Saturday, March 3, 2018

Can we avoid a Global collapse?


                                                       Comments due by March 9, 2018                                                   

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the authors of The Population Bomband Limits to Growth warned that humans were using the finite resources of the planet to fuel unsustainable population growth. Since 1975, the global population has grown from 3 billion to the current 7.3 billion, and it is predicted to reach 9 billion to 10 billion by 2050. There is compelling scientific evidence that present trends in global population, resource use, and economics cannot continue for more than a few decades. The only question is whether there will be a gradual and managed decline or a catastrophic crash. Nevertheless, ­self-proclaimed experts maintain that “sustainable development” can be achieved if we can just summon the necessary technical expertise, political will, and popular support.
Of the more than two dozen titles on global sustainability listed on Amazon.com, The Age of Sustainable Development by Jeffrey Sachs is likely to be especially influential. As the publisher proudly proclaims, “Sachs is a world-renowned economics professor, leader in sustainable development, senior UN advisor, best-selling author, and syndicated columnist. He serves as the director of the Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and professor of health policy and management at Columbia University. He is special advisor to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations on the Millennium Development Goals, and . . . director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.”
The book starts with a bold assertion: “We have entered a new era . . ., the Age of Sustainable Development.” The first chapter articulates Sachs's concept of sustainable development, “a world in which economic progress is widespread; extreme poverty is eliminated; social trust is encouraged . . .; and the environment is protected from human-induced degradation.” Subsequent chapters lay out an ambitious agenda, termed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), for the United Nations and world leaders. The SDGs are intended to reverse the dire state of the Anthropocene—the current era of human domination and degradation of the biosphere—and to solve its big, challenging problems: extreme poverty, poor health and education, social and political inequality, ineffective policies and governance, unsustainable population growth and resource use, changing climate, and declining biodiversity.

