Population, economic growth and ecological damage - a peek under the hood [View all]

[GliderGuider]

Many ecological thinkers and activists have identified population growth as the primary force behind all the damage we are doing to the planet. As a consequence, they have dedicated themselves to promoting programs that address population growth directly - first to slow it, then ultimately to reverse it - in order to reduce the devastation. In my view, this focus on population is based on a fundamental error in system understanding, and will ultimately not have the desired effect. This is a brief sketch of why I believe that to be the case.

The question that comes up for me in response to concerns about population is,

"What drives population levels either up or down?"

It seems clear from my reading that what has driven population up in the past has been technological innovation - in transportation, communication, medicine, and especially in food production and the production of material goods.

The factors that drive population down appear somewhat more complex, but include things like the breakdown of economic security and a loss of confidence in the economic future (as in the ex-Soviet Union) and various saturation effects (as seen in Western Europe and Japan).

From this perspective, the population level is clearly a dependent variable, as is ecological damage. During times of expansion in the level of human activity and innovation, both population and ecological damage rise. During times of contraction, both fall. If this is true, it makes little sense to me to put effort into trying to modify a dependent variable (the output, population) in the hope that this will somehow modify another dependent variable, ecological damage, while the independent variable (the input - material and economic growth) remains untouched.

It makes far more sense to me to work at reducing our level of activity and innovation by inducing global economic breakdown. This should simultaneously reduce both our population and the ecological devastation we wreak on the planet.

Now of course this is a mischievous suggestion. I put it out there mainly to illustrate why I think programs aimed directly at either population reduction or ecological remediation are largely futile. They don't apply system leverage at the right place (hat-tip to Donella Meadows) and so will not generally have the desired effect. The proper leverage point is somewhere within our material and economic activities, but these leverage points are heavily guarded by the protective institutions we've created, as well as the "permanent growth" mindset that has infected everyone from world leaders to peasant farmers.

In my opinion, we who can see what's coming are left with two useful options. The first is to change the growth mindset in as many individuals as possible, creating a grass roots cadre that is prepared for and even wants growth to come to an end. The second is to wait. Our current system is letting out the most horrifying sounds of stress and distress these days, and many of us here probably feel that the point where the rupture begins to spread in zigzag cracks across the facade of civilization is scant decades (if not mere years) away.