food source in order to support a growing world population. Currently, however, it has limited application, since e.g. technologies of the green revolution has resulted in that land-based food production so far has increased faster than the demand of the growing world population."

[bhikkhu]

61. Spirulina grows in fresh water

...and was a major protein source for the Aztecs, in what may have been the largest city in the world before plague and conquest:

http://www.spirulinasource.com/earthfoodch1b.html

[joshcryer]

65. The Russians experimented with algae/chloroplast devices for long term space...

...missions. A Russian spent well over 6 months in an underground bunker eating nothing but algae and suppliments. It was good stuff because the waste was recycled back into the system.

[GliderGuider]

31. Sustainable population levels are the subject of much debate

Everyone in the debate has an opinion, based on whatever evidence or logic is persuasive to them.

The evidence I've looked at includes the fact that that for the first two million years of human history our population apparently didn't rise above 20 million (the estimated population level when agriculture was invented). In the 800 years from 1 AD to 1800 it rose from 100 million to a bit under 1 billion, and in the 200 years since then it has risen to almost 7 billion.

From this I conclude that 20 million is definitely a sustainable population, and that the probability of sustainability declines as the population grows. The reason I conclude that is that I believe that the probability that a population of 20 million is sustainable is close to 1.0. and the probability that a population of 7 billion is sustainable is 0. It's likely that the maximum sustainable population is between 20 million and 7 billion.

Other evidence I take into account are the factors that enabled the growth in our population, including our appropriation of the habitat of other species for agriculture, our use of stored energy, and the snowball effect of accumulating and storing knowledge.

Now opinion and belief come into play. I believe that we are near a number of important limits, specifically oil supplies, ocean life, biodiversity in general, fresh water availability and soil fertility. These beliefs are all based on evidence I list in my article, but there is still a degree of my own interpretation involved. If we were to lose an important support for the global carrying capacity and not be able to replace it, our population would axiomatically decline to the limit supported by the new carrying capacity. If we did replace it, and carrying capacity remained the same, the population would not decline.

I think there are a number of factors that will act together to reduce global carrying capacity over the next century or less, including all the issues related to agriculture I list in the article. We will offset some of them because of the accumulated knowledge I mentioned above. However (and here's where my psychology comes into play) there are enough negative pressures on human carrying capacity that I think it will be difficult to offset them all. I expect we're going to continue losing species (especially oceanic species), fresh water and arable land at the same rate as we are today, that desertification will increase over time due to climate change, and that we will lose 50% or more of our oil supply over the next 30 years.

My opinion is as much of a WAG as anyone else's, but the population level I believe is sustainable once all the factors above are rolled in is something between 500 million and 2 billion people. Both ends of that range are well above the demonstrated long-term human carrying capacity of the planet, that seems historically to be about 20 million. Our accumulated knowledge and our ability and willingness to appropriate the habitat of other species pushes the number well beyond that. How many more can be sustained beyond that number depends on the continued availability of stored resources or our ability to recycle existing ones. I'd say the probability of the latter is fairly high, so I'm willing to double the long-term sustainable number to a billion, or 50 times higher than the demonstrated historical level. Keep in mind that I'm talking about levels that will be sustainable for quite a long time, say another 10,000 years or more (though even that span is only half a percent of the total time we've been on the planet).

So that's how I derive my figure. As I say, it's an educated guess based on my own interpretation of the trends.

[Nederland]

37. More bad assumptions

What leads you to claim that the probability of 7 billion being sustainable is 0? I submit it is your beliefs, not actual science. Let me do a simple back of the envelope calculation for you.

Right now we are feeding a population of 6 billion. Yes, several hundreds of millions people are starving around the world, but that doesn't disprove my assertion for two reasons. One, most of them are starving due to political problems not genuine scarcity. Two, enormous amounts of food is wasted by raising animals to be eaten instead of simply eating the plant material itself (I trust you are familiar with the inefficiency of raising crops to feed to animals that are then eaten). Put these two things together and I think it's fair to say that we are currently producing more than enough food to feed 6 billion people.

Now I suppose that while you may concede this fact, you no doubt will insist that this level of production is unsustainable. Let me explain why this unproven assertion is incorrect.

Let's look at where all that food is produced. According to the CIA world factbook, about 13.31% of the earth's landmass is arable, but only 4.71% is permanent crops. This means that we are producing enough food to feed 6 billion people despite the fact that we are only fully using about 1/3 of our arable land. A good example of arable land that is not fully utilized is Africa. Professor David Kenyon, a Agricultural Economist and personal friend of mine, has done a study that shows that if Africa ever got it's political and economic act together and started farming the way the first world does, it could easily produce 7 times as much food as the US does. Quite simply put, there are enormous increases in agricultural output to be had in the future, and I see absolutely no reason (other than politics) why they will not be tapped in the future.

Given this simple set of facts, I cannot understand why you would simply assert without any proof whatsoever that a population of 7 billion is unsustainable.

[GliderGuider]

39. Does our appropriation of other species' habitat impact our own sustainability?

How wide do you cast your net when considering sustainability?

[Nederland]

45. Sometimes yes

Most of the time, no.

[GliderGuider]

49. How do you perceive humanity's place in the web of life

and our responsibilities (if any) towards the other species that share it?

[Nederland]

50. That is a spiritual question loaded with assumptions

From a biological and environmental standpoint, all a person can reasonable conclude is that we are evolved predators. Our imperative is to reproduce and carry our genes on to the next generation. We have as much responsibility to other species as a lion has to a gazelle. The problem here is that once you start talking about “responsibilities” to other species you have left the world of science and entered the world of religion and mysticism. That’s fine, but it limits you when it comes to questions of the role of government and the shape of proper regulation. No one has any business interjecting their religious or spiritual beliefs into a discussion about public policy.

[GliderGuider]

51. Philosophical assumptions

You say, "We have as much responsibility to other species as a lion has to a gazelle."

