WHITHER BOUND?
Alan Neil Ditchfield
|
|
WHITHER BOUND?
The current economic crisis
signals the weakness of ageing populations - not exhaustion of resources and
physical limits of the planet.
A death wish has crept into the politics and behavior
of the Western societies. Long in coming, it is not as brazen as “Viva la
muerte!” the paradox shouted by fascist hooligans who disrupted an appeal
for peace at the University of Salamanca, on the eve of the Spanish Civil War.
Fascists also chanted “Muera la inteligencia!”, in admission of the
state of their minds at the most august cultural center of Spain.
A
death wish is unnatural because it runs against the instinct of preservation of
species, a primordial urge that drives all living creatures. Existence is a
central theme of religious beliefs that exalt the work of men and women in
bringing to life and raising the next generation. In the 1970s, the
liberalization of the Western economies unleashed market forces that encouraged
women to look for jobs, at a time when contraception and legalized abortion
gave them control over birth. With the erosion of traditional values among
secularized urban dwellers, the average Western couple started to have fewer than
2 children; in 1999 the number had fallen to 1.3.
This
is a far cry from the structure of European populations in 1900. Nurtured by
the Industrial Revolution, European Union countries then represented 14% of
world population, even while they sent a great flow of settlers to occupy the
New World. The population of the UE is now 6% and tends to 4% of world total;
Europeans are under threat of extinction by their life styles. They may have
fewer mouths to feed, but also fewer and weaker arms to produce and create.
The median age of Greeks, Italians and
Spaniards will rise above 50 years in 2050 - this means that one in three
persons in these countries will be 65 years old or older. A 75% tax burden will
have to be placed on the incomes of economically active adults, mainly to
defray entitlements of the aged. The existing free health care, pensions and
subsidies will ultimately end, be it for lack of people.
Greece, Italy and Spain are now at the center
of a Euro zone crisis because the Viva la
Muerte culture is closing a full circle. Worse is coming to the Chinese,
with their one child per couple policy. After the years of heady economic
expansion are gone, the Chinese will face the same exhaustion dictated by the
human life span, now faced by Europeans. The Japanese government estimates a
one third reduction of population by 2060, when 40% of citizens will be of
retirement age. If the trend continues until the end of this century, Japan
will become a land inhabited by robots.
The current misanthropic mood has
intellectual roots in a London lecture more than two centuries ago, when
Benjamin Franklin spoke about the American population, then growing at a rate
of 3% a year. The number captured the mind of a Cambridge youth, Thomas
Malthus, a divinity student and also a mathematician. With compound interest arithmetic
he reckoned that population would double every 23.5 years; the number of people
in successive periods would be proportional to the series: 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128….
After two generations, four persons would contend for the food available to one
person. Exponential growth would stop long before this because Malthus assumed
that the land available for food production is fixed and that crop yields would
not improve. He concluded that universal famine would be the lot of future
generations. Nature would restore the balance in a catastrophic way, with war,
hunger and disease, unless public policy contained the trend to overcrowding.
Malthus’ book, Essay on the Principle of Population
attracted attention in the first decades of the 19th century, but interest
fell when its forecasts failed. In the Europe and North America, the Industrial
Revolution brought increasing prosperity to support unprecedented growth of the
population. The Essay has thought that ignores the vastness of the planet and
the role of technology in the improvement of agricultural productivity and in
shipping and preserving foodstuffs.
Discredited by facts, Malthusian thought
remained dormant until the 1960s. At that time, the
enormous advances in medical science, the advent of antibiotics and control of disease
with better sanitation, had combined to bring a world-wide drop of death rates,
while birth rates were remained at the traditional levels, practiced to
compensate for the early deaths of previous times. The uncommon growth of world
population in middle of 20th century prompted the publication
alarmist books of Malthusian persuasion.
Population Bomb,
of Paul Erlich, foresaw hundreds of millions of deaths by hunger in Asia, and
even the increase of mortality rates due to poor nutrition, in the 1980s, in
the United States. The pessimistic perspective was amplified by another
influential book, Limits to Growth,
of which 12 million copies were distributed. Its message is that a limited
planet cannot support unlimited growth. The book introduced the concept of a
fixed stock of non renewable resources depleted at an alarming rate, in an
analogy with the Malthus concept of limited food availability.
HIGH SEAS…
The pessimists have three tenets they accept with an
act of faith:
·
We are running out of space.
World population already is excessive for a limited planet, and grows at
exponential rates, tending to disastrous overpopulation.
·
We are running out of resources.
Non-renewable resources of the planet are being depleted to support unneeded
consumption, at rates that render further economic growth unsustainable.
·
We are running against time,
as tipping points of irreversible climate change are reached. Carbon dioxide
emissions by human activity cause global warming that will render the planet
uninhabitable.
Many
adopt the three tenets uncritically, but belief has no role in dealing with
measurable physical things. When matters are quantified, the difference between
true and false stands out.
