The Club of Rome Sounds the Doomsday Alarm
By James Walker, Ph.D.
A brief review of Part I
The Industrial Revolution, beginning in the mid-18th century, unleashed a previously undreamed increase in material goods production. At the same time, the world population, which had stood at about 750 million in 1750, has ballooned to over 8 billion today. In 1798, Thomas Malthus published his essay on population, which presented a mathematical model that predicted population would inevitably outrun the food supply, thereby dooming humankind to always live at a subsistence level. This contention has been hotly debated ever since.
The Warning
In the 1950s, the United States had been basking in a postwar wave of economic growth and prosperity when Rachel Carson published Silent Spring in 1962. It suggested that our burgeoning industry's side effects were beginning to degrade our environment seriously. It became a best-seller, selling over 2 million copies and launching what came to be known as the environmental movement. Ten years later, a group known as the Club of Rome, an organization of scientists, intellectuals, businessmen, and statesmen dedicated to solving world problems, commissioned a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1972 doing computer simulations of natural resources, industrial output, food, production, population and pollution from 1900 to 2100 under various sets of assumptions Their hope was to shed some light on what was likely to happen if we continued on our current course and to point the way to policy changes that might improve our outcomes in the foreseeable future. The most interesting simulations Were those done under the assumptions they titled "business as usual," assuming no significant changes in government's or industrial leadership's policy before 2100. Figure one copies the pattern typically produced under the business-as-usual assumptions. The results of the studies were made public through the publication of a book by the researchers titled The Limits of Growth, which quickly produced a hornets' nest of often rancorous debate that continues to the present.
Figure 1
Many of these critics, including the The New York Times denounced the book as irresponsible journalism that should not have been published. Nevertheless, there was considerable interest in the book and it continues in the public eye to this day. Since 1972 was 52 years ago, there has been a significant time to see the studied variables working and assess their tracking compared to the original model's predictions. The typical computer run under the business-as-usual assumptions is illustrated in Figure 1. It shows that food per capita, industrial production per capita, population, and pollution all rose nearly parallel until about 2015, with natural resources beginning to decline gradually at first and then more sharply reaching their steepest decline by about 2025. Food per capita and industrial output per capita starts to decline at about the same time, around 2025, and pollution continues to increase until 2030, when it begins to decline sharply. Food per Capita, Industrial production, per capita, and natural resources available will decline sharply until about 2050 while the population continues to increase. Finally, about 2050 cataclysm strikes, which has been building since 2030. Population peaks and declines sharply, dropping to about 50% of peak level. By 2100, pollution and industrial production will decline to near zero, and food production will only be about 1/3 of what it was at its peak. It is a horrifying picture of total collapse with a world returned to a near-stone age society with still many billions of hungry people out there. A much more dismal picture than even that of Malthus. Who saw humankind as condemned to a more or less perpetual condition of subsistence-level existence.
Tracking the Variables Since the Book's Publication
I located two articles that have done empirical follow-ups on how well subsequent developments have tracked the original predictions of the limits of the growth book. One was a 40-year follow-up published in the Guardian in 2014; the other was a 50-year follow-up published in Resilience. The overall general conclusion of the two studies can be summarized well by saying that they found that subsequent events have closely tracked the predictions made under the business-as-usual assumptions of the limits of the growth book. Some of the trends may have been slowed slightly by changed governmental policy, but these changes have tended to be generally pretty feeble and have been so recent as not to have taken hold very strongly. We may already be seeing some of the deterioration predicted in the model. If the predictions continue to track closely, we should see some dramatic effects within the next 20 years or so and a severe collapse well before 2100. Let us look at how some of these variables have progressed in the last 50 years relative to the business-as-usual model predictions:
World Population-
The 40-year follow-up population was tracking the business-as-usual model almost perfectly. The birth rate and death rate both track the model closely. In the 50-year follow-up, the World population stood at 7.7 billion in 2019 and is estimated to have reached 8 billion by now. The annual growth rate of the population peaked in 1972 at 2.1%. It has dropped to one percent in 2019, a growth rate sufficient to double the population in about 70 years, should it continue at that rate.