That is as much a philosophical assumption as mine, no? Not only that, but it ignores the fact that we are rational, self-reflective creatures with an ability to draw complex inferences from our experience. As such, it's an abrogation of much that makes us humans rather than lions.

The main difference is that your assumption is shared by those in power, primarily because of its unconstraining expediency.

[Nederland]

52. Response

Yes, but all I’m assuming is that the tenants of liberal government (liberal in the classic, John Stuart Mill formulation) are correct. Namely, that the role of government is to allow all people the freedom to pursue their own beliefs and prevent people to impose their beliefs on others. The minute you say “government has a responsibility to do X”, you immediately raise a whole host of questions. Who will pay for this responsibility? Do the people who disagree have to pay as well? How do we respond to the people that say “government has a responsibility to do Y”?

No, I have no interest in going down that rat hole. If a person’s personal belief compels them to do something, let them work toward that goal apart from government. Form a non-profit foundation to achieve your goals, do what ever you like, just don’t demand that everyone in society pay for your beliefs.

[GliderGuider]

53. The problem is, I have to pay for your beliefs, because they're shared by those in power.

I pay for it in a constantly diminished natural world, pollution, extinctions etc. -- all of which come about because the underlying philosophy of those who can force me to pay taxes is, "We have as much responsibility to other species as a lion has to a gazelle." If you don't have to pay up because of my beliefs, where does that leave me when I'm forced to pay because of yours?

You may say that my costs are non-monetary, but that in itself begs the questions of how we establish the economic value of nature, and who gets to fund the externalities of our growth paradigm.

[Nederland]

54. The economic value of nature...

...is easily established. Simply ask people how much they are willing to pay for it. When you ask the question this way, you get a more accurate picture of how much they value it. In Colorado where I live, you are asked at the end of your tax return if you want to make a deductible contribution to the "Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Fund". What does it say about how much the people of Colorado actually value endangered wildlife when this option generates a pitiful amount of money? You can deride the notion of setting monetary values on everything, but I would argue that only by monetizing the question do you get a real sense of what people value. Sure, people may tell a pollster that they value a diverse natural habitat more than they value summer action movies, but when they shell out millions to go see Batman while giving practically nothing to environmental charities, isn't the simple answer that they are lying about what they really value?

[wtmusic]

74. Our values as individuals will be less and less important

as resources dwindle.

You breathe cleaner air because government has intervened and made catalytic converters mandatory equipment on cars. If this feature was optional, very few would pay for it. This is the problem in a nutshell.

If we are to survive as a species we need to take responsibility for our environmental footprint as a society, not just as individuals. Or we are doomed.

[tama]

91. Funny

You are sitting on top of a huge Ponzi scheme just like Madoff, and now you accuse a real human beings of demanding that you and your bloody governement pay for "their beliefs".

It's not yours, never was. You just stole it.

[IrateCitizen]

41. Questions...

1. You say (attributed to Prof. David Kenyon), "if Africa... started farming the way the first world does." What, specifically, does that "first world way" include of the following?
a. Mechanization and increased fossil fuel use
b. Increased use of natural gas based chemical fertilizers
c. Monoculture -- the production of 1 or 2 crops over hundreds of thousands of acres
d. Purchase of GM seed from centralized sources instead of saving "heirloom" seed
e. Staggering subsidy from government to keep food prices artificially low

2. You said that Professor David Kenyon is an agricultural economist. How much does he take the natural cycles of ecosystems into account in his calculations, or are they primarily based upon measurements of classical economics?

3. In what way do you consider these statements to be "facts"? It seems to me that they are just conclusions based upon a rather narrow focus -- informed opinion, as it were.

4. I agree with your statement regarding the eating of meat. Personally, I try to reduce the amount I eat -- especially during the summer when the organic vegetable garden is in full production. However, seeing that eating so much meat is an irrational choice (sign of status) rather than a rational one, is it really realistic to expect Americans, Western Europeans and Chinese to reduce that meat intake voluntarily?

[Nederland]

43. Answers

1) Yes, the first world way includes everything except 1e.

2) His analysis is based upon the observed facts of American Agriculture--i.e., if Africa farmed the way the US did, this is what would happen.

3) The facts I am referring to include only statistics on how much arable land is currently not being farmed to its full potential. I believe that the conclusions I've drawn from those facts are fairly straightforward. All I (and Dr. Kenyon) are assuming is that American levels of productivity can be achieved in Africa. If you can give me a good reason why the plains of Africa are significantly different from the plains of the midwest, I'm all ears.

4) All people will respond to changes in price. If food becomes scarce, prices will rise and people will start eating less meat. I believe we will never reach that point, but that is what would happen.

[tama]

90. Industrial farming is not sustainable

it's based on fossile fuels. According to one source half of all oil production goes into food production. You eat fossile energy. You can't keep the cake and eat the cake.

As for Africa, where humans were born and have lived for millions of years, most environmental devastation has happened during neoliberal neocolonialism of last few decades.

What right have you telling Africans how they should live? What right had you ethnociding natives of America? Manifest destiny, white mans burden, Euro-American superiority. Sauron's minion.

[guardian]

62. So what do you want to do?

Kill 6,000,000,000 people to get the population down to what you think it should be?

[GliderGuider]

63. Nothing whatsoever.

There's no need to do anything. We have no divine mandate to fix every problem that faces us. This one is too big anyway, too deeply rooted in the behavior that comes from a combination of our genetics and our cultural narratives. I think we should just go on living. Those who feel as I do may want to spend a bit of time and effort securing their personal situations, and perhaps educating others as to the meaning of sustainability and the implications of exceeding it.

[joshcryer]

67. The problem isn't actually all that big.

It just takes a few technological innovations that will come regardless, imo. So doing nothing is just fine by me, at least you don't advocate the Jensen-esque "destruction of civilization and technoloy" point of view.

Do nothing, good enough.

[wtmusic]

100. 25,000 people starving every day - right now - isn't a big problem?

I'm sure as they take their last breaths they're comforted by your "technological innovations that will come".

"Do nothing, good enough". Your worldview is truly astonishing.