SPACE
IS AMPLE
Is excessive population a
serious world problem? It may seem so to the dweller of a congested metropolis,
living in discomfort, but is not something that can be generalized for the
planet. The sum of the urban + suburban areas of the U.S. Is equivalent to 2%
of the area of the country, and 6% in densely populated countries such as
England or Holland. There is an abundance of green in them. It is arguable that
7 billion people would live a comfortable urban life on one million square
kilometers, four times the area of the State of Wyoming; that is less than 0.8%
of a total terrestrial area of 148 million square kilometers. Population
density, in inhabitants/square kilometer would be 7000. This density is not
unheard of. It is 26640 for Manhattan and 20000 for the Copacabana beach front
district in Rio de Janeiro, and 5000 for London, with its ample parks. Given
99.2% of free space, the idea of an overcrowded planet is exaggerated.
Exponential growth ceased long ago. Demographic
forecasts are uncertain, but most accepted ones of the UN foresee stability of world
population, to be reached in the 21st century. According some, world
population will start to decline at the end of the 21st century. An
aging population is the current worry. With so much space available, it cannot
be held that the world population is excessive or has possibility of becoming
so.
RESOURCES
ARE ADEQUATE
Mining companies are aware of how little is known
about the content of the terrestrial crust and discard the notion of that it
has a limited, measured and known stock, of minerals. The pessimists say that, ultimately,
a limited planet cannot support limitless growth, and hold this as axiomatic. It
can also be counter argued that, ultimately, there are no non-renewable
resources, in a universe ruled by the Law of Conservation of Mass. Stated by
Lavoisier in the 18th century it holds that “nothing it is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed.”
Human consumption never deducted one gram from the mass of the planet and,
theoretically, all used materials can be recycled. Its feasibility depends on
the availability of low cost energy. When fusion energy becomes operational, it
will be available in unlimited quantities.
The potential source of energy is deuterium, a
hydrogen isotope found in water in a ratio of 0.03%. One cubic kilometer of sea
water contains more energy than would be gotten with the combustion of all
known reserves of oil in the world. Since the oceans contain 1400 million cubic
kilometers of water it is safe to say that energy will last longer than the
human species. Potable water need not be a limitation, as is sometimes said;
new nanotube membranes promise to reduce the cost of energy for desalination to
one tenth of its current cost. It would become viable to use desalinated water
on coastal areas of the continents, an area on which much of the world
population is settled.
It may be argued that such technologies are not yet
available, but no historical precedent supports the notion of that human ingenuity
is gone and that technology will remain frozen forever at current levels.
There is no scarcity of resources signaled by price
increases. Since middle of the 19th century, a periodical, The Economist, has kept consistent and
comparable records of the prices of commodities in real values; these have
fallen for 150 years, thanks to technological progress. The decline has been
benign. The cost of feeding of a human being was eight times higher in 1850
than it is today. In 1950, less than half of a world population of 2 billion had
an adequate diet of more than 2000 calories per day, today, 80% has it, for a
world population that tripled.
…DESTINATION UNKNOWN
UNCERTAINTIES
OF CLIMATE CHANGE
There is no
consensus regarding future climate change. It can be said that there is
acceptance of Malthusian ideas by European governments worried over a global
warming they attribute to carbon dioxide generated by industrial activity. They
make forecasts for world climate decades ahead, with a certainty that reminds
one of the precision of astronomical calculations. However, climate has a
chaotic behavior, in the mathematical sense, and is therefore subject to high
degree of uncertainty, that will not be diminished by advances in scientific
knowledge. There is no climate science with forecasting power comparable to the
one of astronomy and such power will never come into being. Until recent times,
no university offered a B.Sc. in climate science. Climate studies resort to numerous
different fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology, botany,
zoology, paleontology, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics etc… fields with
variable degrees of uncertainty, and compounded in climate studies.
In studies where the science is uncertain,
different hypotheses contend to establish relationships of cause and effect. If
a hypothesis is hijacked by a commercial interest in support of its claims, the
debate slides from the academic plane to the political plane, on which the gimmicks
of propaganda and public relations are to be expected.
The debate becomes polarized between political
factions, each side with its own agenda. In climate matters, one side appeals
to the authority of researchers in support of an anti-industrial agenda,
admitted as painful, but necessary. The other side points to the lack of
scientific basis for such a policy, qualified as suicidal. The clash of
interests has transformed global warming into a journalistic and political
phenomenon, not a physical one. Unfortunately, there are base motives in a
campaign to vilify an Industrial Revolution that has, over two centuries,
redeemed a large part of mankind from extreme misery. However, much of humanity
still does not have access to electricity and suffers from all the ills of it.
They only can be overcome by economic growth stimulated by increasing supply of
cheap energy.
In this issue it is fit to ask the question: Qui bono? Who gains? In its modern
version, it recommends following the money trail to an interest behind a cause.
