Monbiot: It's simple. If we can't change our economic system, our number's up

[GliderGuider]

It's simple. If we can't change our economic system, our number's up

Let us imagine that in 3030BC the total possessions of the people of Egypt filled one cubic metre. Let us propose that these possessions grew by 4.5% a year. How big would that stash have been by the Battle of Actium in 30BC? This is the calculation performed by the investment banker Jeremy Grantham.

Go on, take a guess. Ten times the size of the pyramids? All the sand in the Sahara? The Atlantic ocean? The volume of the planet? A little more? It's 2.5 billion billion solar systems. It does not take you long, pondering this outcome, to reach the paradoxical position that salvation lies in collapse.

To succeed is to destroy ourselves. To fail is to destroy ourselves. That is the bind we have created. Ignore if you must climate change, biodiversity collapse, the depletion of water, soil, minerals, oil; even if all these issues miraculously vanished, the mathematics of compound growth make continuity impossible.

The inescapable failure of a society built upon growth and its destruction of the Earth's living systems are the overwhelming facts of our existence. As a result, they are mentioned almost nowhere. They are the 21st century's great taboo, the subjects guaranteed to alienate your friends and neighbours. We live as if trapped inside a Sunday supplement: obsessed with fame, fashion and the three dreary staples of middle-class conversation: recipes, renovations and resorts. Anything but the topic that demands our attention.

One of George's more glumly realistic pieces.

[TBF]

1. This: "That's how you measure the depth

of this problem: by our inability even to discuss it."

Great article. K&R

[The2ndWheel]

2. It doesn't sound like it's the economic system

It was neither capitalism nor communism that made possible the progress and pathologies (total war, the unprecedented concentration of global wealth, planetary destruction) of the modern age. It was coal, followed by oil and gas. The meta-trend, the mother narrative, is carbon-fuelled expansion.

If there's no counterbalance to humanity, we'll just keep growing. There's less and less of a counterbalance, because we've found a way to use more and more energy that exists outside of our own body. That's how we've broken all those limits. From a sharp stick or arrowhead, to the oil, gas, and coal of today.

We're the 1% of the planet. Hoarding resources into the hands of a single species though what we call civilization, writing the legislation that governs us, etc.

[L0oniX]

3. Physics and finite resources.

You can't get something from nothing. Nothing disappears but only changes form. The forms they are changed into may not be usable for anything else. World raw resources needed for capitalism are finite. Population will be limited by the areas that can provide food sources which are also dependent on climate.

[LouisvilleDem]

18. True

However, it is also true that matter is neither created nor destroyed, which begs the question of what exactly Monbiot means when he says raw resources get "consumed". Given enough energy, it possible to recycle anything. So in reality, the only limiting factor is energy, which is basically infinite when you include the output of the sun.

[caraher]

21. "Consumed" means turned into less useful forms

For instance, energy transforms from low to high entropy forms.

And just pointing at the sun and saying its effect is to give us infinite energy to work any magic we choose ignores myriad problems. For instance, how are you going to solve ocean acidification this way? How are you going to reduce the greenhouse gas concentration with the sun's energy? Bearing in mind that there are investments required to harness it in the first place, that humans are but one part of a complex ecosystem that also needs solar energy, and that every technological "fix" to a global environmental problem carries a substantial risk of generating new problems of its own?

[LouisvilleDem]

24. Agreed

I was merely pointing out that the idea that somehow the laws of physics 'prove' that collapse is inevitable is incorrect. The fact is that all of the thing humans need to survive are renewable resources.

[DLnyc]

42. I think you are correct that plenty of energy is available.

The problem is not technological, I would say, but rather social. Our society has given over its navigation to its economic system, so that a very few elite and powerful persons and corporations in fact make all major decisions. It is much more convenient for these forces to keep us on a hydrocarbon diet, since that is a finite and easily-monopolized resource. It is true that we would have plenty of energy, if only our social model were cooperation instead of exploitation and conquest. But that is a very big "if only", probably in fact insurmountable.

IMHO

[sinkingfeeling]

4. I remember back in the 60's when people spoke of 'zero population growth'. Today

it's an 'infringement on my rights' to mention limiting children. But, it's pretty much too late to fix it now.

[GliderGuider]

5. There are many ways to view the root cause of our predicament.

It seems obvious to me that economics isn't the root cause. Economics is largely a cybernetic control mechanism for allocating and distributing wealth, as well as for directing money (which is a claim on future production) to those areas of the globe that have future production to be claimed. Economic systems of any sort emerge only when there is too much surplus energy to be controlled and directed without them.

Under economics lies energy, in our case fossil fuels. Energy is the motive power of economics.

