A 10,000 year misunderstanding
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
By Peter Salonius

News of food price escalation is bringing global carrying capacity for human beings 'front and center'- with food riots all over the world. 

This is being precipitated now by food-to-ethanol programs, although with constantly rising populations fed by the increased food produced by various agricultural revolutions (the Green Revolution being the latest), these riots would have eventually happened. However the speed of these developments is awe inspiring.

On April 14 2008 we heard Robert Zoellick, head of the World Bank, calling for a crash program of food production increases to stave off the approach of famine. How many times does he think we can pull new ‘productivity rabbits’ out of the hat when soil resources of the planet continue to be degraded to produce more food for the irresponsibly breeding horde?

At the core of our problems today has been our unwillingness to see the relationship between the population numbers that we have built up since the advent of cultivation agriculture, and the sustainability problems that we have been side stepping for 10,000 years.

Many keen thinkers have understood that the driver enabling our numbers to shoot so far over long-term carrying capacity has been the one-time gift of fossil fuels, and that this overshoot has resulted in our rampant destruction of the biosphere. The global human population, before the start of the Fossil-Fuel Revolution, was about 1 billion, while it is now about 6.7 billion and rising. These holistic thinkers suggest that without oil, the earth will only support about 2-3 billion people.

Their forward thinking has not yet included an understanding of the thesis that the other major factor that has enabled our numbers to shoot so far over long-term carrying capacity has been the one-time gift of erodible soils and the vast store of nutrients they contained until we began to irreversibly mine them about 10,000 years ago with cultivation agriculture.

The global imbalance between humans and their supporting environments is much more serious than most people on Earth realize.

I suggest that without petroleum, and after we stop mining arable soils, the Earth will only support the 100-300 million people it did before the advent of cultivation agriculture.

Recent prognostications about the possibility of sustainable development in the context of further population and economic growth, are in direct opposition to a growing understanding among ecological economists that all economic and population growth since the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago has effectively lowered the basic long-term carrying capacity (food productivity potential) of the soil resources on the planet.

William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel who developed the Ecological Footprint analysis appear to believe that humanity overshot global carrying capacity sometime in the 20th century. I have been circulating the thesis that the human family has been in overshoot mode for the last 10,000 years and it is long past time to address this issue.

Most of us agree that the human experiment, which is now the size of the Earth, has gone terribly wrong. At issue is the point at which humanity took the unsustainable fork in the road -and- what we must do to get back on track. There is a growing realization that human numbers will decrease, either by planned contraction or by the development of various scarcities.

My recommendation for the necessary decrease of the global human footprint includes allowing the functional integrity of terrestrial (and aquatic) communities to begin to re-establish by ceasing to stage-manage ecosystems. A reliance on self-organizing/self managing systems, that evolution has already created, would feed a very small number of humans sustainably. This sustainability would be predicated on the ability of this small population to regulate their exploitation/harvesting activities to fall within the (now better understood) capacity of their supporting ecosystems to maintain critical breeding populations, species and structural diversity, to replace soil lost by erosion and to replace soluble plant nutrients lost by harvest export or leaching.

For fisheries, because they represent such a small fraction of the global human diet, a return to sustainably harvesting restored wild populations would not cause widespread starvation.

In forestry a shift to alternate harvesting systems that accommodate the time requirement for full species and structural restoration, and that approximate natural disturbance dynamics - as opposed to creating ecosystem-simplifying, product-driven species assemblages - could be initiated very quickly.

The abandonment of agriculture in favour of the re-establishment of self-managing, native, nutrient-conservative forest and grassland/prairie ecosystems would require much more time because these unmanaged systems cannot produce enough food for human needs until population numbers have fallen to a fraction of present levels.

For the sustainable future of the global human experiment, cultivation agriculture must be relied upon to feed us until we have reduced our numbers to a level that can be supported by carefully regulated exploitation/harvesting activities that fall within the (now better understood) capacity of supporting ecosystems to maintain diversity, to restore soil mass lost by erosion and to replace soluble plant nutrients lost by harvest export or leaching.