[bhikkhu]

58. Cornell estimates 2 billion people

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/09/990922051515.htm

I suppose it could be one guess against another, but there is an abundance of science and many good people behind the estimates if you care to read.

And Malthus has had little to do with anything for many many years, except as a slap-down for those with preconceptions they'd rather not address.

[tama]

89. Spare the strawmen

and leave Malthusians at rest, please.

There is still more than enough fertile land etc. to feed sustainably current numbers and even plenty more humans - if everybody lives from fruits small permaculture cultivation plus some gathering and hunting - on sustainable level. That's not the problem. The problem is that so many (nearly all Americans) are conditioned to be a greedy bastards who want to eat like a king, live in a kingly palace and move around with kingly carriages. All civilizations so far have been enviromental Ponzi schemes, the global capitalism is just the worst - and final.

Why do you think the symbol of a civilization is pyramid? And in the case of this one, pyramid on dollar bill with Sauron's eye on top?

[codjh9]

56. Absolutely untrue. We're hitting limits on oil, timber, fresh water, overfishing,

all kinds of things.

[bhikkhu]

59. Fresh water should be at the top of the list

Something like 60% of total global supply utilized for human activity, and something like 2 billion people still without adequate supply. I haven't read current UN figures, but those are numbers from 2004 or so.

[joshcryer]

69. That's not the argument. The argument is about energy and resource consumption.

You can hunt extinct the buffalo, you cannot "extinguish the resources that are within a buffalo." Conservation of mass and all.

[tama]

88. Value of waste water

here we put it through cleaning system and drink it again. The organic waste is composted and used for building lawns for urban sprawl, golf cources etc. Not very sustainable. Big and bigger systems of the technocratic control maniacs never are.

BTW, what makes you think you and your kind are so much more important than algae and entitled to steal all their energy from them with "technological solutions"?

[stuntcat]

21. exactly, the farming

I wish I'd signed in here yesterday. Thank you for posting the article, I'm going out but I'll read it soon as I get back.

[Nederland]

24. Perhaps we have a misunderstanding here

I'm not saying that these ecological trends can continue indefinitely. What I'm saying is that the observed changes in human birthrates indicate that the human population will start falling withing the next 30 to 40 years. That shift will result in a reversal of your list of ecological trends long before they cause some sort of massive die-off of the human species.

Do you disagree?

[GliderGuider]

26. This article makes no claims as to outcomes

The article merely establishes a direct link between population levels and ecological damage due to agriculture. Obviously, if population levels begin to fall so will the damage caused by agriculture.

The question of whether population levels will begin to fall, as well as when and why are a different discussion. I have opinions about those questions, based on my interpretation of events and coloured by my psychology, but they do not form a part of this discussion.

[Nederland]

28. Of course there is a link

The question is though, is the ecological damage you have described serious? The answer to that question obviously depends on what you mean by "serious". Let's consider one of your statistics, the fact that 75,000 square miles of arable land is lost each year to urbanization and desertification. Is this "serious"? At first blush it may seem so, because 75,000 square miles is a rather large area. However, the earth is a pretty big place, so we really need to get some more context here. According to the CIA world fact book the total land on earth is 148.94 million sq km, and 13.31% of that is arable. Doing a little conversion tells us that means there is 19.82 million sq km or 7.65 million square miles of arable land. So losing 75000 sq miles of land each year to urbanization and desertification means we are losing 0.98% of the total arable land each year.

That's not really what I would call "serious". Would you disagree?



Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html

[joshcryer]

29. It's arguably "not serious," but that doesn't change the fact that it's unsustainable.

The real argument they are making is that in fact we are unsustainable, they merely project and exaggerate their numbers to show that sustainablity is non-existant. But they don't show *physical laws of nature* which back up their claims of "ultimate unsustainablity." That is, simple math shows they are absolutely wrong, but they'll pretend that they are right because it makes a good story or narrative.

The most appalling thing here is that while some will claim Ultimate Collapse is Destined, none of them even discuss technological solutions, real solutions, to the problems which humanity faces. Those solutions are dismissed as "incapable of working," again, without citing any physical law or mathematical analysis. Indeed, as is often the case with these types (generally Primitivists or the like), science is dismissed in its totality, and reason is thrown out the window in favor of far more authoritarian ideaologies. This means that their position, inherently, is ambivilant toward the destruction of humanity, and that they see it as "OK," on the whole. If there is anything more disasteful, anything more inhumane, I don't know what is.

When neocons deny things like global warming they too utilize similarily unscientific processes, making *claims* but not backing them up with hard facts.

Surely if you were a reader of this article, knew nothing about arable land (nor had the desire to actually fact check), you'd be astonished by the 75k square mile figure! Like the neocons the arguments depend on people feigning ignorance over such simple matters, believing in simple conjecture, and living in their own universe where they are 'right.'

[GliderGuider]

33. One thing the Primitivists recognize

Is that solutions to humanity's problems often entail ever deeper problems for the rest of the web of life. We distrust technological solutions because they have such a poor historical record in that regard. Plus we think that the notion of 20 billion people chewing spirulina biscuits on a planet denuded of other life is aesthetically, philosophically, morally and spiritually repugnant.

Speaking of Primitivists, we tend universally to be anarchist rather than authoritarian. We have noticed that authoritarian ideologies are the full expression of hierarchy, and the development of hierarchies is a social tendency we feel has on balance done more harm than good. Others disagree, though we can never quite understand why people would voluntarily choose fealty over autonomy. Personally, I like modern technological comforts because I've been brought up with them, but it's hard to deny that humanity was perfectly happy for a couple of million years without them.

[joshcryer]

68. Yeah I'm an anarchist.

But I don't see how doing nothing helps us achieve anarchism...

[GliderGuider]

70. I don't think you can "achieve" anarchism

IMO anarchism of any sort can only emerge organically if the conditions are right. Conditions now are definitely not right due to the control the Guardian Institutions have over virtually ever aspect of our world, from the physical systems to to our cultural narratives to the emergent noosphere itself.

