Which is more ethical...?

We have reached a point where we need to ask some very hard questions and make some very difficult judgments.

Consider the following problem. By 2050, a little over forty years from now, according to the UN study on population, there should be over nine billion people on this planet. At the same time multiple forms of analysis regarding the notion of an 'ideal' population size for humans are converging on the conclusion that mankind has already overshot this ideal, or sustainable, size. For example ecological footprint analysis suggests that we are overextended by 20% after taking into account issues of technology and life-support services degraded by human development and expansion. Several psychological analyses have put into question the idea that humans can feel comfortable in densely populated areas. Finally, with the possible advent of peak oil, and the fact that most of the capacity for supporting a larger population depends on technology run by cheap energy, the situation may be, indeed, dire.

What happens when you take the energy away? Contractflation has a number of unsettling scenarios, all of which involve suffering by life in general, but humanity in particular.

At the same time climate change is looking more like sooner than later. The number of extreme weather events per annum has been increasing worldwide. The Arctic ice sheet and mid-latitude glaciers seem to be melting faster than was expected as little as five years ago. The possibility for an ice free Arctic in just a few years is startling but real. Take away the capacity to do economic work (energy) and at the same time increase the need to do the work of adapting, and combine this with the impacts on food supply by climate change and you get a foreboding feeling that things are going to be really rough.

It occurs to me that we are going to soon be faced with unthinkable choices. These choices are going tax the best minds in ethics and are going to be repellent to the vast majority of ordinary folk. We will face the question, "What is the least worst that we need to do?" But we brought this on ourselves and it is time to take responsibility, like an adult who has realized that his wild living as a youngster now means he has to make amends for it all somehow.

Take for example the population issue. Is it more ethical to impose mandatory limits on childbearing, as done in China, or watch the younger generation produced otherwise die in agony? As long as many simply don't see the possibility of the latter situation, of course, it seems like a non-choice. And therein lies a horrible conundrum. The suffering won't actually start until it is too late to do anything about it. I don't see a gradual slide into that condition, which would allow us to develop a gradual extrication from it. It will likely come on rather quickly, comparatively speaking. A tipping point phenomenon, it will pass a point of no return and accelerate uncontrollably. In the worst case scenario civilization will collapse in just a few years time, after which social order will devolve into chaos.

If even a little accurate, this kind of problem leaves us with an especially difficult moral problem. In order to lessen, ease or even prevent that kind of scenario we need to be taking action right now. Indeed, not unlike the problems with global warming or peak oil where we should have been acting long ago, we may already be too late to prevent problems. We need to consider how we will prevent the most severe form of collapse. The dynamics of population growth are well known. Population at time t equals population at time t - 1 (time step) + births - deaths (same time step). As the flow of energy into human capital expanded, so did the population. As medical science has extended life span, the population expanded. Birth rates exceeded death rates and now we have 6.7 billion people and counting. To change the rate of growth of the population you need to decrease birth rates and, at least, not extend life spans any further. Those are fundamental issues. We might be able to accept policies that prevent further development of life-extension technology. But policies on the birthrate side are far more difficult. Simply relying on the so-called demographic effect (developed nations, emancipated, educated women -> lower birthrates) is a non-policy and in any case will probably work too slowly to achieve a true reduction in population size in time to have a positive effect. Something more radical is more than likely going to be needed.

Here is why it might not happen in time. Too many people still buy into the notion that a growing economy is a good thing. Despite the mounting evidence to the contrary most people still believe that as long as the GDP is growing all is right with the world — or, at least they are likely to have a job. Never mind that to sustain a growing economy means you need an expanding marketplace, more buyers to accommodate those sellers and their needs for growing profits. And that means you need more people. Some developed nations are, today, looking for policies to actually increase their birthrates. They have fallen below the presumed 2.1 births per woman rate at which a population is stable, neither growing or shrinking. These governments are worried that if their populations are shrinking then so too will their economies. And that is not good. At least that is what most people believe.

At some point, I suspect within the next decade, the truth will become sufficiently exposed that all governments will be starting to think about more aggressive forms of birth control. It is unfortunate that we have come to this, but there it is. Reductions will come, either by plan, with humane motives, or by consequences with nature doing the dirty work. A number of people have faced this conundrum and writhen eloquently about the problem with population growth and its consequences. I recommend Prof. Kenneth Smail's article on Growth is Madness. Prof. Smail has written extensively on the issue and offers a reasoned, humane way to address policy.

For my part I have this rather dismal view of Human 1.89 (Homo caladus [formerly known as sapiens]) not being sapient enough to make the right choices. We are clever enough and have the intellectual capacity to understand the problem, but not enough wisdom to make good judgments about what to do. That is both individually and collectively. So I suspect we will simply do nothing and respond as best we can to the crisis. In other words, we are caught in an ethical trap. Because we lack a sufficiently broad and deep perspective we believe it is wrong to interfere with reproductive rights so that we are relegating children born today and anytime in the near future to suffering. Our ethics is still quite immature, I think.

Comments

[The Laughing Hyena]

i have been following your blog for a couple of months now. i agree to about everything you have written over here. it is quite creepy that the chain of thought you have been following is quite similar to my own.

my own search for the truth started a few years back and the first question i had was quite simple actually... are we really advancing as a civilization if so then why do i see people around me so stressed out?

coming to the present the reality is now growing that our unavoidable demise is happening sooner than later and infact accelerating as we speak.

the anology to the submarine in one of your initial posts i think captures the moment quite entierly.

[George Mobus]

TLH,

Thanks for the comment. At some time in the not-too-distant future I intend to start a social network of like-minded people to form a support group for thinking about what to do about all of this.

Look for the announcement and hope to see you there.

George

[Thirra]

This is a lucid summary of the population problem.
My impression is that population is a taboo subject in most circles.
Combine that with the Growth is Good attitude and you have a society sleep walking to disaster.
I find your articles very informative,George.

[bbei]

There is a growing number of people out there that think alike, I know of people being concerned about population growth already in the '70s and '80s.

So the population issue is not new. Given the current population numbers, this indicates that humanity indeed does not have the courage to act on it. It is highly questionable whether this will change in the near future.

[George Mobus]

Thirra,

Thank you for commenting. I share your observation re: sleep walking.

George