Do You Want to Avoid the Bottleneck?

That the Bottleneck is Unavoidable

Allow me an indulgence. After more than a decade of searching for answers, and attending to the major trends in our world, I have come to certain conclusions about the future of humanity. I haven't made a secret of my now fairly firm belief that in the not-too-distant future humanity will suffer an evolutionary bottleneck event concurrent with a sixth major extinction. Ironically this extinction event is being brought on by humanity itself. Freed from the ordinary biological constraints that keep other species in check in normal ecological feedback loops, and bolstered by the discovery of incredible power stored in fossil fuels and nuclear fission, humans have used their cleverness to grow far beyond the natural carrying capacity afforded by real-time solar influx. And the problems caused by this fact have grown obvious to most. We are altering our climate. We are polluting our environment. We are diminishing the quality of soils and water. And we are behaving badly toward one another, as well as the rest of the biosphere.

Nor am I alone in this conclusion. In fact, increasingly, my company is becoming more respectable. For some time people like Paul Ehrlich, Dennis and Donella Meadows, and others have been warning of the dangers coming if humanity didn't take action (as far back as the 60's and 70'). Lately they are joined by William Catton, James Lovelock, and even the Astronomer Royal of England, Sir Martin Rees, in sounding alarm bells more loudly and more urgently. James Hansen (formerly of NASA), one of the most outspoken researchers on climate change, has gone radical in protesting the lack of any government action to prevent runaway warming. I suppose you could say I feel a bit vindicated, but that is not really a good feeling. I wish it were not the case.

If you want to know why I am so convinced of this outcome, I have put together a list of things that, from a systems perspective, seem to me to be necessary actions needed to minimize the negative impacts rapidly approaching. We cannot prevent all of those impacts, but in theory if these actions were taken immediately we would be able to salvage some portion of the population and preserve our species (which as long-time readers know I don't think is actually such a good idea in light of the foolishness we manifest). Note that the situation is entirely systemic. All of the items on this list interact in complex, nonlinear ways so that you can't just pick and choose the one or ones you think will do the job. All will have to be done, together, for there to be any positive effect. Once you see the list, and ponder the likelihood that our population will do any of them, let alone all, you will understand my conviction.

The list is of actions that are needed (in my hopefully informed estimation) and I derived it from the myriad problems that are growing in intensity and can be found to be caused by us. This list is of actions that would counter those problems. Since I have already written extensively about how this would be the case, I refer newer readers to past posts on topics related to Current Affairs, Political Economy, Evolution, Sapience, and the Human Condition (left sidebar). If you scroll down the page you will see a link to prior years Achieves. You can also do a search on some of the terms I use here to find prior articles on the subjects.

How We Could Save Humanity

Here is the list of minimal actions needed to salvage some semblance of humanity:

• Stop all reproduction
  No new babies for twenty years at least and then only ten percent of the adult population should be allowed to reproduce afterward.
• Stop capitalistic profit taking
  Forever. No more capitalism and profiting ever again. Freeze prices and wages (except for the overpaid executives; reduce theirs).
• Take back the wealth of the top 10%
  It will be needed to support survival activities.
• Destroy the financial system
  Revert banking to hold savings and eliminate securities and futures markets.
• Reallocate housing to handle the poor
  Move those living in squalor and homeless into the mansions in the Hamptons (for example)
• Put all able-bodied men and women to work restoring soils and growing food for local consumption
  Turn all arable and climate-viable land over to permaculture.
• Begin immediate mass migrations of peoples living in climate danger zones
  For example all of the people of the MENA and central Africa regions are in danger from severe climate change. They will need to be relocated north as far as Russia and Europe.
• Eliminate all luxury product/service productions
  Re- purpose the capital to producing absolute necessities such as plows! Besides, with some of the above actions there won't be anyone who could afford to buy luxuries.
• Redirect all fossil fuel production to supply energy for recycling materials, food production, and migration
  Minimize energy consumption by the public to just that essential to support the above.

Our population size is probably the single most damaging aspect. Even in so-called developing regions that are not using a lot of technology, the damage done to the environment by the sheer overwhelming numbers as they struggle to make a living is tremendous. Those in the developed world enable the population growth in the developing and underdeveloped world through various aid packages and loans. The citizens of the developed world do damage indirectly by consuming huge amounts of resources in non-essential products and services. Collectively the human population of 7 billion people has been estimated to be in overshoot several time over. By one estimate (based on energy footprint analysis) it would take five Earths to support this population and not do damage to the environment. Meanwhile, one our only Earth, the damage accrues and is approaching a point where it can't be self-healing.