One thing I'll be looking for in the coming decade or two is to see whether the fragmentation of the global civilization induced by the converging crisis of energy, ecology and economics will change the conditions in some regions enough to permit aspects of anarchism to take hold. In this case I don't mean mean anarchism in the colloquial sense of simple disorder and destruction (a definition that has been strongly promoted by the guardian institutions) but in the sense of a reduction in hierarchy, a decline in the specialization of work, the dissolution of in force-based normative systems, and the introduction of new social mechanisms systems based on egalitarian principles of partnership with each other and with nature. If the guardian institutions lose their grip on our belief systems when the prerequisites for their existence crumble away, cracks may open up in the concrete of our civilization, cracks wide enough to let the grass of new, more humane principles grow through.

It definitely won't be a widespread phenomenon, and it's altogether more likely that there will be surges of totalitarianism instead. However, if each of us works toward the goals of partnership, respect and a steady-state existence, and fights the tides of authoritarianism however we can, we will maximize the chances of such an environment appearing around us.

[joshcryer]

71. I agree that it can only emerge organically, but I think we can press it in that direction.

Authoritarianism is supported by these theories of "do nothing" politics. That's what the state wants us to do. Nothing. If any collapse happens it will *not* be anti-authoritarian groups who will fare the best, it will be the most brutal, most inhumane groups, because they will take hold of the few resources that are left and subjucate the rest to their will.

There's a reason we went from relatively benign primitives to authoritarian dominionists.

[GliderGuider]

72. We are now so close to the edge that "doing something" politically is no longer necessary

Changing the direction of a society, even a little bit, takes quite a while. We no longer have the luxury of time. I used to think we had 10 to 15 years left before TSHTF. I've become profoundly more pessimistic since the world financial clusterfuck got rolling. The game is changing already, and by the end of 2009 or early 2010 there's going to be a quantum shift in the global outlook. That doesn't leave much time for anything beyond personal and perhaps local community preparations.

I agree that the high-probability outcome for much of the world is fascism, but the hope I cling to is that society's coercive structures will lose so much of their cohesion in the unraveling that they will operate ineffectively. The world isn't going to experience a uniform, amorphous crash. It will fragment, and the outcome in each fragment will be different depending on local conditions.

We don't need to work towards that fragmentation, it's already starting to happen. We need to be ready to contribute a sane vision of cooperative anarchism to counterbalance the insane vision of coercive order.

[joshcryer]

73. That's not exactly true...

...technology has shown that major shifts are absolutely possible within geologic (Natural) timeframes. The very information network you are currently experiencing was non-existant in its current form only 15-20 years ago. As far as the environment is concerned, say we implemented Jacobson's Windmill-Solar plan, these timeframes are extraoridinarily insignificant.

You may have not been around for the "other" world financial crashes. They happen. Capitalism requires them because it is always forcing wealth into the hands of a few, and eventually it gives way and wealth is redistributed. (After each crash the standard of living goes up, counterintuitively, it does, look at the stats at www.gapminder.org .)

Technology isn't just going to go away because fossil fuels stop flowing. In fact, it will adapt, as it always has done as the environment has necessistated new forms of technology.

If you can accept that (which I don't think you can, despite the historical evidence to those ends), then you should be able to accept working here, now, for alternatives that would stop, if not at the bare minimum stem, any sort of ecological or economical crash.

I believe it is folly to ascribe to a "do nothing" theory for the simple fact that, supposing you are right, those with technology are still going to do better, and certainly if you are wrong those with technology would be going on their merry way. It's a lose-lose situation.

But I hope you have lots of guns stashed somewhere as part of your plan to survive the impending crash.

You'll need them (and I mean this with all sincerity imaginable).

Me? I'm not stocking up, and I like guns. :)

[Nederland]

35. It is perfectly sustainable...

...if the productivity of agriculture continues to increase at a rate that exceeds the loss of arable land.

[IrateCitizen]

42. That's a mighty big "if"

Especially considering that we are dealing with phenomena (fossil fuels, industrialization, chemical inputs) that are more "blips" on the grand sweep of agricultural history than general trends.

[Nederland]

46. Not really

Increasing food production is a trend that has existed since the numbers have been recorded. Malthusians have for decades predicted the imminent reversal of this trend, only to be proven wrong time and time again by the facts. So who should I believe, the people whose predictions have always been wrong, or the trend that has existed for as long as numbers have been recorded?

Seems like an easy call to me.

[stuntcat]

48. trends

when the great trends are causing our species to drive the other animals and plants to mass-extinction while turning thousands of acres of forest into farms then deserts, it looks pretty obvious that our 'trends' which are plowing down the Earth faster and faster will not be able to continue much longer. The population will stabilize some time but maybe not as gradually or gracefully as everyone's hoping.

The more you say "Malthusian" the less I can listen, sorry. I've been discussing population for years with people whose entire point was the repetition of that word. I've learned about this half my life without ever going back to him or reading his stuff. The facts are not proving the warnings "wrong time and time again", the evidence is building up.. just slow enough that few people are letting it hurt their proud humanity. Our population has quadrupled in a VERY short time, coinciding for some wacky reason with the general degradation of our entire planet. There's a lot more important stuff going on on Earth than our highways and farms and stinking cites.

Malthusian Malthusians malt malthingly

[Nederland]

55. The evidence is not building up

Look, there is no doubt that their are limits to growth. The problem is that Malthusians (sorry for using the word again) consistently get the location of those limits wrong. They think we are pushing up against those limits when in reality we are not.

[IrateCitizen]

64. So you don't even consider the possiblity that we MIGHT be...

pushing up against ecological limits? I'm not asking if you believe it wholeheartedly, I'm asking if you consider that it might have a certain possibility of occurring.

If you accept that the view contrary to yours MIGHT happen within the not-too-distant future, then another question arises. What are the costs of acting if it doesn't come true, and what are the costs of NOT acting if it does come true? By my estimation, the costs of the latter are much, much higher than the costs of the former. In that sort of rational vein, can you really argue against doing something, coming up with alternative (localized, diversified, redundant) agricultural models -- to have lying around as works-in-progress and examples should the worst come to pass?

