A World Shaped By Too Many Humans

David Simons

A reading from The Anthropocene:

Climate change has brought into sharp focus the capability of contemporary human civilization to influence the environment at the scale of the Earth as a single, evolving planetary system. Following the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica, with its undeniably anthropogenic cause, the realization that the emission of large quantities of a colorless, odorless gas such as carbon dioxide can affect the energy balance at the Earth's surface has reinforced the concern that humanity can adversely affect the broad range of ecosystem services that support human (and other) life and could eventually lead to a crisis in the biosphere. But climate change is only the tip of the iceberg. In addition to the carbon cycle, humans are
(1) significantly altering several other biogeochemical, or element cycles, such as nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur, that are fundamental to the life on the Earth;
(2) strongly modifying the terrestrial water cycle by intercepting river flow from uplands to the sea and, through land-cover change, altering the water vapor flow from the land to the atmosphere; and
(3) likely driving the sixth major extinction event in the Earth history.
Taken together, these trends are strong evidence that humankind, our own species, has become so large and active that it now rivals some of the great forces of Nature in its impact ^[1]

So here we are in the year 2011, the year in which the United Nations forecasts that the human population will reach 7 billion people. A rather staggering number to me! In 1960, which was my senior year in high school, the world population was 3 billion. I grew into my intellectual awareness in the sixties, the decade in which we were first learning environmental awareness and Paul Ehrlich published "The Population Bomb" ^[2] in which he predicted that 1 billion people would be starving to death by the mid 80's if we didn't get human fecundity under control. Ehrlich appeared on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson and captured the public imagination as well as the interest of the White House and the Congress. The first publication of Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" ^[3] appeared in Science magazine, the official journal of the American Association for the Advancement Science in 1968 and that was followed four years later by the Club of Rome's "Limits of Growth" ^[4] . We were having the Hell scared out of us by over population and environmental catastrophe predictions. The US government was encouraging family planning worldwide through its foreign assistance programs, with India, Indonesia and Africa all high on the list of worries. By 1975 Grace and I had two children and, in spite of objections from some in my extended family, I had had a vasectomy! We were on-board with doing our part to save the planet from human over population. How is it 40 years later that the population has more than doubled and that catastrophe has not destroyed our world? In fact "over population" has for most of that time disappeared from the public awareness as an issue, and US efforts at encouraging family planning around the world have been under political attack for 20 plus years.

To no small relief I have discovered that the discussion is changing again but it has a very different content and tone and that is due to the fact that this is a very different world than it was in 1960 and some human behavior has really changed dramatically since then. For one thing the Green Revolution, with the development of semi dwarf wheat and rice strains combined with industrial agricultural methods using large amounts of diverted fresh water and fossil fueled engines, combined with large quantities of fertilizer and insecticides, has managed up to this time to feed a goodly number of the world's population on the way to today's nearly 7 billion people. That has discredited to some extend the Malthusians like Paul Ehrlich and Garrett Hardin, who worried about over population and limits to growth. Population demographics have change dramatically as well. Robert Malthus, who 200 years earlier, had predicted mass starvation, was proved wrong by the success of the Industrial Revolution in the 1800's. It seems that history has demonstrated that Malthusian catastrophes simply are not a permanent part of the human experience. While not a permanent part of human history it is cautionary to remember that in isolated places and times there have been plenty of such disasters. Those disasters seriously disrupted those human societies but people picked up and moved on to more fertile pastures. Jared Diamond presents many examples in his book "Collapse" ^[5] . I think we should keep in mind that there are no more fertile pastures to move on to.

