The “powers that be” are evidently in denial of reality and unwilling to openly and honorably express their understanding of what 2000 IPCC Nobel Laureate scientists are reporting with regard to the ominous, distinctly human-induced predicament that is looming before the human community. That many too many economic powerbrokers, their bought-and-paid-for politicians and minions in the mass media adamantly support the soon to become unsustainable global enterprise of endless big-business expansion, come what may, does not favor our children’s well-being or safety, I believe. The talking heads appear to have pledged their primary allegiance and selfish devotion to their benefactors and to the short-term `successes’ of unbridled economic globalization, regardless of the long-term potential for catastrophe that such a recklessly unrestrained and unrealistic pursuit portends. For leaders of the political economy to conspicuously ignore —- much less debunk by using denialists from ideological ‘think tanks’ —- the carefully and skillfully obtained scientific evidence from the IPCC on climate change, and global warming in particular, is an incomprehensible failure with potentially profound implications for a good enough future of our children.

Plainly, what is necessary now is clarity of vision, intellectual honesty, coherence of mind and courage as well as a willingness among leaders to begin “centering” their attention on the probability of human-driven threats to humanity that could soon be posed by the gigantic scale and patently unsustainable growth rate of the over-consumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities of the human species, even now engulfing the surface of the Earth.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

These back of the envelope calculations can be informative, so let’s continue. First, a correction, there were 4 billion people in 1975, there are now 5.6 billion (Remember, this was written in 1996). To provide the 2650 square feet for the Oregonian foursome requires that we throw in Indiana.

Indiana and Oregon are apt to get smelly if we don’t put out the garbage. Where to locate the landfill? Ft. Collins is considering a 320 acre site for its next landfill. Ft. Collins has 100,000 people so it takes 56,000 of them to make the world’s population. Multiplying 320 by 56,000, and dividing the result by 640, the number of acres in a square mile, yields 31,055 square miles – the size of South Carolina. Thank you Dixie.

Assuming the foursome will not stay at home always, what about transportation. Just considering autos, there are 144 million in the U.S. If the average car is 100 square feet, then projecting these car numbers for the world population indicates we need 10,300 square miles of parking. Maryland’s 10,577 square miles is a good fit.

With all these vehicles, we might as well have roads. In the U.S., there are 3.88 million miles of them. If their average width is 30 feet, and noting that we’re building for the whole world, roads fill up Montana and Texas.

Want some light? The Rawhide power plant is 255 megawatts and sits on a large site: the cooling pond alone is 500 acres. Let’s say on average 255 megawatts occupies 500 acres total. Given that the U.S. has about 800 thousand megawatts, and projecting to the world, we need 49,000 square miles. This is the size of New York.

Rather than continue chipping away at the USA by adding stores, schools, manufacturing plants, mining, urban parks, museums and on and on and on, let’s get to some of the biggies.

Food. Of the 3.6 million square miles in the US, 21% is arable land and 26% is pasture. Two thirds of the former and all of the latter is devoted to livestock, either through growing feed or grazing. Taking these numbers and projecting to the world yields 29 million square miles. Oops, there goes the remaining states, Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America, Europe and Africa. What’s left? If we agree to eliminate Antarctica and the serious deserts like the Sahara and Gobi, which total about 11 million square miles, then add Asia, Oceania and Australia, we’re left with 10 million. Of this, half is taken by growing food for human consumption directly, instead of for livestock. Down to 5 million.

Forests anyone? The US is 29% forested, of which 72% is privately owned. Let’s ignore public lands and just use private forests to get lumber, paper, walks in the woods and so on. Private forests cover 756,000 square miles in the US which converts into 15.12 million for the world. There goes the last 5 million and were now 10 million square miles onto Mars.

Okay, what gives? The numbers are approximations, true enough, but they are in the ball park. Without considering thousands of other land uses we easily exhausted the earth’s land surface. Yet somehow there are 5.6 billion people living on the planet. Why the discrepancy?”

The answer is that the estimations assumed American production and consumption for the entire world population – as if the entire world produced and consumed at American levels. Given this assumption, we would need several planets to fit everything. Obviously the assumption is wrong and the presence of 5.6 billion people implies that per capita the vast majority uses far less land than we use.

