If you’d like a more scientific explanation of what sages have been telling us forever, just ask Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin talked about the inevitable collapse of any creature that grows exponentially in a finite environment.
Interestingly, humans seem to be already doing pretty well at stopping population growth - without needing a “totalitarian climate communism”, as the article suggests, to force them to.
In that sense, Darwin either was wrong, or didn’t spend much time thinking of human behaviour ecology and the possibility of both education, contraception and smartphones. :)
What refuses to come down, however, is our resource consumption. Apparently, a creature can be an individualist and decide: “I won’t have kids because that will reduce my chances of living a good life” (or reason to the conclusion “I want kids, but will have only two, because medicine can ensure their survival”)…
…but making the decision of “I won’t consume excessive resources” is hard, because the definition of “good life” seems to include ample supply of resources. Let’s see if something can be changed there. Maybe “consume as much as you want, but only renewables” is the answer?
Charles Darwin in the quote was speaking exclusively about non-human animals. He was famously cagey about applying the principles he observed in nature to humans and society. To this day, people who have never read his famous work about Galapagos birds think its actual title is “The Origin of the Species” and the actual subject humans because his detractors used so much ink to attack him for its implications for the prevailing religious authority.
It was Thomas Malthus who famously applied the principle to humans, with disastrous results. Perhaps the author’s choice of falsely contextualizing Darwin was intentional because Malthusian thinking is a prime example of confusing data-driven forecasting with scientific truth. The constant failure of a world famine to validate Malthus and his disciples should be evidence for optimism.
Also, we didn’t cheat ‘Malthusian death’ through the use of fossil fuels - the ‘Green’ Revolution, a period characterized by a boom in food production driven by oil extraction, didn’t occur until the 1960s, and Malthus’ apocalypse had already been falsified by then. Its purpose was not to end hunger but to prevent the spread of communism by propping up capitalist-friendly authoritarian regimes with cheap food, and the lives it counts as saved through domestic mechanization, overproduction, and exportation could have been much more sustainably saved through knowledge transfer and democratic revolution.
The discovery of the Haber process in the 1910s was the point at which food production was no longer limited by fertile land; methane (a.k.a. cow farts, marsh gas, landfill burnoff), the chemical needed for the process, is not exclusive to oil extraction. Though we use oil to overproduce food today, people still starve due to famine. The problem is not food production but political organization, just as it has been since the invention of inexpensive ammonia fabrication. Authoritarian regimes use their power over food distribution to reward loyalists and starve threats. A world without tyrants is a world without hunger.
Modern consumption is way out of order, but I do believe that a major part of it is our stupid new habit of transporting stuff around the globe. If we made stuff locally instead, and only transported absolutely necessary stuff to somewhere else, and if we ate mostly regional food we could still live well. Fuel is too cheap, so things are made in one country, packaged in another, sold in a third - the stupidity of this doesn’t even register. Every time I go to my local store and check where the bottled water comes from I get depressed.
A lot of it is the result of what was sold as ‘globalization’ in the 80s by the likes of Reagan and Thatcher. Their neoliberalism paved the way for the shit we have now - production pushed into poor countries where nobody cares about the pollution and misery, while the leaders of the Western world can fly their private jets from climate meeting to climate meeting somewhere nice in the Swiss alps and keep their populations comfy with the spoils of the scam and busy with plenty of bullshit jobs.
I do believe it’s possible going hybrid and wean of the fuel a bit - I drive and travel less, grow my own food, replace machine work with animal work around my small farm and garden. My life quality has improved because it’s more quiet. I eat really well - there’s always some fresh veg, herb, meat, egg, mushroom, foraged stuff that is delicious and would cost a fortune in the shops. I’m still dependent from my bullshit job, because nothing is perfect and there’s a learning curve towards becoming a producer instead of a consumer. I still can’t do without a car because I live rural. But I went from being a heavy consumer of resources (ordering electronics and drone parts from China) to trying to live and consume locally as much as I can, and I would say I’m more content, more relaxed, less stressed. The worst stress of this year were my holidays, where I took a plane for the first time in years to see my family - didn’t feel good anymore. I might have to take the train or bus next time.
