The Return of the Population Bomb

[GliderGuider]

The Return of the Population Bomb

By Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich
July 14, 2009

No driver of environmental deterioration is more obvious than population growth, and none has been more taboo to talk about – especially in recent decades. Even ecologists have often danced around the topic. Although more than 40 years have passed since we wrote The Population Bomb, the book is still attacked daily on blogs, misquoted and excoriated. On the positive side, however, it has received great honors from the lunatic fringe. It was listed by the Intercollegiate Review as one of the fifty worst books of the 20th century, along with John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice. In Human Events’ list of the “Ten Most Harmful Books of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” it came in 11th place ("honorable mention”); even so, it bested Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species and Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.

Such nonsense over four decades has allowed the role of population growth and related issues (especially patterns of rising consumption) as drivers of some of our most serious problems to be largely ignored. That makes a collapse of civilization now seem ever more likely. Climate disruption alone, tightly tied to overpopulation through such activities as fossil-fuel use and deforestation, could make achieving sustainability impossible.

A possibly even more serious problem is the increasing release of toxic chemicals in support of growing numbers of people, each striving to consume more. The releases are done with essentially no cost-benefit analysis; a potentially dangerous compound that might cure cancer is treated much the same as one that strengthens eyelash glue. While there are nut-case plans for “geoengineering” that might be tried if the climate starts to get away from us, there are no such possibilities if synergisms among toxics begin to kill us or our life-support systems. Especially threatening are endocrine-disrupting contaminants with non-linear dose-response curves – synthetic compounds sometimes more dangerous in tiny rather than large doses.

Then, of course, there’s the decay of the epidemiological environment, intimately tied to the increasing absolute numbers of people and of hungry (and thus immune-compromised) individuals – the latter now at a record more than one billion. More susceptible people pushing into the habitats of animals carrying novel (to us) infectious diseases, larger human populations to maintain those diseases, and ever more rapid transportation systems make nasty pandemics increasingly likely.

The Population Bomb, ironically, was much too optimistic about the future. In 1968, when it was published, carbon dioxide was thought to be the only human-produced greenhouse gas, and some climatologists believed that cooling by other pollutants would overwhelm its effect. As a result, we could only write that exploding human populations were tampering with the energy balance of Earth and that the results globally and locally could be dire. Now we know that increasing flows into the atmosphere of a series of anthropogenic greenhouse gas, a consequence of the near doubling of the human population and the more than tripling of global consumption, have the potential to cause catastrophic climate disruption unless rapidly abated.

The article also contains a nice acknowledgment of some of the problems with "The Population Bomb". In particular he mentions the prediction of looming widespread famine that was short circuited (though only temporarily, as Ehrlich points out) by the Green Revolution. Of course, the Green Revolution has in turn spawned its own set of negative consequences, as the ecological damage created by food production has been directly proportional to the number of mouths we've been able to feed.

[opihimoimoi]

1. Exponential Growth has its consequences...the Spiral must become a circle

soon,

watch Dr Bartlett http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

[Delphinus]

57. Yep, yep!

Dr. Bartlett was who opened my eyes to Peak Oil years ago.

[SPedigrees]

2. What happened to make overpopulation a taboo subject???

All the woes of pollution, global warming, etc are consequences of overpopulation. Back in the 1960s and 70s this was an accepted equation.

Maybe the human race just needs to self-destruct. It would seem so from humanity's lack of ability to grasp the root of the world's problems.

Me, I haven't added to the problem by reproducing, and I feel crowded by those who have. I long for a return to an era where privacy and seclusion and undeveloped land were not such expensive, hard to come by commodities.

[GliderGuider]

4. Republicans

I think they knew the only way they could increase their numbers over the long haul was through reproduction rather than recruitment.

[SPedigrees]

9. Agreed, esp the fundamentalist religious whacko arm of the repub party. n/t

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Here's an idea—Selective breeding

If one group of people (let's call them "liberals") believes that "overpopulation" is a problem, and tries to address it; while another group of people (let's call them "conservatives") believes that "overpopulation" is not a problem, what will happen to society over the course of say… 40 years?

Naturally, the percentages will shift. The "liberals" will have fewer children, while the "conservatives" will have more (relative to the "liberals.")

Various societal viewpoints will shift toward the "conservative" view (as the percentage of "conservatives" increases.)

