Limits to growth

[Greg Boyles]

New Scientist, 7 January 2012

 

Forty years ago, a highly controversial study warned that we had to curb growth or risk global collapse. Does the prediction still hold, asks Debora MacKenzie

 

AT THE beginning of the 1970s, a group of young scientists set out to explore our future. Their findings shook a generation and may be even more relevant than ever today.

 

The question the group set out to answer was: what would happen if the world's population and industry continued to grow rapidly? Could growth continue indefinitely or would we start to hit limits at some point? In those days, few believed that there were any limits to growth – some economists still don't. Even those who accepted that on a finite planet there must be some limits usually assumed that growth would merely level off as we approached them.

 

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328462.100-boom-and-doom-revisiting-prophecies-of-collapse.html

Edited January 9, 2012 by swansont
copyright

[Essay]

New Scientist, 7 January 2012

...Right on!

 

 

 

What was shocking was that their simulations, far from showing growth continuing forever, or even levelling out, suggested that it was most likely that boom would be followed by bust: a sharp decline in industrial output, food production and population. In other words, the collapse of global civilisation.

 

What's more, instead of stabilising at the peak levels, or oscillating around them, in almost all model runs population and industry go into a sharp decline once they peak. "If present growth trends in world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next 100 years. The most probable result will be a sudden and rather uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity," the book warned.

 

This was unexpected and shocking.

It's hard to believe that only 40 years ago they didn't know how that behaviour is standard for complex systems --didn't know about chaos theory, stable attractors, simple robust non-linear systems-- and how the world is filled with nothing but physical and biological examples of such boom-n-bust cycles.

 

 

 

And most importantly, says Randers, in the real world there are delays before limits are understood, institutions act or remedies take effect. These delayed responses were programmed into World3. The model crashed because its hypothetical people did not respond to the mounting problems before underlying support systems, such as farmland and ecosystems, had been damaged.

 

Instead, they carried on consuming and polluting past the point the model world could sustain. The result was what economists call a bubble and Limits called overshoot.

Yes, this is the reason scientist sometimes get characterized as "alarmist" or "running around with their hair on fire." If you were uniquely positioned to see the impending overshoot, and the likely delay, then you might feel obligated to run around sounding the alarm.

 

The other message missed was not that humanity was doomed, but that catastrophe could be averted. In model runs where growth of population and industry were constrained, growth did level out rather than collapse – the stabilised scenario.

...if the alarm is heeded in time!

 

 

 

Yet the Limits team had tested this. In some runs, they gave World3 unlimited, non-polluting nuclear energy – which allowed extensive substitution and recycling of limited materials – and a doubling in the reserves of nonrenewables that could be economically exploited. All the same, the population crashed when industrial pollution soared. Then fourfold pollution reductions were added as well: this time, the crash came when there was no more farmland.

 

Adding in higher farm yields and better birth control helped in this case. But then soil erosion and pollution struck, driven by the continuing rise of industry. Whatever the researchers did to eke out resources or stave off pollution, exponential growth was simply prolonged, until it eventually swamped the remedies.

...it always comes down to the health of the soil, I notice.

 

 

Only when the growth of population and industry were constrained, and all the technological fixes applied, did it stabilise in relative prosperity.

 

Starting from the current conditions, no plausible assumptions produce any result but overshoot.

Yikes!!! ...But I bet they didn't know about this new information --the recent paradigm shift on humus and soil carbon-- and how it relates to so many of the parameters in their model.

 

-[Title slide2: SciAm; Nov., 2011]

New paradigms about soil & humus—and their connections with land use, agricultural productivity & yield, climate & the carbon cycle, and socioeconomic resilience & the Millennium Development Goals—all make an affirmative answer much more likely.

 

....says Bar-Yam. We need better models. "If you think the scientific basis of those conclusions can be challenged, then the answer is more science," he says. "We need a much better understanding of global dynamics." "We need to apply that knowledge, too."

...Logos & Nomos. Yep, couldn't have said it better!