Pollution-
Despite considerable efforts by governments in the highly developed world to contain pollution, which have met with some success, the burgeoning industrial output of rapidly developing countries, particularly China and India, has overwhelmed these efforts. The 40-year update found that world pollution was closely tracking the business-as-usual model. The 50-year update found that carbon dioxide emissions were still rising rapidly, with China being the most significant contributor, and carbon dioxide levels were higher than they have ever been in the last several million years when the earth was considerably hotter than it is now, and sea level was 25 feet higher than it currently is.
Industrial Output Per Capita-
The 40-year update found that industrial output per capita closely tracked the business-as-usual model. The 50-year update found that the world's gross domestic product per capita increases steadily.
Food Per Capita-
The 40-year update found that food production closely tracked the business-as-usual model, slightly exceeding expectations. The 50-year follow-up shows that food production per capita has steadily increased since the original 1972 study. It is now producing enough calories to sustain good nutrition in the current world population if it were distributed equitably. Unfortunately, it is not, with some countries and many individuals in many countries not getting enough food.to maintain good health.
Resource Depletion-
The 40-year update found that resource depletion closely tracked the business-as-usual model.
In summary, we can say with considerable confidence that changes since the limit of growth publication in 1972 have pretty closely tracked the business-as-usual model. Looking at the graph of the typical computer run of this model as illustrated in Figure one, we can see that some of the deterioration predicted by the model should begin soon. They may indeed have already started. In recent years, we have experienced the beginning of several ominous trends, which have steadily increased. They are:
Global Warming- The earth's average temperature has steadily increased for several years to the point that ecological harm is inevitable and is already underway. Glaciers and ice caps are melting, raising the sea level to the point of increasing flooding vulnerability in places like Miami and New York. Inhabited islands in Chesapeake Bay are beginning to submerge. Coral reefs are dying. It is already too late to stop this damage entirely, but it is possible to prevent it from reaching its maximum potential by reducing pollution.
Increasing Frequency and Intensity of Storms- Most of the strongest and most destructive hurricanes in recorded history have occurred in the last decade, driven by higher ocean temperatures, which are their fuel. Cities such as Houston, Texas have experienced 100, 500, and even 1000-year floods in recent years.
Rain Pattern Shifts- Frequent droughts in Central America and Africa have occurred, causing recurring famines that fuel chronic civil wars and social turmoil.
Population Pressure- The increasing population has caused desperate attempts at illegal immigration from Central America, South America, the Caribbean, and Africa. People brave razor wire and swim the Rio Grande river, trek hundreds of miles through the blazing Sonoran desert, and attempt crossing the Mediterranean in flimsy rubber rafts. Many lose their lives in these attempts.
These seemingly different disasters are all manifestations of a single cause. Out-of-hand population growth is putting an excessive strain on our planet and society.
This level of change brings to mind the scene in the novel Moby Dick, where Starbuck has concluded that Ahab is too dangerous to be left in command and will bring disaster to the ship and its crew. He feels he must assassinate Ahab. Starbucks sticks a small pistol in his belt and goes out on deck when he knows Ahab will be alone. He draws his pistol on Captain Ahab but loses his nerve and confesses that he does not have the courage to do the deed. Captain Ahab Then launches a Metaphysical lecture on predestination, his relation to God, and some other things, ending with the statement, "This world is but a mask. It is the thing behind the mask I chiefly hate". The mask is all of the ecological, economic, and social problems in our current situation. The thing behind the mask is out of control population.
An opportunity to control our runaway population growth and perhaps eventually bring down population to long-term sustainability has now appeared on the horizon. To succeed in this, we must first employ the techniques already at our disposal, such as pollution control, conservation, and improving productivity due to better technology, quickly enough and well enough to forestall catastrophes long enough to allow this new change agent to work. Second, we need not squander its ability to improve human life as we did with the Industrial Revolution and the capitalist economic system. We will have to thread a tight needle and win a race against time, but this may be our last chance. This perhaps last opportunity will be developed and explained in part three of the population bomb series of articles.
Comments