Just think about it, the "conservative" couple who was just getting married when The Population Bomb was released, and dismissed it, may easily have grandchildren by now, who were all raised to be "conservatives." A "liberal" couple who got married at the same time, and were influenced by The Population Bomb may not even have children!

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons">The Marching Morons - 1951
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy">Idiocracy - 2006

[SPedigrees]

11. so true. Hubby and I are one such liberal couple of that era. His neocon fundy brother has 5 kids

who are starting to spawn grandkids. Good observation, OK.

[TheMadMonk]

53. Then is it not your job to turn them to the "dark side"?

Human brains allow for more than genetic methods of passing along traits, athough it does seem that genetics can at least in part account for susceptibility to concepts as abstract as conservatism and liberalism.

Counterintuitively, homosexuality is a trait selected for, even against extreme social pressures, because it can only help an extended family to have extra providers/carers who do not themselves have mouths to feed, but do still have a genetic interest in the next generation.

Likewise liberalism is a conterintuitively selectable trait. You/your husband can preserve the trait by nurturing/educating the "throwbacks" in your BIL's family even if you don't breed like rabbits yourself.

[Nihil]

39. There is a lot of truth in that.

> Naturally, the percentages will shift. The "liberals" will have fewer
> children, while the "conservatives" will have more (relative to the
> "liberals.")

You can see exactly the same problem in the level of education,
the gullibility of the population w.r.t. mass media and the
"consumption vs conservation" issues.

:-(

[HamdenRice]

56. You are assuming the inheritance of political views

Darwinism doesn't work to explain many human phenomenon.

[OKIsItJustMe]

60. No, I don't assume that

In my experience, parents teach their children.

[HamdenRice]

61. How many atheists in the Religion/Theology Forum rage about having been brought up

fundamentalist? How many DUers complain about "freeper" parents?

And these are pretty deeply held world views.

I would be surprised if people make reproductive decisions based on what their parents thought about family size. If that were true, then we wouldn't be seeing the drastic shrinking of ideal family size around the world over one generation.

[OKIsItJustMe]

62. I wouldn't draw many conclusions based on DU participants

I don't know how many atheists rage about being brought up by fundamentalists, or how many DUers complain about "freeper" parents. I've also known young people who talk about the lack of faith/spirituality their parents had, or about how they were so liberal.

"Rebellion" is common among young people. It's part of growing up, and asserting their independence. However, "http://www.google.com/search?q=the+apple+doesn%27t+fall+far+from+the+tree">the apple doesn't fall far from the tree."

When my godson was at that age, he raged about his "liberal" parents, his "feminist" mother and sisters. He really thought he was "right wing." Eventually, he came to realize that he was not. He became more and more of a leftist.

As time goes on, I expect he'll come closer and closer to his parents political alignment.

[Nederland]

28. White people stopped breeding

That, in a nutshell is why it became taboo. Birthrates in North America and Europe fell sharply, making overpopulation a "brown people's problem". In short, discussion of overpopulation suddenly became white people telling brown people to have fewer kids. Not exactly PC...

[Nihil]

38. "That, in a nutshell is why it became taboo". Spot on.

> In short, discussion of overpopulation suddenly became
> white people telling brown people to have fewer kids.
> Not exactly PC...

:applause:

[wuvuj]

47. Guess....

"What happened to make overpopulation a taboo subject???"

Zee Poop and Zee funny mentalists. And the continual fixation on...MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY......MY BABY.......

[poverlay]

3. IMO ~ There are already twice as many people in this world as there should be. I think anyone

having more than "replacement" kids is highly irresponsible.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. I'm with you!

[SPedigrees]

12. I'm with both of you too!

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. Even "replacement" kids may be irresponsible

1. If the population is already too high, maintaining it probably isn't responsible.
2. As "life expectancy" increases, "replacement kids" actually wind up increasing the population (not just sustaining it.)

That's why the Chinese instituted a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy">one-child policy and not a two children policy.

[paulsby]

6. some of the problems? lol

ehrlich trying to justify his sensationalist, anti-scientific, ridiculous crap he wrote deaces ago is frigging sad. what next, revisionist eugenics justification? phrenology?

his "predictions" were RIDICULOUS. the green revolution was not the reason his ridiculous "widespread famine" didn't come to fruition. this is just sad.

i would also note the ridiculous assumptions made in his model, such as geometric growth models that failed to take reality into account.