 

~

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

OP trimmed, as it is a copyrighted article. Link added.

[Greg Boyles]

 

 

 

This is where a global regulatory body for scientific research and scientists is needed in my opinion.

We should be reflecting carefully on whether or not increasing food supplies is a wise strategy for dealing with the looming global food crisis.

Perhaps we would be better served to focus our efforts on addressing the underlying structural problem of to many people and to much consumption, by developing more effective and cheaper contraceptives and particularly a male contraceptive (other than condoms that is).Get all scientists singing from the same hym book rather than individual running around pursuing their own pet projectes and careers.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Greg Boyles

[Essay]

This is where a global regulatory body for scientific research and scientists is needed in my opinion.

We should be reflecting carefully on whether or not increasing food supplies is a wise strategy for dealing with the looming global food crisis.

Perhaps we would be better served to focus our efforts on addressing the underlying structural problem of to many people and to much consumption, by developing more effective and cheaper contraceptives and particularly a male contraceptive (other than condoms that is).Get all scientists singing from the same hym book rather than individual running around pursuing their own pet projects and careers.

 

===

Brief comments/replies:

 

1. This is where a global regulatory body for scientific research and scientists is needed in my opinion.

What would they focus upon?

 

2. We should be reflecting carefully on whether or not increasing food supplies is a wise strategy for dealing with the looming global food crisis.

As opposed to what--increasing housing, computer, or fuel supplies?

 

3. Perhaps we would be better served to focus our efforts on addressing the underlying structural problem of to many people and to much consumption....

Points #4 & #5, from those Five Food Security Steps, were about consumption.

 

 

I should have included some of the details from that SciAm article to make this clear; but the point about more food is not to accommodate more or extra people, but to better accommodate the existing and projected people.

 

"In Brief: The world must solve three food problems simultaneously: end hunger, double food production by 2050, and do both while drastically reducing agriculture's damage to the environment."

"By 2050 the world's population will increase by two billion or three billion, which will likely double the demand for food, according to several studies. Demand will also rise because many more people will have higher incomes, which means they will eat more, especially meat. Increasing use of cropland for biofuels will put additional demands on our farms. So even if we solve today's problems of poverty and access—a daunting task—we will also have to produce twice as much to guarantee adequate supply worldwide."

As people do better, they tend to eat higher up on the food chain.

 

http://www.scientifi...-feed-the-world

To feed the world without harming the planet, agriculture will have to produce much more food and find better ways to distribute it, while significantly cutting the damage it does to the atmosphere, habitat and water.

 

Food Access: More than one billion of the earth's seven billion people suffer from chronic hunger. Poverty and poor distribution of food must be overcome to provide adequate calories for everyone.

2.Food Production: By 2050 global population will be two billion to three billion greater, and a larger proportion of people will have higher incomes, so they will consume more per person. Farmers will need to grow twice as much as they do today.

3.Environmental Damage: To reduce harm, agriculture must stop expanding into tropical forests, raise the productivity of underperforming farmland (which could boost production 50-60 percent), use water and fertilizer far more efficiently, and prevent soil degradation.

 

It is important to emphasize that all five points (and perhaps more) must be pursued together. No single strategy is sufficient to solve all our problems. "Think… silver buckshot, not a silver bullet." –p.65

 

 

This isn't about any pet project, such as a non-condom male contraceptive; this is about fundamental socioeconomic change across many sectors of society and economy.

===

 

 

 

The New Scientist article mentioned:

 

"Only when the growth of population and industry were constrained, and all the technological fixes applied, did it stabilise in relative prosperity."

 

Even if we had ZPG right now, the crash would still come (without the industry constraints & fixes).

Even with continued PG now, the crash can be averted (with the industry constriants & fixes).

 

===

Population isn't the critical part of the problem now.

Population is already "constrained" when compared with what was projected.

 

"And while the model was too pessimistic about birth and death rates, it was too optimistic about the future impact of pollution."

