Soothsayers and Doomsayers
The following is copyright (c) 1998, 1999 by Mike, aka HramYaegr@aol.com, and
may not be reproduced in any form without this header intact.
Over time, environmentalists have predicted that unless
radical and drastic measures are taken, the world in which we habitate and the
people with which we do so will come to a screeching halt, the population
crashing to a meager few. This is used as an argument by those that do not
believe that there is an overpopulation problem; it is similar to the argument
of all women who have abortions are "whores" who should accept the
responsibility before they spread their legs--similar in that it is narrow-
minded, looking only at a select number of facts.
A more appropriate view is to say this: Over time,
particularly the past 25 years, biologists, ecologists, economists,
politicians and environmentalists alike have predicted that unless change is
brought about, the world in which the human species lives and the people which
comprise this species could very possibly come to an end. Some have been
doomsayers, predicting massive economic failures, famines, plagues, crop
failures and chaos taking order's place. Others have said that these blights
will occur on a far lesser level, some occurring over extended periods of
time, and still others, soothsayers, have predicted them to not occur at all.
Some claims have been accurate, others not. What is important is to see not
only inaccurate but accurate predictions.
Twenty-five years ago, a report was published on over-
population by a well-known doomsaying group. The report says little which is
fact in the present world, as we can plainly see, and it is a prime example of
the argument against doomsayers and for soothsayers.
"In 1972 the Club of Rome published its landmark report,
Limits to Growth, which dramatically predicted the inevitable collapse of
civilization unless economic growth was halted immediately.
"Relying on a computer model developed at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Limits to Growth predicted that world population
would hit 7 billion by 2000 and set into effect a deadly chain reaction. The
world would begin to run out of farm land in a mad scramble to feed everyone.
The price of natural resources such as copper, tin, silver and oil would climb
through the roof as the world began using them up.
"Inevitably, no matter what sort of technological
innovations or changes in the rate of population growth were made to the MIT
model the results were always the same -- the collapse of industrial
civilization sometime in the 21st century."[1]
It is well known that the Club's predictions were
inaccurate, that the population is now 5.91 billion[2] and that by the year
2000, according to United Nations population projections, it will be only 6.15
billion.[3] Total farm land has increased by 5%[4] though, a necessity to feed
the 2.064 billion person increase in the population, or, 44 1/4%.[5] In fact,
the Club's predictions were nearly completely off the mark. Very few of the
terrors predicted have come true. Unfortunately, many projectionists will use
only these examples in the attempt to prove that all projectionists are wrong,
and that life can only become better. What is not shown is exactly how many
doomsayers are correct, and how many soothsayers are incorrect.
It is known that life in 1998 is much better than it was in
1970. Technology has enhanced every-day life, with treatment for HIV, AIDS,
cancer, hepatitis and heart disease becoming more available, among countless
others. The likelihood of infants surviving after birth has increased, and the
life span of people today is even higher than what was previously predicted.
Per capita income has gone up, as has the value of the dollar. Resources such
as oil, silver, gold, platinum and lead have remained steady, with prices
dropping. Life is indeed better than it was 25 years ago, is it not?
There is also the hole in the ozone layer, growing larger
all the time. There is the problem of coral reefs disappearing, such as the
Great Barrier Reef near Australia, which has reported all time lows for coral
life and all time highs for coral bleaching, a condition that causes the
animals to weaken and die.[6] There is the problem of rainforest being
stripped away for the various complexities of the industrial world, which
happens to obliterate species at an astronomical rate, upwards of 200 per
day.[7] There is the problem of increased crime, hatred, racism, with murder
rates climbing to unforeseen highs, the pollution of the oceans, the over-
hunting of marine species, land species, and the problem of unchecked animal
and human fecal waste[8], not to mention industrial (including chemical, toxic
and nuclear) waste, piling up and contaminating the land which is needed for
farming in order to feed the 6 billion people on the planet. Life does not
seem quite as good. Back in 1970, if one were asked if they had HIV, they
would display a quizzical look and ask if it were a degree for college. If
asked their opinion of the continued use of CFC's in non-United Nations
countries, they would stare dully and blankly. If they were asked what they
thought of the ground-breaking book Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, they
would be completely confounded. And if they were asked what they thought of
the nearly complete economic collapse of the Pacific-Rim economies, they would
mention the thriving economy of Hong Kong and the growing industrial giant of
Japan. Life compared to the 1970's is not so great after all.