This topic of human population crystallized as a sermon topic for me, when in May, I read an article in The Economist Magazine title "A man-made world" ^[6] . The article introduced me to the proposal for a new age of geological time called the Anthropocene, a term proposed by Paul Crutzen, a Dutch Atmospheric Chemist, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995 for his work on explaining the Ozone hole in the polar stratosphere. Crutzen claimed that the impact of human civilization across the globe with its megacities, mega farms and the resulting change in flora, fauna, soils, forests, atmospheric and ocean chemistry as well as the selective breeding of plant and animals was leaving an indelible mark on the geologic strata of the Earth, and would be easily distinguishable from the previous Holocene stratigraphy. This proposal resonated with my own world view so much that I was immediately engaged and interested in pursuing the implications of his proposal.

While at the UU General Assembly in Charlotte I found a book by demographer Fred Pearce publish by Beacon Press, titled "The coming population crash" ^[7] . Truthfully I knew nothing about Fred Pearce and found the title a serious challenge to my perceptions, and felt obligated to read the book particularly because of his credentials and the fact that I was certain that Beacon Press would not publish a book that was not well researched and highly defensible. I have learned much from Fred Pearce. Also to my delight I have discovered in the last month that there is a much expanding public discussion of the issues around world population growth. Science magazine's July issue has devoted a special section to population, the Proceedings of the Royal Society devoted an entire monthly technical publication to the implications of the Anthropocene proposal ^[8], Grace and I watched an edition of Need To Know on PBS devoted to population and John Swearengen gave us a recent copy of National Geographic devoted to the topic. The special section in Science ^[9] had about 20 news and scientific articles many of which confirmed much of what I had learned from reading Fred Pearce's book.

I admit that I have assumed that there is a continuing unconstrained human population boom that is crashing down upon the world. I have believed for some time now that most of the worlds existing and impending environmental problems are directly attributable to an already highly over populated world and a humanity seemingly unable to do anything about containing its fecundity. You would correctly characterize me as a modern Malthusian. The articles I have read have taught me that I really did not appreciate the reality. It is more nuanced than my understanding has been. We are indeed faced with an impending serious population bulge over the next 40 years which might have very disastrous consequences for the biosphere and all life on Earth, but this potential population problem extends over a relatively short period of time in terms of the total extent of human history and possibly humanity can get through it if we are wise. I do not believe that we can get through it without catastrophic consequences without significant changes in the way we are organized as a worldwide society. Our structures are weak and our ability to find common ground for the common good particularly in the western world is greatly compromised by our almost fetish like dedication to individual privilege and rights. We must find solutions within a rather limited set of boundaries set by what is now a human shaped environment that has probably been stretched in many respects to its limits. In the article published in Nature ^[6] Paul Crutzen says that he ".realized he no longer believed he was living in the Holocene. He was living in some other age, one shaped primarily by people. From their trawlers scraping the floors of the seas to their dams impounding sediment by the gigatonne, from their stripping of forests to their irrigation of farms, from their mile-deep mines to their melting of glaciers, humans were bringing about an age of planetary change." To this list we can add the approaching problems arising from an over commitment of the Earth's resources: On-going Climate change from burning fossil fuels, desertification from over grazing and decimation of forest, eutrophication of productive coastal estuaries and continental shelf waters from agricultural fertilizers and untreated animal manure, decimation of worldwide ocean fish stocks from industrialized fishing, ocean acidification from increasing atmospheric CO₂, and a fast approaching over commitment of limited fresh water resource. All these characteristics of our age that are making an imprint on the world landscape that many scientists believe will leave a permanent stratigraphic record in the Earth's crust and are at the same time stretching the world's abilities to respond to the demands of our increasing population.