===

 

Aren't they saying it is the industry & pollution part-o-the equation, rather than population, that needs more balance?

[calabi]

I think we're already close to a limit. Private companies remove jobs from the economy through, either better technology or by eliminating the competition(buying up), and the possibility of any new competition.

 

I think the number of poor people in all countries will only increase. Even if their totally apathetic, the increasing burden of this will be too great for the countries to sustain.

Edited January 9, 2012 by calabi

[Essay]

I think we're already close to a limit. Private companies remove jobs from the economy through, either better technology or by eliminating the competition(buying up), and the possibility of any new competition.

 

I think the number of poor people in all countries will only increase. Even if their totally apathetic, the increasing burden of this will be too great for the countries to sustain.

I don't think private companies remove jobs; but improved "productivity" (or increased efficiency) does cause problems, as does outsourcing, monopolies, etc. But that is just the ebb & flow of free enterprise, so it is a necessary part--being that sector which provides the growth, diversity, and novelty so important--in any sustainable system or economy. But more specifically, about being close to the edge....

It always seems that way, eh? I agree simply relying upon our old industries to provide jobs is a losing battle, but new industries should grow up to provide those needed jobs.

 

Industries focused on those 5 food security steps would provide the best return on investment, at least in the long term, so hopefully that will happen. Global education about this, and cooperation along these lines, would provide a good ROI also.

 

There is the potential for a lot of new jobs, if we focus on preparing for the future instead of remodeling the past; and these would be jobs enhancing needed development rather than extra growth.

===

This was new information to me, and I was surprised to learn about this new potential for land use to address so many economic, resource, and social problems simultaneously; how about you?

 

~

[Greg Boyles]

I should have included some of the details from that SciAm article to make this clear; but the point about more food is not to accommodate more or extra people, but to better accommodate the existing and projected people.

 

"In Brief: The world must solve three food problems simultaneously: end hunger, double food production by 2050, and do both while drastically reducing agriculture's damage to the environment."

"By 2050 the world's population will increase by two billion or three billion, which will likely double the demand for food, according to several studies. Demand will also rise because many more people will have higher incomes, which means they will eat more, especially meat. Increasing use of cropland for biofuels will put additional demands on our farms. So even if we solve today's problems of poverty and access—a daunting task—we will also have to produce twice as much to guarantee adequate supply worldwide."

As people do better, they tend to eat higher up on the food chain.

 

 

 

This isn't about any pet project, such as a non-condom male contraceptive; this is about fundamental socioeconomic change across many sectors of society and economy.

===

 

 

 

The New Scientist article mentioned:

 

"Only when the growth of population and industry were constrained, and all the technological fixes applied, did it stabilise in relative prosperity."

 

Even if we had ZPG right now, the crash would still come (without the industry constraints & fixes).

Even with continued PG now, the crash can be averted (with the industry constriants & fixes).

 

===

Population isn't the critical part of the problem now.

Population is already "constrained" when compared with what was projected.

 

"And while the model was too pessimistic about birth and death rates, it was too optimistic about the future impact of pollution."

===

 

Aren't they saying it is the industry & pollution part-o-the equation, rather than population, that needs more balance?

 

 

"Only when the growth of population and industry were constrained, and all the technological fixes applied, did it stabilise in relative prosperity."

 

Population growth has barely been constrained.

 

I should have included some of the details from that SciAm article to make this clear; but the point about more food is not to accommodate more or extra people, but to better accommodate the existing and projected people.

 

"In Brief: The world must solve three food problems simultaneously: end hunger, double food production by 2050, and do both while drastically reducing agriculture's damage to the environment."

"By 2050 the world's population will increase by two billion or three billion, which will likely double the demand for food, according to several studies. Demand will also rise because many more people will have higher incomes, which means they will eat more, especially meat. Increasing use of cropland for biofuels will put additional demands on our farms. So even if we solve today's problems of poverty and access—a daunting task—we will also have to produce twice as much to guarantee adequate supply worldwide."