Of course, if you believe that those limits are not near as a matter of unarguable truth, and that the chance of seeing anything remotely resembling "Malthusian" nightmares come to pass is absolutely nil, then there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

[joshcryer]

66. Heh, the definition of sustainblity implies no "loss."

Particularly since the worlds grain depends on the Great Midwest Aqifer which is drying up at one meter or thereabouts a decade.

Arable land isn't the only qualifier, you also need fresh water.

[tama]

93. That is the main problem

Deus ex Machina, belief that there is a technofix for every problem, when experience plainly shows that each technofix only produces more and more problems to be "solved". Technocracy is the mechanical mans will to power, to control nature, to replace God/Nature with Deus ex Machina. FIY Deus ex Machina is a theatrical device, pure make belief.

As Nietzsche said, the will to power of the Western mechanical man overtakes and surpasses natural instinct to live.

[GliderGuider]

32. What percentage of the total do you lose if 75,000 sq. mi. is lost every year for 30 years?

30% of all arable land. I'd call that serious.

[Nederland]

36. It is not serious and here is why

This is a good example of how Malthusians let their belief that the world is overpopulated override their ability to do good science. Common sense tells us that it is perfectly possible to lose 30% of your arable land while simultaneously increasing global output. I say common sense because we've been losing arable land quickly for over 50 years now, and yet global output has quadrupled in that time period. No answer is given by Malthusians as to why this trend cannot continue. All you get from them is some sort of stuttering "but but but, it just can't continue like that..." Well, it can. If you look at the facts you can see why, you just have to have a desire to actually find answers that conflict with your preconceived notion about the world.

[GliderGuider]

40. And at 100 years?

You of course are free to hold whatever opinions you wish, and I have no desire to argue you out of them. Your beliefs are shared by many, and there is comfort in numbers. Perhaps those generally-shared beliefs are correct, but I am personally convinced that they are the result of shallow analysis, shaped by tunnel vision and reductionist thinking.

Neither of our opinions matter much in the broader scheme, of course, so I'm content to let them diverge. All debate is advanced through opposition, and each member of the audience gets to decide for themselves which side to believe.

[Nederland]

44. In 100 years

The human population will have dropped significantly due to voluntary reductions in the birthrate that have nothing to do will resource constraints. As you well know, as a society becomes richer, it choses to have fewer children. In 100 years that trend will result in a global population that is lower than todays.

[wtmusic]

101. At today's rate, in one hundred years at least 1B will have died of starvation

and it will likely be double that. Starvation has everything to do with resource constraints.

That "trend", I suppose, is acceptable as long as you're one of the earth's inhabitants who isn't experiencing the "trend".

:eyes:

[bhikkhu]

60. The Green Revolution is well documented

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

...relying on a conjunction of factors: high yielding crop strains, irrigation, synthetic fertilizer, pesticides.

All four combined to generally double the yield per acre of tillage, and of course also silence the doomers of the 70's. The problem arises in that, rather than wealth and plenty, the green revolution (by doubling food production) simply allowed the doubling of the human population. And in the meantime, two elements vital to the continuing of the green revolution are practically at there limit: fresh water and synthetic fertilizer. They have no replacement, and there are more green revolutions in the pipeline.

[tama]

94. Again

Why does your "good science" forget to inform you that industrial agriculture is totally dependent from fossile fuels? Why is your "good science" uninformed about basics of farming and gardening that even I, mere first year student of professional gardening, have learned so far?

Like, the law of diminishing returns applies to cultivation. Now matter how much nitrate you pour to your field, at some point the grop does not get bigger. In fact, if you overfertilize, the crop gets smaller. Poison the soil too much, it dies.

Fertility of land is a holistic whole where all growth factors affect each other. There is "ideal fertility" where all growth factors are working together in perfect harmony that can be attempted to achieve, but it can't be surpassed. Not even by injecting insane amounts of fossile energy into the system. Also that becomes counterproductive after a while.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tama]

86. Mother nature is bountifull

but not unlimited. Modern industrial farming means injecting fossile energy into system for short term gain but long term loss, as the natural fertility of soil gets destroyed. Metamphetimine gives a boost for a while, but at a price.

[HamdenRice]

75. Written with true agricultural and economic illiteracy

I don't know where to start, but I really wish the arm chair Malthusians would, like, actually travel to Africa and Asia and see how farmers grow food in different parts of the world.

In the meantime, I can only note that almost all the assumptions and assertions in the OP are wrong. It would be tiresome in the extreme to point why.

[GliderGuider]

76. Oh come on, take a shot at it.

The article's main points can be summed up pretty easily:

1. The amount of food a person needs to live is approximately constant.
2. The production of food entails an externalized ecological cost.
3. Agriculture is globalized due to the international trade in food, which serves to spread the ecological cost more evenly across the globe.
4. Therefore the aggregate ecological damage inflicted on the planet by agriculture is directly dependent on its human population.

Debunk away.

[HamdenRice]

77. Suppose everyone had to travel 1/2 mile ever day

Would you say that the ecological footprint of traveling that 1/2 mile in a Hummer, a Prius, on a bicycle and walking would all be the same?

Honestly, point 1 is just so silly, it's hard to know where to begin. There is probably no human productive endeavor as elastic in terms of use of resources as food production.

In the mean time, I would suggest you order the classic of economic anthropology, Ester Boserup, "The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure".

It is probably the single most important text that you could read given some of the things you write.

Then, let's talk.

[GliderGuider]

78. Point 1 says humans need a certain number of food calories per day to live

Are you saying that's a silly notion?

[tama]

95. Ester Boserup

Thanks for the hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ester_B%C3%B6serup

quote: "Both Malthus and Boserup can be right because Malthus refers to the environmental limits while Boserup refers to cultural and technological issues."

