As I said in my previous posting, there is a clear divide between those who deny the existence of an ecological crisis, on the one hand, and those who assert that the inhabitants of planet Earth face an ecological crisis of unprecedented proportions. On both sides there are scientists — at least people who claim that they are scientists — something that causes no little confusion on the part of the public, given the way that we have been taught to respect scientific judgement. Which so-called scientists do we trust?
In the final analysis, however, one must make up one’s mind, which is no easy task, by using as many sources of information as possible and exercising independent thinking and judgement. As for myself I have made up my mind to believe and trust those thinkers, writers, scientists and activists who are trying their level best to convince the rest of us that time is running out as far as being able to do anything about the looming ecological disaster is concerned. Quite apart from the question, whether one can be sure that they are right, there is this consideration (reminiscent of Pascal’s famous “wager” concerning God’s existence): what if they are right and we don’t do anything?
One of the most convincing thinkers when it comes to taking seriously the possibility that civilisation as we know it could “collapse” globally, unless we do things “right”, unless we learn from the mistakes of other civilisations that have “collapsed” irreversibly, is Jared Diamond, whose prize-winning Guns, Germs and Steel paved the way for the book I have been alluding to eponymously, namely Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.
Focusing on the beautiful state of present-day Montana, in the US, he shows that all the ingredients for a collapse are present in that state — those that would accelerate such a collapse, as well as those that could, if they were pursued and expanded, prevent a collapse. In this way one is put in a position to understand that Montana is a microcosm of planet Earth and that the things that need to be done there are the same things that should be done everywhere on the planet (including, not working against nature when it comes to allowing forests to grow naturally, instead of interfering by thinning out underbrush and smaller vegetation in forests; not allowing toxins to leach into rivers and lakes from mining operations).
Diamond’s painstaking elaboration on the reasons why earlier societies failed — such as that on Easter Island or the Mayan civilisation — brings to light that in every case the people concerned underestimated the long-term effects of their environmental destruction, especially that of life-giving vegetation like forests. In the chapter on Easter Island, where palm trees were systematically cut down to the very last one (for religious reasons, unbelievably — for transporting their gigantic rock-hewn statues to the sites where they were erected, to “placate the gods”), Diamond says that he wonders what went through the mind of the men who cut down the very last tree on the island. One could say the same of people who knowingly release toxic waste of various kinds into life-giving rivers.
Another uncompromising ecological thinker, whose work I respect because of its thoroughness and clarity of vision, is Joel Kovel, whose book, The Enemy of Nature acted as a kind of wake-up call when I read the first edition about five years ago. If one reads Kovel’s book against the backdrop of the insights gained through Diamond’s Collapse, that human depredation of nature has historically led to the implosion of several civilisations, it becomes increasingly clear that such depredation has been occurring, for decades now — but in accelerating fashion, from about 1970 — not merely in isolated areas of the planet, but globally. Moreover, and this is the crux of The Enemy of Nature (subtitled The End of Capitalism or the End of the World?), the current, globally dominant economic system, known as neoliberal capitalism, is largely to blame for the speed with which ecological degradation is occurring, because of its uncompromising commitment to (economic) GROWTH at all costs.
To be sure, the (dirty) industrial activity of communist and socialist countries contributed significantly to the pollution of the Earth, as well as to climate change through carbon emissions, but the differentiating factor between these economic systems and capitalism is precisely the latter’s unrelenting pursuit of “growth”. Just how shortsighted this is, Kovel points out, should be clear to anyone who understands that human economic growth cannot occur indefinitely within a finite biosphere. And yet, most companies treat natural ecologies as if they are a smaller part of human economies!
I have mentioned climate change and carbon emissions. Kovel remarks that when the first edition of his book appeared in 2002 there could still be honest disagreements among scientists about the relation between carbon emissions and potentially catastrophic global warming, but that, when the second edition appeared in 2007, this could hardly still be the case. There is virtual consensus among scientists worldwide that the industrial-economic behaviour of humans is largely responsible for the runaway warming of the Earth’s biosphere. And those denialists who point at the vacillation between periods of hot and cold climatic conditions in the history of the planet, conveniently overlook the fact that those oscillations have, as far back as scientists can determine, always remained between certain extremes, but that more recently — as Al Gore has argued in his book, Earth in the Balance, as well as in the film, An Inconvenient Truth — the upwards swing of the thermometer has gone off the chart, as it were, and is still rising.
Hence, to return to the question, whether there is an ecological crisis facing humanity, it seems to me that the answer is an emphatic yes! There is overwhelming evidence, moreover, that it has been of human making, through the blind pursuit of an economic system that turns everything into resources for the sake of growth and the generation of material wealth. Kovel reminds one of the remarkable fact that, in 1970, growing anxiety about the deteriorating condition of planet Earth resulted in a new ecological awareness and a new politics.
On April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day was proclaimed, and has been commemorated on that date every year since then, to affirm human dedication to the preservation of the non-human environment. Shortly afterwards, in 1972, one witnessed the extraordinary event of some of the world’s power-elites (the so-called Club of Rome) issuing a “manifesto” pertinently and clairvoyantly called The Limits to Growth. Sadly, Kovel observes, since that time growth has, instead of slowing down, only accelerated. He provides the following list regarding the impact of human economic activity on the planet between 1970 and 2000 (imagine what it is today!) whatever kind of impact it might be:
– The human population had increased from 3.7 billion to 6 billion (62%).
– Oil consumption had increased from 46 million barrels a day to 73 million.
– Natural gas extraction had increased from 34 trillion cubic feet per year to 95 trillion.
– Coal extraction had gone from 2.2 billion metric tonnes to 3.8 billion.
– The global motor vehicle population had almost tripled, from 246 million to 730 million.
– Air traffic had increased by a factor of six.