As people do better, they tend to eat higher up on the food chain.

 

 

 

This isn't about any pet project, such as a non-condom male contraceptive; this is about fundamental socioeconomic change across many sectors of society and economy.

===

 

 

 

The New Scientist article mentioned:

 

"Only when the growth of population and industry were constrained, and all the technological fixes applied, did it stabilise in relative prosperity."

 

Even if we had ZPG right now, the crash would still come (without the industry constraints & fixes).

Even with continued PG now, the crash can be averted (with the industry constriants & fixes).

 

===

Population isn't the critical part of the problem now.

Population is already "constrained" when compared with what was projected.

 

"And while the model was too pessimistic about birth and death rates, it was too optimistic about the future impact of pollution."

===

 

Aren't they saying it is the industry & pollution part-o-the equation, rather than population, that needs more balance?

 

Check you history Essay.

 

Norman Borlaug intended his green revolution to provide more food for the third world long enough for the west to "tame the third world population dragon" as he put it.

 

But that is not what happened. Rather than successfully taming the third world population dragon, the green revolution caused the global popultion to triple from about 2 billion at the time to around 6 billion.

 

Ecology 101 states that the population of any species will always expand to take up the available food supply and then crash when that food supply is exhausted. Humans are no different.

 

There is every reason to believe that, if scientists successfully increase food production further, the human population will again expand to take up that additional food supply and so further compound our global problems.

[calabi]

I agree about the possibility of new industries, but what exactly would they be and whom would pay for them?

 

It seems like you would need a dictator to implement some of these changes, to limit growth, and create new industries. Its almost a contradiction. Except that we already have governments and corporations whom function as dictators under the pretence of democracy.

[Essay]

"Only when the growth of population and industry were constrained, and all the technological fixes applied, did it stabilise in relative prosperity."

 

Population growth has barely been constrained.

 

Right, but population growth rate seems to be inversely proportional to development level; so focusing on industry and the fixes, to promote development, seems more beneficial. It tackles the "too optimistic" projections, and it improves the population problem indirectly (probably more than practically enforced measures ever could).

 

Even if we had ZPG right now, the crash would still come (without the industry constraints & fixes).

Even with continued PG now, the crash can be averted (with the industry constriants & fixes).

"And while the model was too pessimistic about birth and death rates, it was too optimistic about the future impact of pollution."

 

I'm not trying to say population doesn't matter at all, but....

C'mon...

...aren't they saying it is the industry & pollution part-o-the equation, rather than population, that needs more improvement right now?

 

"Only when the growth of population and industry were constrained, and all the technological fixes applied, did it stabilise in relative prosperity."

 

Population growth has barely been constrained.

 

 

 

Check you history Essay.

 

Norman Borlaug intended his green revolution to provide more food for the third world long enough for the west to "tame the third world population dragon" as he put it.

 

But that is not what happened. Rather than successfully taming the third world population dragon, the green revolution caused the global popultion to triple from about 2 billion at the time to around 6 billion.

 

Ecology 101 states that the population of any species will always expand to take up the available food supply and then crash when that food supply is exhausted. Humans are no different.

 

There is every reason to believe that, if scientists successfully increase food production further, the human population will again expand to take up that additional food supply and so further compound our global problems.

And that is all correct, but what other option is there?

It needs to be noted that the "green" revolution is at the root of many of today's current resource problems, so this new information (within the past decade) about land use does provide a new option...

 

 

 

[Greg Boyles]

Right, but population growth rate seems to be inversely proportional to development level; so focusing on industry and the fixes, to promote development, seems more beneficial. It tackles the "too optimistic" projections, and it improves the population problem indirectly (probably more than practically enforced measures ever could).

 

Even if we had ZPG right now, the crash would still come (without the industry constraints & fixes).

Even with continued PG now, the crash can be averted (with the industry constriants & fixes).

"And while the model was too pessimistic about birth and death rates, it was too optimistic about the future impact of pollution."