The existing population bulge is a result of a demographic event that was set in place 12,000 years ago at the end of the Pleistocene epoch and at the beginning of the Neolithic Age. The human population went through a change in fecundity called the Neolithic Demographic Transition. The human population is estimated to have been about 6 million people worldwide at the time. This is the time of the transition to a settled farming culture from the hunter gatherer culture. As I am certain you know this is not actually a simultaneous event worldwide but none the less over a couple thousand years it happened worldwide. As a result of the change in life style woman began having more babies during their life time, but this increased birthrate was accompanied by an increased mortality rate among children which is credited to the increased rate of disease from increased population density and cohabitation with livestock. This is seen all across the world from Neolithic graveyards. The result was a preindustrial farming rate of population increase of about .1%. This meant that for the average woman only slightly more than two of her children survived into adulthood. Life was pretty much like this for the next 12,000 years until the dawn of the industrial age in the 18th century. Over that 12,000 year period the human population increase by 100 fold reaching about 600 million by 1700. The industrial age got off to a slow start because of a lack of available energy. With the steam engine and coal things really took off. There are also complex economic analyses that link its growth to mercantilism and capitalism. In any case the Revolution also brought along with it scientific discoveries and fundamental changes in societal structure that dramatically impacted the rate of population growth. It is sometimes difficult to realize that the industrial age is only 250 years old and is now nearly a worldwide phenomenon. Until fifty years ago a goodly portion of humanity was still engaged in Neolithic farming and many people still are. In the past 20 years it has nearly penetrated every corner of the globe but it is still in transition in terms of its effect on the population. What has most affected population growth has been the introduction of public health measures that have decreased the mortality rate of young children. Better public health and improved nutrition have also expanded longevity but the main impact has really been decreased childhood mortality. It takes cultures more than one generation to figure out they don't need as many children since more are surviving. Moving into cities for an improved economic opportunity provided by industrial production has offered women a different way of life. It is a complex story but the bottom line is that in country after country as this process has progressed decreasing childhood mortality has lead to a large bulge in surviving children, causing an increased young population until after a generation or two the birthrate slowly drops to compensate for the decrease in mortality. It is mainly credited to women who control their fertility as they discover they have other choices than perpetual motherhood. The replacement rate of children per woman to maintain a constant population is 2.1 children in a lifetime. It would be 2 if not for some mortality during reproductive years. India with one of the fastest growing populations in the world is a very good example. India reach 1 billion people in 2000 and it is still adding about 19 million people each year. That is a quarter of the world's growth. In 1960 the average Indian woman married at seventeen, had 7children, the last one at forty-three and then died at forty-six. Fertility rates in 2010 (40 years later) averaged 2.8 children per woman and in Southern India close to 2.0. Sterilization of women is the main form of birth control in India. In Andhra Pradesh, women married in the 1990's were getting sterilized five years after marriage when still in their early twenties. One of the main drivers of this according to Fred Pearce is that decreasing need for fertility undermines patriarchy and woman are giving up on constant childbirth because they can and with that, undermining the yoke of patriarchy.

So what are the demographics telling us? In 1950 the world average female fertility was 5. That is 5 children through a woman's fertile years. In the more developed countries it was 2.8 and in the less developed countries it was 6.2. By 2000 the world's fertility had dropped to 2.7 with the more developed world at 1.6, below replacement, and the less developed at 2.9. 11 years later in 2011 the world rate per woman has dropped to 2.5 and is still dropping. We have all heard that the fertility rates in all of Europe are well below replacement while, in Russia, Georgia, and the Ukraine officials actually worry that the countries are dying away. Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea are well below replacement and even government financial incentives are not bringing the birthrates up to replacement levels.

So the problem is not quite that individual couples are having too many children. It is the ongoing demographic transition from the Neolithic pattern to the Modern one. Because of the improved survival of children and the slow response of fertility rates the world has developed a youth bulge. As a result of the slow diffusion of the industrial age into many parts of the world, that bulge is concentrated in the less developed world and the developing world. Even with those parts of the world moving rapidly to the replacement rate of 2.1 children and below, that youth bulge is going to swell the worldwide population from the 7 billion we will reach this year to, most likely, somewhere between 9 billion and 11 billion depending on how fast the birthrates declines over the next 40 years. Those predictions include the far out possibility of 16 billion people in 2100. The "medium case" projection says that after 2050 the world population will be flat at 10 billion through the year 2100 and then slowly decline. A very unsettling part of those predictions is that 1.3 billion people will be living in the most developed countries and 8.8 billion will be living in the less developed countries. The implication of that should be obvious in terms of future population migration.