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  is a Research Scientist at the Canadian Wood Fibre Centre Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service.


Editor's Note: For permission to reproduce this article please contact This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Comments (8)
written by Steve Salmony , May 01, 2008
Dr. Peter Salonius stands shoulder to shoulder with the top-rank scientists of our time, I believe. It is imperative that the human community come to widely share and adequately understand his perspective as well as the potentially profound implications for the future of life on Earth which are to be derived from Peter's extraordinarily clear and accurate point of view.

Russell Hopfenberg, David Pimentel, Al Bartlett, the late Garrett Hardin, Lindsay Grant, Bill Ryerson, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Bill Rees, Mathis Wackernagel, David Wasdell, James Greyson, Ernst von Weizsaecker, E. O. Wilson, Jeffrey McKee, David Blockstein, Tony McMichael, Vivian Ponniah, Seti Shastrapradja, Jane Goodall, HRH El Hassan bin Talal, Walter Kistler, Dee Boersma, Stuart Pimm, Ruben Nelson, Keith Wilde, Melissa K. Nelson, Al Gore, Jim Lydecker, Dave Gardner, Andy Revkin, Jan Janssens, Raoul Weiler, Martin Rees, Ashok Khosla, Fritjof Finkbeiner, Thomas Schauer, Clive Spash, John McRuer, Gretchen Daily Robert Hoffman, Richard C. Duncan, Richard Pelto, Humam Ghassib, Talat Halman, Joseph Baker, Tony Cassils, John C. Feeney, Magne Karlsen, Trinifar, Peter Saundry, Werner Fornos, Alex de Sherbinin, Chris Rapley, John Schellnhuber, Gary Peters, Tenney Naumer, LaMarguerite, Jack Alpert, Phil Henshaw, Stanley Salthe, Joe Romm, James Hansen and Rajendra Pachauri are among a rapidly growing number of people whose point of view remind me of the one held forth so courageously by Peter Salonius.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
written by Phil Henshaw , May 01, 2008
I'm not sure why we all omit the combination of effects that makes this trap of increasing use of diminishing resources such a fatal choice. We should at the very least use more than one cause for our world of out of control effects. Helmut Lubbers uses the equation : I=P*A*T - (I)mpact on the environment equals (P)opulation size x (A)ffluence x (T)echnology.

I've recently been focusing on how our simple mental models prevent us from seeing the dramatically changeing realities they cover up. I have a proposal for a way to alter our learning processes that would begin to correct that in a draft essay http://www.synapse9.com/drafts/Hidden-Life.pdf

It's clear that increasing population is a problem, and that hitting the apparent maximum productivity of the earth and triggering a price war is a problem, and the continual growth of demand by the burgeoning cities is a problem, but so is their increasing permanent consumption of agricultural land for other purposes. That the thermodynamic definition of growth is: energy use for multiplying energy use, is a problem. It's also a problem that humans have definite limits to their learning speeds and the transformations that everyone has been discussing are all falling way behind from our failure to speed up our learning fast enough to accomplish them. That the one thing that could relieve this combined catastrophe, slowing down our accelerating rate of remaking of the earth, is of almost no interest to anyone, is a problem too. I think, all things considered, that would be better than pushing harder on any of our many promising but increasingly failing solutions.

Phil Henshaw

written by Damir Ibrisimovic , May 01, 2008
With respect, this leads into ethical minefield and science is yet to spell out a workable ethics. The lack of workable ethics is the main reason for restrictions often imposed on science.
written by Peter Salonius , May 01, 2008
Phil Henshaw says:

"That the one thing that could relieve this combined catastrophe,
slowing down our accelerating rate of remaking of the earth,
is of almost no interest to anyone, is a problem too. I think, all things considered, that would be better than pushing harder on any of our many promising but increasingly failing solutions."