 

I'm not trying to say population doesn't matter at all, but....

C'mon...

...aren't they saying it is the industry & pollution part-o-the equation, rather than population, that needs more improvement right now?

 

There are currently about 7 billion humans on Earth, perhaps a few billion of whom are affluent and have low fertility.

 

The global ecosystem is already crumbling under the weight of our collective consumption so what makes you think that it withstand further increases in consumption so that you can 'develop' the third world and hopefully reduce their fertility.

 

What makes you think that high standard of living is the sole determinant of fertility? There are many cultural factors that are independant of standard of living.

 

Since Norman Borlaug's green revolution we have dismally failed to develop the third world and reduce its fertility. The global population is triple what it was and poverty and human suffering is more widespread. What makes you think we are likely to be any more successful with development now?

 

Seems like you flogging a dead horse to me.

 

Right, but population growth rate seems to be inversely proportional to development level; so focusing on industry and the fixes, to promote development, seems more beneficial. It tackles the "too optimistic" projections, and it improves the population problem indirectly (probably more than practically enforced measures ever could).

 

Even if we had ZPG right now, the crash would still come (without the industry constraints & fixes).

Even with continued PG now, the crash can be averted (with the industry constriants & fixes).

"And while the model was too pessimistic about birth and death rates, it was too optimistic about the future impact of pollution."

 

I'm not trying to say population doesn't matter at all, but....

C'mon...

...aren't they saying it is the industry & pollution part-o-the equation, rather than population, that needs more improvement right now?

 

 

And that is all correct, but what other option is there?

It needs to be noted that the "green" revolution is at the root of many of today's current resource problems, so this new information (within the past decade) about land use does provide a new option...

 

 

 

 

I would suggest that scientists take their focus off providing more food and put it on developing better and cheaper contraceptives and more efficient means of distributing and administering them at the very least.

[calabi]

Ecology 101 states that the population of any species will always expand to take up the available food supply and then crash when that food supply is exhausted. Humans are no different.

 

I dont know if thats an official law or something but I dont think its in our nature to just use up resources. Many Island peoples, New Guinea for one example have lived for 60,000 years or so with finite resources. They used many methods, abortions, infanticides, silviculture, drainage, fallow(as a few examples), to keep them sustainable in the environment.

 

Of course the country is screwed up now but thats mainly our fault. Maybe we europeans are inferior.

[Essay]

I agree about the possibility of new industries, but what exactly would they be and whom would pay for them?

 

It seems like you would need a dictator to implement some of these changes, to limit growth, and create new industries. Its almost a contradiction. Except that we already have governments and corporations whom function as dictators under the pretence of democracy.

 

Right. No, that doesn't sound good.

 

New industries need the demand first. This is all predicated on a global recognition of the value of carbon, which is where global education and cooperation are needed. Our future will be determined by how we manage carbon. As carbon-based life forms, living in a carbon-based economy and ecosystem, it only seems to make sense. Plus it is the only sense that makes things viable in the long term, so either we will eventually figure this out... or not.

 

New Industries can produce (directly or indirectly) food, fuel and fiber, by managing the balance of carbon that cycles between the atmospheric and soil pools. Neat, huh?

 

Pyrolysis is the key to these new industries. Specifically, reductive pyrolysis....

 

 

While this book does not go into the details of reductive pyrolysis, the title suggests the direction we need to be moving.

 

~

[Greg Boyles]

 

I dont know if thats an official law or something but I dont think its in our nature to just use up resources. Many Island peoples, New Guinea for one example have lived for 60,000 years or so with finite resources. They used many methods, abortions, infanticides, silviculture, drainage, fallow(as a few examples), to keep them sustainable in the environment.

 

Of course the country is screwed up now but thats mainly our fault. Maybe we europeans are inferior.

 

 

The vast majority of humans are not educated in science, or more particularly ecology, and are not even aware that that they behave the same way as any other animal regarding reproduction and food supplies.