– The rate at which trees are consumed to make paper had doubled to 200 million metric tons per year.
– Human carbon emissions had increased from 3.9 million metric tons annually to an estimated 6.4 million — this despite the additional impetus to cut back caused by an awareness of global warming, which was not perceived to be a factor in 1970.
– As for this warming, average temperatures increased by 1 degree F — a disarmingly small number that, being unevenly distributed, translates into chaotic weather events (seven of the ten most destructive storms in recorded history having occurred in the last decade) and an unpredictable and uncontrollable cascade of ecological trauma — including now the melting of the North Pole during the summer of 2000, for the first time in 50 million years, and signs of the disappearance of the “snows of Kilimanjaro” the year following; since then this melting has become a fixture.
– Species were vanishing at a rate that has not occurred in 65 million years.
– Fish were being taken at twice the rate as in 1970.
– Forty percent of agricultural soils had been degraded.
– Half of the forests had disappeared.
– Half of the wetlands had been filled or drained.
– One-half of US coastal waters were unfit for fishing or swimming.
– Despite concerted effort to bring to bay the emissions of ozone-depleting substances the Antarctic ozone hole was the largest ever in 2000, some three times the size of the continental United States; meanwhile, 2 000 tons of such substances continue to be emitted every day.
– 7.3 billion tons of pollutants were released in the United States during 1999.
These figures speak alarmingly for themselves, but it took Kovel a book of more than 300 pages to place them in the interpretive framework that indicates what their effect has been so far, what their likely long-term effect will be, and what there is that humanity can do to lessen the impact of climate change on the Earth (including human society). That will be the topic of another post. Suffice it to conclude this one by pointing out that even a mainstream journal such as National Geographic issued a special edition on climate change in 2004 titled “Global Warning: Bulletins from a Warmer World”, where human industrial activity was implicated in no uncertain terms. (To be continued.)
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, October 13th, 2009 at 4:50 pm and is filed under Perspective.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
60 Responses to “Is there an ecological crisis?”
A few undercurrents from the Zeitgeist:
1) The major proponents have still not presented any tangible evidence that humans are causing climate change. Much of the so called evidence remains closed to peer review. The balance of the research is based on data which is disputable (e.g. ice core samples, surface temperature readings from weather stations in areas which have become urbanized)
2) There is obviously an agenda at play here, which will benefit the financiers (follow the money…)
3) We cannot spend our way out of the problem. The cost/benefit ratio is absurd. We should rather be looking at accepting the inevitable and planning accordingly with regards to climate change. Some regions will benefit substantially by climate change. e.g. food will become abundant.
4) The prospect of a ecologically friendly, and sustainable way of life is noble and I am glad that it is finally being taken seriously. I am concerned however at the potentially sinister forces driving the change. Will we eventually end up being taxed through carbon taxation for the air we breathe?
5) There is an undercurrent beginning to emerge in the Zeitgeist that overpopulation is the main cause. It only takes 2 brain cells to extrapolate where this kind of thinking could lead. Is this so-called engineered crisis an attempt to create these thought patterns?
Firstly, I don’t need scientists, as a child close on fifty years ago, I had a gut feeling that cars can’t go on spewing poisonous gases into the atmosphere, I was educated and conditioned by “scientists” and was lulled into believing all was well, Only now have learned to trust my gut feelings of over any scientific argument.
Secondly, most of us run a reasonably clean house, we instinctively know that we need to look after our immediate environment. Why should this stop at the garden gate? Apply the same principles to the wider environment, the air you breathe in your living room comes from the other side of the garden fence! You don’t sit on trash in your living room, why do it in nature!
“the upwards swing of the thermometer has gone off the chart, as it were, and is still rising”.
This is simply not true, go into the junkscience site and click on global temperatures to get a wide run down on worlwide temp. over the past 20 years, none much more than +- 0.5 degrees C.
I feel strongly that the ‘global warming’ scam is diverting minds and huge resources away from the urgent problem of rampent polution, which your article so ably demonstrates. So stick to the pollution evils we are committing and leave the PC global warming to the scam artists.
The scariest thing is that your article has not yet gleaned one comment. The single most threatening thing to our existence is what we are doing to the planet, but there are a complex array of reasons why we do nothing about it, even when we are intellectually aware of the problem, and part of it is to do with our evolutionary make up, the changes are slow (compared to the dangers we are designed to react to like a pouncing lion) and we are programmed to block out the “unimportant noise”. The challenge is to find creative ways to work from within our evolutionary straight jackets and do things that do not make short term evolutionary sense. Paul and Anne Erlich and someone called Robert Ornstein wrote of these things in the early 90s and late 80s I think. The only time people sit up and take notice is when it becomes another tool for US and Europe bashing, despite the fact that the individuals who do the bashing probably contribute more to the destruction of the planet than the average US and European citizen
The obvious is pretty boring. Gross overpopulation under whatever political pretense is killing the earth as we know it, before our eyes. No book is going to tell you what is about to happen. It is not simply that resources will become limited, it is that nearly all life as we know it is becoming fast extinct, before our own eyes. No amount of greenness is going to slow this for one day. It is not a political system that is doing this, it has been building for thousands of years; namely mans systematic use of the environment for procreation. The tools are now evident as tools, and have become the centerpiece of the exploitation of the human environment, yet the impetus for the destruction of innumerable species per day, and the long-standing changes to the environment boil down to the irresponsibility of the human species in recognizing that its dynamics are essentially those of ants, in particular, ants with sudden limited resources. The fish are dying, corals, most large mammals, innumerable plant species, etc., we have heard it all. The air fouled by one new power plant, coal fired, per day in China, untold pollution springing up wherever there is a need to breed. It is sad to see most of the species go, when what will remain is only what we have created of ourselves, and watch us fight like bugs over what is left.
