How many people can exist on the earth? In environmentalists lingo, what is the "carrying capacity" of our world for homo sapiens?
The human population has grown and grown and grown through time from less than 10 thousand to over 6 billion. Ecologists seem to agree that when considering environmental degradation, human overpopulation is the number one problem. Population is the elephant in the room many pretend isn't there. Efforts at rational control are likely to be unsuccessful, so humans are likely to face the same "boom and bust" population cycles that many animals face.
Calculations based on current food production suggest we're currently fairly close to the limit of somewhere under 10 billion. An energy limit of simply using all available solar energy to meet dietary needs gives the carrying capacity as over 100 trillion. (This is a ridiculous overestimate. Can you imagine eating 2000 kCalories per day but not seeing any cars and not having any heat or air conditioning?) A space limit of simply covering the whole landmass at the peak density of current cities gives the carrying capacity as over 500 billion. (This is also a ridiculous overestimate. If cities covered every inch of the landscape, where would water and electricity come from and where would garbage and waste go?)
Carrying capacity for humans obviously depends on what culture we're talking about. When Europeans first came to the Americas the indigenous population thought of the land as full, whereas the new people thought of that same land as empty. Some future cultural shift may dramatically raise the carrying capacity again. But should we count on it? Should we plan based on the densest culture we know of even while much of the world doesn't share that culture? Are calculations based on the Davos culture valid for the entire world including all the developing countries?
Feeding everyone in the world is a significant problem. So I'd expect good farmland would be at a premium.
But in fact more and more flat smooth fertile land in the USA is being taken over by housing. I've seen "development" displacing groves of orange trees in California and New Mexico. What I remember from childhood as a large productive valley a little south east of Sea-Tac airport between Seattle and Tacoma in Washington is now all houses with garages and yards and streets. Many localities give special tax breaks to land for agricultural use.
Why is land in this country more valuable for housing than for food? Are the economic valuations we place on things here in the USA just plain out of whack? Or do our values inside the USA diverge from worldwide values that obtain elsewhere (i.e. the USA is a subset)? Or is there some other explanation?
The human population is more concentrated into cities than ever before in history. One place this trend toward urbanization is evident is in former colonies, which tend to have one large city per country.
All these people eat a lot, and the food has to be paid for some how. So I'd expect the people that live in a city to be quite economically "productive."
But for many of these people the simple daily logistics of shelter and transportation are so difficult they take up most of the time, leaving little or nothing for "economic productivity."
Obviously many individuals judge in the small they are better off economically living in a city than in a rural area. But what about judging cities in the large as part of an economic system? Are they economically productive enough overall to justify the fact that they exist? Does the sum of individual judgments always comprise a good system judgment?
Some see each succeeding wave of civilization as having a higher carrying capacity. In other words when two different ways of organizing humans compete, the way that supports a higher human population will usually win.
But what's next? Charles A. Kupchan in his book The End of the American Era presents the following table of historical eras. The big question is what goes in the blanks?
Era → Nomadic
(before 8000BC)Early Agriculture
(8000BC-3000BC)Agriculture
(3000BC-1700AD)Industrial
(1700-2000)Digital
(2000-????)Mode of Production → Hunting, Gathering Hunting, Horticulture Cultivation Industrial Capitalism Digital Capitalism Dominant Institution of Governance → Band Tribe, Chiefdom Kingdom, Coercive State Democratic Republic ? Dominant Institution of Communal Identity → Animism Nature Worship Organized Religion Nationalism ?
Is it really true that when two different ways of organizing humans compete, the way that supports a higher human population wins?
Niall Ferguson's book on the British Empire says the single biggest factor in the British empire was the fecundity of the British population. Several countries in Europe are worried that demographic reduction means economic decline. France is worried that it will simply cease to exist in its current form because it will be overrun by the children of guest workers and political refugees within a couple more generations.
At the same time environmentalists wring their hands about overpopulation and make it clear human population is their number one problem. China wound up with a one child policy (partly in abeyance now and never enforced really rigorously in rural areas) for decades, even though Mao initially rejected the idea vehemently.
The book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond suggests that whenever two cultures come into conflict the one with the higher population density wins. Similar ideas are expressed in the book Conquests and Cultures by Thomas Sowell. But how can it be true both that
- population growth is required for economic and political growth and innovation, and
- further population growth is bad and the entire earth environment is being stretched?
For generations many in the west have had an automatic negative response to the idea of world government, but over time the reasons have been forgotten. Maybe there didn't seem to be any real need. Maybe the idea seemed over-zealous. Maybe it smacked of extending bureaucracy just for the sake of extending it. In any case the prospect probably sounded like a naked power grab.