 

The human population has continually expanded and crashed in response to food supplies since it evolved. The latest in increase in food supply has resulted from oil derived energy but the 'oil bubble' is not going to last.

 

The vast majority of humans are no longer hunter gatherers/agriculturalists and are not living within their ecological means.

 

The only way that current populations can be sustained is by taking resources from distant parts of the globe, often from less technologically developed peoples.

 

Right. No, that doesn't sound good.

 

New industries need the demand first. This is all predicated on a global recognition of the value of carbon, which is where global education and cooperation are needed. Our future will be determined by how we manage carbon. As carbon-based life forms, living in a carbon-based economy and ecosystem, it only seems to make sense. Plus it is the only sense that makes things viable in the long term, so either we will eventually figure this out... or not.

 

New Industries can produce (directly or indirectly) food, fuel and fiber, by managing the balance of carbon that cycles between the atmospheric and soil pools. Neat, huh?

 

Pyrolysis is the key to these new industries. Specifically, reductive pyrolysis....

 

 

While this book does not go into the details of reductive pyrolysis, the title suggests the direction we need to be moving.

 

~

Just another technological band aid that does not address the heart of our problems and that cannot and will not last.

[Essay]

There are currently about 7 billion humans on Earth, perhaps a few billion of whom are affluent and have low fertility.

 

The global ecosystem is already crumbling under the weight of our collective consumption so what makes you think that it withstand further increases in consumption so that you can 'develop' the third world and hopefully reduce their fertility.

 

What makes you think that high standard of living is the sole determinant of fertility? There are many cultural factors that are independant of standard of living.

 

Since Norman Borlaug's green revolution we have dismally failed to develop the third world and reduce its fertility. The global population is triple what it was and poverty and human suffering is more widespread. What makes you think we are likely to be any more successful with development now?

 

Maybe you missed the second half of that title (after the 2050 date)... "while greatly reducing environmental damage."

 

That is sort of the main point really. The green revolution was about a few making lots of money by feeding extra people while destroying the environment.

This new knowledge allows many people to make a little money by feeding planned people while fixing the environment.

 

 

 

recall - over 30% of GHG emissions can be managed through land-use sectors.

 

~ ?

[Greg Boyles]

I agree about the possibility of new industries, but what exactly would they be and whom would pay for them?

 

It seems like you would need a dictator to implement some of these changes, to limit growth, and create new industries. Its almost a contradiction. Except that we already have governments and corporations whom function as dictators under the pretence of democracy.

 

 

I dread to think that you are right calabi, that it will take suspension of democracy for several decades in order to alter are current disaterous path. But that would require we get a very benevolent and environmentall aware dictatorship.......unlikely. Perhaps we will just have to settle for a dictatorship that simply removes much of the incentive to procreate for the majority of people.

 

Maybe you missed the second half of that title (after the 2050 date)... "while greatly reducing environmental damage."

 

That is sort of the main point really. The green revolution was about a few making lots of money by feeding extra people while destroying the environment.

This new knowledge allows many people to make a little money by feeding planned people while fixing the environment.

 

 

 

recall - over 30% of GHG emissions can be managed through land-use sectors.

 

~ ?

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like the carbon sequestration that is perpetually just another decade away.

The above is a pipe dream rather than a practical possibility.

Another technological band aid that will briefly reduce the pain until the global wound becomes positively gangrenous.

[Essay]

Just another technological band aid that does not address the heart of our problems and that cannot and will not last.

I realize this is cross-posted, but to be clear:

 

Pyrolysis directly addresses the "heart of our problems," which is managing the balance of carbon--and the balance of food, fuel, and fiber--in the global biogeochemosphere.

 

[edit] ...and should not be confused with "carbon capture & sequestration" technology, which is an ill-conceived, dangerous, uneconomical, band aide (imho).

Edited January 9, 2012 by Essay

[calabi]

The vast majority of humans are not educated in science, or more particularly ecology, and are not even aware that that they behave the same way as any other animal regarding reproduction and food supplies.

