Ashwani and Forum:
I heartily agree: "Its roosting time, folks. Anything we can possibly do
about population will have a lag time of decades. Anything we do about
consumption and pollution can have immediate impacts. The choice is ours."
Simply put, however, a "stable" human population of any size will either
adjust to some combination of relevant elements that make up whatever
carrying capacity is with respect to that population. It will also be up to
those humans, for better or for worse, to allocate ("choose") those elements
over time optimally for the species, for a cultural (competitive), or for a
social (cooperative) compact. In the process, the direction of the TREND
that is resolved from those allocations, in the direction of degradation or
enhancement.
Are these first principles or principles at all? If so, must they influence
every launch into the teeth of reality or can we set them aside whilst we
wander down the warrens of greater and greater complexity?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ashwani Vasishth" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Overpopulation / Economics and Ecology
Actually, I think this is a conversation that needs to happen here--both
because ecologists need to be engaged in this discussion, and because a
truly ecological perspective is sorely missing from the population debate.
May I submit that, from a process-function view, that population is not
the big problem for planetary carrying capacity--rather we need to be
watching consumption and pollution, and that includes GHG emissions.
Ehrlich and Holdren and Commoner gave us I=P*A*T. As a life-long Third
Worlder, I would suggest there are real reasons why population cannot be
the wedge we use to get at carrying capacity. But at least, read Kates,
Population, Technology and the Human Environment: A Thread Through Time.
I'm sure we have a carrying capacity problem. But a sustainability frame
includes equity. Making this about population puts the problem of
carrying capacity on the shoulders of the Third World. In effect, we
externalize the problem onto "them," and can then sit back and enjoy the
"fruits of Western Civilization" for ourselves. Making this about
consumption, and to some extent about pollution, puts the problem squarely
where I believe it belongs, on us.
Think about it. The world population is at 6.7 billion (and most likely
to stabilize around nine billion). America has a population of 300
million and is said to use 30% of the world's resources. India and China
have a population of over 2.5 billion, and they want what we got--mainly
because we've spent decades telling them that what we got is what they
ought to want. Hollywood ensures that the American "way of life" be the
ideal that all civilizations shoot for, in order to show that they too are
modern.
Its roosting time, folks. Anything we can possibly do about population
will have a lag time of decades. Anything we do about consumption and
pollution can have immediate impacts. The choice is ours.
And yes, innovation, though taken differently than Julian Simon meant it,
is still the answer.
Cheers,
-
Ashwani
Vasishth [email protected] (818) 677-6137
--------------------------------------------------------
Director
Institute for Sustainability
http://blogs.csun.edu/sustainability
Assistant Professor
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
--------------------------------------------------------
At 9:29 AM -0500 12/18/08, Kevin Mueller wrote:
I think some folks are still missing Jane's point about overpopulation.
While I wouldn't disagree with Andy or Bill's responses regarding the
validity of borders to overpopulation in some contexts, both of these
responses ignore that 'overpopulation' at a sub-global scale can be
alleviated by imports, etc. (e.g. Canada as Andy describes).
Globalization is not going away soon, regardless if some would rather see
populations and economies be sustainable at the local or regional level.
As long as the economy is global, I think the most relevant scale to
discuss overpopulation is at the global level (but not the only,
especially you you are living in the third world).
I have not heard or read anything which convinces me that we can't sustain
our current growing population (globally or within the US for example)
with some wealth and food redistribution and reasonable technological
advances. For example, how do we know we are not underestimating the
contribution of innovation as EhrIich did? I am NOT suggesting that there
aren't costs of globalization (e.g. burning fossil fuel to import food to
Canada), that there aren't regions of overpopulation currently not 'saved'
by globalization (e.g. Africa), or that technology will save us all and we
should continue business as usual. Anyone know of any good books or
articles addressing the sustainability of global populations? I am
especially looking for positions with solid backing here rather than
editorials, although I know there is lots of gray there.
Should we think about continuing this discussion in a new venue to spare
those not as interested and not dilute the job adverts, etc?
Perhaps a list-serve or other venue aimed explicitly at Ecology and
Economics would be more appropriate?
Kevin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1853 - Release Date: 12/17/2008
8:31 AM