This is a bad book. Despite endorsements from Ban Ki-moon, Edward O. Wilson, Jared Diamond, and other notables, it is deeply flawed from a scientific perspective and dangerously misleading from a policy perspective. Sachs is a social scientist, but there is not much science, social or natural, in this book. Science is an objective, evidence-based way of learning fundamental truths about the world. Sachs presents lots of graphs, tables, and maps to illustrate past trends, current conditions, and future projections, but he fails to use these data to assess the feasibility of the SDGs.
After chapters on social and economic topics, in “Planetary boundaries,” Sachs asks the crucial questions, “How can the world economy and population continue to grow if the Earth itself is finite?” and “Can economic growth be reconciled with environmental sustainability?” He responds, “By very careful and science-based attention to the real and growing environmental threats, we can indeed find ways to reconcile growth—in the sense of material improvement over time—with environmental sustainability.”
Unfortunately, “sustainable development,” as advocated by most natural, social, and environmental scientists, is an oxymoron. Continual population growth and economic development on a finite Earth are biophysically impossible. They violate the laws of physics, especially thermodynamics, and the fundamental principles of biology. Population growth requires the increased consumption of food, water, and other essentials for human life. Economic development requires the increased use of energy and material resources to provide goods, services, and information technology.
Existing uses of these resources have already created an unsustainable bubble of population and economy. Unless current trends can be reversed, a catastrophic crash is inevitable (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 2013). The global human population is currently growing at a rate of 1.1 percent per year and will add 80 million in 2015. Humans are rapidly depleting the finite reserves of fossil fuels that power the current industrial–technological economy (Hall and Klitgaard 2011). Resource shortages are evidenced in declines since the 1980s in per-capita consumption of oil, natural gas, metal ores, phosphate (an essential fertilizer), fresh water, arable land, and ocean fisheries (Brown et al. 2013). It is no coincidence that the genuine progress indicator (an alternative to gross national product), which measures quality of life, has also been decreasing since the 1980s (Kubiszewski et al. 2013). The humans of the Anthropocene are changing the climate, decimating the biodiversity, and reducing the productivity of the biosphere.
Can these trends be reversed? Unfortunately, the answers depend on objective scientific analysis, which is missing from this book. It is not enough to recognize the problems and suggest optimistic solutions. It is necessary to do a rigorous scientific evaluation: Assemble the relevant data; do the arithmetic to estimate the energy, material, and socioeconomic costs; and draw the logical conclusions. It is not enough simply to assert what should be done; one must show quantitatively what needs to be done and how it could practically and politically be accomplished in time to avert catastrophe. The problems are compounded, because in our complex, interconnected world, actions to address some SDGs will make others worse. We know that anthropogenic climate change could be reversed if we stopped burning fossil fuels. But such energy deprivation would have a devastating impact on all of Sachs's social objectives. Politicians and economists would have to abandon the holy grail of economic growth and prepare for a rapid, drastic reduction in the global population and standard of living.
Rather than address Sachs's 10 SDGs individually, I will consider them in three categories. Those in the first category might actually be accomplished. These include reductions in disease and poverty and increases in health services and education. Recent progress toward these goals might be continued as long as the global economy holds up. But consider the reason: These SDGs do not call for major sacrifices by most people, and they profit individuals and corporations in developed countries that sell goods, services, and information to the developing world.
The SDGs in the second category are biophysically impossible, because they violate the laws of nature. These include “achieve economic development within planetary boundaries,” “curb human-induced climate change and ensure sustainable energy,” and “secure ecosystem services and biodiversity.” The finite stocks of energy and material resources limit potential economic growth. Following Sachs's graph 6.10, energy consumption would need to increase more than threefold in China and more than tenfold in the poorest developing countries to attain a US level of economic development and standard of living. This is clearly impossible in the foreseeable future. China currently uses more than 20 percent of global energy production. In the next few decades, renewable energy sources will make increasing but only modest contributions. The global economy will continue to be fueled by burning diminishing reserves of fossil fuels, with the attendant emission of carbon dioxide and the exacerbation of climate change. The increasing impacts of cultivating crops, harvesting fish and wood, extracting minerals, and dispersing pollutants are damaging ecosystems and decimating biodiversity.
The SDGs in the third category are unrealistic, because they ignore realities of human behavior. They include “achieve gender equality, social inclusion, and human rights for all” and “transform governance for sustainable development.” These noble ideals have never been achieved in all of history. Humans are constitutionally incapable of making the necessary sacrifices. Doing so would violate the Malthusian–Darwinian dynamic, the biological imperative that causes all organisms to favor themselves and their family, social group, and nation state over all others (Nekola et al. 2013).

For an alternative perspective on the present condition and future trajectory of humanity and the biosphere, I recommend Overdevelopment, Over­population, Overshoot (Butler 2015). This is mostly a picture book, but its 163 photographs show a grim reality that contrasts with Sachs's misleading optimism.

13 comments:

  1. Despite dire predictions such as though posed in "The Population Bomb" as well as "Limits to Growth," humans have been able to continue to grow in population size without devastating impacts to the developed world. However, this does not take into account the devastating climate implications this has had and how the developing world has been poorly impacted. The reason for our continued growth and "success" has been the development of technology. For years, every time there is a prediction that we are exceeding Earth's carrying capacity, we have been able to find a way to grow more food, build more housing, and, in general, keep life going. While I am not saying technology will be our savior and keep us from going over the edge, it has been able to, up until this point, help us outlive every apocalyptic prediction thus far. Despite this, we continue to degrade the environment at a horrifying rate and with altered climate patterns, it will be harder in the future to find the resources necessary to survive. Despite the above argument that sustainable development is an oxymoron, I would argue that it's sustainable growth that is the oxymoron while sustainable development can be attained. However, this would require major modifications of our way of life, such as reduced resource demand, having fewer children, and decreased energy use. Though a difficult task, at least it is a discussion being had and hopefully this will inspire enough people to find alternative ways to live.

    ReplyDelete
  2. DeShawn McLeod

    One of the things I’ve noticed that get in the way of spreading valuable truth is that everyone perceives the world differently. While Sach displayed a truth that he felt needed to be published in a book, it’s truth is inaccurate to others of the same profession. Is this Sach’s fault? Is he doing a disservice to the public by getting these thoughts published? Somewhat. It misleads people to believe it’s a simple way of reviving a broken global ecosystem and has an American essence that there’s always a happy ending.