Suspect is the haste with which restrictive measures are proposed to reduce
fuel use, with the pretext that tipping points for disastrous climatic change
are being reached. Politicians are in a hurry to use this unverifiable
hypothesis to support special interests. These include: governments that need huge
revenues and an excuse to tax fuels; manufacturers benefited by regulation in
favor of one form of energy generation and against competitors; empire building
bureaucrats who want ample controls over everything and every soul. To the list
of beneficiaries of the global warming cause one must add the big international
banks whose irresponsibility unleashed boom followed by bust.
In 1985, banking was a staid activity that
accounted for 16% of the profits of all companies in the U.S. In 2008, 40% of
total profits were earned by banks, a clear measurement of the size of the
speculative bubble. The subsequent banking crisis was precipitated by toxic
mortgages packaged and sold by banks as “derivatives”, which did much damage to
the legitimate economy of the world. Greater mischief was on the way. The banks
had hoped to put into circulation huge and unlimited issues of a fictitious
asset, the Carbon Credit securities. The Chicago Climate Exchange, a phantom
entity parallel to the Chicago Commodities Exchange, went broke and closed; the
European Union Emission Trading Scheme is heading the same way amid a wave of
fraud. The worse of gambling with carbon credits was stopped by the banking
crisis.
The cluster of interests that support the manmade
global warming cause is questioned. Against the expectation raised by computer
climate models, measurement has evidenced the stability or decline of global
temperature since 1995. It had risen in the two previous decades, provoking a
scare about unchecked global warming. This shows that there are natural forces shaping
the climate, of greater magnitude than the effect of the carbon dioxide, whatever
its origin. These include the cyclical oscillations in oceanic currents and
their temperatures, the activity of solar spots and the effect, on cosmic rays,
of variable magnetic activity of the sun. These natural cycles still are little
understood and of unknown weight in comparison with the effect of manmade
carbon dioxide. Moreover, mankind can do nothing for or against natural forces
of this magnitude. Sensible public measures are welcome to mitigate the effect
of the climatic changes, when they occur and whatever the cause.
Politically motivated climate researchers had minimized
uncertainties, in a field rife with them, to give their forecasts an appearance
of solidity, backed by unanimous opinion,
with the refrain: The debate is over;
the science is settled. The unethical conduct of researchers was disclosed
in the scandal labeled Climategate. It cast doubt on the impartiality and
trustworthiness of UN-IPCC studies by people clearly engaged in promoting their
political agendas.
An allegation of consensus of scientists does not
make sense. In science, matters are never settled; there is always room for
additional layers of knowledge provided by successful challenges to
conventional wisdom. In the scientific mind there is no place for Magister Dixit, the master spoke, a
reference to philosophers as final authorities. An argument from authority deserves
rejoinder with the motto of the Royal Society, Nullius in Verba,
according to which science rejects the word of authority above verifiable
experimental evidence and logical reasoning,
Carbon dioxide is not toxic or a pollutant. Photosynthesis
makes the gas a nutrient of plants that support the food chain of all living
beings on the planet.
It is just to apply to the issue a principle of
Roman law, In dubio pro reu, Justice must benefit the defendant where doubt
exists, in this in case, the defendant is the maligned industrial economy.
THE
CAUSE
The forecasts of UN-IPCC are speculations that reflect
the assumptions fed to the computer models in support of the cause of the
sponsors. These computer simulations are too uncertain to furnish rational
grounds for public policies to inhibit economic activity “to save the planet”.
In support of such policies, stories
of imminent disaster are told in the strident tones typical of the propaganda
of totalitarian regimes to deceive masses. Their tactics were described by H.
L. Mencken:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
The propaganda machine quickly attributes to global
warming anything that happens on the planet, such as: influenza pandemics; an
earthquake in the Himalayas, a volcanic eruption in Iceland, the 2004 tsunami on
the Indian Ocean; tribal wars in Africa; heat wave in Paris; plague of snails on
the tiny Isle of Wight. In Australia: forest fires, sand storms in the dry
season and floods in the rainy season. In North America: the last severe
winters, the collapse of a bridge in Minnesota, the hurricane season in the
Gulf of Mexico. Evo Morales blames Americans for summer floods in Bolivia. Hugo
Chaves thinks that with global warming capitalism killed an advanced
civilization in Mars. Fidel Castro says that earthquakes are induced by the
current boom in gas and oil production of U.S. With friends like these, do
environmental causes need enemies?
In the opinion of the Professor Aaron Wildavsky, global
warming is the mother of all environmental activists:
"Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of
withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the
environmentalist's dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of
economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food
chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more
equally.''
This was the youthful fantasy of now elderly
hippies, bound to extinction by their barren life style.
When they are gone, Viva la vida! could become the motto of a hopeful world to be
reached with a return to ancient truths that uphold the sanctity of life.
Alan Neil Ditchfield
alanneil@montana.ind.br
·
Wither
bound? É a indagação tradicional da guarda costeira britânica dirigida a navios
que passam. Navios de guerra britânicos respondem, de modo igualmente lacônico:
High seas. Destination unknown.