I am 26 years old, and my whole life I have been exposed to messages about saving the planet, planting trees and the like. It freaks me out that we have known abut the effects of our actions for so long, but have failed to act.
Robin, what are you smoking, so I can be sure to avoid it. Why does there have to be a conspiracy? Human population (numbers and consumption) ARE the cause of the crisis. There is no need for a conspiracy theory here. Clmate change, by the way is just one of a suite of problems, and all these problems are associated with human population growth (in terms of consumption as well as numbers). Of course, greed etc. are all in their, but we are by our nature partially greedy. No problems with pointing fingers at the greedy and corrupt, but they are only PART of the problem. Could you please elaborate on the Zeitgeist. In my previous comment, i erroneously said no one had yet commented, yours was not posted yet.
The anthropogenic climate change debate is no longer a debate, except amongst rabid libertarians and conspiracy theorists; science, despite attestations to the contrary, has long since reached a consensu on the matter: http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
Unfortunately, special interest groups like the CEI (which backs Milloy’s Junk Science) have purposefully muddied the waters of debate, using the same kinds of scare tactics and rhetoric that worked so well in the McCarthyist US; this ‘don’t tell me what to do’ aesthetic appeals especially well to free market zealots, which is probably why it gets so much airplay from otherwise reasonably sane people.
In response to Lisa, there is an odd positive facet to the doom and gloom. So, there is ‘planting trees while huge regions of Brazil are burned’. But there is a further message, namely, that in this mess (carnage through procreation, lemmings at the edge, species that cannibalize each other at just the right time), at first we must see, without that there is no hope, but with it comes, even an uncomfortable adaptation. So, act.
CrimethIncer, went into one of your quoted sites and it contains quotes like this, “All of these completely independent analyses of widely varied aspects of the climate system lead to the same conclusion: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and substantial warming trend. Looks like the folks at NASA and CRU know what they are doing after all”.
Notice no figures, no explaning what ‘rapid and substantial warming trend’ means in terms of actual figures. By contrast junkscience quotes actual figures so instead of attacking the reasonable messenger who is trying to debate issues attack their figures with your facts and figures.
Everyone against global warming is in the pocket of ‘big interest’ groups, again statements of opinion not much facts and the same applies to the other side. There are massive private/Govt. funds spent on ‘global warming science’ and if the users of these funds dont follow the correct line, no funds.
That there was once an ice age makes it clear that global warming has been a fact of life since then.
But I don’t see anyone bemoaning the fate of the woolly mammoths.
The difficulty is to slow the process in an overpopulated, competitive, industrial world. I don’t want my grandchildren to suffer unduly and they won’t want theirs to, but unless laws are made to control our behaviour, we ultimately don’t have a hope.
And the lawmakers are sometimes the worst offenders. South Africa has the worst emissions. Eskom is the worst offender in South Africa. Who does Eskom belong to? The state!
The price of education makes me wonder whether a ‘one person, one child’ policy would not be good for all of us. And if that’s ‘engineering’, so what?
In reality, the concern for me, is whether this is all part of God’s plan, or not.
[…] Thought Leader » Bert Olivier » Is there an ecological crisis? www.thoughtleader.co.za/bertolivier/2009/10/13/is-there-an-ecological-crisis – view page – cached As I said in my previous posting, there is a clear divide between those who deny the existence of an ecological crisis, on the one hand, and those who assert that the inhabitants of planet Earth face… (Read more)As I said in my previous posting, there is a clear divide between those who deny the existence of an ecological crisis, on the one hand, and those who assert that the inhabitants of planet Earth face an ecological crisis of unprecedented proportions. On both sides there are scientists — at least people who claim that they are scientists — something that causes no little confusion on the part of the public, given the way that we have been taught to respect scientific judgement. Which so-called scientists do we trust? (Read less) — From the page […]
@Dave Joubert. Its not the amount of people that is the problem (the planet could easily sustain 10 billion people), it is our consumerist society that is the problem.
Watch this short video (only 20 minutes) to get a real grasp of the problem and how it can be fixed at http://www.storyofstuff.com/ .
There is a way to fix it, and Armageddon/world War 3 to decrease human numbers is not a requirement to solve the problem.
1. Criticism: I am very much against the idea of people ‘making up their own minds”, if this means googling around, reading, etc. We simply do not understand the issues. If we wish to maximise our chances of believing correctly I cannot see any strategy other than following the scientist who are qualified to pronounce (not all scientists). Since their opinion is, by a MASSIVE majority, that we are headed for significant trouble, I think we should act on that.
I find it amazing that laymen-denialists think that they have any chance of getting to a defensible position. We can try to, roughly, understand the science, but we are no more able to judge than we are to judge particle physics, genetics, or aerodynamics. (For that matter, most of us do not even feel qualified to do our own plumbing or fix our own cars.)
2. Comment: The Pascal’s wager argument.
In this case we need not let it influence our beliefs, only our actions. In other words:Let’s say Global warming was epistemically a 50/50 proposition (which it is not). Even then it would be rational to admit it is 50/50, but take massive precautions. Standard Rational Choice theory gives this result, in other words we do not have to let the consequences of being wrong influence our assessment of evidence itself.
Brent
I agree that global climate change has become a PC thing and sadly detracts from other forms of rangeland degradation that would still be there if climate change were not, BUT small mean changes in temperature can have massive unpredictable effects on climate as the author aptly stated.
