Demography of the future

Posted by Guessedworker on December 20, 2005, 06:44 PM | #

I found theoildrum blogger’s one-word description of William Stanton’s politics irresistible and followed the Amazon link to his book, The Rapid Growth of Human Populations 1750-2000.  There was one review by “Nietzschian Lady”, who said this:-

“Warning, this is a very disturbing book. If you are of the opinion that by the end of the 21st century there could be ten billion people living in good health, comfort, peace, and prosperity, then you are not ready to read this book. If you are a religious true believer who expects a deity to save all the faithful with miracles, don’t bother reading anything other than your religious literature. If you are an economist who believes the magic of the free market will solve all problems, don’t waste your valuable time here. On the other hand, if you understand geology, thermodynamics, and ecology you might be ready to hear Stanton’s grim argument.

“… Ok, if you can handle the truth, here it is. Before widespread fossil fuel use, human population was roughly 10% of the present level at maximum. The highest quality fossil fuels, oil and natural gas, are already nearing decline and production will be dramatically decreased by mid century. Coal could be used a few decades longer, but with devastating effects on climate and pollution. Barring a wholly unexpected miracle, development of alternative sources of energy, including nuclear, will only replace a fraction of the ten terawatts of energy humans use now. Without the energy, the green revolution is over, food production will fall. Human population will have to decrease by billions, whether we like it or not.

“This concept is so terrifying that most people are coping through denial, alcohol and drug abuse, consumerist hedonism, or waiting for the rapture. Yet without a plan, humanity is doomed to a horrible fate. Slavery, disease, suicide, genocide, famine, and cannibalism await well before the end of this century. William Stanton is courageous enough to voice a draconian but rational alternative. He advocates that societies that wish to endure the decline in energy resources with a decent standard of living embark on a drastic program of mandatory birth control, ban immigration, and prepare to defend their resources. This means the end of much of human liberty, but that will be gone in any case due to the struggle for survival.

“Ironically, in this new Malthusian world, much of the current common moral code must be turned upside down. Both anti-abortionists and animal rights protestors could not be tolerated. People who have a religious mandate to have large families will not be the ideal, but the worst sort of enemy of the community. On the other hand, homosexual men and women who prefer military service or a working life to parenthood are ideal citizens.

“The great wealth of the oil age allowed idealists to attain great influence. But that day has ended. The future belongs to the pragmatists that have carried our scrappy species through 10,000 generations, through the ice ages and eruptions of megavolcanoes. If you want your country to endure, your only grandchild to lead a civilized life, take a deep breath and read William Stanton.”

So ... do I buy this mega-collapse scenario, the kind of collapse that makes every other kind of collapse - such as the forthcoming one involving either liberalism or Western Man, take you pick - utterly irrelevant?

Not yet, is my answer.  Setting aside for a moment whether the Peak Oil boys are right, I would want all the variables fully known and all the flexibility in the system - including Western Man’s inventiveness - taken up before I could go with it.  Since I haven’t read Stanton I don’t know what he says, if anything, about genetic crop yield enhancement, about the tendency for birth-rates to depress with rising prosperity, about the natural population limit imposed by water availability, about AIDS in Africa, about the desirability of some economic changes that might be forced upon us by a long-term energy crisis (such as calling a halt to the globalisation of goods and labour, and replacing GDP as the primary unit of economic value with a more holistic measure).

These are all huge issues which intersect in this other huge, energy issue.  At bottom, I am not convinced that we fleas can envision the whole dog, and mostly we tend to be attracted to the darkest vision possible.  Right now I am an optimistic flea!

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 20, 2005, 07:12 PM | #

I don’t buy the collapse argument; there are too many potential new sources to use and the price mechanism is wonderful at producing them.  However, Peak Oil is an irrelevance compared with Peak Population.  At present, population is expected to be still increasing by 2075; we need to get to a peak and start declining much earlier than that, preferably this side of 2050.

Italy and Japan are the models to follow, and pieces celebrating white working class reproduction are pointing in the wrong direction.  The ideal is to have secure borders and very tight immigration control, while working on Third World population so it too can start declining.  The writer’s correct about one thing; 1 billion was the optimum, and we need to get back to it, but it will take 200 years.

Posted by James Bowery on December 20, 2005, 07:28 PM | #

Any global demographic projection that, in the age of mass migration, refuses to provide for the possibility that there might be some genotypes somewhere that will convert larger availablity of calories to more fertility is just silly.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 21, 2005, 07:30 AM | #

Surely r is the wrong evolutionary strategy in a food-scarce environment, James.