Another world is possible … but how? Guest post from James Goldstein of the Tellus Institute and the Great Transition Initiative. Does the world need a “great transition” to a future of enriched lives, human solidarity and a healthy planet? If so, will a global crisis be necessary to motivate the transition?

Thank you all for your great comments!

All voices welcome.

All viewpoints respected.

– Deborah

We would want to be reality-oriented, I suppose, in our assessments of the remarkable matrix formed by nature, the human species and its predominant culture. Whether the imagined transformations are chaotic or orderly could well depend upon our communal understanding of the way the world in which we live actually works and our acknowledgement of the human species as one of many species to be blessed by God to thrive in this miraculous planetary home.

Always,

Steve

Steve raised a very compelling issue when he said after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution of the species, Homo sapiens, it simply does not make sense to me that in 2006 we are in our teenage years, as you suggest, and then magically evolve by 2050 into the 9 billion “mature adults” that Joel Cohen imagines.

Absolutely! How can this happen? As it so happens, a parallel discussion of this same subject began today on a mailing list of scholars interested in these issues …

That mailing list is associated with from the Great Transition Initiative. A few years ago, this group provided an interesting perspective on the subject in their wonderful essay essay called (pdf) Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead

Here’s a long quote from that essay:

The historic record may be organized in different ways, with alternative demarcations between important periods. Yet, a long view of the broad contours of the human experience reveals two sweeping macro-transformations — from Stone Age culture to Early Civilization roughly 10,000 years ago, and from Early Civilization to the Modern Era over the last millennium (Fromkin, 1998). We are now in the midst of a third significant transition, we argue, toward what
we shall refer to as the Planetary Phase of civilization.

Historical transitions are complex junctures, in which the entire cultural matrix and the relationship of humanity to nature are transformed. At critical thresholds, gradual processes of change working across multiple dimensions — technology, consciousness and institutions —reinforce and amplify. The structure of the socioecological system stabilizes in a revised state where new dynamics drive the continuing process of change …

In other words … yes! A new dynamic must emerge to drive a new socioecological system …

HOW will it emerge? Through chaos and need? Or in a more orderly way? That’s unknown at this time.

But emerge it will, I believe. Emerge it must!

If the average person from 1957 was instantly placed in todays world, might it not seem pretty “magical” to them?

I am young, but it is quite amazing to me how rapidly things can change. Each and every day there are individuals who make monumental changes in there lives through force of will – smoker to nonsmoker, omnivore to herbivore. Further, there are natural changes in our lives that occur relatively rapidly – puberty, menopause. If one considers facts such as these in light of Dr. Cohen’s anaolgy of individual human growth with our growth as a species, is it unreasonable to think that we might exhibit completely deferent behavior as a species in 50 years?

Thanks so much for this discussion. YOU are a wonder.

I agree with what you say about the opportunities and possibilities. They are amazing and they are real. But there are risks, too.

I find it difficult to imagine how human beings seize the opportunities before us without accepting the risks associated with biophysical reality: that we are members of an evolving species in a changing world with “rules” (e.g., Laws of Thermodynamics) to which humankind is subject. Otherwise, we could inadvertently be “dominating” our planetary home in ways that are perhaps harmful to biodiversity, environmental health, and the wellbeing of our children and coming generations.

Daniel Quinn is a story teller, one I like and respect; however, I am not asking us to look at a storybook but at unrefuted scientific evidence of a formidable challenge that could soon be posed to humanity by a too rapidly growing human population.

After hundreds of thousands of years of evolution of the species, Homo sapiens, it simply does not make sense to me that in 2006 we are in our teenage years, as you suggest, and then magically evolve by 2050 into the 9 billion “mature adults” that Joel Cohen imagines.

I can readily envision such rapid growth in the expansion of the world economy, if sustainable; but it does not appear that the general evolutionary process of biology accomodates such astoundingly fast maturation of human beings as is suggested by either you or Joel.