[Terry in Austin]

10. Harrumph!

Well, I guess you put him in his place!

So -- a geometric growth model is a ridiculous assumption? And what's your version of reality that needs to be taken into account?

[paulsby]

15. of course it's ridiculous

it's like a group saying "our membership has grown by 400% in 2 months!". it doesn't therefore follow that the same rate continues forever. it is a GROSSLY simplistic model. it's a JOKE. it sounded good to hysterical luddites. and it also justified racism and paternalism towards developing nations, as his accounts of life in bangladesh etc. are really just quasi-scientific appeals to "fear the brown hordes". that anybody would accept his revisionist (well, i was wrong but...) crap is sad.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. An interesting graph

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldgrgraph.php

World Population Growth Rates: 1950-2050

The world population growth rate rose from about 1.5 percent per year from 1950-51 to a peak of over 2 percent in the early 1960s due to reductions in mortality. Growth rates thereafter started to decline due to rising age at marriage as well as increasing availability and use of effective contraceptive methods. Note that changes in population growth have not always been steady. A dip in the growth rate from 1959-1960, for instance, was due to the Great Leap Forward in China. During that time, both natural disasters and decreased agricultural output in the wake of massive social reorganization caused China's death rate to rise sharply and its fertility rate to fall by almost half.

[paulsby]

18. very nice, thx

ehrlich's models are simplistic in the same way that a stock trading model that looked at the last 5 years (in 2000) and predicted that the market would continue going up forever. these are dynamic systems,and much more complex than a moron like ehrlich understood.

[Terry in Austin]

30. Harrumph, Part 2.

Not much of an argument, is it?

Still haven't heard your version of reality... we might be interested to know what's sounding good to hysterical cornucopians. Seems fair.

Maybe you could cover the ground a little better from down off of that high horse, eh?

[The Traveler]

13. Your post seems a little confused to me

I don't specifically recall Ehrlich advocating eugenics, but I haven't read the book in a long time.

I reject eugenics as a solution, but Ehrlich's model of the problem really doesn't seem that far off to me. I note we are experiencing what the UN terms a world wide food crisis, aggravated but not caused by recent disruptions of the global economy. While I think Ehrlich underestimated the potential of technology to support larger populations, I think his basic thesis is sound and I find no thread of logic in your post that even allows one to begin a counter argument to his proposal.

Fishing stocks are collapsing around the world while large aggregations of plastics and other wastes form in both of the great oceans. Water supplies of established food production areas are threatened by glacial melt and other effects of global warming, a result which will impose enormous migratory pressure on around a billion people in Asia alone. It looks to me like methane outgassing from previously frozen bogs and the Arctic sea floor may now be dominating the climate change process, which means we have already lost the potential for controlling that situation. Global oil production is on the verge peaking and may have already done so.

It defies common sense to argue that population levels and population growth play no role in the above, or that this can go on indefinitely. Clearly, such an argument must be rigorously supported by logic and evidence in order to be considered.


Trav

[paulsby]

16. you fail to understand my analogy

my point was not that ehrlich was talking about eugenics. my point is that many theories espoused by eugenicists have been proven to be complete crap, just as ehrlich's models and predictions were. about as definitely wrong as lamarkians were.

i also mentioned phrenology. i wasn't saying that ehrlich was making phrenology arguments. i am saying his models, predictions and analysis are equally stupid and proven wrong.

for fuck's sake, the proof is in the pudding. the data is in. his predictions were not EVEN CLOSE. his ridiculous models have no validity and his pathetic attempts to explain away his crap in this article were sad.

ehrlich appeals to hystericals, primarily people on the left, but plenty on the right buy into this bizarre, anti-scientific stuff.

also, as mentioned in another post, ehrlich's hysterical fictions also essentially justified a "fear the brown hordes" philosophy. read his accounts of life in bangladesh, for example.

[The Traveler]

20. Sorry, as modelling pudding goes

it is pretty good. Models of complex systems seldom produce exact results ... they are most useful to explore the system's sensitivity to changes in variables. I would hope that in 40 years someone has put together a more complete model (they have) than Ehrlich's early proposal ... but the basic thesis still holds. So let's get back to the basics.