A negative reaction to the idea of world government is also common in the developing world. But their reason is completely different; two separate lines of argument have come to the same conclusion, and it's too easy to confuse them. Many understand world government to mean hegemony of western financial institutions over the entire world, and are understandably displeased by the idea.
But the world has changed an awful lot in the past few generations, and there are now powerful reasons to reconsider some sort of world government. Communication easily goes much farther much faster. Imagine describing to your great-grandparents the idea of picking up the phone and dialing 011 (followed by more digits) and hearing someone speak a different language. Environmental actions can have ripple effects half a world away. Towing giant icebergs south to supply fresh water might change the climate of Siberia. Huge uncontrolled forest fires in one country have created so much smoke they darkened the sky in other countries. Industrialization in the northern hemisphere may have caused the breakup of huge swaths of sea ice in Antarctica. Economic effects can stretch over the whole world. When the president of Maylaysia blamed the financial woes of the Asian contagion in his country on currency traders in other countries, many said his reasoning was incorrect but almost nobody said that economic actions couldn't have effects that fast that far away. Agricultural policies in Europe have measurable impact on life in Africa.
How will we decide how many people should live on the earth? How will we decide how they should be distributed? How will we enforce those decisions? National boundaries don't seem very relevant to the problem of world over-population.
Perhaps the biggest problem surrounding the idea of world government is the huge potential for corruption. So much power concentrated in one spot can't help but be greatly abused.
A second problem surrounding the idea of world government is that it might select the wrong people. The people who would thrive in an easily imaginable kind of world government would be expert bureaucratic infighters and fundraisers. But are those the people we want for world leaders?
So what are our options for making world wide decisions? Something like the UN (United Nations)? A greatly expanded NGO (Non Governmental Organization)? A parliament like in the EU (European Union) but larger? Something grown out of the WTO (World Trade Organization)? Or something else?
Perhaps our government should be run more like a business. Perhaps it's only sensible for our politicians to have studied at business schools. Our corporations are quite successful, and maybe it's sensible to try to transplant some of that success to our government.
Our government could be more of a purpose-driven organization and less of a bureaucracy. A sharper focus on "goals" and "milestones" might be a good thing.
And it seems obvious our government would be improved by cost-consciousness and cost-cutting. The same sort of attention to the bottom line that helps our corporations could help our government too.
Unfortunately the analogy can easily be carried much further. The plastic "staged" PR face of many corporations would discourage citizen involvement in our government even further. And "rigged" stockholder meetings could have their counterpart in "rigged" elections.
"Turf wars" are all too common in business. Surely we'd prefer not to have even more of them in our government too. In the response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, questions of the org chart and who's in charge occupied the fore. This aspect of business may not be appropriate to our government.
And one of the commonplaces of current business strategy is that underlings should be given unqualified support (until they can be quietly shuffled out). That modus conflicts sharply with the history of politics in our country and can all too easily make it seem that government officials are not and will not be held accountable. A quest for "loyalty" all too easily shades over into "patronage." (Time Magazine's How Many More Mike Browns Are Out There? presents a view of the cronyism in the Bush administration.)
In the business world, some(?) accountability is provided by having to report to a board of directors and by watching the stock price. But so far in government, similar accountability is sorely lacking. The only thing that can carry the message that we're going off the rails is a universal outpouring of disgust. That can't happen easily or frequently enough to provide the feedback needed for mid-course corrections.
Positing a country is just like a company led to hoping we could simply replace the top layer of the regime in Iraq, and the bureaucracy and the military would continue to run the country. Simply replacing the CEO can indeed redirect a company, but as we now know trying to simply replace the president of Iraq (the "decapitation" strategy) didn't work out very well. Overgeneralized MBA thinking can be dangerously misleading.
The response to Hurricane Katrina under George Bush was another serious test of our "MBA Presidency" experiment. While the jury is still out, the "MBA Presidency" is certainly not a slam-dunk.
|
Location: N42 40.86' W070 50.35'
(North America> USA> Massachusetts> Boston> North Shore> Ipswich) Time: UTC-5 (USA Eastern Time Zone) (UTC-4 summertime --"daylight savings time") Email comments to Chuck Kollars |
|
All content on this Personal Website
(including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works),
unless otherwise noted,
are available to anyone for re-use
(reproduction, modification, derivation, distribution, etc.)
for any non-commercial
purpose under a
Creative Commons License.
|