As far as global communication, universal education, empowerment of women, birth control, and sharing of resources are concerned, let me be crystal clear. I am for all of it, and in much greater measures than we find them in the world today. I believe we need for the masters of the universe who are overseeing the world’s political economy to give at least an equal amount of time, energy and resources to global communication of the best available science, to an education for every child, to affirmative action programs leading to many more opportunities for women of the world, to free and voluntary birth control options planet-wide for males and females, and to more equitable distribution of the Earth’s resources.

I see. This view of things reminds me of the book Ismael by Daniel Quinn. I read that some years ago … maybe a decade ago … and I have to say I didn’t believe a word.

Yes, perhaps at earlier times in human history, global population increased as food supply increased … much as for other animal species. That makes sense. But that was then. Before global communications. Before birth control. Before education and greater opportunities for women. Before the internet let people like you and me in widely different parts of the world communicate and share ideas.

There’s never been a time in history like now, when humans dominated the globe. You can view that as a problem … or you can view it as an opportunity.

I personally prefer to view it as an opportunity.

I believe humanity is in its “teen” years … and as one Earth & Sky community member said can you imagine the amazing possibilities?

Thanks for this remarkable opportunity to comment.

The unexpected data appear to indicate that as we increase the world’s food supply through our improving production and distribution capabilities, the number of people worldwide goes up, too. Consider that the relationship between population numbers of the human species is one in which food availability results in human population increase and the increasing number of people give rise to a widely shared but mistaken impression or else misperception that the production of food needs to increase even more, evermore. The data indicate that more food equals more people; less food equals less people; and, in any and all cases, no food equals no people.

Given their current scale and rate of growth worldwide, please note that business-as-usual big business productivity, per human consumption and the rapidly increase of human population numbers occur synergistically, in what has been described elsewhere as a positive feedback loop.

The governing dynamics of human population numbers present humanity with a biological problem that is independent of social, religious and cultural considerations.

Perhaps a point in human history is approaching when it will be patently unsustainable to pursue the predominant culture’s most prized course of action: the endless growth of its unbridled production, unchecked consumption and and unrestrained reproduction activities in our planetary home.

The data from Dr. Hopfenberg and Dr. Pimentel appear to indicate that consideration could be given to the humane regulation of currently unregulated human overgrowth activities that, even in these early years of Century XXI, can be seen blanketing the surface of Earth, extirpating biodiversity, degrading the environment, dissipating limited natural resources and endangering the Earth as a fit place for habitation by coming generations.

Human beings may choose to think of ourselves as masters of the universe, as a species that can live without having to accept limits to growth of our production, consumption and propagation activities. The wishes of humankind may be insatiable and infinite. We may choose to believe literally anything. Even so, if the Earth exists in space-time and possesses finite resources; if the Laws of Themodynamics apply to the human species as we know them to apply to other species, then the spectacularly successful growth of the human species and certain of its attendant activities, described repetitiously above, could present humanity with a leviathan-like, non-recursive biological problem.

How can that be? Humans are fundamentally different from other species. We are conscious of others of our species all around the globe. We know our history … see the mistakes of our ancestors. We have science … projections into the future. We have birth control!

It just doesn’t seem logical to me that the same population dynamics would apply.

According to Hopfenberg and Pimentel, human population dynamics are knowable and these dynamics are essentially similar to, not different from, the population dynamics of other species. The population dynamics of the human species are similar to the population dynamics of other species, both in terms of complexity and simplicity of the governing elements.

Although it is vital to recognize and acknowledge the complications inherent in population dynamics, it is equally necessary not to allow these complications to blind us to the elegance and simplicity of emerging scientific evidence.

Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel have provided evidence that accounts for the salient factors governing the dynamics of the population numbers of the human species. From my humble vantage point, it appears that not one top rank scientist with expertise in population dynamics has refuted their emerging research.

Perhaps this wonderful venue provided by Earth & Sky enables our colleagues to discuss the unexpected data to which I am hopeful of drawing attention and comments. Please know that the apparently unforeseen research of Hopfenberg and Pimentel appear to have profound implications for the future of life as we know it on Earth.