You speak well in bombastic terms like "hysterical fictions". Please elucidate on what must be the central thesis of a counter argument. Explain how the observed phenomena of climate change, spikes in extinction rates, the "food crisis", etc. ad nauseum are independent of the population variable and its first and second time derivatives. Unless you can do that, Ehrlich's central thesis stands.

My viewpoint on this is pretty non-ideological. I'm an engineer ... a nuts and bolts kinda guy. Degree in physics. Etc. To convince me, friend, you will need to provide a nuts and bolts kind of answer. From your post and the above response to my comment, I still see no basis for beginning a counter argument to the thesis under question ... that population and population growth are driving variables that must be considered in any model that predicts resource utilization, pollution, etc.

Trav

[paulsby]

22. exactly my point

"models of complex systems seldom produce exact results". ehrlich doesn't even understand how complex systems works.

i have a simple question for you. have you read the population bomb? it's ridiculous. people might as well defend protocols of the elders of zion, or dianetics. they are all equally fanciful, and devoid of scientific rigor.

it's a hysterical tome, but since the conclusion is one that many people find sympathetic (population growth is out of control), especially at the time when the gaia hypotheses was considered revolutionary, they are willing to cut ehrlich a break. his book is crap. his ideas were crap. history has PROVEN them crap. but people who like his conclusions and his stance will explain away the data because that's how prejudices and biases work. sad.

[Gregorian]

19. His predictions were not ridiculous. They were deadly accurate in spirit.

Open your eyes. I'd give anything to be blind. But I see.

I don't have the time to argue with people about such an obvious subject. One either sees it or they don't. And to see it is painful. There is far more to this than just population numbers. It's all of the things that go in conjunction with it. Thank god ants can't drive cars.

[paulsby]

23. deadly accurate in SPIRIT. lol

iow, his intentions were good, so the fact that he was 100% wrong, scientifically laughable, and a complete idiot can be ignored.

even some of the worst propagandists in history wouldn't be so bold as you are. i applaud you for your honesty about inttellectual dishonesty. he was wrong. laughably wrong. read the frigging book. it has about as much rigor and scientific accuracy as dianetics.

but you like his SPIRIT, so the fact that he is 100% wrong doesn't matter.

phenomenally insightful into the prejudiced mind. thanks

[Gregorian]

24. He may not have accurately predicted the future population, but he wrote the book for a valid reason

One that is ever more dire as we reach bigger numbers every day. Just because we aren't doubling every couple of decades does not invalidate the reason why he wrote the book.

I suppose you don't believe in global warming either.

[paulsby]

41. nice strawman

of course i believe in global warming. stop trying to change the topic because your position is so intellectually dishonest. it's one thing to say you believe in global warming, specifically anthropogenic global warming. it is another to say that within 5 yrs, the island of manhattan will be completely submerged. if i made the latter claim, i don't get a pass because my "spirit" is right. what utter laughable propagandist crap. there are so many on the right who are JUST like you. any lie is ok as long as it is told to advance the cause.

[Nederland]

26. I'm confused by this

For example, Ehrlich's most outrageous claim in the Population Bomb was this:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."

How exactly was this prediction deadly accurate in spirit?

[GliderGuider]

34. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "in spirit"?

In the article I linked to, Ehrlich explicitly acknowledges missing the Green Revolution that pushed out the specter of large-scale famines by many decades. However, I don't know a single ecologist who will say that Ehrlich's foundational assumptions were wrong.

IMO, as the GR delayed the onset of famine it also made its occurrence more probable. It did this by simultaneously facilitating both population growth and ecological degradation. We now have to feed 3 billion more people than when Paul wrote Da Bomb, but we are less and less able to feed each new mouth due to the lasting ecological damage caused by feeding the last 3 billion.

[Nederland]

36. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "wrong"?

When a person says that something will go up and it goes down, they are not "accurate in spirit", they are "wrong".

It's really not that complicated.

Paul Ehrlich's fundamental error was to model the human species as a collection of bacteria in a petri dish. Unlike any other species on the planet, humans are divided into haves and have-nots. The population of the haves is falling while simultaneously their food production is increasing--a completely sustainable situation. The population of the have-nots is rising while their food production is flat or falling--a completely unsustainable situation. The net result is that the haves will survive and the have-nots will continue on (just as they have for thousands of years) in an endless cycle of boom and die off driven by cyclical drought patterns. The only reason the boom and die off cycle is not more pronounced is because the haves keeping throwing their excess food at the have-nots, a practice that unfortunately increases the risk of massive starvation for the have-nots in the long term. I would sum up this situation as follows:

1) The developed world will never, never suffer from food shortages.