Robin
Thanks. Hope I get a chance to view it, but I am going to be “burning the midnight oil” (doing my bit eh?, we coudl save a heck of a lot of energy by going to bed early!!). I’m well aware that consumption per capita is part of the problem (read my mails carefully and you will see it there), but its not the only part of the problem, and I think its dangerous to pretend that it is. As I said, we take some pleasure in bashing the consumerist “west” but we contributing to this debate have similar patterns of consumption as Americans and Europeans. I think it would be useful to understand better why society is so consumerist and why we are so reluctant to change our ways, and use that understanding as a platform for changing our ways, and sorry to sound so unPC but, what the heck, it means reducing our fertility rates as well. Its not a political statement its a simple ecological principle. I teach ecology including population ecology and there is no way around it. Blaming it all on consumerism is too trendy lefty and misguided. Cut consumption and reduce fertility. Drastically. And who the heck mentioned Armageddon WW3? I’m, trying to avoid it!
There is no doubt that overpopulation is the core of the crises. The planet can support ten billion??? At what level? At what caloric intake per person? At what level of education that can put bread on the table? Economic growth has been needed to constantly try to compensate for more and more people being born and more people living longer. However, this type of unchecked exponential growth usually ends in some disastrous breakdown. If we stop economic growth, then we might face social unrest on an unprecedented scale. Obviously politicians are againt this. So where is the solution? Limiting the number of children by law has bene tried in mainland China, but their population has still grown substantially. Besides no other country would tolerate such laws, since procreation is considered as a basic human right. I think that human civilization will not even reach thw year 3000.
The fortunate part of this whole climate change crisis (if it can be called fortunate)is that humankind will see its runaway growth checked sharply and through starvation and drought the earth will find her balance again. Nature will always prevail, but we won’t. It is our enormous arrogance and complete disregard for our natural systems that is propelling the species, along with others unfortunately, to a catastrophic conclusion. What then ? Nature will pick up the pieces and the surviving species and begin anew, as she has always done. We’re no more than fleas on the animal…to be got rid of when we become too burdensome. So, stick around and watch the house of cards come down.
@JP - Scientific Research requires peer review to be validated. None of the major proponents have submitted data for peer review - They have simply presented their theories and asked people to trust their judgment. This is not science BECAUSE THERE IS NO DATA FOR PEER REVIEW, it is smoke and mirrors.
Do yourself a favor and look for the empirical evidence, look for the data, because you WON’T FIND IT. You will find a lok of experts telling you that they know its true, but you wont find ANY credible scientific evidence that humans are in fact causing climate change. Open YOUR eyes, because the wool has been pulled over them.
PS: I am not disputing that global warming is happening. We know scientifically that we are coming out of an Ice Age so warming is inevitable, but there is NO Data to prove we are causing it.
Yup - overpopulation is not the problem its overconsumption.
If you majically reduced the population by two billion of the poorest people tommorrow, and doubled the number of Four by Fours on the roads, and the remaining five population each ate a little more meat, we would be far worse off than we are now with seven billion.
The overconsumers need to consume less.
Population control in those societies where birth rates are high is not going to reduce consumption much, they don’t have much to consume.
Wake up guys, global warming from fossil fuels is a reality, only a handful of sceptical scientists paid by the oil industry still try and convince us otherwise. Climate change denialism is flat earth stuff.
Germany to go 100% renewable energy by 2050 (and you can’t fool them Germans)
I am doing research on rivers, and from my first hand experience, I think our rivers are facing ecological collapse. Rivers running through towns and settlements are more like sewers than a natural rivers. Especially during dry periods of the year, the majority of the flow in rivers come from sewerage effluent and other effluent releases. And people downstream use the water for drinking and washing, irrigation and water for livestock. It’s no wonder that Cholera is a recurring problem in this country.
As JP points out, the overwhelming majority of us are not scientists and even if we were that would not make us able to ‘prove’ anything. There will always be sceptics who dispute the facts and the science. There has never been a ’scientific fact’ that someone somewhere sometime has not disputed. Science does not establish irrefutable ‘facts’: it deals in observed regularities and provisional theories.
What is done or not done about global warming will be solved by govts acting together or not at all. In that sense the individual can cease biting his nails about whether to switch the aircon off. If (s)he chooses to, (s)he can. It is a drop in the ocean, but it is a drop nonetheless and its greatest value lies in it being the individual’s free choice. That is forever open to us all.
A more certain way for the individual to act is through pressure groups, publicity and the rest of the democratic process. There is no shortage of opportunity for this today. Govts worldwide are under pressure and slowly coming round to thinking something must be done.
Of course they may be too late. When weren’t govts too late? Of course there will be people who say it will not ‘work’ even then.
Maybe add to your research those rivers running past mines and industrial areas, and those running past factory farms where animal waste is draining into them.
You are probably aware of the damage agricultural runoff/waste, fertilizers, pesticides etc. has done to the Hartebeesport dam.
You say: “To be sure, the (dirty) industrial activity of communist and socialist countries contributed significantly to the pollution of the Earth, as well as to climate change through carbon emissions, but the differentiating factor between these economic systems and capitalism is precisely the latter’s unrelenting pursuit of “growth”.”
Both economic systems are potential polluters as long as they get away with it. Capitalist industrial activities are notorious polluters in under developed countries where legislation and controls are limited by lack of knowledge and corruption. Remember SHELL in Nigeria?
I do not think that the relationship between pollution and global warming is a “1 on 1” of cause and effect. The real problem is the amount of human beings on this earth, consuming far beyond the potential of Mother Earth to replace these necessities and dumping the remnants in heaps of non-perishable materials.
The NEF ( www.neweconomics.org ) has been addressing issues of this nature for a long time. It has come with proposals of a pragmatic nature aimed at changing the economic thinking of the current capitalist system.
A more radical proposal would be to cut the world population by 75% in 25 years by closing the pharmaceutical industry (giving AIDS, Malaria, TB and Flu free range). Close the food industry and let all grow their own food in their back yard. No food, no life. Ban planes and railways for long distance transport. We might allow sail, wind or people driven transport only.