    If the public were adequately educated on these matters, books like Sach's would be dismissed, not only by his professional peers, but by the public. However, American’s are not as aware of their world as they should be and this allows a space for false advertising to take a deep effect on readers.

    I’ve noticed that issues of sustainable development are more than economical, but political. Sustainable development seems like a multi-faceted issue that would be solved if the oil industry didn’t have such a hold on government, if rich people would spread their wealth instead of trying to consume as much as they can from the poor, or if American government could actually get things done.

    It’s unfortunate. I hope that something like the Cape Town matter doesn’t hit America, to finally realize that things need to change.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Global collapse of the human population/civilization is inevitable at some point in time, but not a collapse of our entire planet. Just as the laws of gravity can be used to explains multitudes of economic theories, the laws of motion can be applied to the human population (whereby motion is the function of human population or f(x) where x = human population). At its most basic delineation, the law of motion states that whatever comes up most come down. Science suggests that in all models of population dynamics, every population reaches a "carrying capacity" which can be defined as an equilibrium by which a certain population size is viably maintained. According to population dynamics theory, this carrying capacity can be overextended but only for a small amount of time before the population begins to drastically decrease due to loss of resources. (Ex: bacteria in a closed container, one constant nutrient source (resources), bacteria grow really quickly and deplete the nutrients faster and faster until their population has risen so much causing the constant nutrient source to not be enough to feed even half of the population... the majority of the population die and some survive.) If you apply this theory to the human population, you would see the same declining trend except our nutrient source is our entire planet. However, in a human population dynamic we have variables such as the economy, complex knowledge, advanced technologies, etc. We use these variables as implausible buffers for our carrying capacity.
    Sachs conceptualized a very simple notion of sustainable development as, “a world in which economic progress is widespread; extreme poverty is eliminated; social trust is encouraged . . .; and the environment is protected from human-induced degradation.” To me, these goals are focused solely on relieving social constructs that are the symptoms of our capitalistic socioeconomic paradigm. The notion that economic growth will alleviate poverty is an impossibility theorem in and of itself. Perhaps a version that could possibly be viable if the term "economic growth" equated to "economic value" whereby poverty is alleviated via wealth redistribution within said economy... meaning that without the need to "grow the economy" humans can finally completely cease environmental degradation.
    However, it is quite clear that the underlying foundation for a sustainably developed world is much more complex and quite frankly uncertain in comparison to the straightforward goals of the SDGs, or Sachs's simplistic concept of sustainable development. Whether or not humans can set aside their Malthusian–Darwinian dynamic (or incorporate it such that the betterment of one self and one's family means to protect the environment on our planet) to work towards a more sustainable world for future generations, it's only a matter of time (distant future...or not) until there is a steady collapse of human civilization/population whereby mother nature will reclaim.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In my opinion I don't think it should be assumed that our society is heading towards apocalyptic times. We have many times before now, course corrected ourselves when we needed too. As we progress forward, ideologies change with the facts and this is another example of that. During the time "The Population Bomb" was written it was thought by the author, we wouldn't be able to sustain this type of growth. Some 40 plus years later here we are and many of his doomsday theories have come to pass. It's my idea that women now in present society are more independent, socially and economically, and they don't easily accept being pregnant as their single fate. Some believe the global population will decline, while others believe otherwise. The idea being that the lower the global population the more resources we'll have available, but if we look at places with the highest density, not one of those places qualify as desperate for more resources. In the case of Cape Town, the problem wasn't the population, but the consumption of it's water resource. This is where our attention needs to be focused on, it's the overconsumption of resources that will lead down the dark apocalyptic path. This is how we avoid a global collapse, we consume less, an important number to pay attention to is the world's richest half billion people, which is about 7% of the population is responsible for half of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. On the flip side the poorest 50% of the population are responsible for just 7% of emissions. The imbalance of distribution of resources, as well as the consumption is evident and once we figure out a solution to this very issue we can then avoid an global collapse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Xin Jiang
    Does the world have too many people? This seems to be an indisputable reality and it is also the root cause of all the difficulties we face. This seems to be a consensus. However, we believe that excessive population is a problem, but the problems in the world are not mainly due to the excessive population. It has more profound reasons. For example, the environmental problem is attributed to the rapid population growth and excessive population. Has the environmental problem been solved after the population control problem is solved? In many developed countries, there has been a situation of negative population growth. Does environmental problems are automatically solved in these places? Obviously, this is impossible.
    There is a need for new thinking about population issues.
    First of all, we must position people and the natural world in right place. To establish a concept of "partnership" in which people and nature should be harmonious. Second, we must adhere to the principle of ecological balance. Human beings should also increase their research on ecology and actively restore the destroyed ecological environment. Third, we must further improve human understanding and practical ability. The problem of incompatibility between man and nature brought about by human science and technology can only be solved by further development of science and technology. Fourth, adjust social relations and establish a reasonable social system. The contradiction between man and nature has its roots of understanding, but it is fundamentally caused by social reasons. To eliminate the social roots of the contradiction between man and nature, it is necessary to adjust social relations and establish a reasonable social system.