But what underlies our addictive use of fossil fuels? Economics enables it, but why are we collectively driven to grow (in GDP, population, social structure, the use of non-renewable resources and appropriation of the biosphere) using all the energy available to us at the moment?

My hypothesis is that the root cause lies in the physical organization of the universe itself. The radical worldview that I've been piecing together for the last year and a half is based on this hypothesis:

The operation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in open systems is the core universal principle that underlies and enables life itself - including genetics, natural selection, the structure and life cycle of all complex systems, as well as most species-level behavior including both the glorious and shameful aspects of human behavior.

Our growth imperative appears to originate in the Second Law, which shapes the structure of our genetic code, which in turn shapes our collective behavior. The primary imperative of all living organisms is to survive at pretty much any cost. This survival imperative links back to our nature as dissipative structures - individual survival is what turns species into meta-stable gradient dissipators, in line with the requirements of the Second Law in open systems. The behavior of all species is governed partly by their genetic code, and partly by their environment.

So long as growth-enabling energy sources are available in their environment (whether food or extrasomatic energy) species' genetic heritage mandates that they continue to expand.

Species contraction only happens through external forces - predators, disease or environmental change.

Our only natural predators are other members of our species. So until we encounter war (which is predation with a human face), global pandemics or environmental change, we will keep growing. It's the law...

[DebJ]

7. Population growth radically slows and even halts with the education of women.

There are social factors at play in the human systems that aren't purely biologically driven.

[The2ndWheel]

10. Which only happens with an increase in consumption

We need to consume more energy to slow the population growth that was able to happen because of the increase in the amount of energy we consumed.

[GliderGuider]

14. I did say this was a radical worldview.

My reading of the science is that the behavior of human beings, especially when acting in large groups, is largely deterministic. The main factors governing that behavior appear to be physics, biology, and our physical environment.

[LouisvilleDem]

17. I think you might have missed the point

You said this:

"Species contraction only happens through external forces - predators, disease or environmental change."

To which s/he pointed out that population growth slows (in fact, goes negative) when women are educated. The fact that many places in Europe have birth rates far below replacement (Italy's birthrate is 1.3) seems to contradict your claim. The population of Italy is contracting not because of external forces, but simply because the people of Italy have chosen to have fewer children.

[GliderGuider]

20. Is our species contracting?

No, it's not.

The contraction of small portions of it is not a valid counterclaim. We have no evidence (yet) that population control can be instituted voluntarily on a scale large enough to eliminate those last 80 million births per year, absent outside influences. We might get that evidence eventually, but until we do the possibility remains in the realm of belief. My claim stands.

[LouisvilleDem]

22. What outside influences...

Last edited Wed May 28, 2014, 06:58 PM - Edit history (1)

...are causing the populations of numerous first world countries to decline? Why do you believe the exact same thing would be impossible on a global scale? Most importantly, why do insist on treating the world's human population as a homogeneous group when it so obviously isn't?

[GliderGuider]

25. According to World Bank data, 15 major nations had lower populations in 2011 than in 2001

Russia
Ukraine
Romania
Bulgaria
Belarus
Lithuania
Serbia
Hungary
Latvia
Moldova
Croatia
Poland
Estonia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Germany

Of those, 14 are were part of the Soviet sphere of influence, suffered economically during the breakup of the USSR, and are still struggling economically. According to Virginia Abernethy's "Fertility Opportunity Hypothesis", people tend to stop breeding if they think economic opportunities will be lower in the future.

However even among this group of 15, most of their populations (including Germany's) have stabilized since 2005 or so, with the exceptions being Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria, Serbia, Lithuania and Latvia.

Altogether, the populations of these 15 countries have declined by about 2.5% over the last 10 years, or about 0.2% a year. That's pretty much a flat line.

You can't make a case for global population reduction on that basis.

I look at global population because I'm interested in global effects - species-level behavior, CO2 concentrations, that kind of thing.

[LouisvilleDem]

27. World Bank says 79 countries have birthrates below replacement

The problem is you don't even understand which population statistic is the relevant one. A country's population is not solely a result of fertility rates. It can go up and down because of changes in the death rate, and immigration and emigration. The simple fact is that a significant percentage of the world's population now live in countries where people have chosen to have fewer children. I'd say that pretty clearly punches a hole in your theory that species never voluntarily reduce their populations.

[GliderGuider]

30. Believe what you will.

It's no skin off my nose.

[LouisvilleDem]

35. I will

And I am rapidly coming to believe that you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong even when the proof is staring you in the face. I guess that's what happens when you don't think that "truth" is a valid concept...

[GliderGuider]

40. There's another problem.

Last edited Thu May 29, 2014, 10:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Not only do I not believe in truth, I don't believe in right or wrong, or good or evil ether.