 

The human population has continually expanded and crashed in response to food supplies since it evolved. The latest in increase in food supply has resulted from oil derived energy but the 'oil bubble' is not going to last.

 

The vast majority of humans are no longer hunter gatherers/agriculturalists and are not living within their ecological means.

 

The only way that current populations can be sustained is by taking resources from distant parts of the globe, often from less technologically developed peoples.

 

 

New guinea people were not scientists, yet they solved these problems. Its nothing to do with intelligence that these problems are not being solved. People have to see that their is a problem. You can see that people are responsive to these things. The popularity of FairTrade food. Increase in recycling, and lots of other things. The main impediment is governments and companies.

[Greg Boyles]

I realize this is cross-posted, but to be clear:

 

Pyrolysis directly addresses the "heart of our problems," which is managing the balance of carbon--and the balance of food, fuel, and fiber--in the global biogeochemosphere.

 

 

 

The heart of our problems is that there are two many people burning fossil fuels and felling forrests in the first place. If we were not clearing forests at an astronomical rate there would be no need to attempt to artificially sequester carbon via pyrolysis.

 

New guinea people were not scientists, yet they solved these problems. Its nothing to do with intelligence that these problems are not being solved. People have to see that their is a problem. You can see that people are responsive to these things. The popularity of FairTrade food. Increase in recycling, and lots of other things. The main impediment is governments and companies.

 

They solved nothing. Disease/lack of modern medicine and no ability to increase food production through technology has kept their numbers in check. Perfect ecological balance. Modern medicine and technology disturbs ecological balance, and the sooner westerners acknowledge this the better off we will all be.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Greg Boyles

[calabi]

They solved nothing. Disease/lack of modern medicine and no ability to increase food production through technology has kept their numbers in check. Perfect ecological balance. Modern medicine and technology disturbs ecological balance, and the sooner westerners acknowledge this the better off we will all be.

 

 

If disease, lack of medicine was the only population controls then they would have still ended up like Easter Island. Why use population control methods like abortion, and infanticide if disease was already removing enough people? If they did not practice silviculture they would not have had any trees. They built irrigation systems, refined intensive farming systems where they had plentiful food for everyone.

 

 

I couldnt find any info on the web about the History of New Guinea, but heres another similar Island where the people have lived sustainably for about 3000 years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikopia

Edited January 10, 2012 by calabi

[Greg Boyles]

If disease, lack of medicine was the only population controls then they would have still ended up like Easter Island. Why use population control methods like abortion, and infanticide if disease was already removing enough people? If they did not practice silviculture they would not have had any trees. They built irrigation systems, refined intensive farming systems where they had plentiful food for everyone.

 

 

I couldnt find any info on the web about the History of New Guinea, but heres another similar Island where the people have lived sustainably for about 3000 years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikopia

How do you know how many boom bust cycles there have been in 3000 years? They have certainly lived there for that long but you can't assume that their civilisation has been entirely stable, happy and harmonious for all that time. They may have just been luckier than the esater islanders in disease taking a greater toll on their infants or the resource base being more substantial.

 

And any way. IF you read Tim Flannery's The Future Eaters you would realise that central highlands New Guinea society is far from happy and harmonious.

 

They had fringe dwellers in the surrounding mountains who preyed upon the farmers, i.e. canibals.

They had a well developed system of retribution involving entire families and multiple generations that no doubt took a signficant toll on young reproductive males in particular.

They was a high level of xenophobia between tribes and familes.

 

This as well as starvation, epidemics, war and genocide etc are mother nature's methods of population control and she will eventually take global human population control out of our hands if we fail to manage it ourselves.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Greg Boyles

[Essay]

The heart of our problems is that there are two many people burning fossil fuels and felling forrests in the first place. If we were not clearing forests at an astronomical rate there would be no need to attempt to artificially sequester carbon via pyrolysis.

 

 

Yes, that is a good description of the imbalance. Managing the balance, as naturally as possible, should be the goal.

