The one single overreaching issue of this century

By Frosty Wooldridge

Dr. Garrett Hardin said, “Don’t speak to me of shortage. My world is vast nnd has more than enough — for no more than enough. There is a shortage of nothing, save will and wisdom; But there is a longage of people. www.GarrettHardinSociety.org

Marilyn Hempel, president of www.populationpress.org presented the American public with a booklet on what the seven billionth person on the globe meant last October 30^th.  Not pretty. In excess of 18 million people starve to death around the world annually.  Over 1 billion cannot secure a clean glass of drinking water daily.  Another billion lives in abject poverty such as most of India.  Environmental damage accelerates as humans add another 1 billion people every 12 years.

Dr. J. Kenneth Smail presented his ideas on what America and humanity face in the coming decades. J. Kenneth Smail, (Ph.D. Yale, 1976), is Professor of Anthropology (Emeritus) of Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio.

Acknowledging and Confronting the Inevitable: A Significant Reduction in Global Human Numbers and other Inconvenient Truths

“It has become increasingly apparent over the past half-century that there is a growing tension between two seemingly irreconcilable trends,” said Smail. “On one hand, moderate to conservative demographic projections indicate that global human numbers will almost certainly reach 8 to 9 billion by mid-21st century, only two generations from the present. On the other, prudent and increasingly reliable scientific estimates suggest that the Earth’s long-term sustainable human carrying capacity, at what might be defined as an “adequate” to “moderately comfortable” developed-world standard of living, may not be much greater than 2 to 3 billion. It may in fact be considerably less, perhaps in the 1 to 2 billion range, particularly if the normative life-style (level of consumption) aspired to is anywhere close to that currently characterizing the United States.

“As a consequence of this modern-day “Malthusian dilemma,” it seems reasonable to suggest that it is now time—indeed, past time—to think boldly about the midrange future, and to consider alternatives that go beyond merely slowing the growth, or even the stabilization, of global human numbers. In this brief essay, I shall argue that it has now become necessary for the human species to develop and implement, as quickly as possible, a well conceived, clearly articulated, flexibly designed, broadly equitable, and internationally coordinated program focused on bringing about a very significant reduction in global human numbers over the next two or more centuries.

“In simple quantitative terms, this effort will likely require a global population “shrinkage” of at least two-thirds to three-fourths, from a probable mid-to-late 21st century “peak” in the 9 to 10 billion range to a future (23rd century and beyond) “population optimum” of not more than 2 to 3 billion, or perhaps even fewer.

“Obviously, a demographic change of this magnitude, whether brought about by conscious human design or ultimately by forces beyond human control, will require a major reorientation of human thought, values, expectations, and lifestyle(s). Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that such a program will be successful. Moreover, if humanity fails in this effort, it seems likely that nature’s even harsher realities will almost certainly be imposed. Speaking as a professional physical anthropologist/human evolutionary biologist, it is entirely possible that this rapidly metastasizing—yet still partly hidden—demographic and environmental crisis could emerge as the greatest evolutionary/ecological “bottleneck” that our species has yet encountered. …

“Notwithstanding the numerous difficulties in addressing a problem of such complexity, it is nonetheless surprising how little scientific and public attention has been directed toward establishing empirically quantifiable, scientifically testable, and socio-culturally agreed-upon parameters for what the Earth’s long-term human carrying capacity—or flexibly defined “optimal population range”—might actually be. Unfortunately, with only a few notable exceptions, many otherwise well-qualified scientific investigators and public policy analysts have been rather hesitant to take a clear and forthright position on this profoundly important matter, certainly destined to become the overarching issue of the current century.

“It is difficult to say whether this unfortunate reticence is due to ingrained investigatory caution, concerns about professional reputation and advancement (particularly among younger investigators), the increasingly specialized structure of both the scientific and political enterprises, personal qualms about reaching conclusions that have potentially unpalatable social and political ramifications, or other unspecified (and perhaps deeply-rooted) ideological, moral, or religious reservations. Or perhaps, given its global nature and seemingly endless ramifications, the chief difficulty in dealing with the complex population/environment conundrum represents little more than a manifestation of “scale paralysis,” that enervating sense of individual and collective powerlessness when confronted by problems whose magnitude seems overwhelming.

“Certainly the rough approximations of global human carrying capacity put forth during the past century show considerable variation, ranging from fewer than 1 billion to well beyond 20 billion (an order of magnitude or more). It is, however, important to note that over the past two decades there have been a growing number of investigators and organizations who have put forth reasonably well-thought-out positions on future global population optimums. Interestingly enough, these estimates have all clustered in the 1 to 3 billion range. This is an important development, since it is patently obvious that it will be difficult to engender any sort of effective public response to the above-mentioned global crisis if future population goals (i.e., desired demographic optimums) continue to be imperfectly understood and poorly articulated.

“Notwithstanding our current addiction to continued and uninterrupted economic growth, surely the dominant political mantra of the 20th and early 21st centuries, it is essential for humanity to recognize that there are, after all, finite physical, biological and ecological limits to the Earth’s long-term sustainable carrying capacity (i.e., the “natural capital” that supports us). And to recognize further that we are now drawing down on the principal, as well as the interest, of this precious “capital,” as many of these finite limits have already been reached (and in a number of instances surpassed).

“That there will be a large-scale reduction in global human numbers over the next two or three centuries appears to be inevitable. The primary issue may well be whether this lengthy and difficult process will be comparatively benign or unpredictably chaotic. More specifically, is modern humanity capable of a comprehensive organized effort to compassionately reduce global human numbers, or will brutal self-interest prevail—either haphazardly or selectively—resulting in an unprecedented toll of human lives? Clearly, we must begin our “new manner of thinking” about this critically important issue now, so that Albert Einstein’s prescient and very legitimate concerns, expressed more than 60 years ago, about human (and civilizational) survival into the 21st century and beyond may be addressed as rapidly, as fully, and as humanely as possible.”

##

You may contact Marilyn Hempel at www.populationpress.or for further information on what you can do to help change course.