I can not see how this "slowing down our accelerating rate of remaking of the earth" can be accomplished as long as international agencies (UN, World Bank etc) are funding food and medical aid, forest conversion to create more agricultural land in 'underdeveloped' countries to grow more food to prop up already unsustainable population numbers -AND - while governments in 'developed' countries are instituting new baby bonus programs, running massive immigration schemes and setting up Population Growth Secretariats in the mortal fear that human numbers MIGHT decrease ---------- all of this activity "accelerating the remaking (deforestation, soil degradation, lowering long-term carrying capacity etc) of the earth".

SO how does Phil Henshaw propose that we should go about "slowing down our accelerating rate of remaking of the earth" and how does he think "slowing down our accelerating rate of remaking of the earth" can be accomplished in isolation from a drive for POPULATION REDUCTION (which I guess might be one of the "increasingly failing solutions" that he has in mind.

Peter Salonius
written by Damir Ibrisimovic , May 02, 2008
"Bioshelters, Ocean Arks and City Farming" (multiple authors); Siera Club Books; 1984:
Algal farming on a small area may free croplands for common areas or forests. “An ultimate goal might be that for every acre which is farmed another would be set free." - Todd
written by J Cribb , May 03, 2008
Speaking personally - and we are all guessing in this area - if we reduced the earth's population to, say 2.5 bn (what it was in the mid C20th), we would still consume enough food for 6.5 billion for the simple reason that, with econonomic and technological growth we will all eat more protein. That is what is going on in India and China right now. So pop control is only part of the equation, albeit an important one for the simple reason that if we don't do it voluntarily, nature human nature will do it involuntarily. However we certainly need smarter ways to grow food and, above all, to end the colossally stupid waste of nutrients which we are dumping in the sea.
written by Vivienne , May 10, 2008
The rich desire high protien, as part of their status, and thus meat. Livestock is causing so much of the land and soil degration and deforestation and methane production. If people could all start to rely on plant-based proteins, such as soya, more people could be fed. We also need our religious leaders to cooperate in encouraging people to have zero or one child as a way of showing compassion and empathy with the world's poor.
written by Steven Earl Salmony , May 12, 2008
Bleak future may await our children

http://www.chapelhillnews.com/opinion/letters/story/14447.html

Humankind inhabits a tiny celestial orb that is miraculously set among of sea of stars. As far as we know, life as we know it exists nowhere else in the universe. Perhaps we of the human family have the responsibility of assuring the security for the future of life in our planetary home.

April 22 was Earth Day. Our many Earth Day celebrations focus attention on the pressing need for human beings to protect and preserve the finite resources of Earth and its frangible ecosystems. If we fail to achieve this goal, then an unimaginably bleak future awaits our children.

If 6-plus billion human beings live on Earth now and 9-plus billion are expected to populate our small planet by 2050, then we simply cannot keep doing what we are doing now because the Earth has limited resources. Without adequate resources and ecosystem system services of Earth, life as we know it and human institutions would collapse.

Some portion of the world’s human population conspicuously over-consumes the resources of our planetary home. Other people, in charge of huge multinational conglomerations, are doing business in a way that recklessly dissipates natural resources. Still others in the human family are overpopulating the planet. The leviathan-like scale and rapid growth of global human consumption, production and propagation activities are putting the Earth, life as we know it, and the human community in grave, clear and present danger.

Since Chapel Hillians live in the overdeveloped world, we are among the people who are ravenously over-consuming Earth’s resources. We could choose to consume less. People in the developing could choose to limit overproduction of unnecessary things and contain industrial pollution. People in the underdeveloped world could limit their number of offspring. Perhaps these are ways the family of humanity begins to respond ably to the human-induced global challenges that loom so ominously.

– Steven Earl Salmony, Chapel Hill

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.

busy
 
         Add to Google Reader or Homepage RSS Feeds           Email Alerts