In fact, industrial farming is not the environmental limit or maximal production state of food per acre - industrial farming is very destructive and totally unsustainable. Industrial farming is not dictated by issues of food production but by capitalistic profit making. The maximal production state is naturally cultivated multilayered garden. It's not new invention, it's what native tribes have known for ages.

[wtmusic]

99. To make your point relevant

the impact of four, with one traveling the 1/2 mile in each your four modes will be the same no matter who does the traveling in what.

There are clearly many different methods of food production worldwide, but whether one locality adopts a particular mode of farming is mattering less and less. Where Boserup's theory fails in 21st century context is it underestimates the widespread impacts of an increasingly global food trade, and overestimates the possibilities for the global population to collaboratively respond to long-term gradual depletion of resources.

There is nothing in Boserup to suggest that what has been successful in microeconomies like Mauritania will also succeed globally.

[GliderGuider]

79. I think I see now where the disconnect is.

The article only discusses the ecological damage being done by our current food production techniques. It says nothing about whether we can feed everybody, or whether we may be able to change the average level of ecological damage per calorie produced going forward. It simply says that the ecological damage done by food production (assuming a constant average level of food production technology) is directly proportional to the population being fed.

Unfortunately, when the words "food", "population" and "ecology" appear in the same article, some people are incapable of interpreting it as anything but a Malthusian argument. This article is nothing of the sort.

[HamdenRice]

80. OK, I'm in a slightly less grouchy mood today, but still

I hesitate as always trying to discuss agriculture with a neo-Malthusian. With all due respect, I find that debating agricultural ecology with a neo-Malthusian is a bit like debating with a member of a doomsday cult. You may recall the famous psychological study of a doomsday cult that predicted the world would end on a certain date. When it didn't, the cult members only became more convinced of their beliefs, and IIRC, that study gave us the concept of cognitive dissonance (or at least that concept was applied to explain the durability of their beliefs).

Malthusians have been "predicting" the limits of carrying capacity for several hundred years now, and yet reaching carrying capacity and the massive die off is always just a decade away. Neo-Malthusians have to basically disbelieve volumes of fact and analysis produced by economists, agronomists and ecologists from across the political spectrum in order to continue believing in the neo-Malthusian nihilist fantasy. The reason I often feel like giving up on trying to argue about it is that no amount of facts or analysis has, in my experience, ever changed the mind of any neo-Malthusian about anything. So what's the point of trying?

That said, the basic flawed assumption of the OP is the idea that the ecological footprint needed to produce "calories" is the same in every agricultural setting. Nothing could be further from the truth. Do you really believe that a person in Arizona getting his calories from a Big Mac, with grain grown in Iowa, tomatoes flown in from Mexico and beef from a destroyed Central America rainforest, creates the same footprint of "ecological damage" as a meal of plantains and a sub forest canopy grown manioc with cassava leaf and chicken sauce prepared by a Liberian villager from ingredients grown within walking distance?

Everyone has to breath about the same amount of oxygen every day; does that mean that air pollution is the same in rural Mali, New York City, the Rhine industrial Valley, and a coal belching Chinese industrial development zone? Can you see why your basic assumption is beyond wrong, and is well into the silly zone?

It seems to me that most neo-Malthusians I've debated on these issues simply cannot conceive of the way billions of farmers around the world grow food and the different ecological impacts they have on their surroundings compared to the impact of a north American factory farm.

Maybe it's because of my background that I see things differently. Although I grew up in NYC, my grandparents had a farm in central Virginia where I spent my summers. They were very, very old fashioned -- almost the African American equivalent of Amish -- and they grew food and a cash crop (tobacco) using a horse and plow and West African style inter-cropping, and raising animals, all without any car, tractor or motorized vehicle or implements of any kind. At 21, I spent a summer in a village in Liberia, sometimes accompanying my friends deep into the rainforest to harvest from their cassava gardens, which to a westerner like me were barely distinguishable from the surrounding bush. I've interviewed Tswana cattle farmers in western South Africa whose ecological impact was mild enough that their ranches were full of kudu, spring bok, baboons, and many other wild animals, and I've carried out field research trips to agricultural and agro-forestry villages in Sichuan Province and in southern China. I've studied and/or taught about farming systems in Senegal, Barbuda, colonial Jamaica, Kenya, Tanzania, the Philippines, Viet Nam, and turn of the century South Africa. I think I have a good grasp of the variety of farming systems in the world and why they take the shape they do.

From that perspective, all your assumptions are wrong. It's like arguing about the geology of the moon with someone who takes as his starting assumption that the moon is made of green cheese. Phrases like, "our current food production techniques" and "assuming a constant average level of food production technology" are "moon equals green cheese" assumptions.

Agriculture is almost infinitely variable, especially in terms of its land and labor inputs. You can grow rice in Liberia with little labor by burning down the secondary bush and broadcasting seed; or you can grow wet land rice in nursery plots and then transplanting it seedling by seedling on a hill terraces in Indonesia, producing many times the yield. The difference is accounted for by institutional arrangements, tenure, markets, and so on. Both are rational and efficient to the farmer considering the market and institutional circumstances. There is no "fixed" amount of yield, although there may be upper limits, and there is no fixed amount of "ecological damage" that will result from a particular number of calories produced by rice.

Most "ecological damage" being done by agriculture in poor countries is a result of oppressive institutional arrangements. One of the most heinous things that neo-Malthusians do is that they are always (perhaps unconsciously) eliminating political and economic oppression from every equation. So, for example, for a neo-Malthusian, Brazilian farmers destroy the rain forest because of "land shortage" or some "natural" sounding cause -- rather than properly seeing rain forest destruction in Brazil as entirely caused by neo-feudal land tenure.

The one thing in common that every neo-Malthusian I've ever had an exchange with has, is a complete lack of first hand knowledge of agriculture and rural life outside North America/Europe. If you don't want to spend some time in a West African or a Chinese agricultural village, at least read a book. I strongly recommend Boserup as a starting point. Until you can grasp what Boserup said over 40 years ago, you are still at the "moon is made of green cheese" level of understanding agriculture and its ecological impact.