I write what I do as part of my personal exploration of the world and why it is the way it is. From that perspective, there is no right or wrong answer about anything, there is just observation of the dots and thoughts about how and why they might connect as they do. I'm not at all concerned with being "right".

I just present my observations and thoughts. Those who find value in them may find them useful, those who don't, won't.

It matters not a bit to me whether you roll emoticon eyes at me, of get whiny about the fact that I won't acquiesce to your worldview. Please yourself. I'm not here to please you.

[hatrack]

32. Another interesting point - look at population growth rates in the Persian Gulf

Substantially developed countries, which have been developing rapidly since the Oil Shocks I and II - not France or Australia, but for that part of the world . . . of course, things have been a bit . . . unsettled in at least two or three of those listed . . .

Anyway:

Bahrain - 2.49% (2014 estimate)
Iran - 1.22% (2014 estimate)
Iraq - 2.23% (2014 estimate)
Kuwait - 1.7% (provisional)
Oman - 2.06% (2014 estimate)
Qatar - 3.58% (2014 estimate)
Saudi Arabia - 1.49% (2014 estimate)
United Arab Emirates - 2.71% (2014 estimate)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2002.html#sa

[GliderGuider]

19. It's not just our population numbers that determine our impact on the planet.

Remember I=PAT? Our impact on the planet is the product of our numbers times the average level of affluence times the lebel of technology we employ.

If we look just at the last two terms (AT), one of the proxies that has been used for it is the global average per-capita consumption of energy. So our population could esily decline while our impact keeps growing, so long as our aggregate energy use continues to climb.

As an example, in 1910 the world population was about 1.75 billion, each using an average of 1 kilowatt of power. One century later, the population was 7 billion, and we are using an average of 2.5 kilowatts apiece. So a population four times greater than in 1910 is having ten times the overall impact on the planet.

If we wanted to reduce our planetary impact back to the level it was in 1910, while still maintaining today's average "standard of living" we could only afford a population of 700 million people.

Conversely, if we wanted to reduce our impact to 1910 levels but without reducing our numbers, we would need to cut back to an average power use of 275 watts per capita. That represents a standard of living that probably has not been seen since the middle ages or even well before that.

In my mind it's indisputable that rising energy availability is at the root of our population boom since 1800. I also recognize that the global population growth rate is tailing off, though population growth remains constant at 75 to 80 million mouths per year. However, the damage we are doing to the biosphere continues to escalate, and will do so until the growth of energy use ceases.

Even if we switch to wind and solar.

[LouisvilleDem]

23. I=PAT

Using global average per-capita consumption of energy as a proxy for the AT terms is dumb. It assumes that all energy use is environmentally destructive, which it manifestly isn't. Planting trees takes energy, yet I don't know anyone that thinks planting trees is bad for the environment

[GliderGuider]

26. Energy as a proxy for AT

The principle of this proxy is that over time, the same amount of energy will produce the same amount of environmental damage. If some of it isn't damaging (as in your tree example) it simply lowers the aggregate environmental impact per megajoule a bit. That doesn't make the proxy invalid. The assumption is that a megajoule of energy today caused about the same amount of damage as it did 50 years ago. this assumption may not be accurate to two decimal places, but it's plenty good enough to give us a feeling for what's going on in the world.

[LouisvilleDem]

29. Nonsense

Anyone who thinks that a megajoule of wind energy causes "about the same amount of damage" to the environment as a megajoule of energy derived from burning coal is simply not living in reality.

[GliderGuider]

31. That's good, because that's not what I said.

Get back to me when you figure out what I was actually saying.

[LouisvilleDem]

36. This is what you said:

"The assumption is that a megajoule of energy today caused about the same amount of damage as it did 50 years ago."

This assumption is false. Energy produced today is far cleaner than what was produced 50 years ago. All you need to do to prove that is compare the emissions of your average coal plant 50 years ago to those operating today, your average car from 50 years ago to those of today, your average...oh, forget it. You'll never admit you are wrong about anything.

[GliderGuider]

38. The way I use it, I aggregate all global energy use.

The mix is the important determinant, and despite the gains of wind in the past couple of years, the mix of industrial energy is still 87% fossil fuels, as it has been for well over the past 50 years. I don't break out wind and solar and consider them separately, because they are picayune in global terms. Fossil fuels and biomass (wood and dung) rule the roost.

Because I almost always look at things from a global perspective, I don't isolate particular types of energy, especially when they are small contributors to the mix.

When considered this way, a megajoule of today's production of 550 Ej is similar enough in mix to a megajoule of our 1914 production of about 60 Ej to make I=PAT comparisons (including climate change) valid.