    ReplyDelete
  6. When we hear and see of places like Cape Town, we realize that the shortages that Cape Town is going through are a result of people’s lack of knowledge. If this lack of knowledge was not present, if people were more aware of their actions and surroundings, would “Day Zero” still be approaching? I think in that in the situation regarding Cape Town, “Day Zero” could have been totally preventable. The shortages taking place in Cape Town aren’t happening as a result of the population growing too quickly but because the current population and its officials have not been observing their water supply. If we look at a very populated country, India for example, there is so much going on. Yes, the population of the country is very fast growing but there are also so many upsides to this population growth. The population has been growing, where there is also a growing demand for natural resources but what else is happening? Along with the growing population and increased demand for natural resources, India has been experiencing economic prosperity the past two decades. However, this rapid economic growth is what also caused the boosting of demand. India, who is very reliant on their agricultural industry, realizes that in order to continue this period of economic prosperity, they must keep a watchful eye on their water supply. There are many current governance factors in India that constrain access to adequate water supplies. The Indian government is having a hard time enforcing laws regarding water consumptions since it is so difficult to keep up with the high levels of demand with a growing population. We see the attempts of the government with an almost unrealistic canvas because population growth is so high, but when we think about Cape Town, who did not have a population growth that was too quick, we can see that their water shortage was completely preventable.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This review of Sach's book makes sense to me. It is great to lay out goals, but if these goals are unrealistic and unattainable, what is the point? The goals need to not only be achievable, but also, as mentioned, backed by a scientific reason. If there is not concrete evidence as to why we need to achieve these goals, no one will take them seriously enough to makes the changes necessary. Additionally, if there is not a clear change that people can make in order to achieve these goals, no one will be on the same page and the goals will never be met. Quantifying what exactly sustainable development is and what needs to be done to achieve it is the most important thing in my eyes. People can be told over and over again that our resources will not last forever, but until they can actually see decreasing numbers they will not take it seriously. From reading this review, it sounds like the book puts too much optimism into sustainable development, in order not to scare people. However, people have to be scared in order to really make the change. A more realistic approach, even if it is a bit grim, would be more effective in getting people to actually work towards the realistic goals of sustainable development.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nicholas ArciszewskiMarch 9, 2018 at 2:48 PM

    As I began reading this article, I had the thought in my mind that some of these SDGs seemed unrealistic. Not to my surprise, as I read on further, it was stated that these SDGs are unrealistic and don't follow many laws of science. The thought of sustainable development being possible with just technical expertise, political will and popular support was funny. I instantly thought at that point of how to try to work backwards and reverse the negative externalities already occurred to our environment. Considering the population is growing, the demand for resources also increases, also energy usage. If we are running out of these natural resources needed for production; how will we be able to sustain our economies? It isn't possible. The three theories that these SDGs are broken down into three categories seems more realistic. The attainable, the biophysically unattainable, and the unrealistic. So if we have broken down these SDGs into three categories, it would seem smart to focus on those that are attainable. If there are unrealistic goals set in place, that means they will not ever be achievable. Inevitably resulting in the decline of humanity. Therefore, we should focus on the SDGs that are attainable and then try to figure out new methods and see if there is anyway to chance consumer living so that we can function as a sustainable society. How do you stop a growing population? How do you stop using necessary resources that are non renewable. These are problems that we need to address on a global spectrum and figure out if these SDGs actually will be possible.