If anything, history has shown that the current state of
affairs continues to worsen. In the late 1700's as the Industrial Revolution
began in England, people could foresee only riches, power, and an increase of
living standards, thinking that they could dump all they wanted into the world
and get only more of what they needed to fuel their revolution in return. Over
time, it became apparent that this was not true, and it took until the 1970's
for people to really see that all was not well. In the 1990's it is very clear
that technology is making such great advances that nothing bad can happen. It
is also clear to most that nothing bad is predicted to happen because it is
very difficult to predict what will happen. To say that life will be better 25
years from now is as foolhardy as the Club's predictions. With the average
life expectancy ever increasing, and the likelihood of children surviving
after birth, the world population will increase. If living standards were to
continue to get better, as so many predict it will, and if food production
were to increase due to new technological innovations, the population would
increase. People would see a better world where they do not have to worry
about where their next paycheck comes from, or where they will get the
groceries for their children, and as such the population would increase. Birth
rates would go up, not down, as predicted. Death rates would go down. This
would equal a population increase. Many will say that as a sentient species,
we have the ability to consciously use birth-control. This is true; it can be
done, but in the past ten millennia it has not been used, simply because it is
a poor method of population control. A world-wide program of birth control is
not likely to occur, just as it has failed to so in the past. The population
increase shown is a short term prediction, and most short term predictions are
incorrect. This prediction is one of many, and using the information available
it shows increase. What is correct, historically, is that the population has
been on a constant increase. Any graph of the world population from the year
8000 B.C.E to the present will show unstopped growth. The population has
always increased, regardless of any short term trends or drop-offs, and
regardless of any technological advances, which tend to encourage population
growth rather than offset it. What is shown here is that given the current
trends, the population will increase, and given long-term past trends, the
population will increase.
It is true that the model used in the Club of Rome was
inaccurate, that the short term trends inputted were not nearly good enough to
predict twenty-five years ahead. What is also true is that short term and long
term trends show that the population will increase, which is what is being
discussed here, population increase. Not famines or economic collapse or
pollution. The main factor is population, and all other problems are offshoots
of over-population.
Also mentioned by the Club of Rome was the notion of
freezing the world economy at 1975 levels. This was a foolhardy idea, and
obviously one not to be followed. One could no more freeze the economy than
one could freeze the flow of the Mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico. There
are no simple solutions for over-population, and the Club of Rome, a prime
example of a doomsaying group, certainly had no solid grasp of the problem.
Who also have no grasp of the problem are soothsayers. Soothsayers will tend
to look at the current state of affairs and say, "All's well so far; Let's
mash the accelerator to the floor and not look ahead.Î Soothsayers can be
summarized by this: Short-term trends show that life will be ok, and looking
at life right now, it's not bad at all, not anything like what doomsayers
predicted. The problem with this is that as one lives, the snails pace of life
doesn't give one the opportunity to see the changes. One looks at the status
quo and says "This is life; it has always been this way, so it isn't so bad."
This is not true. Doomsayers are long-term, and realise that life was once
better, and that life now is not good at all. Life is as was predicted, with
the population nearly doubled, crime rampant, pollution unchecked, and species
disappearing at an alarming rate. Soothsayers look at the immediate future
that will affect them, but fail to see beyond that. Any improvements to the
quality of life are temporary.
One such improvement is the ability to produce more food in
a smaller amount of land. More food equals more people invariably. Ecological
science proves this, that in the presence of more food, a population will
grow.[9] The type of agriculture which is currently practiced in the world is
set upon outpacing the growth of population. This is impossible. Population
will inevitably increase to the point which the food amount can support--no
further, no less. The numbers will always fluctuate but will have an average
which the food amount can support. Many argue that this occurs only in closed
environments, "test-tube" experiments. Science says the following: the Earth
is very much a closed experiment. Humans cannot import goods from space,
cannot expand to the heavens, and certainly cannot receive more food from
other planets. So this improvement, this innovation of agricultural
technology, has led only to the increase in population, as it has every single
year throughout history. What happens as the population increases is the
carrying capacity is brought ever closer. And this, the carrying capacity, is
exactly what soothsayers are ignoring.
