Periodically we are reminded of our burgeoning human population. However, those who pedal fear and hate often forget to tell the whole truth about world population growth. It is true that when the turn of the second to the last last century occurred, the world population was under two billion souls and today, we are over six billion. world population nearly quadrupled between 1800 and 1900. The majority of that growth and the high rate at which the human population grew took place in the most recent fifty years. In 1970, about fifty years ago, there were roughly half as many people on Earth as there are today, but if current trends continue, it will take over 200 years to double world population again. We know many of the factors that lead people to reproduce. We also know many of the reasons people decide not to procreate. Current trends seem to indicate that the human population is becoming less likely to rush headlong into our next doubling of population and the reasons are fairly straightforward.
We have known for decades that as people, especially women, get more education, they likely will have fewer children. We have also known for decades that in many impoverished parts of the planet, children are often seen as a parent or grandparent's retirement security. As often happens in nature, the laws of diminishing returns and the tragedy of the commons have combined to force us to re-think our breeding practices.
It is tempting to think of Earth as a hostile place where all organisms are locked in some sort of battle for resources and that the rule of tooth and claw assures our brutality and thuggishness, however reality paints a different sort of picture. Darwin had it nearly right. He did miss an important part of his theory and it has had devastating effects on the way we think about many, many issues. His scientific underpinnings grew out of the knowledge base of the Georgian Era, although because he was "ahead of his time", his sensibilities were decidedly Victorian. "Survival of the fittest" seemed to make sense, in fact, in very real ways, it upheld the ideation that kings actually did have a divine right to rule. Their power, status and the control they held over the masses were "natural" characteristics, able to be "proved" by science. Just as Calvin made the association between spiritual health and financial success, survival of the fittest proved the need for utter ruthlessness in both war and economics.
As I have said for decades, Darwin would have been closer to the mark had he stated that survival of the luckiest is what allows genetic traits to be passed on. The fittest creature of the forest can still be struck by lightening, have a tree fall on them or fail in their attempt to feed. Fitness may help, but luck has more to do with things than any of us seem to realize. Darwin did not have the luxury of looking at the whole planet simultaneously. Today, we can see, through satellite imagery, wafting clouds of aerosols, heat islands over our cities, and giant clouds of airborne dust blown off the Sahara Desert blowing all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to the Amazon Basin. If the fittest people on Earth live in the Sahel, but global climate change stops the rains, even for just a few years, their unluckiness trumps their fitness. Large predators, like the ones we share the top of the food chain with, "naturally" only secure prey on about ten percent of their strikes. nine out of ten times, the prey is just lucky enough to escape the assault.
In our unnatural state, we humans have duplicated many of the natural phenomena without even understanding them. In some respects we have created systems according to our flawed understanding and that has led to even greater problems as our technologies increase the sphere of influence we have upon the world around us. Simultaneously, we do not understand the need for many naturally occurring relationships and are surprised when they enter into our "way of life".
It is interesting that the most appropriate ways to point out our lack of connection with the planet are often the same ones that were overlooked or misunderstood centuries ago, but there you have it. Today, the unluckiest live at or near sea level. In very short order, everything they worked so hard to establish, in some cases for many generations will be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels. Extreme fitness won't help if you need a boat to get to dry land. Living in an apartment building completely surrounded by ocean may not be a valid option. The seven hikers who perished in the recent flooding looked very fit and smoke jumpers need to be in top physical condition to even qualify for their jobs, but when a wall of fire blows over you, survival may not be an option.
We will always need to have enough new births to carry on our species, but in a world out of balance, many young people are realizing that they can either have a tenuous life without children or perhaps have no options, or at least fewer of them, if they have to care for more than just their own needs. We have tools and techniques that can double agricultural output, so technically we could double our population again without creating any more arable land. The problems we face are more of distribution. more than enough food is harvested each year to more than feed the entire population of the planet, but we lack the will to distribute that food equitably.