Interestingly, humans seem to be already doing pretty well at stopping population growth - without needing a “totalitarian climate communism”, as the article suggests, to force them to.
In that sense, Darwin either was wrong, or didn’t spend much time thinking of human behaviour ecology and the possibility of both education, contraception and smartphones. :)
What refuses to come down, however, is our resource consumption. Apparently, a creature can be an individualist and decide: “I won’t have kids because that will reduce my chances of living a good life” (or reason to the conclusion “I want kids, but will have only two, because medicine can ensure their survival”)…
…but making the decision of “I won’t consume excessive resources” is hard, because the definition of “good life” seems to include ample supply of resources. Let’s see if something can be changed there. Maybe “consume as much as you want, but only renewables” is the answer?
Charles Darwin in the quote was speaking exclusively about non-human animals. He was famously cagey about applying the principles he observed in nature to humans and society. To this day, people who have never read his famous work about Galapagos birds think its actual title is “The Origin of the Species” and the actual subject humans because his detractors used so much ink to attack him for its implications for the prevailing religious authority.
It was Thomas Malthus who famously applied the principle to humans, with disastrous results. Perhaps the author’s choice of falsely contextualizing Darwin was intentional because Malthusian thinking is a prime example of confusing data-driven forecasting with scientific truth. The constant failure of a world famine to validate Malthus and his disciples should be evidence for optimism.
Also, we didn’t cheat ‘Malthusian death’ through the use of fossil fuels - the ‘Green’ Revolution, a period characterized by a boom in food production driven by oil extraction, didn’t occur until the 1960s, and Malthus’ apocalypse had already been falsified by then. Its purpose was not to end hunger but to prevent the spread of communism by propping up capitalist-friendly authoritarian regimes with cheap food, and the lives it counts as saved through domestic mechanization, overproduction, and exportation could have been much more sustainably saved through knowledge transfer and democratic revolution.
The discovery of the Haber process in the 1910s was the point at which food production was no longer limited by fertile land; methane (a.k.a. cow farts, marsh gas, landfill burnoff), the chemical needed for the process, is not exclusive to oil extraction. Though we use oil to overproduce food today, people still starve due to famine. The problem is not food production but political organization, just as it has been since the invention of inexpensive ammonia fabrication. Authoritarian regimes use their power over food distribution to reward loyalists and starve threats. A world without tyrants is a world without hunger.
Modern consumption is way out of order, but I do believe that a major part of it is our stupid new habit of transporting stuff around the globe. If we made stuff locally instead, and only transported absolutely necessary stuff to somewhere else, and if we ate mostly regional food we could still live well. Fuel is too cheap, so things are made in one country, packaged in another, sold in a third - the stupidity of this doesn’t even register. Every time I go to my local store and check where the bottled water comes from I get depressed.
A lot of it is the result of what was sold as ‘globalization’ in the 80s by the likes of Reagan and Thatcher. Their neoliberalism paved the way for the shit we have now - production pushed into poor countries where nobody cares about the pollution and misery, while the leaders of the Western world can fly their private jets from climate meeting to climate meeting somewhere nice in the Swiss alps and keep their populations comfy with the spoils of the scam and busy with plenty of bullshit jobs.
I do believe it’s possible going hybrid and wean of the fuel a bit - I drive and travel less, grow my own food, replace machine work with animal work around my small farm and garden. My life quality has improved because it’s more quiet. I eat really well - there’s always some fresh veg, herb, meat, egg, mushroom, foraged stuff that is delicious and would cost a fortune in the shops. I’m still dependent from my bullshit job, because nothing is perfect and there’s a learning curve towards becoming a producer instead of a consumer. I still can’t do without a car because I live rural. But I went from being a heavy consumer of resources (ordering electronics and drone parts from China) to trying to live and consume locally as much as I can, and I would say I’m more content, more relaxed, less stressed. The worst stress of this year were my holidays, where I took a plane for the first time in years to see my family - didn’t feel good anymore. I might have to take the train or bus next time.
That part is pure Social Darwinism, which is really doing a disservice to the scientific discoveries of Darwin.