Capitalism and profit taking contribute directly to the consumption of non-renewable and cost-intensive recyclable resources. Indeed it has accelerated the rate of use of even technically renewable resources such as soils and water beyond the steady state so that even these resources are becoming essentially non-renewable in the time scale in which they are being degraded. The financial system employed around the world is totally dependent of growth in order to service the debt it creates in the name of profits. It leads to massive disparities in wealth distribution which in recent years has become truly excessive. Those possessing more wealth than the average are going to need to sacrifice the most.

If some of this sounds familiar that is because much of it is. Some of these actions were taken in the name of communism by Russian and Chinese (and other Asian satellites) communist parties. Undoubtedly this can be branded as socialism at best. And I agree. The communist experiment with socialism ended badly by comparison to the creature luxurious lifestyles of the capitalist west. There is certainly no argument about that. But the situation was entirely different, wasn't it? Humanity, by the beginning of the Cold War, for example, was just starting to exploit the power of fossil fuels in a super-industrial fashion. WWII had taught us how to maximize our rate of consumption in the west. There was plenty of energy to fund the expansion of the middle class. So the comparison between what happened in the west with what happened in the east is basically unfair. We won the war and so won control over the resources (Russia and China would only slowly understand that they needed to exploit their energy resources to build wealth). Communism/socialism failed to produce wealth because those countries did not have the energy to emulate the west. Well, and because the overseers were corrupt and stupid. That had something to do with the outcomes. But the point is that during that time it was, in principle, feasible to create more wealth over time - to grow. That time has passed. The rules are now quite different.

So please understand that I am not advocating socialism for the sake of an ideology. My point is that the above list represents the only feasible response to the pending disaster. Even with such a response, coordinated by truly wise, intelligent, and benevolent people, there will still be many lost. The situation now is entirely different from what it was after WWI and WWII. Today the whole world faces the crisis. Socialism may be seen as a political response to deprivations (real or imagined) and an economic response to keeping the lower classes from revolt. It may have been motivated by progressive sentiments for fairness and equality, but it had its practical effect when people were living a subsistence lifestyle. Unfortunately it was implemented by mere humans.

Many of you, in fact, may have reacted to items on this list with revulsion (and recognized the actions as having been tried before and failed). I fully expect to get all sorts of comments and e-mails pointing out to me how horrible the idea is. And that is exactly my point. These actions are abhorrent to the vast majority of people from all sorts of political and ideological perspectives. Most people could not even imagine these happening. Whether libertarian (get rid of the coordinators and let us do our own thing), or progressive (growth and abundance for all), the concept of a planned and managed shut down of international and even inter-regional commerce is unthinkable. And that very fact is why we are where we are now. We can't help it.

What is the Likelihood?

So there it is. I've written a lot over the years about these options, in one way or another. There are two critical parameters that are driving us to the brink of oblivion, and one critical cause. The parameters are the population size and total energy consumption (from fossil fuels). A side effect of the capitalistic approach resulting in the great disparity of energy per capita is exacerbating this parameter. The critical cause is our inherent lack of sufficient sapience throughout the population to see the errors of our greed and assumptions about what constitutes a good life, as well as how to best use our cleverness/technology. The two parameters are, in a sense, self correcting by virtue of the bottleneck event. Most of the population (possibly all) will die of starvation, exposure, disease, or conflicts if things continue in this way. Some of the future events may be triggered by the decline in availability of cheap fossil fuels which will surely trigger conflicts, but also translate into higher costs for food and other necessities.

Frankly I do not think there is anything to be done about the critical cause. Biology is at the root of it. Given the broken education system we have (globally) and that it actually is teaching our youth to not try to be wise (or even really intelligent), I cannot see how education will boost whatever native sapience people possess.

Thus I ask: What is the likelihood that humanity can be salvaged? What is the likelihood that leaders of the world will wake up some morning (soon) and realize that they had got it all wrong? How likely is it that the citizens of China will wake up and realize that their old agrarian lifestyle was really the best way to live and give up the idea of making wealth in the cities? How likely is it that the Lloyd Blankfeins and Jamie Dimons of the world will realize that their pursuit of raw profits from trading risks is stupid and killing the world? How likely is it that economists of all stripes will finally realize that their notions of growth and prosperity are actually leading us all to ruin? And how likely is it that people will, in general, come out of denial in time?

