Thirty Years Later: POW, population, oil and water


I was going to start today, but Numerian beat me to the punch:

The Rights of Women

Women will have made advancements across the globe – chiefly in those countries where their rights today are heavily restricted, such as in the Middle East. In most countries, women will enjoy the same rights available to a woman in France or Japan or the US today, but in these countries, women will improve their situation only marginally. This will still be a patriarchal world, and wars and insurrections will remain the work of men.

The fundamental right available to most women will be control over reproduction, since access to contraception will be nearly universal. Because of this fundamental development, the main issue facing our species in 2040 will be Peak Population. It will be evident even by 2025 that in most countries humans will not be reproducing enough to prevent a decline in population. Global population will peak around 9 billion and by 2040 will already be in decline, which will be dramatic in countries that cannot or will not induce enough immigration to compensate.

Peak Population will be the result partly of the inability of our species to feed, water, shelter and even clothe itself properly. But the principal motivation will be a paradox: the cost of raising a human to adulthood will be too high for all but the wealthiest families, and consequently women will be averaging less than the 2.1 children necessary to even stabilize population. The largest cost associated with child rearing will be education, since an adult will need at least a college education to survive on its own.

Enormous efforts will be made by governments to stimulate population growth, the major effort being universal education through college paid for by government. This will forestall Peak Population but not avert it, since environmental and other pressures – especially the right of women to have a career – will still work against having more than 2.1 children. Abortion will not be outlawed but it will be viewed socially as irresponsible, and in some areas as morally repugnant.

Environment

Extrapolating from today’s global warming trends, it is possible to forecast a very bleak future for our species and others on the planet. If as looks feasible global warming is accelerating beyond even the pessimistic models, many currently habitable areas will be unlivable around coasts and in deserts. Thousands of other species will disappear, mostly in the insect kingdom, with the more noticeable losses among large mammals. The lost of habitat will be ascribed in part to the human infestation of the planet which will continue to encroach on the remaining open spaces, but desertification of the globe, including the oceans which in vast areas will become too saline to support life, will wipe out thousands of species on its own.

It is possible that global warming will be forestalled if solar energy reaching the earth is throttled back should the sun enter a prolonged “solar minimum”, which may be underway. Even so, human pollution and habitat loss will not prevent continued species extinction and environmental degradation. These developments will feed negatively into the Peak Population phenomenon; the average person will be well aware by 2040 of the shrinking safe areas on the global for humans to live, and will have yet another constraint to consider when bringing children into the world.

Development and Economics

Globalization will have run its course by 2040. Most countries, except for pockets of very poor places, will be economically on the same plane. By 2040, China will be as developed as the US, but what this means is that the standard of living of Americans, as with Australians, British, Swedes, etc., will have been lowered to meet the raised living standards of the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, etc. Income disparity will be universal, with the richest 1% consuming and controlling 90% of the global wealth. In places like the US there will be occasional protests and uprisings, but the wealthy will remain in firm control over political and business institutions, and most importantly media and entertainment, since these will be even more critical levers of control over what is left of the middle class, and the vast underclass that will have enough income to “make do.” Making do on less will be an established if not revered social moré.

Capitalism will be in crisis. The driving force of capitalism is growth – growth in revenue, net income, investment, feeding in turn into growth in earnings per share and the stock price. This wealth machine at its core depends on population growth as a rising number of consumers helps create the growth that defines capitalism, but Peak Population will deprive capitalism of its raison d́ etre. Economic theories will be devised to explain this new world, and they will focus on a theory of Neo-Feudalism, in which economic actors like corporations will define success as maintaining market share. A high premium will therefore be put on innovation and the development of new products with slightly higher margins than existing products. In this way corporations will be able to grab market share from a shrinking population.

Agriculture and Food

A cute little acronym will have become common by 2040 – POW! – referring to the three scourges of the planet: peak Population, Oil, and Water. Acute shortages of the latter two will contribute to Peak Population, as the human species will find itself trapped, unable to feed itself, unable to run its industrialized societies without cheap oil, and therefore unable to sustain population at 9 billion. Environmental degradation will put even more pressure on the human species and contribute in its own way to the POW effect.

It will be a toss-up as to whether water or oil shortages will be more severe, but a lot will depend on where you live. More and more humans will be fighting desertification and will be flocking to any place with stable, fresh water. Such places will be under political stress to keep out newcomers. There will be considerable progress in techniques like desalinization of sea water, so that costs will go down for extraction, but water will be too costly still to waste on open-air irrigation or with extravagant showers and toilets. Access to fresh water lakes and streams will be deemed highly valuable and therefore will be subject to political if not military conflict.