2) The developing world will continue to suffer from cyclical food shortages, just as they always have.

The future therefore looks like this: The population of the world will continue to increase until it hits maximum carrying capacity (or begins to decline after peaking at 9 billion as projected), at which point we will see starvation in the third world force a flat population curve. The first world will wring it's hands over this, while continuing to eat to obesity.

[paulsby]

43. really?

do you really want to compare food production per capita now vs. when ehrlich wrote his book? you are doing a LITTLE better than ehrlich but not much. there is no evidence, and models have generally (especially ehrlich's ) been proven wrong. for god's sake, look at the data. we are better able to feed the world's population now (despite its vastly increased #'s) than we were during ehrlich's time. heck, in the US specifically, the #1 health problems amongst the poor stem from obesity/diet for pete's sake. as anybody who has studied famine will tell you, they are generally political, not a result of food shortage. see: potato famine, somalia, darfur, etc.

[Nederland]

45. That's a great idea

do you really want to compare food production per capita now vs. when ehrlich wrote his book?

Yes I do. In fact, look down a few posts and you'll find that GliderGuider has already done that. From the tone of your post, you might be surprised at the result.

[paulsby]

46. i;m not at all surprised, nor does that graph represent the concept i mentioned

those are grain stores. you do realize that's not the same thing as production efficiency, right?

[Nederland]

50. Wrong graph - look at post 31 (nt)

[GliderGuider]

54. I'll bring the relevant graph up here where you can see it

Any reduction in the number of undernourished people in the world is going to have to be accomplished by some other means than raw increases in food production, because the Green Revolution is no longer producing as much food per person as it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago, and the trend is down.

[paulsby]

42. and you b elieve that excuse

what actual data says the GREEN REVOLUTION (tm) was the causal factor that held off his oh so inevitable worldwide famines. ehrlich makes nostradamus seem like a genius. seriously, data means NOTHING to you as long as the spirit is right. heck, even some creationists are more intellectually honest than this claptrap.

[paulsby]

40. apparently,because he was concerned

this is how propagandists/ehrlich apologists think. truth takes a backseat to revolutionary truth (see: che) which means if it helps the revolution, it's ok. even if it's factually wrong. there are people on the right who think this as well. any lie is ok, if the intent was ok. it's the ultimate tradeoff. i have seen people on the right make the same excuses for bill kristol and his ludicrous predictions. at least kristol was speaking in the political realm and didn't claim to be offering scientific truth (tm) lol which makes ehrlich pretty frigging sad.

of course what they don't realize is that when somebody with "good spirit" (iow on your side ideologically) makes absurd claims, and is apologized for by others, it HURTS the cause. ehrlich didn't HELP the cause. in the long run, he hurt it. it's like the old boy who cried wolf syndrome.

if one has the right political credentials and is fighting for the right cause, then spouting absurd falsehoods is a-ok to these propagandists. after all, truth is a metanarrative.

[Gregorian]

52. It isn't.

He was way wrong.

But population is our biggest problem. And it may not have been the case that his statements fulfilled his prophecy in the 70's and 80's, but they may very well come true in the near future.

We're living way beyond our means. There are too many of us. That can be debated, but I don't know how one could do it given what is happening on this planet.

In spirit, his book addresses population. His tools were limited back then. The exponential curve looks just as vertical now as it did then. Frighteningly vertical.

[GliderGuider]

21. A bit of evidence that the Green Revolution was a temporary phenomenon:

This graph from the Earth Policy Institute normalizes global grain stocks to global population:



As reported in The Guardian on March 7, 2008, Professor John Beddington -- the UK government's chief scientific advisor -- indicated that the stocks had then fallen to only 40 days. So we can add one more data point on the end of that graph at the "40" line. When Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb, stocks were at about 70 days. They rose to about 110 days in the '80s and '90's, but have now fallen to almost half what they were when Ehrlich wrote Da Bomb.