Do you see my point? No one will like the program of actions. No one will give up on the hope that we can restore our pursuit of wealth. No one will admit that they have to sacrifice a lot if we are to salvage humanity. At least not until it really is too late for even these actions to make a difference. Indeed, it may already be too late. The rate of glacier and polar ice melting, the anomalous weather patterns, the continued high price of non-conventional oil while the conventional (cheaper) production is in decline, and many other signs may be telling us it is too late. But if it isn't, if we haven't passed some hidden tipping point, then our only real hope for salvation lies in taking the actions I've outlined. Yet what are the chances we will?

What Other Conclusion Can One Draw?

The logic is certainly simple. Claim: it takes A, B, & C to succeed. Support: link cause and effect in evidence. Fact: No one wants or believes A, B, & C. Fact: nearly everyone needs to agree to act. Ergo: nothing will get done until it is too late.

When the proverbial fecal matter hits the proverbial rotating blades most people will react, of course. They will do what they think is best for them, even if it means robbing or killing. Some will seek shelter in remote areas and solitude as if we were under a zombie attack. My hope is that a few wiser groups will form and isolate themselves in regions that will be relatively stable climate-wise. They will focus on skills in producing the essentials of life based on real-time solar energy inputs. They might survive.

But you may have another conclusion. What is yours, and on what basis do you make it? What evidence do you have? Simply saying you just can't believe my conclusion is valid is not sufficient. You need to show where my evidence is wrong or that counter evidence exists to warrant another (possible) conclusion. I'm open to arguments with merit. In fact I hope someone can shoot me down on this, for obvious reasons.

Comments

[Ruben]

I agree with your conclusions.

[James]

A democratic solution or a slow solution is unlikely. Some combination of lethal agents will likely be employed to suddenly and catastrophically reduce world population. Instead of being fattened up like cattle for the slaughter, we're being kept calm like sheep, herded into a false sense of security through careful editing and presentation of news with plenty of chuckle head fakery to assuage any anxiety. I think you are correct, the likelihood of agreements that curtail natural human behavior for the next 100 years or the remainder of human habitation of earth is very, very slim. The likelihood of using bioweapons is much, much more likely and judging by the amount spent on their research, their use sometime in the near future is virtually guaranteed. When 90% of the population is gone, the survivors will have created the slack needed to make the necessary changes in their approach to living on this planet.

[Debby Cronenwett]

I wish you were wrong, but I don't see any flaws in your analysis. I would only add to your list the need to shutter all nuclear facilities before we no longer have the fossil fuel energy necessary to keep them from melting down. But of course, we aren't going to do that either.

[BrianM]

It's hard to for me to see how it all doesn't end badly for humans. When things get difficult, I think some humans, at local, community, levels (but mostly only those who have never lived outside the small community/tribal environment) may show some of the better aspects of humanity and work together for their common good. Whether it will be enough to save them, who knows.

Unfortuantely, I think that most people, especially the people with the power, will act according to the modern practial version of the Golden Rule... those with the gold, guns and power, make the rules.

It's hard for me to see how, in a world with so many weapons and a blatant history of using them to enforce one's will on another, the situation does not devolve into dictatorial-style rule and wide conflict. Why would those with power, gold and guns not exercise that power to control others and promote their own interests? These are the same kinds of people who almost crashed the global economy for no other reason than a few billion dollars was not enough. All the evidence seems to be that such people are a) plentiful, and b) found in higher proportions among the powerful elites. I see little evidence in history, outside of small, communal environments, that humans will act in each others' best interest. And I can't think of any situation in which humans, having lived in a consumption-based, large-scale society, have been willing to give that up in exchange for even survival. In every case of which I am aware, humans used extend and pretend until it failed and the whole house of cards came down around them. Often, as part of that process, power was seized, sometimes for a short, terrible time, and sometimes for a longer period, and used to strip-mine the last remaining resources from the civilization.

I think your conclusions are entirely logical, and your scenario is as likey as any. Human history doesn't seem to give us much evidence of graceful backtracking for civilizations or species in overshoot. It's hard to make the argument that modern humans are somehow the exception. The human inability to get past our denial and grasp that reality seems to almost assure that we, on the whole, will make the worst possible long-term decisions. As depressing as that conclusion can be, it seems unavoidable that that is, indeed, the conclusion.

[Oliver]

My conclusion having weighed up the evidence all around us over several decades is that we are simply following a course that was set in evolutionary stone from the onset of Homo sapiens - certainly since the birth of agriculture started to generate surplus that in turn has powered reckless capitalism.