As sweet, cheap crude oil will be disappearing slowly over the next few decades, with the disappearance accelerating over time under Peak Oil, societies everywhere will be forced to shift to expensive alternatives. The French Model will be much admired and discussed, with its reliance on an extensive nuclear power system. The fundamental rights of man will be viewed, at least informally, to include the right to nuclear energy.

Military/War

The global political order will itself evolve into Neo-Feudalism, with power shared unevenly among large population countries such as the US, China, and India, courting small population countries like Saudi Arabia that have access to oil or water. Countries such as Russia, which has a large but already shrinking population but also has access to oil and water, will be in a privileged position. In this world, global cooperation through organizations such as the UN will not be easy, and the UN itself may cease to exist. About the only major advance in global cooperation will be in the tracking of every ounce of spent nuclear fuel, in order to prevent the development of nuclear weapons since so many countries will have nuclear power.

Large scale war will be viewed as a thing of the past. For this reason, the United States will early in the century lose its hegemonic power. Its military will be seen to be bloated and out-dated for the regional conflicts over resources that will define 21st century war. Insurrectionists will have learned the valuable lessons from the Iraq wars on how to stymie a great military power with cheap, home-made incendiary devices exploited through guerilla warfare. No military answer will be available on how to fight those forces willing to use suicide bombers, though over time it will be seen that this technique is counterproductive in extended insurrections that stretch over many years.

The question for China will be whether it learns from the experience of the US and USSR and avoids bankrupting itself with a massive military/industrial complex. The odds of succeeding in this are not high, unfortunately, as long as China remains a controlled economy where the temptation for corruption between the state and the manufacturing sector remains high. Consequently, global power for a time will be bi-polar, shared by China and a descendant US, but eventually India and Russia will take their place in a new version of the 19th century Great Game.

How these nations govern themselves will be of paramount importance, because Neo-Feudalism will be reflected in a tendency toward political disintegration within nation-states, and collapse altogether of the nation-state concept in favor of small regional duchies that align themselves along resource strengths. As an example, the population surrounding the Great Lakes may find common cause in protecting their fresh water resources, and they might establish a collective government that can stand up readily to either Washington or Ottawa. This will be possible because these duchies will have access to armies through their domestic police forces, which are already beginning the process of conversion to paramilitary forces and which eventually will only lack airpower in standing up to national militaries. But again, the lessons on how to defeat massive national armies are already available from the Iraq wars, and Neo-Feudalism will expand because the nation-state will have lost its monopoly on military power.

More soon. Excellent food for thought.


Sean Paul Kelley November 4, 2009 - 11:18am
( categories: Ruminations )

Ticky Fullerton for Lateline | 05 NOV 2009
abc.net.au - In 1935 prime minister Billy Hughes gave his famous orders to Australia: Populate or perish.

Seventy-five years on, it is a different world, with global population set to hit seven billion early in 2012 and top nine billion in 2050.

Only last month Australia's forecast was revised upwards by 20 per cent to 35 million.

But with climate change and growing resource pressures, some global experts are now warning it is a case of populate and perish.

Every year, more than 110 million children are born, the fastest growth the world has experienced.

Global population exploded after World War II from 2.5 billion, with about 90 per cent of this growth coming from less developed regions, the least able to cope.

From 1950 to 2000, Kenya's population grew five-fold to 30 million. And projections for 2050 have recently been revised from 44 million, made in 2002, to 85 million.

While talk of over-population is not new, in the 18th century Thomas Malthus was blunt in his assessment. Today his supporters are growing louder and more influential.

Sir Crispin Tickell speaks for the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), a British-based think tank warning of dire consequences of human proliferation.

The trust boasts other powerful voices including Sir David Attenborough, Gaia thinker James Lovelock and Paul Ehrlich, the man who became a household name in 1968 with his book The Population Bomb.

Inconvenient truth
While Mr Ehrlich's predictions of mass starvation have not come true, now at 81, he is adamant that world leaders are avoiding the most serious threat.

"And the problem is that the Al Gores and so on of the world actually refuse to look at what are the really inconvenient truths," he said.

"What are the inconvenient truths? There's a maldistribution of power. We have a population problem.

