A Smaller Human Population For a Sustainable Future Clifton Ware Copyright © 2023 Clifton Ware
Humanity’s Ecological Impact—in Size, Scale, Scope, and Speed
In alliance with a growing number of reputable socio-ecologists, I’m convinced a smaller global human population may potentially provide a more livable and sustainable planet. I also agree that attaining a stable state presents a formidable challenge, and will require taking urgent measures to prevent, mitigate, adapt, and restore the ecological damage our expanding human superorganism has perpetrated.
Because ecocide is generally associated with humanity’s substantial adverse impacts, an increasing number of experts commonly refer to our human-centered era as the Anthropocene. Another term—the Great Acceleration—is being used to emphasize the speed at which harmful planetary effects are occurring. Yet another apt description—The Great Unraveling—was the title of a 2004 book by American economist and columnist Paul Krugman, and the Post Carbon Institute recently published a free online report titled Welcome to the Great Unraveling: Navigating the Polycrisis.
Sustainability experts warn that, by continuing our current growth trajectory of population and consumption, we are hastening the potential for ecological tipping points. Any failing system, whether of human or ecological origins, can potentially generate positive growth-and-collapse feedback loops that, in turn, affect other systems. This possibility presents a somber realization: if humanity fails to ameliorate and/or avert long-term cataclysmic ecological effects, the consequences will be dire for all lifeforms, including our species. In sum, we need to adopt and implement strategies, methods, and techniques that address all challenges, as determined by the most accomplished collective expertise we can muster.
In this paper I present an outline summary of topics warranting both in-depth and top-down attention by world leaders, along with bottom-up collective thought and action by world citizens. I think you will agree that most global citizens—leaders and followers—need to better understand the complex symbiotic interrelationships within and among all life systems. Such a complex, complicated goal will require a holistic consideration of all systemic processes in all dimensions—environmental, scientific, economic, socio-cultural, geopolitical, et al.
All the while, it will especially help to realize how exceptionally dependent we are in consuming carbon-based energy sources (fossil fuels) to help power most human activities. Clearly, humanity will increasingly face inevitable scarcity and decline of all resources needed for sustaining most lifeforms, particularly if those of us in the more developed world continue enjoying past and current extravagant levels of consumption.
A growing community of sustainability experts concur that the neoliberal economic paradigm, which has persevered for the last hundred years or so, is a defective operating system for our species, and even more so for our planet’s biosphere. For the past several decades humanity has blindly accepted the culturally-acquired belief that ongoing, unlimited material growth (consumption) is possible. As more people are realizing, however, this modern “all material growth is good” myth is a terribly flawed concept, a civilizational addiction contested only by a relatively small yet well-informed and growing cadre of socio-ecological activists, including this author. The principal message espoused by this eco-oriented group is this:
As long as our human population remains overpopulated—continuing to grow and overconsume finite resources—the life-sustaining capacity of the Earth’s biosphere will increasingly experience harmful impacts, in turn negatively affecting all lifeforms that have existed alongside our species for the past 12,000 years, plus other lifeforms that have existed for millions of years.
At this critical juncture in our journey to the future, it appears we must decide which of two principal directions we will choose to pursue. The status-quo “business as usual” direction in which we’re currently headed is especially perilous. By ignoring the pervasive systemic role of population growth, we effectively leave the responsibility for managing population numbers to Mother Nature. Also, without a carefully strategized humane approach to lowering population, the possibility of multiple cascading crises spiraling out of control and causing a partial to total collapse of civilization and ecosystems appears evermore likely.
Although many current flora and fauna species are increasingly endangered, and thousands projected to go extinct in coming decades, many species may eventually adapt to changing biophysical conditions—if an eco-savvy, smaller human population allows the ecosphere to stabilize (as well as possible). Perhaps the only positive news this narrative presents is that, without our domineering presence, evolutionary processes may continue promoting species capable of acclimating to changing ecological conditions. Yes, the Earth will eventually survive, and new species will evolve, but the biophysical conditions enjoyed by humanity for the past ten-thousand or so years will never be the same again.
Of course, the alternative direction provides a more positive approach and desired long-term outcome. The major challenge will be urgently coalescing humanity to collectively strategize and implement short-to-intermediate and long-term humane measures. The primary objective will require developing a comprehensive plan with the potential of strategically and systematically lowering human numbers over several decades—until a stable population can be realized. According to population activists, this is the direction in which we should be heading—posthaste!
Regardless of which direction we choose, the lives of current and future world citizens will be far more challenged going forward. For anyone seriously concerned about enjoying a satisfactory future life, it’s essential to prepare well for facing potentially harsh survival conditions. Sadly, the ideal time for making practical long-term survival plans was decades ago, during the 1970s. Yet, we must do something. Waiting longer will only allow world conditions to worsen faster. Whatever solutions are considered, they will probably include symbiotic combinations of retro, contemporary, and innovative approaches.
In concluding this section, I reemphasize the single goal that might help most of Earth’s remaining species to survive and perhaps flourish: humanely lowering human population and consumption of limited resources. The formula I=PAT, as proposed by Paul R. Ehrlich and John P. Holdren in the early 1970s, provides a way to calculate humankind’s overall impact on the ecosphere. IPAT represents the four principal factors that help explain our developing ecological crises. Thus, Impact (effects) = (is the result of) Population (size) x Affluence (consumption) x Technology. Note that population is the main driving factor, effectively amplifying per-capita consumption of merchandise and the resource input/output of the technologies used.
As for what should be done to attain a sustainable future, population experts agree that all strategies used must be practical and humane. For instance, overconsumption is inadvertently addressed with official policies that disincentivize the production and consumption of products deemed harmful (dangerous chemicals) or unessential (luxury items). Of course, taxation has proven useful as a harmless and effective disincentive method. For instance, taxing income and financial transactions of high earners helps reduce the income gap between lowest to highest earners, thereby allowing for more socio-economic equality and equity. ...
Read more here: http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv19n10page12.html
*** With friendly permission of the author Clifton Ware (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1529696373941435/user/100001782589783/