The Learning Curve

As you can see, I changed the design theme again. I can’t seem to agree on a final look. There’s also a lot to be done on the content of the blog. The ‘Book Reviews’ page already reflects what I have in mind; using the left side of each page to show the arguments of those who seek active stance against overpopulation, and the right side for who disagree. Anyway, it’s more time-consuming than I’d like.

Originally I planned to publish my first two reviews, but instead you can find just the first one at ‘Book Reviews’, on the Dutch book Tien miljoen voor een duurzame bevolkingsomvang. The review itself is open for comments, so feel free to post there. The second one about The Population Explosion was a bit harder. I want my reviews to serve multiple purposes. They should reflect my critical opinion (as any review does), but they also need to convey the most interesting information and most important conclusions. I don’t want you to read these books per se whether I recommend them or not, and if you don’t, my reviews should be written as if I’ve read them for you. This what I aim to do, and what is also making these reviews a little more difficult to write than what I’m used to. It’s not like panning the latest Hollywood blockbuster!

On another note, if you read the comments on the previous post, you will see that author Pete Murphy has kindly offered to send me his book for review. If have humbly accepted and look forward to receiving and reading his book. Be assured, I will judge the book and its contents fairly and critically. His offer came quite unexpectedly, but a most pleasant surprise and is an additional stimulus in getting this blog where I want it to go. May it be the first free book of many. Yay, free books!

And on a final, lighter note; a friend sent me this YouTube link to stand-up comedian Bill Burr on David Letterman, who has his own spin on overpopulation issues (he gets around to it at 2.30):

Food prices soaring

Well, in the past few days, news on the soaring global food prices has been trickling down towards me through various papers, both on- and offline. Apparently IMF top cat Dominic Strauss-Kahn used the world ‘war’ to describe possible consequences of continuing pressure on the world food market. It made a sufficient impact to make its way through most news outlets in the Netherlands (which is where I am) and on the Internet, but not enough to do so in one day. It slowly became ‘news’, I guess.

Anyway, failing crops, political instability in some countries, increases in growing of biofuel crops and increasing consumption of the Chinese are the most common factors named to explain the phenomenon this year. Oddly enough, no mention is made of already high global population and strains on the food market, nor of any other previous years in the past when food prices were relatively high. Internet outlets that allow comments on the other hand, do quickly clutter with comments on overpopulation or less nuanced comments blaming Africans for their own predicament.

In any case, it still isn’t real news by most standards and this year’s poor food situation has yet to spark any real public debate. If you wish to keep yourself posted, head on out to the IMF website for news on food prices and such. They don’t have an RSS news feed, so I can’t do it for you.

Concerning this blog; WordPress added some new features, so I’ll be able to structure this site in a much more efficient way. Which I will. My first two book reviews are almost done, and I expect to post them this weekend. I also started to write an essay for an essay contest at my university. Hopefully it’ll be better than the competition and I may be able to raise awareness on the topic within my community. I already thought of a titillating (sp?) title to catch attention, hurt some feelings and polarize opinion. Which is what any respectable essay title should do, right? I’ll post it when it’s done, but that’ll be in May or June.

Oh, if you read this, post something. It’ll make me feel better.

Soylent green is people!

Of course the title refers to the 70’s sci-fi movie Soylent Green starring Charlton Heston. It is the best example I can think of, of a fictional movie dealing primarily with overpopulation (For non-fiction, check out Koyaanisqatsi). It features scenes of rioting crowds being bulldozed off while they try to get their hands on the last supplies of Soylent Green, one of few foods in existence. Whenever Charlton Heston goes home, he has to step over hoards of sleeping people as he traverses the crowded stairwell of his apartment block. He’s never tasted strawberries, brandy, meat, since these are scarce and only affordable to the most privileged. It’s doom and gloom, but a great movie nonetheless.

The movie was based on Make Room! Make Room!, a 1966 novel full of predictions that haven’t come true. Like the work of Malthus, or early work by Ehrlich, people are quick to point out these predictions haven’t come true. Read this review of the novel for instance.

So, where I am getting at. Nothing really, I just wanted to introduce the topic of food. As I pointed out in my last post, the FAO has reported it sees no problems with global food production up to 2030. However, I came across some criticisms of the FAO as an organization while browsing Wikipedia. Main criticisms are focused on its inefficient, bureaucratic organisation, but more relevant to my blog on its tendencies to promote Western-style agriculture and new technologies such as biotechnology. Critics feel this shows some bias as stakeholders in new technologies are always multinationals based in the developed countries. Also, I have often read that intensive, export-geared Western-style agriculture has desastrous results on both soil conditions and the local social and economic situation, when applied to developing countries in tropical climates. In any case, in my mind this kind of taints the conclusions by the FAO.

Anyway, I have yet to find any consensus on food production sustainability and limits, but maybe this is because I haven’t had the time recently to read enough on the topic. I plan to checkout publications on IFAD, an organization focusing on agriculture in poverty-stricken areas of the world. I do hope to focus on the topic as a global issue, and not wander into matters of rural poverty, though these are very important to the general quality of life at the moment and in years to come.