[GliderGuider]

81. Thanks. Here's my response

That said, the basic flawed assumption of the OP is the idea that the ecological footprint needed to produce "calories" is the same in every agricultural setting. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If that were the assumption of this article, it would be flawed. The problem is, that is not the assumption of the article. The article in question talks about aggregate ecological damage that is to a large extent averaged over the whole planet due to the globalization of trade.

Take as an example, the situation in a food importing country like Egypt, that imports about 7 million tonnes of wheat per year from the major wheat exporters: the EU, Australia and North America, especially the USA. While the agricultural practices in Egypt will be significantly different from those in the USA, the ecological damage from the production of the wheat needed to feed many Egyptians is inflicted in the USA, and results from American production techniques. If the Egyptian population rises (as it will, since it's TFR is about 2.8) the imported wheat those new Egyptians will consume will contribute to ecological damage in the USA, not in Egypt.

The fact that food trade is globalized means that the ecological damage is shifted from importers to exporters, and is spread out around the globe, since any importing nation usually has several sources of supply. Thus the effects of low-impact agriculture is diluted, and the aggregate global ecological damage is dominated by high-productivity nations that typically use high-impact industrial farming techniques.

Another example is the decline of oceanic fish species due to overfishing. Because the ocean is a global commons, ecological damage accrues whether the fisherman or the end consumer is in Sierra Leone or Japan. Increasingly efficient fishing technology that can used by any nation accelerates the decline of the commons no matter who deploys it. All that counts in the end is the number of mouths into which those fish are disappearing.

I have no idea when we are going to hit the global peak of food production. The reason I think it may be "soon" is from my knowledge of the state of the underpinning resources of the current globally-dominant system of industrial agriculture -- namely oil, natural gas (fertilizer) and water. All these components are showing worrying signs of strain. If the current system maxes out, we will need to change the system or the population will stop growing. The fact that it takes a while to remediate depleted topsoil hints that we should be undertaking this shift well in advance of actually hitting any limits. I have yet to see a shift to sustainable farming practices on a scale commensurate with the size of our population, which makes me very skeptical about it happening in time.

I agree that we can wring more agricultural output from our land, given a sufficient supply of labour and other physical inputs. I see two problems with doing that -- the "other inputs" appear to be entering an era of supply constraints, and that perspective utterly fails to address the issue of consequent ecological damage. As we have seen with fossil fuel use, ecological sensitivity tends to take a back seat if money is tight or there is an opportunity to increase profits by externalizing costs.

There are many things we may be able to do to reduce the ecological impact of agriculture, but we need to keep in mind the scale of the enterprise (global food production is an enormous undertaking) and the facts that the existing damage is essentially universal, soil remediation will take a long time, the global impact of sustainability initiatives is diluted by national agendas, and the supply trends for input resources like oil and water are negative.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve the situation, but it does mean that if the ecological impact of food production is improved by less than the rate of population growth (~1.1%/yr), the damage will continue to accrue. If that continues, then at some point the camel's back will break. The fact that the energy, climate and financial crises have all unfolded with much greater rapidity and severity than any of the experts in those fields predicted gives me little hope that the other great human endeavour, food production, (that just happens to depend on those other three domains) will fare much better.

Regarding Boserup, I have a diametrically opposed worldview from hers. While she may have done an admirable job of analyzing world agriculture through the lens of economics, I do not believe that is sufficient for today's situation. Agriculture exists in the physical world, and IMO faces more imminent threats than just a shortage of arable land or labour. Of course, those limits (Peak Oil, Climate Change and fresh water depletion) have only recently been perceived, so it's no fault of Boserup's that she didn't factor them in back in 1965.

I am a resolute neo-Malthusian because of my awareness of those limits, my assessment of their impact on modern industrial agricultural practices, and my assessment of the severity of the ecological damage that has already been inflicted on the world. Unless we can change global agricultural practices to massively reduce (or even reverse) the damage, and do it within the envelope of increasing constraints on resource inputs, I foresee an inevitable, involuntary limit to population growth. However, as I said earlier, that wasn't the thrust of this article.

I apologize for not interviewing any Tswana cattle farmers before writing the article, but I'll stand by it anyway.

[HamdenRice]

82. So you're basically admitting that it's a religious faith, not a rational belief system

that you subscribe to.

"Regarding Boserup, I have a diametrically opposed worldview from hers."

It's not her world view that you need to address. It's her facts and analysis. Also, don't rely on web summaries like Wiki, which do a poor job of understanding or summarizing exactly what she was saying and why her research was so revolutionary. Generally, people who "don't get it" say that her insight was that innovation and increases in yield would always keep up with population. That's not at all what she said. She said that there are already concurrently existing a wide range of farming systems, that are already known or easily knowable to most farmers. She was not trying to explain why farming systems increase in intensity; but the opposite, why farmers who have access to more advanced techniques don't use them.

Her insight was that farmers don't move from "less primitive" to "more advanced" farming systems because in every step from the former to the latter, the productivity per man hour decreases, which is to say, that every time a farmer moves to more advanced technique, his implicit wage decreases. Since farmers don't voluntarily seek lower wages, they don't adopt new "more advanced" farming systems.

The systems she was writing about were not primarily technological, but tenure systems -- forest fallow, bush fallow, long fallow, short fallow, continuous cropping and multi-cropping. Her point was that farmers move along that continuum only when population pressure forces them to do so.

Virtually everyone who studies agriculture and understands what Boserup actually meant agrees that she was right. Her research was impeccable. She doesn't present a world view, but a wealth of empirical facts. That means that there are shifts in already existing tenure arrangements and technology that can dramatically increase yields in existing agricultural areas when the population pressures and prices align to induce them.

This problem and a set of related problems involving the way traditional farmers, has been uncovered several times. The first time was by A.V. Chayanov, a Soviet economist during Lenin's "New Economic Policy" period. Then it was discovered and described by Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen early in his career (before his work on famines). Then it was almost simultaneously described by Boserup and MacArthur "genius grant" winner Clifford Geertz. So it's not a "world view" you are debating, but a set of empirical observations and the theorems that model them.