The good news is that because of improving life prospects and improving access to knowledge, i.e. education, women have set about the task of getting our birthrates and population under control. (We would hope that men would cooperate and in many places they do, but in conservative societies it is rarely the case. We must be grateful that women are engaged.) The problem that looms before humanity is that there is likely to be an additional 3 billion people added to the world population in the next 38 years. This will be compounded by the rush to first world status of the many in the still developing world, the so call BRIC nations, Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Demographers are predicting by mid-century somewhere between 9 and 10 billion human beings will inhabit the Earth. That is potentially an increase of 43% in 38 years. We will have to produce half again as much of at least the basic necessities as we produces today. A fairly simple economics growth calculation tells you that a worldwide growth of the economy of 2% per year for 38 years gets an economy that is double the current economy and with only 38% more people, we are way ahead of the game and many more people will be living a richer life. Is it possible? 2% growth is kind of what we expect in a healthy nation. 1% growth compounded over 38 years will get 45% increase in the world economy. This of course neglects the limitations on resources like fresh water, the extent of pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, fossil fuel burning leading to global climate change, the lack of naturally watered arable land, and ocean acidification, all things that will interfere with 2% growth. It is interesting to note that there is more than sufficient grain grown in the world today to feed 10 billion people if we simply stop feeding it to live stock.

Last year there were two cautionary articles published in Nature. One was titled "A Safe operating space for humanity" ^[9] and the other "Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems" ^[10] . These articles taken together define limits on the world system that should be observed and the problems in crossing those limits as we move through this time of dramatically increasing population. The definition of boundaries means that we don't have unlimited space in which to act. The safe operating space article cautions that the Earth system and its biophysical subsystems can respond smoothly to change or quite abruptly and when they cross boundaries they often will not return to their original state, if and when they do recover. They identified 9 boundaries three of which have already been crossed. They are climate change, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, the natural nitrogen and phosphorus cycle, global fresh water use, land use change, biodiversity, atmospheric aerosol loading, and Chemical pollution. I will not explain them here but they all have natural boundaries when crossed that can have irreversible catastrophic impacts on life on Earth. We know that fixed Nitrogen entering the ocean estuaries leads to anoxia and die off of marine life. There is sufficient scientific measurement to set real limits on how much nitrogen and phosphorus can be allowed into the ocean within a given period of time. Climate Science has already set a limit 350 ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere, a threshold that has already been crossed leading to a preordained increase in global temperature and all the resultant impacts of climate change including melting glaciers and rising oceans.

I believe that humanity can get over the population hump, but it will have to take seriously these boundaries as we deal with this challenge. We will have to be much more seriously involved in the process of making decisions about how we produce human necessities and then how we distribute the returns of our mutual human enterprise. The growth of the human population is programmed into our future and there is little beyond unacceptable draconian measure that we may take to prevent this bulge in our population. I will paraphrase an article by Sir Crispin Tickell, ^[11] former President of the Royal Geological Society. He says
(1) that we need to confront and mitigate the effects of this coming large proliferation of humanity in all its respects.
(2) We must seriously consider our economic system and replace consumerism as a life goal.V (3) We must be serious about alternative energy.
(4) We have to spend the resources to either adapt to or compensate for serious climate destabilization while giving much higher priority to the natural world and preserving the critical services it provides humanity.
And (5) above all create the necessary international institutions that will provide us with the means of coping with global problems.
We simply cannot afford to continue in a manner that is misinformed as to the reality of the world in which we live. The problems that our present Congress faces are trivial in comparison to what human kind faces over the next 40 years. Seriously, we cannot afford to be ruled by village idiots.