    Nicholas Arciszewski

    ReplyDelete
  9. I hate to start off this post by coming off as pessimistic but at the rate in which we reproduce and consume resources on a daily basis, it is more inevitable that we suffer a global collapse. When I think about our population growth for example I look at how the nation of China had implemented a law which required each family to have only 1 child and pay a hefty tax if they had more than one. China trying to limit it's population growth is a sad reality that the earth is not growing yet the number of humans are. Another example I look at in terms of harm to the environment, you take a look at India. The air pollution there is such a travesty that I believe I read somewhere that breathing for 1 min in New Delhi is the equivalent to smoking 10 cigarettes. That is horrifying to think about people having to go through such a thing. Unfortunately the sad truth is that because of our lack of sympathy for how the world is changing for the worse we are eventually going to suffer.
    When looking at the SDG's from Mr. Sachs I like how it is categorized into 3 separate types. The first one being, reductions in disease and poverty and increase in health. These could be achieved and as a matter of fact our society has been aiming for this for quite some time but unfortunately it's getting harder to combat poverty because I see it as the gap between upper and lower class increasing by the year, and if this isn't reversed than this problem will continue. As advancements in science have continued modern medicine is truly amazing. We have been able to combat serious diseases to help keep us healthy, however where there is one positive we also have the negative of Pharma companies trying to use this for their own profit as we have seen with companies such as Valeant as well as the company that makes EpiPens. I look at the next category, and how it in a sense contradicts itself because in order to perform one of the actions something else has to be sacrificed and it just becomes a cycle in which nothing good comes out. Then you observe the last category and it makes you think about all that is happening today in society when it comes to equality for race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It has been a growing concern and peoples voices have been heard but like it says in the article above, it is human nature to care about family and those in your social circle. I believe that we as humans do have the ability to close the gap on equality but I am unsure of if we will be able to come together and see ourselves as completely equal, which is sad to say.
    I think the best way to handle the SDG's is to take the ones that are somewhat attainable and go from there, once we get the baby steps in then we just may be able to work on the last category. As far as the second category I think that should be either adjusted or forgotten because like the article says it defies the laws of nature and without adjustment it becomes a waste of resources.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The idea that an apocalypse will ever occur always seems to perplex me. All theory surrounding the occurrence of an apocalypse is precisely that: theory. We don’t even know for certain if this world was created through the “Big Bang Theory” or some other alternative identified through religions around the world (ex. Genesis may be widely believed by many following Christianity and Judaism). We do know that climate change exists and that astronomers have long known that cosmic expansion has sped up, indicating that “in about 5 billion years the sun will run out of hydrogen fuel and swell to gigantic size, vaporizing our planet” (Alpert). At a certain point, a global collapse is out of our hands as humans inhibiting the earth. So if cyclical global models are correct, then technically we cannot avoid a global collapse.

    Perhaps I am too optimistic about humanity, but I do believe we can avoid the proposed global collapse in “decades” through fostering many senses of community. Though climate change has been linked to the increasing number of devastating natural disasters, that may or may not propel us into an apocalypse, we don’t talk enough about the human responses to these disasters. The entire concept of society is founded on principles of networks and interactions. When disaster strikes, people take charge of their society and begin to act against the capitalist norms they’ve been raised with. Though not every society is capitalist, many are and have taught citizens to “Keep up with the Joneses”. We only act selfish because we have been taught to and accepted those notions of what is appropriate behavior.

