Demographic Zombyism

The starting belief in this discussion is simple enough: population growth is a Good Thing. An increasing population necessarily increases economic demands, which brings about economic growth. That pleases adults who want jobs and capitalists who want profits. Population growth requires women to have children, which pleases them because most women feel a need to get pregnant when their hormones demand it. Then, there are the various, universal cultural advantages of motherhood which puts mothers at the center of society. Pregnancy and childbirth pleases men as well, because it puts them in charge, which suits their aggressive temperament (induced by hormones).

The foregoing is an idea built into human cultures: having children is a good thing. As children have children, parents are elevated by the fact and rule of seniority. Thus, a natural pyramid of authority is created. which, as John Locke observed, is the basis of hierarchically stratified societies. This pyramiding makes paternalism possible, because human males are stronger than females and children, so they force themselves on others. In such societies, women are removed from the male struggle for power, because the unconscious principle is that they are the goose that lays the golden egg. These behaviors are exemplified in the modern, American "child centered" family. Centering one's life on reproduction makes possible feelings of achievement for having done nothing more than what comes naturally.

Now, there used to be nothing wrong with all of that when most babies died. Millennia ago, parents did not have such regard for small children; they were expendable. Only the children who managed to survive a decade or more were valued. Of course, until modern times, women routinely died in childbirth and rarely lived longer than 25-30 years. Men acquired seniority and power simply because they lived a lot longer, if they managed to survive the trials of warfare and rigor of farm labor. It used to be common for men to have many wives, serially or simaltaneously, because wives didn't last long. For the same reasons, children were usually raised in a more communal fashion than is now common.

Prior to the modern period, which started about 500 years ago, the old cultural rules had the facts of life to support them. Put the other way around, cultures survived because people followed those rules. Until the Industrial Revolution just 200 years ago, natural conditions militated against the growth of human populations. As a result, the idea of "man against nature" is deeply, unconsciously imbedded in human culture and thought. This was finally recognized and made explicit in the Victorian era. The Victorians did not accept the notion that man had at last triumphed over nature, even though they celebrated the wonders of  new technologies and industries.

In retrospect, the tipping point came with the Industrial Revolution. Available records show that human populations began to increase exponentially about that time. That is also when the CO₂ content of the atmosphere started to increase dramatically. Since it is always difficult to detect such changes shortly after their beginning, it is not surprising that people didn't know what was happening in the early 19^th century. 200 years ago, people didn't have the science or the methods to measure CO₂ and population. (The ideas of elements and chemical compounds were in their infancy.) For that reason, the early Cassandras, such as Malthus, who had some inkling of what might happen were mocked and ignored. Nonetheless, by the end of the Victorian era Homo sapiens was certainly master of organic life on this planet, even if our species did not control many physical events (earthquakes, volcanos and the like). If there was any doubt about our position by the end of World War I, Oppenheimer made it perfectly clear at Alamogordo, New Mexico in July, 1945.
 

This change, from a competing species to the nearly totally dominant one, is still not recognized by many people. It is not part of our culture; i.e., there is cultural lag. In GSQ, I made the distinction between conscious and unconscious culture. For most cultures, including those in the United States, the assumptions of the pre-industrial world are still held unconsciously. That means people do not think about them. The beliefs and habits acquired in millions of years of competition in a dog eat dog world are there, implicit, unrecognized. When Conservatives talk about the "dangerous world" and promote paranoia and war, they are relying on the old ways, what's there if one does not think about it. The unconscious makes it easy to induce tribal behavior in our advanced society.
 

That fact points out the antidote, which is only effective among intelligent species: thinking. The unconscious assumptions and behavior they motivate can be exposed by thinking. Among Homo sapiens, those assumptions surface as beliefs and rituals taught from an early age. That they "surface" is a result of language. Without language, we are reduced to mime shows and imitation to get across the idea. Language allows the teachers to make causal and logical connections between this and that. Thus, we say our beliefs underlie our habits and rituals, which leads to Plato, St. Thomas Acquinas and.all the other philosophers constructing worlds of meaning. It is, fortunately, the same ability of language which reflects our thinking and allows teaching that "outs" unconscious culture.
 

As a matter of fact, it is the ability to draw out hidden beliefs or concepts, to make connections between acts and events, that puts culture out into the open where it can be examined. And, as we have discovered in modern times, once a thing is out in the open, it can be mastered and put to our uses. Culture is no longer hidden nature or nurture, or "just the way it is." When made conscious, it is subject to change.
 

The reason for my song and dance on the subject of population is this: policies of great nations, including Russia and the United States, are being based on unexamined, unconscious assumptions. The much condemned Chinese are one of the very few who have looked into an ugly future and drawn back from it. Whatever else is wrong about the People's Republic, the One Child Policy cannot be included. China's neighboring government, India, is similarly appalled by its huge  population, which cannot be indefinitely supported. India has been only partially successful in bringing about population control, probably because it is less homogenous and less authoritarian. But, the Indian government appears determined to solve the problem. Once a country gets to the brink and takes a look over the edge, it draws back from such a horrible fate. That has not yet happened in the United States, Europe, Russia or Latin America, which together have the other half of the world's population.
 

Apart from being terrified by a peek at the future, are there other reasons to debunk the culture of population and economic growth? I think so. In fact, there are lots of reasons, once one throws out the knee-jerk beliefs of the past. Those reasons have two aspects: the transition and the steady-state. The steady state is a picture of conditions once the population has been reduced and stabilized. The transiition is geting there from here.
 