The other reason I look at things this way is that I consider the biggest problem for the biosphere to be human activity. And all human activity is a direct result of energy availability, regardless of its source. The only thing we gain from using wind and solar is reduced CO2 output. If you remember that list of global threats I posted earlier, climate change is just one of them. If we got rid of all CO2 emissions, we would still be left with the long list of planetary damage I mentioned (keeping in mind the fact that existing CO2 in the air and oceans doesn't go away on human time scales.)

[ladjf]

6. Good post. nt

[WinkyDink]

8. I thought this as a child, frankly, once I learned that franchises depended on more and more in a

finite space.

[jwirr]

9. Good Lord what is happening to DU. Two post in a row this morning that get down to basics. This

one has finally got us talking about the real problem of the world - uncontrolled growth.

I have one question: Do any of you think that the rich are well aware of this and at least in their politics are really using the "let them die" philosophy to slow down growth? Their way of culling the population?

[pscot]

12. Wealth confers immunity

seems to be the idea.

[jwirr]

13. Yes.

[Anansi1171]

33. Survival of the fitest...

...and theyve been pushing the idea for over a century.

[LouisvilleDem]

15. Answer

I have one question: Do any of you think that the rich are well aware of this and at least in their politics are really using the "let them die" philosophy to slow down growth?

If by "the rich" you mean the people who live in first world countries, yes.

[jwirr]

16. Good answer.

[Bigmack]

11. Thanks for the excellent post

Monbiot is one of the best journalists writing today. Ms Bigmack

[Benton D Struckcheon]

28. Determinism by extrapolation is fun,

but it's also a huge fallacy.
I could counter with the extrapolation, equally valid as long as we're playing these silly games, that all of the US's electricity will come from renewable sources by 2023, even if I include a decrease in hydro to reflect the recent drought-driven decline in output from that source.
Obviously, that ain't happening. As you know, I'm optimistic re renewable technology, but not to the point of giving in to unrealistic projections based on infinite extrapolations of past data. Being pessimistic based on the same sort of academic exercise in compound arithmetic is just as silly.
There's a very very simple way to tell if collapse is coming. Long before you get to the point of collapse, you'd have to start seeing increases in commodity prices that outstripped general inflation to such an extent that world poverty would shoot up. Exactly the opposite is happening as I write this.

There will always be challenges. Some day the Sun will explode. Don't hold your breath waiting for it.

[pscot]

34. That's like predicting a bad winter

on the basis of how long I let my hair grow. Judging from the non-response we see globally, humans will be the last to realize because we prefer not to. If you had said we'll know when all the fish disappear and Antarctica begins sliding into the sea you would show more prescience. You are assuming this is going to be a gradual process, but that is unlikely.

An expert panel at the National Academy of Sciences is calling for an early warning system to alert us to abrupt and potentially catastrophic events triggered by climate change.

The committee says science can anticipate some major changes to the Earth that could affect everything from agriculture to sea level. But we aren't doing enough to look for those changes and anticipate their impacts.

And this is not a matter for some distant future. The Earth is already experiencing both gradual and abrupt climate change. The air is warming up slowly, and we're also seeing rapid changes such as the melting Arctic ice cap.

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/03/248474721/ready-or-not-quick-climate-changes-worry-scientists-most

[Benton D Struckcheon]

39. Complex systems are subject to discontinuities,

but they are as likely to be in a good as a bad direction.
The climate system can easily abruptly change for the worse, no doubt, and they're right that more, not less, monitoring is needed. But it's also true that humans have very rapidly responded to the climate challenge we face. The reason that a simple extrapolation, as I noted above, of the growth rates of renewable energies leads you to a 100% share by 2023 is that the rates of growth are presently so rapid. They are from a very low base, but that's because these technologies are still so new.
And as I noted, all kinds of people are working on improving these technologies from all sorts of different angles. Nothing but rapid improvement in their efficiency and cost lies ahead. Technological change is at least as subject to discontinuities as the climate, but in a good direction.
As far as good discontinuities that have already happened, here's two:

1 - Charles David Keeling. Without him and his prescience, long as we're on that subject, we'd be in far worse shape. I don't know if one exists yet, but if not, there needs to be a Keeling Prize given to the scientist who has the most beneficial effect on the environment.
2 - The Montreal Protocol, which bought us a lot of time by banning CFC's, which significantly slowed global warming after 1990.

I have said before that I think it will be a cliffhanger, but we'll make it. I don't see any reason, yet, to change that opinion.

[pscot]

41. I certainly agree about a Keeling Prize

The survival of our civilization seems problematic. It's clear our current arrangements are not sustainable for much longer.

[defacto7]

37. Wow...

Amway and Koscot were running the US all this time. Our economy is a pyramid scam.