I don’t believe that your “clear divide” properly characterises the debate out there. Most politicians and commentators are, in my experience, somewhere in the middle. Their debate focuses on priorities, relative cost/benefits, the fully costed carbon consequences of particular courses of action and so on.
There was, for instance, a “Newsnight” debate on this last night (14/10) in the UK (”Greens on Trial”) where the differences between (say) Greenpeace, the Conservative Party spokesperson, the former UK Chief Scientist (King)and others were really quite subtle. None had doctrinal opposition to or support for nuclear power, all understood the fully loaded costs of new nuclear installations, weighed this against sustainable options and arrived at similar answers etc.
Awesome read, though no mention of the sun. Granted human beings have caused a vast amount of destruction to the planet in such a short time but I still don’t think we have as much say in global weather patterns or our future as the sun does. During one of Earth’s early ice ages (when things were much colder) there were naturally higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than there are now.. We’re getting closer to a massive burning ball of fire; it seems obvious things are going to heat up. Despite thinking the concept of human driven global warming causes unnecessary paranoia there is no doubt in my mind we need to rethink the way we treat all earthlings, animals, plants, and people alike. I hope UB40 were wrong, and the earth doesn’t die screaming.
Commentators are very careful what they say about nuclear energy. The nuke industry are made up of powerful people who know other powerful people in high places.
For me the answer is simple:
‘THE CODE KILLERS: AN EXPOSE ‘
Alternate title: Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, Corrupt Government, Corporate Greed, Mass Hysteria, General Ignorance, and Your DNA: A Dangerous Mix? A look at the Data
Re global warming - What do you mean no mention of the sun?
Mainstream scientific consensus agree that greenhouse gas emissions during the industrial era have dramatically exacerbated natural climate change.
The oil industry have spent millions of dollars trying to undermine mainstream scientific consensus on climate change with ‘junk science’ because it will be the end of them.
Since 2007 there has not been a single scientific body of national or international standing that has disagreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) stance that the warming of the last 50 years is anthropogenic (caused by humans).
Stick with the science, not the oil industry spin doctors.
There is little doubt that we have not evolved sufficiently to have the capability to take control over our primordial instinct; “breed to ensure the survival of the species”.
We have become oblivious to the root cause of our ecological predicament which is uncensored breeding populations. The planet cannot sustain the runaway effect as we bloom uncontrollably.
(Two planets cross orbits every 10 million years or so.)
“How things going?” says one.
“Awful” says the other. “Got humans”
“Don’t worry” says the other “They’ll soon be gone.”
Thanks Bert for tackling an urgent TL issue. I am encouraged to see this kind of debate in SA, and want to observe. But I am biased in any environmental debate. 25 Years ago I left SA into exile from the old regime. Overseas I soon became aware of other important issues, joined the Green Party, and have been a member (in 4 countries) ever since.
Today there are about 89 (coordinated, global) Green (political) Parties worldwide, making the Greens more international than what the Communists ever were. 19 in Africa – but nothing in South Africa? First founded in Australia in 1972, the Green Party has the balance of power in the Senate (with independents), so is in an influential position (like elsewhere). We get around 10% of the national vote, much higher in some electorates. Yet the Australian energy usage and green house gas emissions per capita are some of the highest in the world. But 75% view climate change as an important issue, and we influence government decisions at the ballot box.
What to say about the climate sceptics? Australia has a few too. They are about as credible as the “smoking does not cause cancer” lobby - perhaps best ignored. In our region, the low-lying island nations are most aware – some could be submerged soon. Yes, environmentalists have been overly pessimistic in the past, but that does not diminish the dangers. It is time fix the old issues and to move on issues that are vital to humankind.
Whether there is an ecological crisis or not tends to be irrelevant. The degeneration of human values worldwide continues to create a culture that can but lead to self destruction of the human race. There is not a man or woman alive who can restore moral values fast or wide enough to recreate the conditions essential to revival.
Bert Oliver recognized the human factor when he wrote: “There is overwhelming evidence, moreover, that it has been of human making…..” but then incorrectly blames: “blind pursuit of an economic system”. No system eliminates human frailty however.
As has been mentioned above, overpopulation is the big offender but no one in authority will take unpopular steps to reverse the trend.
I repeat: both population numbers AND consumption are the problem. And we humans are also animals, and are driven by the same urges, in order to pass our genes on. Having sex, eating and accumulating relative wealth are primal urges overlain by a very clever brain. The clever brain has been a blessing and a curse. Ultimately it will be our curse unless we stop farting about talking about hidden agendas, conspiracies etc. Yes, they are probably all true. Think globally, act locally, keep an open mind, and before going on about conspiracy theories and hidden agendas, get the NON rocket science platform down (this is what all the smart people out there don’t do). Read a bit about population ecology, then overlay that (critically) with the other stuff.
Motivated by an early contributor: It’s certainly plausible that financial agendas are at play in the propagation of an ecological crisis. One need spend less time wondering, however, what agendas spur on economic growth at all costs, or why even Kovel’s frightening list would need to be nebulised by rapacious (neoliberal) capitalism. As for Pascal’s ‘wager’ it has no real punches for this heavier division. After all, we’re talking big bucks here. And if we’ve stared Kovel’s list in the face, and other lists besides, what difference will dear Blaise make? Anyway, what I liked about the article, amongst other things, was its sober call to make up one’s mind, together with a kind of generous deference to denialists.Moreover, many of us aren’t scientists. Hell, I can’t even prove they walked on the moon. (What’s that? They didn’t? You got me.)
Having said that there appears to be substantial consensus on the parameters of the problem in the UK (and in Europe) and that the debate has therefore largely found a middle ground, where are the extremists?
During the programme I mentioned in my earlier post some of the background interviews pointed to a minority of hard core greens who were deeply lacking in pragmatism, charm and flexibility, who not only failed to persuade others but actually harmed the cause. We all know the type: all movements, especially “righteous” ones, attract a fringe of messianic nutters.