It is the transition which is most feared and rejected, because it brings up science fiction nightmares of  genocide,  wars and  Apocalypse. Many leaders do not believe a transition can be managed, but I think most leaders are neither willing nor prepared to manage a transition to sustainable population levels. The social and political problems are immense, because it means changing the way each person thinks; i.e. cultural change. The economic changes are also immense: most economies will have to be radically restructured. The entire process is likely to take several generations. However, in view of the fact that we ramped up the population in 200 years, it is not unreasonable to suppose a symmetrical ramping down will not take longer. Moreover, most of the acute pressures can be relieved in 50 years or less - 2 generations - if we start now to decrease population. It is a fact that the world's population was less than half its present numbers some 60 years ago. It is also a fact that, due to irresponsible policies in the 1950s, the world's population grew tremendously in just 20 years. So, just as we grew ourselves explosively, I think we can get into reverse gear rapidly. That leaders don't want to deal with this problem does not mean it cannot be fixed.
 

The most important point about the transitional period is this: strict controls may only be required for about 20 years (one generation) while people get used to them. Once the threat of going over the cliff (which would bring about population implosion) is abated, it is possible to settle into a slower "glide path" to the desired sustainable levels. This planet probably cannot sustain more than about 2 billion people indefinitely at the current First World standard of living. But, it can sustain a larger number for a while, if we are willing to dip into reserves. Of course, the more we dip into reserves now, the less sustainable resources there will be at the other end of a population decrease. Therefore, the sooner we decrease the "surplus population," the more eventual inhabitants will be allowed.
 

The worst case scenario, the one we want desperately to avoid, is population implosion. Implosion is a chain reaction which probably cannot be controlled once it starts. Population implosion has happened many times; e.g., among the Maya, on Rapa Nui and on other Polynesian Islands. It is, of course, strongly associated with the collapse of societies and civilizations.
 

Implosion can be modelled mathematically as a set of differential equations. Suppose one has a reservoir which is supplied by a river flowing at a contant rate. Suppose there are sluice gates that let out water at a constant rate. In that steady state world, the level of the reservoir will remain constant. If, however, the sluices are opened to let out more than the average inflow rate, sooner or later the reservoir will be emptied. If irrigation was installed depending on the high flow rate, everything would function normally until the reservoir runs dry. Then, all the irrgation users would get little or nothing. This is essentially what happened in the upper Klamath River basin in Oregon in 2001. Faced with an entire region's agriculture being shut down, the Oregon farmers appealed to their President, the Bandit, who ordered the remaining waters of the Klamath River delivered to the farmers. That resulted in the loss of some 80,000 migrating salmon that year, and eventually destroyed the salmon fisheries. (This was a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.) Since then, the fishermen and environmentalists have been gathering strength to take revenge. If they win their case, the farmers won't have enough water for their stock and crops; the Klamath basin will return to the Oregon desert it once was. But, it is also not a certainty that the salmon can be restored. So, in the end, everyone may lose. Before the White Man, this entire region was very thinly populated.

A similarly disastrous end comes about as a result of over-control. Suppose a very large reservoir is built to store the huge amounts of water required to overcome long drought cycles. That sort of project introduces many modes of failure, including catastrophic dam collapse as happened on the Snake River. The weight of reservoir water can induce faults and earthquakes due to compression of the underlying strata..The land area inundated by the reservoir may not have the same productive value, as is the case above the giant Three Gorges Dam. Then there are the impacts on the local ecology.
 

Population implosion and catastrophes due to over-control are the result of over-reach: biting off more than one can chew. Excessive population forces imprudent decisions, because people.want to live no matter what.  Nature is a cruel mistress who will kill and eat her children if she cannot feed them at her breast. Despite our incredible achievements during modern times, we are still subject to folly and hubris. While nature cannot take revenge as easily as it once did, it lays in wait for the opportune moment and then pounces. It is all the more merciless, for having been put off.
 

Therefore, transition to lower population levels requires close attention and intelligent management. The reason for engaging in this unpleasantness is simply that the alternative is much, much worse.
 

In order to carry out a transition, certain things are required. Most importantly, a determination of global carrying capacity must be made. That is an immense project, best started 50 years ago. Carrying capacity varies with economic and ecological assumptions. What the world can support depends critically on economic relationships as well as resources. For example, if North America's corn surplus can be shipped elsewhere, we might not be worried about the Alaskan and Siberian corn deficit. Whatever the globe's carrying capacity, enforcement of ecological and economic laws must be done on a global basis. No one is going to obey if there are huge populations of scoff-laws. Therefore, some sense of global community is required to succeed in this project.

This last sentence affords a glimpse into what a changed world would be like, if we set ourselves on  living within our means.  The exploitive mentality now gripping the nation's most powerful and populous countries must end. Empires must end. So must Islamic Jihad. We do not need to bring about direct world government, although I think that may be preferable, but we do have to end the sort of craziness that has been going on for a long time. Thomas Hobbes' Sovereign gains its power when lesser folk accede to it, because they want peace at any price. There is a similar, ultimate reason for global order with respest to population reduction and control: the unqualified wish to live. That dogged wish to live can now be turned into a vile war of each against all which will eventually destroy all, or it can be redirected into a co-operative effort to save onself and as many unborn children as possible. The necessity of population reduction and control is not fungible. I hope that fact will force people to do the reasonable thing.

As to the steady state, I have little to say. I think, if people can manage the transition, they will have learned to control themselves, hence the population. What bothers me the most is, based on human history, the odds are against a successful transition. But, then, it won't matter because none of us will be here.