We are now in an age that can draw on knowledge we never had before, but that will not be enough to solve our problems. We need to also forget many of the lies we have been told about how we fit into this planet, how we are supposed to interact with the world around us and in some respects, the very nature of relationship. The words of Cat Stevens have been on my mind a lot lately. Take your time, think a lot, think of everything you've got, for you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not. Perhaps the best indicator of world population is hope. When we have hope for the future, who would not want to bring new life into the world? Perhaps our current state of affairs is self-limiting the "population bomb".
We have known for decades that as people, especially women, get more education, they likely will have fewer children. We have also known for decades that in many impoverished parts of the planet, children are often seen as a parent or grandparent's retirement security. As often happens in nature, the laws of diminishing returns and the tragedy of the commons have combined to force us to re-think our breeding practices.
It is tempting to think of Earth as a hostile place where all organisms are locked in some sort of battle for resources and that the rule of tooth and claw assures our brutality and thuggishness, however reality paints a different sort of picture. Darwin had it nearly right. He did miss an important part of his theory and it has had devastating effects on the way we think about many, many issues. His scientific underpinnings grew out of the knowledge base of the Georgian Era, although because he was "ahead of his time", his sensibilities were decidedly Victorian. "Survival of the fittest" seemed to make sense, in fact, in very real ways, it upheld the ideation that kings actually did have a divine right to rule. Their power, status and the control they held over the masses were "natural" characteristics, able to be "proved" by science. Just as Calvin made the association between spiritual health and financial success, survival of the fittest proved the need for utter ruthlessness in both war and economics.
As I have said for decades, Darwin would have been closer to the mark had he stated that survival of the luckiest is what allows genetic traits to be passed on. The fittest creature of the forest can still be struck by lightening, have a tree fall on them or fail in their attempt to feed. Fitness may help, but luck has more to do with things than any of us seem to realize. Darwin did not have the luxury of looking at the whole planet simultaneously. Today, we can see, through satellite imagery, wafting clouds of aerosols, heat islands over our cities, and giant clouds of airborne dust blown off the Sahara Desert blowing all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to the Amazon Basin. If the fittest people on Earth live in the Sahel, but global climate change stops the rains, even for just a few years, their unluckiness trumps their fitness. Large predators, like the ones we share the top of the food chain with, "naturally" only secure prey on about ten percent of their strikes. nine out of ten times, the prey is just lucky enough to escape the assault.
In our unnatural state, we humans have duplicated many of the natural phenomena without even understanding them. In some respects we have created systems according to our flawed understanding and that has led to even greater problems as our technologies increase the sphere of influence we have upon the world around us. Simultaneously, we do not understand the need for many naturally occurring relationships and are surprised when they enter into our "way of life".
It is interesting that the most appropriate ways to point out our lack of connection with the planet are often the same ones that were overlooked or misunderstood centuries ago, but there you have it. Today, the unluckiest live at or near sea level. In very short order, everything they worked so hard to establish, in some cases for many generations will be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels. Extreme fitness won't help if you need a boat to get to dry land. Living in an apartment building completely surrounded by ocean may not be a valid option. The seven hikers who perished in the recent flooding looked very fit and smoke jumpers need to be in top physical condition to even qualify for their jobs, but when a wall of fire blows over you, survival may not be an option.
We will always need to have enough new births to carry on our species, but in a world out of balance, many young people are realizing that they can either have a tenuous life without children or perhaps have no options, or at least fewer of them, if they have to care for more than just their own needs. We have tools and techniques that can double agricultural output, so technically we could double our population again without creating any more arable land. The problems we face are more of distribution. more than enough food is harvested each year to more than feed the entire population of the planet, but we lack the will to distribute that food equitably.
We are now in an age that can draw on knowledge we never had before, but that will not be enough to solve our problems. We need to also forget many of the lies we have been told about how we fit into this planet, how we are supposed to interact with the world around us and in some respects, the very nature of relationship. The words of Cat Stevens have been on my mind a lot lately. Take your time, think a lot, think of everything you've got, for you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not. Perhaps the best indicator of world population is hope. When we have hope for the future, who would not want to bring new life into the world? Perhaps our current state of affairs is self-limiting the "population bomb".
No comments:
Post a Comment