 

We've been oxidizing carbon to advance and evolve, as a species, for over half a million years now; and the new balance between oxidized and reduced carbon in the biogeochemosphere (too much oxidized) is beginning to cause problems.

 

Nature had evolved to maintain that balance with natural (somewhat reductive) wildfires, but for several hundred years now we have worked very hard to exclude natural wildfires from the landscape at large (and have even caused more-oxidative wildfires). Pyrolysis simply substitutes for the evolved pyrolytic process of natural, uncontrolled fires and brings it within our control to replace the benefits that natural fires have always brought to soils... for almost half a billion years now (except the last few hundred years).

 

 

These two books cover the topic fairly completely:

 

...Library of Congress Call# = QE516.5 .K55 2005

 

 

&

 

 

 

It is a way of aspiring to be as good as Nature, rather than trying to transcend Nature; as E. O. Wilson suggests we do.

 

~

Edited January 10, 2012 by Essay

[calabi]

How do you know how many boom bust cycles there have been in 3000 years? They have certainly lived there for that long but you can't assume that their civilisation has been entirely stable, happy and harmonious for all that time. They may have just been luckier than the esater islanders in disease taking a greater toll on their infants or the resource base being more substantial.

 

And any way. IF you read Tim Flannery's The Future Eaters you would realise that central highlands New Guinea society is far from happy and harmonious.

 

They had fringe dwellers in the surrounding mountains who preyed upon the farmers, i.e. canibals.

They had a well developed system of retribution involving entire families and multiple generations that no doubt took a signficant toll on young reproductive males in particular.

They was a high level of xenophobia between tribes and familes.

 

This as well as starvation, epidemics, war and genocide etc are mother nature's methods of population control and she will eventually take global human population control out of our hands if we fail to manage it ourselves.

 

I'm not talking about these people being happy and harmonious. I'm talking about stable as in not, exhausting resources.

 

Disease on these small populations did not effect these small groups like they do large populations. I dont believe there is any evidence of some magical disease that effected these small communities in some sustainable manner. Thats how the current theories go I believe. Disease's especially fatal ones are not sustainable in small populations. They either wipe the entire people out or disappear very quickly as immunity arises. Thats supposedly why alot of mayans(and other people) died from disease when they met europeans.

 

So your going to ignore all the actual evidence that they used resource control methods, and say that the only way these people survived on these islands was down to luck?

 

I'm not saying there probably was quite a few incidents whereby things got out of hand, but obviously they did not get too out of hand otherwise, they would have ended up as so many extinct civilizations.

 

Maybe Tikopia wasnt stable for 3000 years, but clearly since 1600ad, thats quite a while. New guinea has to have been pretty stable for a while because of all the different languages. Unchecked one population would have overwhelmed all the others.

 

I'm going of off what Jared Diamond says in his books Guns Germs and Steel and Collapse.

[Greg Boyles]

If disease, lack of medicine was the only population controls then they would have still ended up like Easter Island. Why use population control methods like abortion, and infanticide if disease was already removing enough people? If they did not practice silviculture they would not have had any trees. They built irrigation systems, refined intensive farming systems where they had plentiful food for everyone.

 

 

I couldnt find any info on the web about the History of New Guinea, but heres another similar Island where the people have lived sustainably for about 3000 years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikopia

 

Perhaps it was a combination of environmental wisdom similar to Aboriginal culture, strong resource base, high infant mortaility, short life span and sporadic clan warfare that kept their numbers in check and the civilisation stable on average for so long. I seem to also remember a mention in Tim Flannery's book about the equivalent of aboriginal story places where hunting etc was prohibitted for game conservation purposes and the disruption of this system by christian missionaries.........but was that the central highlands civilisation or was it more the coastal tribes......I am not sure now.

 

But never the less westerners will not be happy with type of ecological balance. If we wish to maintain our current consumption patterns and life styles then there will have to vastly less of us and we will probably have to live with some level of regulation of procreation.