Taking the overpopulation problem to Harte
| 26 August, 2011 | Richard Nicholls |
|
|
I recently finished reading ‘Dark Star Safari’ by Paul Theroux, in which he relates the story of his travels through Africa. One quote particularly sticks out in my mind – upon the author making vague enquiries as to why there are certain African social problems, one chipper fellow answers in a north African accent, “too many bibble!”. I visualise myself in the future as an old man, wandering through crowds in ‘what were all fields in my day’, muttering under my breath, eyes shifting nervously, “too many bibble, too many bibble…”.
The population crisis, if it can be deemed as such, takes on a slightly more sinister and worrying aspect, in terms of environmental degradation, when reading an article by John Harte, which was evaluated in July and August.
Previously, it has been assumed that any increase in population will be met more or less linearly with an increased environmental impact. Harte argues that this is “hugely optimistic” and that, in fact, environmental degradation will increase disproportionally to our increase in population. In Harte’s 5-pointed conclusion, point number 5 seems particularly thought-provoking – “Rising numbers impede governance and problem-solving”. Although, in my humble opinion, this is one element of the paper which is far more open to debate.
Assumptions about increasing environmental impacts need to consider so many dynamic variables, e.g. energy consumption per capita, resource production, new technologies etc., that making any meaningful predictions about future environmental impacts must be as prone to error as predicting evolutionary patterns. We can even imagine a scenario whereby population rates continue as they are, yet environmental impact is reduced from that of present day, thanks to incredible advances in resource technology.
The UN predicts that in a mid-level scenario, world population will be around 9.2 billion by 2050. Too many bibble indeed. With this in mind, should the scientific community endeavour to make any meaningful predictions for environmental demise? Or is this the sort of crystal ball thinking that we should do away with in favour of concentrating on innovations in environmental protection and resource technology?
|
|
previous post
I am one of those who wrote an evaluation to this paper, and I am glad that Richard Nicholls stressed its importance some more. Too many people (bibble) is really our problem. Let me tell you this story. I met Ramon Margalef several times, and had the privilege of spending some time with him. I once had a little discussion with him because he said (in public) that if we were able to use phytoplankton as a source of food there would be no problem to feed enormous quantities of bibble… I was much younger then, and I (a dwarf) had the arrogance to explain to one of the giants of ecology that there is the carrying capacity and that, even if we can succeed, with some innovation, to feed more people, there will always be a limit. Well, this is well known since the times of Malthus and is written also in the Origin of Species, so I am in good company, after all. This article, furthermore, is showing that the more technological we are, the more impacting we become. So the presumed solution is a further problem (as usual).
The reason why we are ignoring the problem is explained by Frank Zappa (sorry to cite him so often): Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.
and if you want some more wisdom from Frank, here it is:
One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people’s minds.
Stupidity and resistance to change own mind. That’s our problem! We have the answer in front of us (too many bibble) and we do not like it. So we ignore it, and try to cure the symptom disregarding the cause.
And I am stupid enough not to change my mind on this topic!