Where are the staunch denialists from the opposite pole? Do they really exist in significant numbers outside (admittedly large and influential) America?
The Chinese are a different case I think: not denialists but with tolerances that are calibrated differently because of their economic circumstances.
Global warming is a minor issue. As a scientist I don’t have a problem considering the ‘natural cycle’ argument, clearly they exist. But get ready, and have your children ready, for what is happening. This is not speculation. The fishermen on the east coast of the USA now fish for jellyfish, because there are no more fish. The immense tuna industry of Southern California moved to Samoa, because there were no more fish. One could write out books of facts, but not in the 165 words I have here. Global warming is regarded as fact, screw natural cycling, this is happening in time over essentially one day, get real, grab some perspective. But it is a symptom, not the problem to be fixed by a suture. Bleeding profusely, the planet is being killed by humankinds’ know-it-all quick-fix attitude, as well as placing the preeminent priority on reproduction at any cost. The place is being bulldozed, get used to it, and tell your children that it might be a hard life. Bullshit speculation that global warming is some eternal cycle is not going to help your children. It is a fact. Worse still is the immediate acidification of the oceans, microscopic plastic debris, gross trash, long lines floating about, acid rain decimating forests rendering them to beetle infestation, the spread of disease (rapid and rapidly resistant); what kind of myopic world are you living in. As it was said above, the earth will take care of itself.
Animals have an instict to “breed to ensure the survival of the species”. Humans usually have other motivations.
In industrialised societies people appear to breed because they want the joy of children and a family. There might be the odd ‘oops’ but that is not wanting to breed while you satify your baser instict for physical pleasure.
In some traditional societies breeding is for other reasons, security in old age, i.e. many children to look after you (a pension plan), it could be for status, many wives and many children show a man of means. Having many daughters could bring in a lot of dowry and wealth. Many sons can herd the cattle etc.
Breeding in poor societies can also be due to no access to contraception and not the basic instict to perpetuate the species.
If you want negative population growth, increase the education and material standards of those societies with high birth rates, it works.
Don’t make the problem of overconsumption which is a feature of the wealthiest societies the problem of the poor.
If you want to make an impact on our environment by population reduction, reduce the number of overconsumers, i.e those people in the wealthy countries.
As you say, limiting the population by law is not the solution, there are too many ethical questions, and do you really think it is practical unless you have an iron fisted totalitarian regime like China.
A UN study shows the planet’s population will peak at 9,2 billion in 2050, and elswhere I saw that with time the population is expected to eventually decline to as little as 3,5 billion, not in our lifetimes though.
The Food an Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations have just organised a conference to discuss how to feed 9 billion people on earth, it is an electronic conference so acess to the internet gives us a chance to participate.
Blaming a population explosion for the world’s ecological crises is a cop out for the rich nations to carry on wasting resources, stuffing their faces and driving 4X4s etc.
Most of what you regard as radical is actually progressive.
Banning nuclear weapons and energy is a laudable goal.
Reducing the population is laudable if it is done naturally by uplifting the standards in society.
Reigning in the pharmaceutical industry when they sell unnecessary drugs and vaccines that have harmful side effects is very good.
The food industry need to be restuctured to not be so environmentally damaging, and the global econmic system of the free market must be changed so that the poor can produce food or have access to it.
Planes, railways, and shipping must make use of renewable energy, and consume locally what is produced locally.
You are obviously one of a small handful of scientists who think global warming is a minor issue. 80% of climatologists (experts in climate) will tell you the opposite.
Some interesting links for the non-sceptics among us:
“Climate change may be century’s greatest health threat” ….conclusions form part of a collaborative report on the effects of climate change on health from The Lancet medical journal and the UK-based University College London, published this week (14 May). http://www.scidev.net/en/news/climate-change-may-be-century-s-greatest-health-th.html
“Maize yields may drop by 17%, wheat by 12% and rice by 10% in irrigated areas in South Asia because of climate change-induced heat and water stress, if current trends persist until 2050, …. the International Food Policy Research Institute.” http://www.livemint.com/2009/09/02215141/Food-security-under-threat-fro.html?d=2
There are very few climate sceptics in Australia because of its worst 12 year drought in living memory, ascribed by climate scientists to global warming.
Past prime minister John Howard was voted out mainly because of his climate change denialist beliefs.
The climate sceptics in Aus have been laughed out of town.
Prof. Olivier, what does the state of the environment say about its rulers, mankind? Are projects, like Dr. Craig.J.Venter’s, to use algae to change carbon emissions into lipids, oils, going to redeem us? Or is it just a case of delaying the inevitable destruction of our own habitat because we are malfunctioning? Ray Kurzweil believes we are going to evolve into spiritual machines where we take a guiding hand in our own evolution, through brain enhancements and other means that I know too little about. Given our track record, do you think this is a pipe dream, or will we eventually get it right, even though there may be millions of lives wasted in the process? I ask these questions, because I have a hunch that we are approaching this in the same way we do economics, by trying to spend our way out of debt.
@Andy
Sorry but I thought we were also animals albeit wrapped up in the trappings of “intelligence” and “civilization”.
However, I think we can agree that the population bloom is of critical concern and is not being given internationally prominence although there is much bleating to deaf ears. The resultant symptom, the stressed biodiversity created by anthropogenic related activities has taken centre stage.
It appears there is no money in reducing the population
From an evolutionary perspective we breed because we need to pass on our genes, the vehicle for that is the emotions/instinct of love and lust. Looking after, loving family members does the same. On top of that of course is the cognitive ability to realise that using contraception can prevent conception.