This skewed use pattern does not apply to land alone, but to numerous key resources. For example, with 5% of the worlds population we consume 33% of the energy. This means if everyone consumed energy as we do, world production would have to increase sevenfold: seven times the coal, natural gas, and oil, and seven times the pollution.

How does all this relate to an overpopulation problem? To claim the world is overpopulated implies that there is such thing as being underpopulated and optimally populated. But how to define these concepts? I’ll offer the following definition: if we cannot bring everyone in the world up to a standard of living similar to Americans, or more modestly, western Europeans, without running out of resources, then we are overpopulated. To suggest otherwise is to either relegate large populations to low living standards or to redistribute wealth in a way that substantially lowers American and western European living standards.

In attempting to improve world living standards, will we run out of resources? There are two frequently made counterarguments. One is the economic reality that scarcity exacts higher prices, and higher prices exact conservation of resources. People will naturally reduce their consumption as prices rise, thereby, stretching the resources we have. True enough, but there is little comfort to be taken. The argument simply means that instead of heedlessly walking along and suddenly falling into a pit of poverty, we will lower ourselves into the pit gradually.

Coupling the economic argument with the second counterargument, that technology will save the day, is more powerful. Technological advances imply doing the same things with fewer resources. Higher prices spur new technologies that encourage substituting abundant resources for scarce resources. Good examples are lighting streets with town gas instead of whale oil in the 1800s, and communicating over glass fiber instead of over copper wires at the close of the 1900s. In the latter example, an abundant resource, sand, replaces a scarce resource, copper.

Counting on technology to steer us clear of the pit is a risky plan. Improving technology will require huge investments in basic research – a popular item to cut these days as public budgets tighten. And as shown above, to bring the world’s people up to reasonable living standards requires that the improvements increase essential goods and services several times over? Will this take one generation, two, three, countless? Suppose we are very lucky and it takes two generations. The world already has a billion people in dire poverty. Most of these people will not benefit, but in 40 years we will have figured how to provide a good life for 5.6 billion people. Unfortunately, in 40 years there will be 10 billion people.

Working to make the world a better place, without seriously addressing population, is treading water.

Not to worry. We are getting organized for collective action.

Sincerely,

Steve

For just a moment, let us consider how to get to the year 2050………from here and now.

Perhaps we could follow what we already know from good science, reasoning and common sense. We can choose to respond ably and differently, in a more reality-oriented way, to the global challenges before humanity, the challenges that we can manage because they have been induced by the spectacular unrestrained overgrowth of human activities now threatening to engulf the surface of Earth.

Of course, it is fair to ask what the family of humanity could choose to do “ably and differently.” There are several ideas that come to mind.

1) Implement a universal, voluntary program that encourages people to limit the number of offspring to one child per family.

2) Establish an upper limit on the growth of the individual human footprint.

3) Restrict immediately the reckless dissipation of limited natural resources so that the Earth is given time to replenish them for human benefit.

4) Substitute clean, renewable sources of energy, through the use of substantial economic incentives, for the fossil fuels we rely upon now.

5) Recognize that everything human beings do on the surface of our planetary home utterly depend on the finite resources of Earth. One consequence of this realization is understanding that there can be no such thing as an endlessly expanding global economy, given its current scale and growth rate, on a relatively small and noticeably frangible planet the size of Earth.

Godspeed,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http:sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

There is nothing in what you report with which I can agree. Even though human beings are “all-too-human,” we have demonstrated a capability not to destroy ourselves with nuclear weaponry. Of course, relying on past experience is no guarantee of what might happen in the future; but I believe we can handle threats posed to the family of humanity by the malevolent use of nuclear energy.

What does worry me has to do with something within the psyche of the family of humanity that is making it difficult for our community to acknowledge, let alone address, the threat to life as we know it and to the integrity of our planetary home that is posed to humanity in our time by unbridled consumption, production and propagation activities of the human species now overspreading the surface of Earth.

Sincerely,

Steve

The remaining human, animal, insect, plant and wildlife population will be better off and more resistant to various natural disasters. Several hundred years later the human population will once again reach nearly a billion people.

Psychological phenomena have held a special place of interest for me over many years. But rather than inject my feeble thoughts as I typically do, perhaps an article with remarkable explanatory power from one of my colleagues in the field of psychology will prove helpful in this discussion.

http://www.energybulletin.net/37091.html

Always,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001