"When you look at the Inconvenient Truth movie, the solutions in the end are all brick-in-the-toilet type; that is the sort of things that if we did every single one of them as well as we could, it would delay the collapse of our civilisation by maybe 10 hours."

Refugee pressures will be one of many miserable consequences, according to Sir Crispin.

"The inhuman migration that would flow from increase in population is a major issue and countries are going to be keen to resist migrants from overseas," he said.
100 Year Forecast
So dire are their predictions, the OPT does not believe there will be anything like the forecast nine billion people on Earth by the end of the century.

Professor Ehrlich paints a dystopic picture of the next 100 years.

"Great increases in hunger, the high likelihood of nuclear war, much bigger problems with plagues than we are having now with the H1N1 flu virus," he said.

"And a general deterioration in standard of living of everybody and many, many, many more premature deaths."

If there is even a chance these predictions are right, then where is the media and where are world leaders engaging in the population debate?

And why is it that most leaders accept nine billion as inevitable and focus on other issues like climate change?

Sir Crispin says leaders are frightened of offending powerful groups including the Catholic Church.

In March, Pope Benedict warned against condom use in Africa, even suggesting it would worsen the Aids problem. In July, he condemned all development funding linked to birth control.

Not far from Capitol Hill in Washington is another influential force; the Population Research Institute (PRI) has a network of pro-life groups in more than 30 countries.

Its goal is to expose what it calls "the myth" of over-population.

What population growth?
PRI spokesman Steven Mosher has testified in Congress and appeared on many US talk shows.

"What population growth? Europe is dying. The US continues to increase because of immigration from other countries," he said.

"Remember this, the Food and Agriculture Organisation based in Rome, part of the UN, says that with current agricultural technology we can feed 14 billion people. We will never get to 14 billion. We might get to eight billion.

"I have seen first hand what happens when governments take over control of fertility in a country. I was in China when the one-child policy began.

"I witnessed the forced abortion of women at six, seven, and eight months of pregnancy and I suspect that if Professor Ehrlich had been with me in the operating room and seen these forced abortions, that he might feel a little bit differently about his population control proposals.

"We've documented human rights abuses in 42 different counties as a direct result of population control ideas promoted by people like the Optimum Population Trust."

Thanks in part to the PRI's campaigning, the body charged with world population policy, the United Nations, is itself pretty impotent.

Accused of supporting sterilisation programs in Peru and forced abortions in China, US funding was cut off by all three Republican presidents for any UN-related aid groups that might offer abortion.

But this year has brought change. Barack Obama has restored funding to the UN, and significantly former president Bill Clinton has spoken out on the dangers of population growth.

Education push
"There is really one fool-proof way to slow the world's population growth, in a way that will not violate the values of any religion, and that is to dramatically accelerate our efforts to put every single girl in the world in school," Mr Clinton said.

Research presented this month to the UN supports Mr Clinton's push, educating women as the key to population restraint.

Sir Crispin say it is also the main message of the OPT, which does not support forced population control.

"Where women have the proper, same rights and the rest as men and where they have control over their own bodies, then you find the population very rapidly gets into balance and you can see this illustrated very well in India," he said.

"In the tropical south west, the small state of Kerala has succeeded where the rest of India has failed by controlling population growth.

"The women in this predominantly Christian state are better educated and have more rights than elsewhere."

Ironically, the best example of such female empowerment is fundamentalist Iran, now the condom capital of the Middle East.

The PRI supports education but argues that it is poverty, not populations, that destroy the environment. And Mr Mosher claims the UN Population Fund still has a much tougher agenda.

"How can they on the one hand be claiming espousing choice, and on the other hand be instructing governments that they have a population problem and they must do something about that problem, and 'here, we will give you the means to reduce the fertility among your people'," he said.

Too many rich babies
The big shock for experts has been the forecast population growth in western countries like Australia and the United States.

While the poor masses may die off in a cruel natural selection, Professor Ehrlich says population policy needs to address the gluttony of the West.

"The problem isn't too many poor babies. It's too many rich babies," he said.

"They're the ones that put pressure on our life support systems, so there should be gigantic penalties on rich people for having too many children."

But father-of-nine Mr Mosher is unrepentant.

"Children have an economic value. Every child born in the US over his or her lifetime will contribute about two thirds of a million dollars more than they consume," he said.

"That is that they will leave America a better place."

But as America's environmental footprint grows and the population clock ticks away, expect little talk of population at Copenhagen in December.

graham November 5, 2009 - 5:18am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.