    From the above article, I found the statement, “The problems are compounded, because in our complex, interconnected world, actions to address some SDGs will make others worse.” extremely thought-provoking. While I see where the author is coming from, perhaps we are overestimating the legitimacy of the SDGs and the Malthusian–Darwinian dynamic. The SDGs are a political framework, and the Malthusian–Darwinian dynamic could just be wrong. The SDGs cannot be taken as rule of law because they don’t fully describe humanity and the Malthusian–Darwinian dynamic is disproved in the wake of horrible natural disasters when humanity temporarily switches from acting individualistic to collectivistic. Neither begin to describe how decentralized compassion or collectivism can take us further than bureaucracies proposing MDGs or SDGs. We do have problems with the way the world has run and population size increases every day, but we also don’t have the right systems to support global collectivism. To effectively stop a global collapse, we have to stop fully measuring everything. When we are so focused on numbers, we lose emotions. Perhaps a good place to start change is to stop privatizing every aspect of our lives, for it is material objects that allow social ranks and orders to continue the way they have.

    Alpert, Marc. "The Cosmic Apocalypse". Princeton Alumni Weekly, 11 February 2009. https://paw.princeton.edu/article/cosmic-apocalypse.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Peidong Yang
    The main point of this blog is that sustainable development goals are infeasible to realize because continual population growth and economic development on a finite Earth are biophysically impossible. As for the population growth, I can’t help myself to think about Professor Hawking’s recent statement on the population problem in 2017. He said that in 2600, people would cover the earth, standing shoulder by shoulder, and the exponential population growth would turn our earth into a fire ball because the over-consumption of energy and heat. He also took it a priority to colonize other planets. These statements are very scary and can reflect indirectly that sustainable development is unrealistic. It is undeniable that human beings are facing increasingly serious resource problem and various social issues, like poverty, and discrimination. The “Day Zero” in Cape Town is an aloud warning to the whole world that the severity of resources. However, I think these provocative statements are not valid enough. Firstly, through a process of exponential growth - we no longer are going through it any more - and the world population growth is projected to slow down, and the major reason that results in the continuous growth is the longer lifespan. In most developed countries, the number of births barely exceeds the death, and the aging population becomes a vital social issue, just like Japan. The major driving force to the population growth comes from developing countries, but some of them has already taken steps to control their population. For example, China, as the country with the largest population in the world, had implemented its one-child policy for decades, and it largely contained the upward trend.
    Our earth is the only planet that we know for the moment where we can breathe the air, live in the atmosphere, and survive without spacesuits. We shouldn’t stop the fighting of achieving sustainable development, and protect our earth.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Environmental problems have contributed to a number of civilization collapses throughout history. Overpopulation, overconsumption, and poor choices of technologies are a few causes. Cultural change provides the main hope of stopping such a disaster. Almost every past civilization has undergone collapse, a loss of sociopolitical problems and a dramatic decline in population size. Some have recovered from collapses at various stages where others were permanent. In many, if not most, cases, overexploitation of the environment was one major cause. However, today’s civilization is threatened with collapse by a number of environmental problems, some of which include climate disruption, extinction of animals and plants, land degradation, susceptibility to disease, and depletion of scarce resources. It is believed that humanity will expand Earth’s carrying capacity with technological innovation, however, these innovations can add or subtract from carrying capacity.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Liyuan Zhang

    From the history of human beings, it seems that environmental problems have led to the collapses of human civilizations for times. And nowadays, it seems as if there are high chance that a global collapse will occur somehow due to issues like overpopulation and overconsumption. With this challenge ahead, there are different advocates in opinion-leading. This article has carefully examined Jeffrey Sachs notions in the popular book on Amazon. And I am personally quite touched by the argument that “continual population growth and economic development on a finite Earth are biophysically impossible. “From the economic and social aspect, it is clearly that the world cannot sustain so many people. However, still there are implications that the problem can be settled. The Earth has its own capacity, although technological innovations may help to ease some problems such as the urge for food and consumption, still the fundamental issue is not looked after.

    A global collapse is doomed or not is hard to tell at the moments. Nevertheless, the long-term task of changing human behavior shall be valued as effective method to the global collapse.

    ReplyDelete