A carrying capacity is defined as the peak of a population
which an environment can support at any given time.[10] If a population goes
above the carrying capacity, it will inevitably crash. The carrying capacity
of the planet for humans is unknown; it is impossible to know. The government
is not going to suddenly say that 23.198567224 billion humans is the carrying
capacity, and that humans are ok if the population is kept below that. It is
impossible to tell, although estimates can be made. Currently, there are no
ways to accurately predict this capacity due to the ever-changing way of life.
However, it is possible to say that given current and past trends, the
carrying capacity will not be reached before mid-next century. By that time,
the soothsayers of our day will be dead. They will not have to worry about it.
But the people that will have to worry about it are the children and
grandchildren of the world. Do not take this incorrectly, this is not saying
"worry about the children," this is saying to worry about the continuation of
the human species as a viable one on this planet. Once reached (the carrying
capacity), a population will drop off rapidly. The amount of time it takes for
the population to crash varies for each individual species, depending upon the
numbers, the individual defense mechanisms for such a crash, and many other
biological attributes. The fact that a species will crash is an ecological
law.[11] The carrying capacity is very important; unfortunately it is all too
often over-looked as a doomsday, or judgment day theory.
Failed prophesies of doom are abundant. People tend to take
notice of failures more than accurate predictions simply because the accurate
predictions comprise their way of life, something people are aware of
everyday, and as such is not a surprise. The failures then stand out,
especially when projecting a way of life far worse than the current standards.
An increase in world-wide awareness of the problems at hand, along with an
increase in awareness of the predictions and projections which are accurate
are necessary for people to understand the current problem of over-population.
The ideology of there not being a problem is one that needs to be dismissed;
to sit idly back waiting to see what happens is a course of action far too
dangerous to consider. The special* viability of the human race is dependent
on action which will cease the destruction of the planet and of ourselves.
Some predictions are true. What is necessary is to look at
both short term and long term effects. Unfortunately, short term trends are
sometimes considered to be the past 50 years. Short term encloses at the least
the past 100 years, with long term stretching from then to ten thousand years
past. What is also unfortunate is that both short and long term trends
indicate an increase in population in the long term. However, in the short
term, specific and limited trends can indicate a decrease of population, which
is highly misleading. Broader and less limited trends show an increase in
population, which is in accordance with the long term. Time has shown that an
increase in food production to feed an increase in population directly and
invariably leads to an even greater increase in population: the most
irrefutable long term trend. Population increases are inevitable given the
current and past technological and agricultural trends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*special (spee-sea-uhl) adj. Of, pertaining to, constituting, or designating a
species; differential.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]Carnell, Brian,http://www.overpopulation.com/limits_to_growth.html,
paragraphs 3-5. Limits to Growth.
[2]U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw, line 4.
World POPClock Projection.
[3]United Nations, http://www.stat.go.jp/161105.htm, World Total, Row 1,
Column 3. World Population Projections - United Nations Estimates (The 1994
revision) 1).
[4]Carnell, Brian http://www.overpopulation.com/limits_to_growth.html,
paragraph 7. Limits to Growth.
[5]U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html, Total
Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050.
[6]Simarski, Lynn, NSF PR 97-19, Media Contact, March 11, 1997. "Researchers
Find Evidence Ozone Hole Harms Antartic Fish.
[7]Quinn, Daniel, http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/kentstate.shtml,
paragraph 50. Reaching for the Future with All Three Hands.
[8]Lang, John, Scripps Howard News Service, Reports on Farm Animal Waste,
April 25, 1998. Senate Agriculture Committee.
[9]Quinn, Daniel,
http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Science/carry_capacity.shtml, paragraph 1, A
True Story Illustrating What It Means To Exceed Carrying Capacity.
[10]"Ecologists define 'carrying capacity' as the population of a given
species that can be supported indefinitely in a defined habitat without
permanently damaging the ecosystem upon which it is dependent." Investing in
Natural Capital: The Ecological Approach to Sustainability. Carrying Capacity
Revisited.
[11]Hanson, Jay, http://members.aol.com/HramYaegr/language_of_ecology.html,
Overshoot, paragraph 5.