The Green Revolution was a temporary phenomenon that depended on cheap fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the resulting increase in agricultural production damaged arable soils and depleted ground-water supplies, while at the same time permitting the global population to rise to the point where only Green Revolution style agriculture could maintain our numbers. Now as that the era of cheap oil and gas draws to a close, the effects of high population, degraded soil fertility, shrinking aquifers, shifting rainfall patterns like the current monsoon failure in India and reductions in alternative food sources like oceanic fish may may combine to cap our numbers "Faster Than Expected."

[Nederland]

25. That graph is meaningless

"World Grain Stock as Days of Consumption"? How the hell is that relevant? If you want to demonstrate that the Green Revolution was a temporary phenomenon, you need to show a graph with grain production rising for several years and then falling.

[GliderGuider]

31. The leading indicator of the failure of the GR

Is that per capita grain production begins to fall -- i.e. that absolute grain production does not keep up with the population increase. An early indication that production is not keeping up with consumption is the drop in carryover stocks, which is what that chart above showed. However, it might be illustrative to look at the actual per capita grain production. The following chart is taken from the data at http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Grain/2006_data.htm#table1

Since Lester Brown & Co. didn't turn that table into an easy-to-consume graph, I did:



IMO, the effect of the Green Revolution (from 1962 to 1985) is clear to see: while the population grew, the food supply grew even faster, so per capita production went up. That has not been the case for over 20 years. The average amount of grain available to each person in 2006 was about the same as in 1971. The problem is that while the trend in 1971 was decidedly up, the trend now is decidedly down.

[Nederland]

35. Again you have it wrong

If you want to convince me that the Green Revolution has failed, show me a graph of globally falling agricultural production per acre.

Per capita grain production tells you nothing about the success or failure of Green Revolution methods. In fact, this graph and your previous one regarding inventories are linked. The reason we don't need to produce as much food per person as we use to is because our improved inventory supply management means less food ends up rotting in warehouses and more ends up on people's plates (see my post #32).

[Nederland]

27. Here is a chart of global grain production

Now show me exactly where the Green Revolution failed.

For that matter, show me where the Green Revolution happened. For years I've heard the excuse by defenders of Paul Ehrlich that the only reason his predictions failed to come true was because the Green Revolution produced an anomalous, one time increase in grain production that would never happen again. Really? Where exactly on this graph do we see an "anomalous, one time increase in grain production"? I ask because it looks pretty much like a steady increase for the entire graph...

[NickB79]

29. GliderGuider's graph of grain stocks is created using data on both global production and consumption

Whereas your graph only shows global grain production.

Your graph also appears to be flattening out in the past few years, while global population continues to grow. And when you look at data from 1950-1970, it appears that global production was flattening out by 1970 too. If the Green Revolution hit as conventional grain production was already running out of steam, the corresponding resumption of an upward climb would be the anomalous increase you mentioned.

[Nederland]

32. Please

GliderGuider's graph of grain stocks is created using data on both global production and consumption whereas your graph only shows global grain production.

Yes, because that is the correct way to analyze the data. "World Grain Stock as Days of Consumption" is an irrelevant statistic for our purposes. In fact, all that chart shows is that we've gotten better at managing food inventories. Whereas we used to have months of food sitting in warehouses, now we have gotten better at predicting supply and demand fluctuations so that the huge inventories we used to have to maintain as a buffer are no long necessary. Believe it or not, the fact that we no longer have millions of tons of food sitting in warehouses rotting is a good thing. Moreover, decreasing inventories are a phenomena that is not unique to food, it is a global revolution called "just in time" inventory management. It has occurred in virtually all sectors of the economy from automobiles, computers, clothing and office supplies.

And when you look at data from 1950-1970, it appears that global production was flattening out by 1970 too.

Really? When I look at the graph I see production in 1950 at around 600 million tons, in 1960 at around 800 million tons, in 1970 at around 1100 million tons, and in 1980 at around 1450 million tons. That is not a flattening by any stretch of the imagination. Be honest with yourself--if a graph of this exact same shape was presented to you as a graph of global temperatures over time you would be describing it as a slow steady increase and proof that global warming was real. The only reason you could possibly claim that global production looked like it was flattening anywhere on this graph is because your own ideological biases make your eyes see something that simply isn't there.

[GliderGuider]

33. Well, I guess you'd better look at my post above, then.

"The leading indicator of the failure of the GR"

[Shanti Mama]

37. Over-population is taboo because

It imposes developed nation ideas on least-developed countries. Aid agencies cannot talk about population control. It's not politically correct. They do lots of work to help with family planning, etc but do not use the word control.