Back to “the solution to the problem”. Most people on this site are obsessed with one explanation, hence Andy’s apparent obsession that overconsumption by the rich alone drives the problem. Certainly it is the technology behind this overconsumption yes, that same technology has driven the population explosion by increasing survival rates and life expectancies. Denying that this is part of the problem is dangerous. Someone mentioned that nature will take control eventually in any case. Yes, i agree, but we have even left nature with seriously reduced means to continue on the course of speciation and maintenance of biodiversity. We are in an extinction spasm as devastating as the last 5(?)Climate change is no myth (I believe), but in some cases it IS detracting from other issues (there is a knee jerk acceptance of climate change as the main cause of rangeland degradation for example). So instead of looking at ways to better manage rangelands people are focussed on throwing loads of money at climate change adaptation and mitigation while carrying on with lousy rangeland management. The trick is to use the climate change bandwagon to to improve our understanding and management of ecosystems generally.
Immediately steralise anyone who uses their more than equal and fair share of our natural resources, or adds more than their share to pollution. Don’t make overconsumption the problem of the people who live on less than two dollars a day. Give them the opportunity to achieve a reasonable life style where they can choose not to have than two children, as is happening in the industrialised countries in Europe.
See how the rich suddenly find ways to curtail their wasteful and unsustainable habits!!!
Technology is not the cause of the problem and it can certainly provide solutions.
Greed coupled with ignorance causes overconsumption and ecological deterioration. Technology provides the material products that are overconsumed by the greedy and the ignorant.
Technology also provides, solar, wind, wave and tidal energy - one solution. Modern scientific organic agriculture that is less harmful to the environment is another technological solution.
Contraceptives are a technologial solution, electronic media as opposed to print media is a techonlogical solution.
The list of modern technology that can help maintain 9 billion people on this planet in an ecologically sustainable manner is endless.
In response to the above, climate change is a minor issue, and I would suspect that I am in a majority of scientists. Greening and carbon footprints are not going to change what is happening, namely, beyond gas guzzling transportation, that most species as we know them will be gone shortly after the polar bear. Acidification of the oceans, gross overfishing, fast elimination of groundwater, and so on endlessly will affect your children, speaking of hundreds of millions, before methane, heat, carbon dioxide affect them. Fix it with your green car that relies on electricity (coal fired), and deny that global warming is a small issue. You are the big issue, and get used to it.
Franco - What it says about our species is that we are, despite our cleverness, very short-sighted, bellicose, selfish and greedy. No sooner had we evolved beyond the stage where we had to fight predators for our survival, and become sufficiently self-conscious to be able to accept that we are, as a species, the ‘guardian’ of other, less technologically powerful species, than we (most of our species, anyway) became obsessed with the accumulation of material wealth. Ray Kurzweil is, in my view, dreaming if he thinks we are on our way to becoming spiritual machines. That rests on the faulty model of humans as computers, with a hardware/software combination. We are simply not like that - we are embodied beings through and through - read Merleau-Ponty and Lyotard on this question. As for the rest of the debate going on here - which is very healthy, I believe - I think those who are still denying the seriousness of climate change are deluded - the majority of scientists in the world accept that it is a reality, and that it can cause unpredictable, chaotic climatic conditions in a very short time. Sure, the other ways in which we are messing up the planet are equally serious, such as polluting the oceans and rivers, and the like. Unless there is a collective mind-shift towards a completely different way of living, we are in for a rough ride, although we cannot predict what it will be. Read my ‘The mathematics of chaos’ on TL.
Electric cars will go along way to fixing the problem. They will be charged by renewable energy.
The Germans have designed a system whereby they have linked a country-wide network of solar, wind, hydro and biomass plants, that consistently deliver the same amount of power as a conventional power station. You might not have noticed but Andy posted this link earlier, also written by a group of scintists, and this is actually being implemented by the Germans:
“Germany to go 100% renewable energy by 2050 (and you can’t fool them Germans)
New Zealand has committed itself to 95% renewable energy within 20 years.
Lucky you are not pushing your climate change views in Australia, they are pretty tetchy right now after an horrendous 12 year drought climate scientists ascribe to anthropogenic causes, (too much CO2 and other greenhouse gases).
Overfishing is a problem, the domestic pig and chicken grown in factory farms and fed fish are decimation our oceans. Humanity need to drastically down or eliminate their meat intake.
In addition, cut down on your meat intake and you will cut down methane emissions.
Groundwater is going to become even scarcer if you stubbornly believe climate change is only a natural phenomenon, however industry, agriculture and forestry can all make a contribution to overcoming a shortage of groundwater.
All the problems you mention can be solved by stopping overconsumption including wastful living and industrial production methods.
It looks to me as if you are more interested in diverting peoples attention away from anthopogenic climate change than offering solutions to the problems you raise.
Andy, you are stating an obvious but important point when you say that technology can be both a solution as well as the problem. There are not enough words available to include everything into an argument. Its just so amazing to me how confident everyone is about 9 billion to 11 billion people living “sustainably” on the planet with this clean technology. What is sustainable? Sustainable development is something of an oxymoron. The problem with finding alternative energy sources and technologies is that it gives us the means to degrade the land even more. A solar powered tractor (is there such a thing?) destroys habitat and soil just as well as a diesel powered one. Greed is just an over manifestation of what is natural in all of us. We are temporarily on parole from the prison of the sun (so much energy from the sun to go around, but we are cashing in on the fossil fuels) and to make our lives a bit easier in the future, we need laws to replace the laws of the prison of the sun that have been temporarily made more lenient through technology. “Clean technology” can do just as much harm as dirty technology if we don’t get it through our thick clever skulls that we have to find tricks to help us deal with the brain and thought patterns that evolution has provided us with. Smarty pants psychologists would have us deny that evolutionary psychology is of any value
I find it interesting that no one mentions the Precautionary Principle. It has been one of the key elements for policy decisions concerning environmental protection and management for more than decade. It is applied in the circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for concern that an activity is, or could, cause harm but where there is uncertainty about the probability of the risk and the degree of harm.