Because we are the way we are, we have built the very society that has created the ultimately species-limiting and biosphere-endangering problems that you have so expansively covered in your past essays. Because of the selfish Darwinian forces that drive us, it is beyond feasibility for us as a whole to even start attempting to fulfill your list of necessary actions.

In this, we are no different from any other organisms within the biosphere that unconsciously overshoot and fall off the evolutionary cliff. The fact that a relative handful of us have apparent consciousness of reality - and can therefore cogitate on the issues you deal with here - cannot arrest the unstoppable momentum that is bringing us to that bottleneck.

A small analogy comes in the reported lives of Jesus/Buddha/ Mohammed/Gandhi, out of which repeatedly arose a behavioral code of generosity, sharing, kindness, non-oppression, tolerance, etc that has been utterly ignored by the overwhelming majority of humans for thousands of years now. It is therefore no surprise at all that any and all warnings about human overshoot/greedy capitalism/overuse of fossil fuels/human-induced climate change and so forth have made no impact on human conduct in the main. (Diverting some household waste towards recycling seems to be the maximum action that most people will take, which is about as impactful as filling a mug with ocean water to stem rising sea levels).

All in all, I find myself emerging out of depression into a calm realization that as we are clearly unable to change our species' basic nature to any meaningful degree, why should we few thinkers live in angst? In my opinion, we ought to live each day noting reality but extinguishing any fear of death - and dare I suggest, enjoying as many moments as possible. Death comes to each of us, whether or not all Homo sapiens are for the chop sooner rather than later.

That's my tuppence/two-cents' worth. And thanks for the long-term enlightenment, George.

[Sari]

I was recently thinking that it would be amazing if agronomists, biologists and ecologists could come up with a model of a self-sufficient agrarian community that would work in Siberia and North Canada (without touching the taiga). If it were possible (physically and politically), it could potentially be an ideal area for small communities to wait out the bottleneck (due to the isolation), and it could possibly serve as a destination for climate refugees from warmer areas. Anyone know if there has been research done in that direction?

[Clyde]

Sari, do you think that the people with the guns would let them stay there in peace, with all that food and water? I doubt it, myself.

[St. Roy]

George:
I have been following hour work for some time. This excellent post seems to be a culmination of much of your thinking and coincides with my own view of the human epic.
The post reminded me of what Ronald Wright said in his book “A Short History of Progress”. The human experiment is now moving very quickly and on a colossal scale. Since the early 1900s, the world’s population has multiplied by four and its economy by forty. We have reached a stage where we must bring the experiment under control (ala, your nine action items). If we fail – blow our selves up (continued resource wars) or degrade the biosphere so it can no longer support us (maybe already non-reversible) - nature will merely shrug and conclude that letting the apes run the laboratory was fun for awhile but in the end was a bad idea.
Both Wright and E.O. Wilson in his book “The Social Conquest of Earth” (that you reference) began their manuscripts by asking Paul Gauguin’s three questions in his artwork masterpiece of the same name. “Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going”? The first two have been answered. The last one seems to be NTE and probably in this century. I agree with your conclusions.

[Paul Chefurka]

What more is there to say? This piece is absolutely airtight.

Neti neti.
So it goes.

[Beverly]

Thanks for your insightful post, George. I think that the population issue needs to be addressed from more angles - particularly what would happen if resources were shared differently (not via capitalism) -populations would naturally drop. See th is link: http://www.context.org/iclib/ic21/lappe/

[Paul Chefurka]

George, your list of necessary actions would be completely feasible if we could simply repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Write your Congresscritter today!

[richard pauli]

Excellent words. Thank you.

First thing unified humans must do is to CONSCIOUSLY choose a goal: to merely live out remaining days or multigenerational survival
Then act with certainty to make huge, bold changes, Act fast to discover the extent of change necessary. Science is non-negotiable.

The bigger problem is the momentum of the changes to come. Humans don't understand that we can all turn into Adam and Eve, but still there will be plenty of warming. Which is why we have first choose to survive - or not. I have not thought much about humans consciously choosing not to, but that might be valid if we all agree.

[Risa Bear]

Well set forth but seem to me a bit optimistic, alas. If it gets this bad (which it will) who will keep all the spent fuel pools cooled? (._.)

[dada]

A clear post and I agree with the arguments.

My comment concerns the lack of sapience. In this (and other) posts on this blog it is blamed on nature, i.e. genetics. I would think that part of it is also nurture.

It is natural for humans to want to advance in the society one lives in. In a hierarchical society this means one has to compete with others for a good position in the hierarchy. This means that ones intelligence is used for this type of competition. This does not leave much time for sapient thinking.