It's NOT about fundies in the US. Remember, there other folks out there in the world.

[HamdenRice]

44. It hasn't become a 'taboo' subject. It's become a passe or even dumb malthusian subject

The reason it isn't discussed much is that every couple of years the leading demographers announce that global fertility decline is in even greater freefall than before. Every few years the plateau human population is revised downward -- from 20 billion, then to 16 billion, then to 12 billion, and so on.

Fertility decline is occurring in poor countries where it wasn't expected for decades. Vast areas of Eurasia (especially Russia) are in negative population growth.

Moreover, the mainstream environmental movement has come to see the population problem in terms of environmental footprint, not in terms of numbers of people. One north American has a bigger environmental footprint than up to 60 or 70 people in the poor areas where population decline has not yet begun.

So people stopped talking about it because it has been solving itself thanks to birth control, women's emancipation, lowered child mortality and education.

Only North American malthusians sit around and bitch about the population bomb these days, and mostly their "concerns" are aimed at the poor brown and yellow people who are doing much less to destroy the environment than they, the malthusians themselves, are.

[hunter]

48. The Russian solution isn't a happy one.

It's less to do with "emancipation, lowered child mortality and education" and more to do with social distress.

STDs, drug and alcohol abuse slow down population growth too. Unpleasant things like chlamydia infections reduce fertility.

Some communities in the United States experience very similar social conditions.

[Terry in Austin]

49. Oh, these articles of faith

leading demographers announce that global fertility decline is in even greater freefall than before. Every few years the plateau human population is revised downward

"The plateau," is it? It sounds so polite, as if we're keeping our numbers within the planet's capacity to sustain them. Would that we were. But we're to accept this because "leading demographers" draw a straight line on their graphs of the future and notice that the line slopes downward? So cheer up -- the rate of growth isn't growing so quickly! Now that's a pretty tall spin-job...

Okay, let's talk about where it's "been solving itself." The first world, with its education, birth control, medicine, and overall high standard of living. First-world level of development -- aka, sheer economic privilege.

Of course, the happy-talk "solution" assumes that eventually the whole world will achieve this same level of development, and all will be well with only 10 billion mouths to feed. This is the creed of Developmentalism. Straight-line extrapolation, wishful selection of facts, and a healthy dose of white privilege.

Just one little catch, though. Arithmetic. The first world is already hogging up most of the resources. Just the US, with five percent of the world's population, uses 25% of the world's oil. There isn't enough planet to bring the rest up to "our level."

Passe? What's passe is applying the label "malthusian" as if it were an insult. That's so Nineties, dude. Globalization-era. Dumb developmentalism. You get the picture. The future isn't what it used to be, is it?

[HamdenRice]

55. It's not an article of faith. It's data.

The news story is that fertility rates are crashing even in poor countries. That's the mistake you and many malthusians are making -- the assumption that fertility will only fall when the poor countries reach rich country's consumption and education levels.

The data -- not faith or hope -- is showing that fertility rates are crashing in poor countries. Even Ethiopia, one of the poorest countries in Africa, is achieving zero population growth decades before it was expected.

You are the one who seems not to be looking at the math.

[GliderGuider]

58. This might be good news.

It depends on whether you believe that a stable human population of 9 billion is sustainable. If it is, we're just fine. If it's not, we're in trouble.

The fact that the ecological trend lines are all sloping down even with a population of 6.7 billion tells me we should expect a lot of change well before we get to 9 billion. It's a truism that change is a constant in human affairs, but it seems to me that the BAU model for resource usage, waste disposal and consumption patterns in the developed world can't hold.

I know you don't believe in overshoot, so feel free to disregard this comment.

[HamdenRice]

59. It doesn't have to be "sustainable"

because once the plateau is reached, demographers expect a long slow steady decline. So the only question is whether too much damage is done for the environment to begin to recover as population declines.

The problem with overshoot is that it presumes some finite hard limit rather than tradeoffs of quality of life and quality of environment.

As I've tried to explain before, the world population could use the environment the way it's used in south China. It wouldn't be enjoyable, but it wouldn't lead to a die off of humans.

It doesn't look like we're going to get anywhere near that level. Most of the population is going to end up in urban areas anyway, not in crowded rural slums.

[bananas]

51. Yup. nt