Debating about agriculture and "carrying capacity" without knowing about Boserup (or Chayanov or Sen or Geertz) is kind of like launching into a debate about why there are so many different kinds of animals without knowing anything about Darwin, evolution or natural selection. And saying that you don't buy her world view is like saying you don't buy Darwin's world view. It's exactly as much a religious statement, and not a rational social science view.

That religious or faith based view pervades your response. Using Egypt as a model of world agriculture -- a country with a narrow agricultural river valley surrounded by the world's biggest desert -- is basically a faith based view. China and India, which are both food self sufficient, and represent 2 billion people and about 1.5 billion farmers, is a much more representative example. You seem to think that because Egypt might import North American wheat, Egypt is the world model, yet by sheer numbers, that makes no sense.

So your model of agricultural damage being externalized by world trade makes little sense. Even if this is true in some limited way, it's difficult to understand how increased exports to feed countries like Egypt increases ecological damage in the US considering that we already produce massive surpluses that need to be stored, destroyed or given away.

Again, I can only suggest that you read the "Darwins" of agricultural economics, especially Boserup. Unfortunately, at this point you're only talking about a faith system, not an empirical reality.

[GliderGuider]

83. A few quick points

1. The majority of the world's food is not produced by systems of forest fallow, bush fallow, long fallow or even short fallow. The majority of the world's food is produced using high-intensity monocultures in either continuous or multi-cropping systems (and this broadly describes modern animal husbandry practices as well). This approach is well known to be unsustainable, but it provides the highest caloric yield per acre and functions by replacing human inputs with mechanical and chemical inputs. It's the essence of the Green Revolution. FWIW, the organization AGRA is pushing this approach into Africa, thereby displacing some of the last low-impact farmers in the world.

2. The intensive "Green Revolution" agriculture referred to above came into widespread use in the mid-60s, about the time when Boserup published her book. Because of that, the impact of the green revolution on the environment and its implications for fossil fuels and ground water supplies were not yet recognized. As a result, Boserup could not have foreseen the dramatic importance such considerations would assume over the next 40 years. In fact, as far as I can tell from browsing the book on-line, she never considered ecological or resource-limitation questions at all. It's a purely economic analysis that was done before the advent of ecological economics.

3. More of an aside, I didn't use Egypt as "a model of world agriculture", and I'm at a loss to understand why you thought I did. I used Egypt simply as an example of a country that imports a lot of wheat, as an illustration of how, when trade is globalized, ecological costs associated with wheat production are absorbed by the producing country rather than the consuming country.

4. (And this is the major point, for me.)

So your model of agricultural damage being externalized by world trade makes little sense. Even if this is true in some limited way, it's difficult to understand how increased exports to feed countries like Egypt increases ecological damage in the US...

I'm frankly stunned. If you truly believe this, it's no wonder you and I are at loggerheads. It's a concept that is trivially obvious to an ecologist. I suspect you give a lot more credence to economic principles than ecological ones, which would go a long way towards explaining our impasse. That's what I mean by "world-views" -- people who "speak" ecology and people who "speak" economics are operating in orthogonal frameworks. As a result, each side's position appears religious to the other. Rest assured, I see your position as being every bit as "faith-based" as you see mine.

The problem is not (necessarily) how much or little analysis each side has done, its that these two value sets have only a limited intersection. That's why the whole field of ecological economics was developed. At this point I would ask the ecologist's counterpart to your question about Boserup: "Have you read Herman Daly's seminal book 'Steady-State Economics'? If not, we have nothing much to talk about."

[Nederland]

97. More assertions of belief

The majority of the world's food is produced using high-intensity monocultures in either continuous or multi-cropping systems (and this broadly describes modern animal husbandry practices as well). This approach is well known to be unsustainable...

Again, you assert things as fact without proof. Where is the proof?

[GliderGuider]

98. I cannot argue this point with you.

Please read: Homo economicus, homo ecologicus

I used HamdenRice, kristopher and you as some of my my models for "homo economicus" in that piece. There is no point in arguing, we live in orthogonal universes.

[Nederland]

102. But we don't

We live in the same universe, not one of our choosing. In the universe that we occupy, there are hard, measurable data that is objective and not a matter of opinion. For example, the number of tons of grain produced by a acre of land using a particular farming method is not a subjective number. It is a hard, quantifiable piece of data. Likewise, when a person such as yourself asserts that a particular method of farming is not sustainable, that assertion is not a subjective one--it is an assertion that is testable over time. Whether or not your assertion of sustainability turns out to be true or false has nothing to do with world views or opinions or assumptions. Either time will prove you right, or time will prove you wrong.

And time and time again, the universe we both live in has proved you wrong.

[tama]

96. Your condescending tone is not helping

but I'm in agreement, even though I've read mainly Fukuoka etc and studying to become a professional gardener. The die-off of this century will not happen because Mother Earth could not support our numbers or even bigger numbers. There are of course also purely physical limits to what amount of calories can be produced on a given piece of land, that should go without saying.

The die-off of this century will happen because of socio-psychological reasons, because of too much inertia to accept required change to learn to adapt, because the overly complex and interdependent system of global capitalism is facing entropia. The integrated complexity of the system based on continuous growth (not very different from a basic Ponzi scheme) can be held together only by influx of constantly growing amount of energy, and with PO that is stopping. So the system collapses and those dependent on it together with it.

That has very little to do with population numbers and food production per se. If you understand why all Ponzi schemes collapse sooner or later you understand why also this system collapses. Sooner rather than later.

[tama]

84. In other news

Common people in Niger - who were basically abandoned by their governement and rest of the world - have planted millions of trees using traditional methods and stopping desertification in vast areas and turning desert into forest, without any UN programme or any money from any governement. Just by themselves. People are gardeners by their nature.

Those at the top are seldom aware of what is going on at the bottom - the "subconsciouss". The top (of a pyramid) just feeds from the the below. Until the Ponzi Scheme inevitably collapses.