The Precautionary Principle has been endorsed internationally on many occasions. At the Earth Summit meeting at Rio in 1992, World leaders agreed on Agenda 21, which advocated the widespread application of the PP in the following terms:
‘In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.’ (Principle 15)
It has NOTHING to do with having to PROVE the demise of our planet. We can carry on business as usual and watch it go OR we can change the way we live (ALL of us). Nature WILL take its course (as Paul stated above).
And no one has really mentioned here that the lack of WATER (never mind clean water) is really what is going to destroy the human race. Google Blue Gold - Maud Barlow’s Special Report issued by the International Forum on Globalisation in 2001!!
You should not throw figures around willy nilly. A recent UN study concluded the world population will peak in 2050 at 9.2 billion. After a period of stabilility world population will start to decrease.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation is soon to have an electronic conference on how to feed 9 billion. Maybe you can join and ask them to answer your questions about sustainably supporting 9 billion.
Only an idiot would choose to use ‘clean technology’ that does as much harm as ‘dirty technology’, would you not agree?
If you can have an electric car you can have an electric tractor, charge it with solar, wind, wave or tidally generated elecricity, not coal or nuclear generated electricity.
What about biogas tractors? Run off biogas generated from animal manure or human sewerage?
Really not such a shitty idea?
What about using green algae to power tractors with biodiesel?
Hi Andy
Have to tell you missed my point. Firstly, the only figures I quoted were the ones you and someone else quoted (9 and 11 billion), I was disagreeing with them as being truly sustainable population sizes. Its not only rich people that have degraded the planet, it is also poor people (usually in a different form). These same people are not living sustainably and in their case its to do with numbers, not consumption patterns.
I have NO PROBLEM with clean technology, what I was saying is that to place so much faith in clean technology as a solution to all our problems is wrong, because, clean technology can do just as much harm to the land and the waters as dirty technology. I am definitely in favour of clean technology.
So clean technologies are part of the solution, convincing people, and putting effective policies in place is another, and UNDERSTANDING our evolutionary mindset is another. Oh yes, and agreeing that PEOPLE overpopulation is ALSO part of the problem. Thanks for the websites. I will definitely make an effort, once the work pressure eases up a bit. By the way, I am going to do my bit for global climate change on Thursday, I’m going to burn some veld and add some carbon to the atmosphere!
As long as we understand that the best way to bring about negative population growth is by increasing education and economic security for those populations with high birth rates.
Some skills training and a fairer global economic system, access to land, water, markets and resources would go a long way to poor people living sustainably.
I repeat what I said in a post further up “negative population growth is desirable - an interesting link, ’sub-replacement fertility’, already a reality in several countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
The overpopulation argument is too often used to shift the blame from overconsumers onto indefensible people that only need some education and an opportunity in life for them not to abuse the environment.
They overgraze, cause erosion and water pollution because they have no option. Its not easy to survive on less than two dollars a day.
Burning as part of good veld management can hardly be cause for concern. Preserving our grasslands and prairies is a noble task in the battle to combat climate change.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Bert Olivier is Professor of Philosophy at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. He holds an MA and DPhil in philosophy, has held postdoctoral fellowships in philosophy at Yale University in the US on more than one occasion, and has held a research fellowship at the University of Wales, Cardiff.
At NMMU he teaches various sub-disciplines of philosophy, as well as film studies, media and architectural theory, and psychoanalytic theory. He has published widely in the philosophy of culture, art and architecture, cinema, music and literature, as well as the philosophy of science, epistemology, psychoanalytic, social, media and discourse theory. In 2004 he was awarded the Stals Prize for Philosophy by the South African Academy for Arts and Sciences, in 2005 he received the award of Top Researcher at NMMU for the period 1999 to 2004, in 2006 the award for Top Researcher in the Faculty of Arts at NMMU, and in 2008 and 2009 he was both Faculty of Arts Researcher of the Year, and NMMU Researcher of the Year.
In my last post, I placed Cameron's Avatar in the interpretive framework of eco-political thought and practice. One could approach it in different way...
James Cameron's latest film, Avatar, is, as far as I can judge, a highly significant film, at least as important as the first two Terminator films (an...
In my previous post I said that one has to go further (as Kierkegaard himself went further) than the two Kierkegaardian models discussed earlier. More...
In my previous post, I reconstructed Kierkegaard's aesthetic model for existence briefly, pointing out the implications this way of living has for hum...
In Either/Or, Volumes I and II, Kierkegaard constructs different models of human existence. They seem to be primarily intended by him as mirrors in wh...
Loading ...
A few undercurrents from the Zeitgeist:
1) The major proponents have still not presented any tangible evidence that humans are causing climate change. Much of the so called evidence remains closed to peer review. The balance of the research is based on data which is disputable (e.g. ice core samples, surface temperature readings from weather stations in areas which have become urbanized)
2) There is obviously an agenda at play here, which will benefit the financiers (follow the money…)
3) We cannot spend our way out of the problem. The cost/benefit ratio is absurd. We should rather be looking at accepting the inevitable and planning accordingly with regards to climate change. Some regions will benefit substantially by climate change. e.g. food will become abundant.
4) The prospect of a ecologically friendly, and sustainable way of life is noble and I am glad that it is finally being taken seriously. I am concerned however at the potentially sinister forces driving the change. Will we eventually end up being taxed through carbon taxation for the air we breathe?
5) There is an undercurrent beginning to emerge in the Zeitgeist that overpopulation is the main cause. It only takes 2 brain cells to extrapolate where this kind of thinking could lead. Is this so-called engineered crisis an attempt to create these thought patterns?
(Report abuse)