All of these environmental problems, Earth abuse, from localized species extinction to global climate change, have two roots.

The first root of Earth abuse is the delusion that we are above nature: supernaturalism, the whole “rape the Earth” dominion ideology. This error can be corrected, and I think is slowly being changed through education in evolution and ecological science.

The second root is more difficult: sheer human population. No “green” technology or lifestyle will sustain us for long. A population of 6.5B is simply unsustainable, and standard predictions have us at 9.5B by mid-century. This is not likely to happen.

Given the current ecological crises, including warming I have observed over 20 years in Florida, I expect a drastic human population reduction before 2050. This will happen either by Nature, or by our own choice.

For those already familiar with ecological science basics, please bear with the following. The Biosphere is dynamically equilibrated, which means that organisms cannot outgrow their supplies for long.

If an animal outgrows its food or other supply, the supply fails and the animal population is reduced until its supply grows back. This is dynamic equilibrium, or rebalancing.

Humans are about to be rebalanced. We have been very effective in killing our predators and prey, and changing the environment to suit ourselves. Thus we have grown vastly beyond Biospheric carrying capacity. The results are the extinctions of 25 species per day, massive loss of rain forests and Arctic icecaps, and so on.

However, the Biosphere is an excellent self-balancing system, of which we are just one part. This is true no matter what our religions or egos tell us. The Biosphere will rebalance itself by reducing our population, and I think rather soon.

The human response in terms of future survival is another matter, but one strategy to reduce the natural balancing exists for us. I am speaking of voluntary population reduction (VPR).

Certainly, VPR is not easy to discuss, but discuss it we must. We are the first species to have this problem, and we can use our intelligence to solve it.

There is a scenario for voluntary population reduction, which is entirely consensual and humane, but I would rather describe it when and if people show real interest.

On another note: I have noticed recently a sort of “plague party” mentality among some people. They are saying, in effect, “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we go extinct.” My answer to the plague party is, I have children.

This is not an incurable plague; Earth abuse is a solvable problem. We just have to make some difficult decisions, far beyond “green technology”, and make them soon. May we have the courage.

John

Rex Weyler:

Thanks John for this analysis of ecological realities, dynamic equalibrium, and the fate of any species in overshoot. You are correct that our growing civilization — the scale of population and consumption — is not sustainable. And yes, nature will stabilize us if we don’t do it consciously.

I would love to hear your ideas about creating ways to allow human population to decline to a sustainable level. Human population is indeed a sustainability issue on ecological grounds. Every species must find a level of homeostasis in its habitat. Nature does not give us a free pass to ignore these limits to growth just because we’re clever humans.

I have been advocating three global policies that would help stabilize human population and allow us to reduce human population without unpleasant government actions:

1. Women’s rights. When women have the right to choose their family size, they have less children naturally. Democratic countries that already enjoy gender and civil rights could help achieve this by refusing trade with nations at have not formalized women’s rights.

2. Contraception access: Wherever families have access to contraception, birth rates go down.

3. Education, at every level of society: Neither the public nor our policy makers and alleged leaders appear to understand the ecological fundamentals that we now face. General education will help citizens achieve civil rightsgain local control of their lives and environments. Ecological education at the level of policy development, economics, and political leadership will help our policy makers understand the real challenges and discover authentic solutions.

You are correct: We must openly and freely discuss these critical ecological issues and not be intimidated by cultural taboos against discussing the problem. We must also avoid stupid, sociopathic responses such thinking we should just party and enjoy frivolous pleasures. I have children too. And beyond that, a billion people live in hunger and other 4 billion people live subsistance lives with extremely modest consumption. Only about 15% of humanity enjoys the opportunity to be reckless and wasteful with their material and energy consumption.

Humanity will either get real and learn what ecology demands of us, or we’ll increase overshoot and crash. In nature, those are the only two choices.

Here is an earlier blog posting on human population:

If this was indeed the reason it has failed, as only the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, which leads us to problems like narcotics.

The main point of my post is how viable would be for the economy to have people that buy only what they really need? Wouldnt that crash the economy and lead to mass unemployment?

Regardless of the answer, I think that we really have no other choice but to change our lifestyles to be more eco friendly. That is, if we want to survive as a species.

Rex Weyler:

Edgar, yes, as we change to a human culture that does not consume wastefully, that only consumes what we need, this will change our economics. Reckless and wasteful consumption make a few people very rich, but simultaneously makes the earth poor — lost rivers, lost soil, lost forests, lost fish, acidic seas, toxic wastes, melting glaciers, and all the rest. As we impoverish Earth, we impoverish ourselves. Our system of growth economics is not sustainable in any biological and phyisical world. All growth in nature ends in either a crash or in the discovery of ecological balance that we call “homeostasis.”

So yes. Living sustainably — real sustainability, not the phoney “green” consuming we see in the world today — will change our economic system.

But we are already crashing. Our economic system is in a crash right now. It will jerk and sputter continually until we learn to live within our means, within the biophysical limits of the planet. Once we learn this — perhaps over the next few generations — we may discover that real wealth is nature itself, a stable, abundant world, not a private bank account.

And you are correct: We have no choice but to change.

Rex Weyler:

What I mean by: “These changes prove politically difficult, but they represent the inevitable path back to paradise”

They are difficult because they threaten the status quo system of wealth consolidation by the wealthy, power consolidation by the powerful, and mass consumption that results from an economic system that attempts growth at any ecological, social, or spiritual cost. These changes are difficult because a few people can get very rich in a consumptive, growth economy, while the earth itself gets poorer, depleted, poisoned. The status quo power structure and economic structure — scams, pyramid schemes, junk derivatives, swindles — do not want to change and will resist any change just as they resisted Gandhi, Civil rights, women’s rights, ecology or any other value other than money.

So, you are correct, I believe: We will not achieve these things through the system, even through inspiring leaders such as Barack Obama, who has already been bought and paid for, manipulated, and brainwashed by the Goldman-Sachs and Paul Volker crowd.

However, these changes are “inevitable” because nature’s laws are inevitable. We don’t get to re-write the laws of physics, biology, or thermodynamics just because we are smart, large-brained primates with opposable thumbs and hegemony over most of the earth. We are still natural creatures. We exist entirely within a natural ecosystem that obeys the laws of nature. We have been able to overshoot the earth’s capacity, not because we can defy nature, but because the earth is so vastly resilient. However, like the Rapanui on Easter Island, we will crash. The changes I discuss — localization, simplicity, preserving soil, growing food, — are inevitable because ultimately, these are the only things that will keep humanity alive for a long run. Artificial trees and Credit Default Swaps won’t keep us alive. Sunlight and soil will keep us alive.

rw.

I’d only add that we should be designing human habitats to accomodate other species so as to improve species-area relationships as in Michael Rosenzweig’s reconciliation ecology.