All previous civilisations were hierarchical and all collapsed. Ours will too. This does not decide the nature/nurture argument about sapience.

But if sapience is indeed repressed by our hierarchical culture, there will be more sapience after collapse, then when sapience is solely a genetic affair. So if the collapse is not an extinction event, it would give one some more hope.

[Paul Chefurka]

Risa, in a bottleneck a few melting nukes will barely be noticeable - even to "us". Mother Nature won't mind - it's just radiation, and She has seen it all before.

"Solid stone is just sand and water, baby -
Sand and water and a million years gone by."
~Beth Nielsen Chapman

[K-Dog]

It is a sad dire situation and if there is no change in what people think and how they live all is lost. If there are radical changes in understanding the world and radical changes in lifestyles their is hope. In that situation modified forms of your proposals will suffice. I'll not quibble the specifics now but concentrate on what is missing in the analysis you've given above. I'll address what needs to happen to change human understanding and lifestyles so the human race can survive.

Human understanding is primarily affected by social considerations. People stop thinking whenever answers come from authority figures. That authority figures will lie and that what they say may not seem quite right sometimes is totally irrelevant. Social considerations establish beliefs and behaviour patterns, not truth.

Consider religion. Faith in any revealed religion is prized and consists of how much illogic an individual can comfortably swallow. The more nonsense one can swallow the more holy they are and the better they fit in. The more faith or insanity they believe, the more they are rewarded in their social sphere. Social strokes override reason in the vast majority of individuals and exceptions are very rare. You call these rare exceptions sapient and regard the rest as not being sufficiently evolved and in so doing you miss a point.

Religion is an extreme example but the continuum covers all human activity. People believe whatever gives them social strokes and go to great lengths, incredible lengths, to successfully rationalize nonsense. The scientific method can for brief moments bring the rule of law into human affairs but the tendency to fit in and accept the current beliefs system of any society is overwhelming however irrational a belief system may be.

Unique circumstances produce your 'sapient' individuals not any special ability. It is true that only healthy reasonably balanced individuals can be sapient, but at birth that covers most of us and concentrating on individual differences is a waste of time. The circumstances which make people different as they advance through life is what counts.

The situation is dire. Mass media has forced a conformist mould onto the entire population and dissent from the orthodox point of view is no longer tolerated. In today’s world free thinking can get you labelled as a dangerous terrorist and you will be dealt with appropriately. There is a war on terror across the land and the symbol of terrorist can be applied to anyone who threatens the status-quo of the social structure. Doom and gloom are labels applied to you and I. Neither of us deserve it. We both want a better world and we both wish more people would also, but to many people such a wish borders on the criminal.

[Reverse Engineer]

"Stop all reproduction
No new babies for twenty years at least and then only ten percent of the adult population should be allowed to reproduce afterward."-GM

Seems to me this would cause a demographic nightmare 20-30 years down the line.

You would have ZERO people in their working/reproductive age prime for this length of time.

In 20 years after the reproduction Boycott is over, current infants would be hitting their reproductive years, but you would have a huge gap between them and 40-50 year olds.

The better solution demographically speaking would be to reduce life expectancy of aging people. This will happen rather naturally as medicines and proceedures that keep older folks alive become unavailable.

An increasing Death Rate for the Elderly is a better demographic solution than decreasing Birth Rate for the young.

Basically, Old Folks like you and me gotta take the walk into the Great Beyond here.

RE

[p01]

"Stop all reproduction"

Wow. Just. Wow.
Is this the conclusion of the "sapience" you talk about or is this a joke?

[Paul Chefurka]

RE, it might be a better solution "demographically speaking" but it's just as politically impossible as the approach George listed. It could be accomplished, however. "All we need to do is"* make all medical care illegal. Or too expensive, an approach that is already showing signs of working in the United States.

* The phrase that identifies hope-filled dreamers of hopeless ideas.

[Zola Akinyi]

Suppose that we are at the cusp of the bottleneck: the current homo sapiens are dying out and the homo eusapiens, who have wisely prepared for this event, are starting to thrive. What would prevent the sapiens from attacking and raiding the eusapiens? It seems to me that the sapiens would either vote to take what the eusapiens have or to simply take it by force (e.g. looting).

Also, I don't think it's too crazy to expect that space mining will be achieved before planetary resource exhaustion. Unfortunately I'm afraid that this would mean that capitalism would be able to continue. I'm reminded of those sci-fi stories where the evil aliens come to Earth to strip it of its resources, only the "evil aliens" would be the humans...