In the broad human interest it is our generation and the next, which must understand the impact of our coming numbers on our sustaining life system, the Earth's biosphere, and work out what must be done to mitigate and or adapt to its change. We must learn to think differently in the face of longstanding traditions, beliefs, attitudes and assumptions upon which people build their lives. We are faced with a significant number of people who actually believe the world is 4,000 years old and that God in some manifestation will come to help us out of the problems of our own making. We have learned, through hard work, careful observation and experimentation combined with the gift of human rational thinking, that life on this planet is 4 billion years old, that it was originated in the cauldrons of early planetary formation, that through billions of years, life was an intimate co-creator with physical and chemical forces of our planetary biosphere, life has managed to persevere through 5 mass extinctions, and that we as a species inherited this world as a gift from all the life that has preceded us. We owe a vast debt to that life and we should love and cling to what is left of it not only as the family it truly is, but as the life blood of our own survival. I contend that the Universe has demonstrated only indifference to survival of life on Earth. It has tried to wipe it out at least five times and we are now attempting to aid it with a sixth mass extinction resulting from our inability to deal with reality for what it is. From what we know our sun will turn into a Red Giant in about a billion years obliterating what is left of life in this corner of the Universe. One billion years is a long time compared to the 200,000 years of our species' existence and a wonderful endowment to our posterity. And it might be plenty of time perhaps to grow sufficient understanding to push the existence of life as we know it even beyond that vast time. I find it very strong motivation for us to get our act together and make it possible that it is the descendents of human kind that will long in the future look back on the Anthropocene epoch and understand that it was a time in which humanity saved itself from oblivion.

Acknowledgement:

This is not an academic paper and therefore I have been somewhat careless with the references. I believe I am citing here all those that I used for other than widely known facts. Most of the information about population came from the special section on population in Science, volume 333, July 29, 2011, pages 539 to 594. Much of this was a more detailed repeat of what I also garnered from the Fred Pearce book cited below.

References:

1."The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspective",
Will Steffen, Jacques Grinevald, Paul Crutzen, and John McNeill,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, March 2011, 369, P.842
[Ed. Note: the Royal Society has two sets of Transactions. Transactions "A" concern Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences; Transactions "B" are for biological sciences.]

2. The Population Bomb,
Paul R. Ehrlich,
Balantine Books, New York, NY 1969

3. "The Tragedy of the Commons",
Garrett Hardin,
Science 162 (3859): 1243-1248. 1968

4. The Limits to Growth,
Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III,
Universe Books, New York: 1972

5. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,
Jared Diamond,
Viking, New York, NY, 2005

6."A Man-made World",
The Economist, May 28, 2011 p.81

7. The Coming Population Crash and Our Planet's Surprising Future,
Fred Pearce,
Beacon Press, Boston, Mass., 2010

8. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A,
March 2011, Royal Society Publishing, London, England

9. "A safe operating space for humanity",
Johan Rockstrom, et al (actually 28 other authors all from a variety of research institutes around the world),
Nature, 461, September 2009, Macmillan, p.472

10. "Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems",
Marten Scheffen, Steve Carpenter, Jonathan A. Foley, Carl Folks and Brian Walker,
Nature, 413, October 2001, MacMillan, p.591

11. "Societal response to the Anthropocene",
Crispin Tickell,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, March 2011, p. 1938, Royal Society Publishing, London

[Delivered August 28, 2011. David J. Simons is a member of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Stanislaus County. He earned his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Maryland in 1974. His doctoral thesis concerned the energization mechanisms of electrons in the Aurora Borealis. He led the atmospheric sciences group at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1980's, working on a diverse set of physics and chemistry problems related to nuclear explosions, radio propagation, radiations transport, lightning physics, near earth space plasma dynamics and complex terrain atmospheric circulation. He has worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory since 2001.]

Thinking about writing a sermon? Read Rev. James Kubal-Komoto's Worship and Sermon tips.