
Not much happening today. Lost in my own mind. The Sunday op-eds were singularly awful. I didn't find one article worth reading in either the Times or the Post and most just made my blood pressure rise. I'm truly amazed - and disheartened - that such ignorant ranting finds a publisher. I used to lament that my hometown newspaper - the
Indianapolis Star - was published by Dan Quayle's family. But The Washington Post has degenerated to the point where it isn't much better. I really believe that Katherine Graham would not believe what the paper has become under the oversight of her son. Pretty sad.
So I retreated from unsupported opinion to rational and fact supported discourse. I walked down to the middle of the National Mall and read another three chapters in
_The World According to Pimm_. So far in the book there has been no polemic. Pimm is very dispassionately compiling an inventory of basic measures for significant processes. Unlike almost everyone I have read about climate change etc he is scrupulous in describing how measures and estimates are derived. This focus on precision has the rhetorical effect of arguing for limits, just because it focuses on specific finite examples. The more particular these discussions are the less susceptible they are to grandiose arguments. I think one of the things that put me off this morning were the number of articles about the
"Green Revolution" and its chief author,
Norman Bolaug, who just died last week at the age of 95. In almost every tribute was the claim that he had "saved" more people than anyone else in history by his work in genetically modified, high yield crops. I'm sure, in a way this is true, but it is equally true that he is responsible for the deaths of more people than any single person in history. Why? Because saving a billion starving people allowed them to have billions of babies, thus increasing the population still further - and faster than agriculture can ever keep up. Despite all these articles claiming that we have proven the Malthusian theories wrong,
Malthus remains correct - population growth outruns our ability to produce sufficient food - and every new increment in food just results in an increment in the population. Just consider, the Green Revolution got underway in the late 50's and after a few decades was declared a resounding success. But according to UN statistics from just a couple of years ago:
On average, 1 person dies every second from hunger - 3,600 every hour - 86,400 per day, and 31,536,000 per year. 58% of all deaths worldwide are the results of hunger. 60% for all deaths of children younger than five.
How do we gauge the value of lives saved over those continuing to be lost as we try to catch up with runaway population growth? The best estimates, based on empirical evidence, is that the carrying capacity (the ability to support life) of the earth is between 1.5 and 2 billion persons. In 1950, just before the Green Revolution took hold, the earth's population was around 2.5 billion - somewhat over carrying capacity. After several decades of the Green Revolution the current population of the earth is 6.5 billion, more than three times the earth's carrying capacity. Is this a success? Since it is clear that the greater population 'enjoys' a greater abundance of disease, starvation, privation, and misery, it is questionable.
Also, it is important to note that any 'overshoot' of the base carrying capacity for any environment tends to degrade that environment and make it less suitable to support life. The greater and longer the overshoot the more the degradation. What ultimately happens to a species that overshoots its environment is that it experiences a crash and
die-off. The population falls below previous carrying capacity and may or may not be able to rebuild its numbers over time.
There is an old Bali folk explanation for death: with new babies being born all the time people must die because otherwise "what would we do with all the shit?" We may ask the same question with our numbers growing exponentially on a finite planet. What ARE we going to do with it? Everyone knows this cannot continue but absolutely no one in a position of authority will touch the topic of
population growth. It is politically, socially, and religiously taboo. Too bad. Our very survival - and that of our children and theirs - depend on getting this right. If we are afraid to confront this we are too fearful to live.