So now all the metaphors of the Earth as a living organism, living and breathing and having its being, begin to make sense, now that its death seems imminent. What is life, after all, without death? The one certain fact of life is death. Reproduction is optional, and most of us are just going through those motions, which is good. After all overpopulation is still a problem, though no longer problem number one anymore, or is it? It’s hard to say given the exponential potential of population figures, given to long-term surges and spikes that defy short-term analysis and remedies. Considering that the Earth got its first billion around 1830 and got its sixth around last Thursday, the conversation usually deals with surges, but the opposite can happen also. This was certainly the case around the time of the Roman Empire, when the same population movements and political turmoil that toppled Rome also stifled population growth, which was stagnant for a thousand years. Other population ‘bottlenecks’ may have produced the conditions under which our freakish little g-g-g-g-great-granddaddies survived and thrived while others normally the most likely to succeed perished. The thought of excessive population growth was simply never discussed until the 1960’s and particularly with the publication of Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb. He predicted looming disaster for a world that at that time had only just reached three billion and some change. However right he might have been, he was equally wrong, as was Malthus before him, both proponents of the ‘small world’ mentality that assumes that resources are limited and that stupid humans will breed themselves into extinction if given the chance. The rapid technological advances of recent years that have increased grain yields by 250% were simply never envisioned, much less the idea that thinking people might consciously limit their families as a part of a continuing cultural evolution. Inconceivable to many people to this day is that fact that many others simply have no interest in having children AT ALL under any conditions.
In fact some commentators even say that the world faces under-population, speculating that the world population will peak at somewhere between seven and a half and nine billion somewhere between 2040 and 2050 and then drop sharply. While those numbers may be close enough, it’s probably too early to tell whether population will actually decrease or merely increase at a slower rate. Either way it should become less of an issue, though keep in mind this is a population much larger than today. The commentator even points out that at the current birth rate of 1.4 children per married couple, Japan’s population will be down to 500 by the year 3000. While this is a fairly absurd scenario, more fodder for Hollywood movies like Children of Men than reality itself, it not only shows the difficulty of making predictions, and hence policy, but also the dangers of extrapolating current rates of anything indefinitely into the future, including rates of global warming. So much for computer models. The same mentality that made a conscious adjustment in the past can also make one in the future. People are agents with some degree of free will not reducible to statistics. Nevertheless there just might be another law of population yet to be articulated. We’ll call it the law of ‘Nature hates a vacuum.’ It seems that, given time, people will fill any and all open space(s) to the extent that it is suitable to sustain them and there are populations available to fill them. Over time an equilibrium should be reached, except in cases and places where viruses and bacteria still rule. The only populations expected to increase significantly beyond 2050 are the relatively under-populated Africa and Middle East. So if overpopulation is such a non-issue these days that a Google search generates less than two million hits (!), guess what generates the most hits as the world’s leading problem?
Okay, after the Iraq War, guess what generates the most hits as the world’s leading problem? Global warming, maybe, with forty million hits or so? How about rising oil prices with sixty million? Certainly these would rate anybody’s top five, maybe along with world hunger, AIDS, and maybe another minor inconvenience or two. So why is no one very worried about any of it? Earth Day last week should’ve been the biggest ever, shouldn’t it? It wasn’t. Obviously oil and gas prices are rising; no one can dispute that. It certainly seems that the planet’s weather is increasingly turbulent and the predictions are dire indeed. We should trust our scientists shouldn’t we? They are our best and brightest after all. They wouldn’t deceive us, would they? Surely this is not just some plot to contain China and her economic expansion, is it? Maybe, but I doubt it. Nobody’s THAT conspiratorial. But then again, Ehrlich was wrong and Malthus was wrong. Do the mass of people know something that the intelligentsia don’t? They just might. Surely I’m not the first person who’s noticed that the world’s two biggest long-term problems are somewhat self-canceling, am I? Rising oil prices means oil scarcity means oil depletion, right? The direst predictions put depletion somewhere near the end of the current century. The direst predictions for global warming also assume that things will be really bad by the end of the current century given current rates of fossil fuel consumption and related warming. But wait a minute. With the oil gone and populations level or decreasing, global warming should also decrease, shouldn’t it? I don’t see why not. Admittedly it could be a close race with some anxious moments, but we just might make it through, mightn’t we? We just might. Of course coal will never run out, but we’re not likely to be filling our car’s tanks with that, are we? So now they’re saying that the reason Antarctica hasn’t experienced much warming is because the ozone hole allows heat to escape. Will we revive the use of CFC’s to fight global warming? This could get really absurd. Let’s just chill, folks, let’s just chill. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.
If the rationale doesn’t convince you, then the rising price of petrol just might. The closer we come to oil’s vanishing point, the faster it’ll rise, and the less we’ll use, right? But just like the earlier increase in grain production, gas prices are mitigated by advances in technology that get for our newer cars much better mileage than the old family Buick. So, once adjusted for inflation, we’re problem paying less for our transportation as a percentage of our budgets nowadays than we were in the 1970’s when the Saudis turned off the pumps to teach us a lesson. Hopefully we’ll have learned it by the time they do it again. If we had a viable substitute for oil, then Islamic jihad and Venezuela-inspired revolucion would vanish like LA smog under a downpour, in addition to easing the threat of global warming. All of a sudden nuclear power starts looking like the green alternative. Maybe dump the waste in outer space? If rising gas prices hit hardest in the US, it’s only because we’ve been shielded from it for so long. Though the same dollar increase, US prices are a 100% rise over a few years ago, less than 50% for the already far higher rates in Europe. Only now are prices equal to the inflation-adjusted record-high of 1981 at the start of the Iran-Iraq War. Of course we’re talking about much-devalued Confederate dollars now, so I’m not sure how they ‘adjust for inflation.’ Want to see a funny movie? See ‘CSA: The Confederate States of America,’ a 2004 mock-doc movie about “What if the South had won?” It’s hilarious. The joke about Darkie toothpaste is real of course, available anywhere in Thailand as ‘Darlie’. Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima are still widely available of course. Don’t turn up your nose. Spike Lee produced it. It’s almost like the real-life movie about, “What If George W. Bush had won in 2000?” I wish I could laugh at that one. Nevertheless it keeps life interesting. Back when life was rosy and secure, I was bored and listless. Now I can’t wait to see what might happen next. Will there be a happy ending?
No comments:
Post a Comment