Some sources on grain production showing trend of increased grain production since 1950:

• FAO Statistical Yearbook - Cereals production in the world 1980, 1990, 2000, 2003 and 2004 (link) (scroll down)
• FAO Statistical Yearbook - Per capita agricultural production has increased (link)* (scroll down)
• UNEP - World Grain Production 1950-1995 (link)
• UNEP - Pessimistic projection of grain production for 2050** (link)

*How much of this is for actual human consumption?

**Though this is a 1996 source, it is noticeably contradictory to FAO statistics and 2003 projections. Both are UN organisations. If you read this article from the WorldWatch Institute, you might even say that the FAO is quite selective when it comes to data, since the Statistical Yearbook data all refer to years of relatively high world production.

Overpopulating the internet

Well, I guess I wanted to see if anyone beat me to the punch. After Googling for overpopulation and blog I certainly found other concerned people as well as a blog with the same name, however I did not find anyone really compiling information on the topic, so I’ll go ahead as planned. Anyway, I came across a blog post titled The Overpopulation Myth which ofcourse struck my interest. Read my review over at the Blogs page.

The poster, who obviously does not feel overpopulation is a problem, ironically calls himself Agent Smith. This is ironic, because I’m instantly reminded of a Matrix quote by Agent Smith:

I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren’t actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we… are the cure.

Ah, Agent Smith sure is the life of the party. What is the opposite of aptly chosen?

More to the point; his main article was, I felt, largely dedicated to uninteresting semantics, but in the end, especially due to the subsequent, definitely more relevant comments and his replies, it led me to lots of interesting information:

The UN predicts that world population will increase to between 7.8 and 10.8 billion by 2050. The high and medium range projections still show growth at that point, but the low range projection shows an actual decline! I had not expected to find any serious source stating that by some point in the near future, human population would be in decline. Even though its merely a low range projection, It’s still kind of comforting and makes the whole issue seem just a little less gloomy.

I kept on and found more ‘good’ news from the UN, this time from the FAO: It is often suggested that the world may be heading towards shortages of suitable agricultural land. FAO studies suggest that this will not be the case at the global level, although in some regions and areas there are already serious shortages, and these may worsen. In this instance, we’re talking about projections for 2030. So, no major problems by 2030 and also relative decline in the number of hungry people, but definitely economical strains on some developing parts of the world, as well as limit constraints on fisheries. There will be increased reliance on (available) technologies. However, FAO states that land degradation estimates differ enormously and aren’t comprehensive, so it hasn’t taken that into account, as well as large effects due to global climate change.

As a result of the article in question and my subsequent research, my major questions are:

1. Will food supply keep up with demand beyond 2030?
2. At what point has (or will) the carrying capacity of Earth been (or be) exceeded?
3. How will food supply and demand develop beyond 2030? Will they level off/fluctuate/decline or reach some critical mass?
4. When will global population likely decline occur, and in what fashion?

Let slip the dogs of unbridled procreation…

During my studies in engineering I have often been exposed to the topic of sustainability, which currently seems to be the top ethical issue at my university. In fact, since Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth I would say that a lot of people in the Netherlands concern themselves with sustainability, which has become synonymous with environmentalism, though nowadays the former is the preferred nomenclature.

However, the counter-measures taken are hardly constructive, sufficient, efficient, etc. At my university for example, the curriculum and its contents haven’t really been changed to gear towards sustainability. All the ‘fuss’ merely translates to articles in the university paper and special lectures and such on the topic. It’s not really introducing engineering students with the issue in any broad way and relies heavily on personal initiative by the student to invest any thought in it. In Dutch society as a whole, sustainability has left the political arena and is now at the heart of ‘green’ advertising. This in turn leads to backlash from consumer organizations, magazines and TV programmes all offering their (often just) criticisms on this commercialization of the issue. The debate turns from environmental concerns to consumer ethics. The real issue of sustainability itself is therefor no longer the point of discussion. Ofcourse I’m describing the current state of affairs in rather broad strokes, but this is how I perceive it.

An even larger problem is this; any environmental concern, energy issue, etc. is merely a cause, or symptom of overpopulation and consumerism, which together explain how too many people use too much of what this planet has to offer. Now I’ve come to this conclusion some years ago, and have since then become amazed at how little overpopulation is a political, or even a public theme. In fact, it’s not. All we talk about is various side-effects that occur naturally as economic and population growth are allowed to take place in an unbridled fashion.

So, why is that? And what do the few people who are worried say about it? Also, what happens in the long run? I’m perfectly familiar with all sorts of doomsday scenarios, but even if they occur, what is the state of human affairs afterwards? I will attempt to read as much material on the topic as I can, and summarize my findings here in order to come to my own conclusions, both in terms of opinion and how I (believe I) should conduct myself accordingly. I will attempt to do this objectively, but since I already have this concern, and will start with seminal literature by those who are concerned themselves, there is an inherent bias to this blog.

Well, here goes… At the moment I finished reading Paul Gerbrands’ Tien miljoen als duurzame bevolkingsomvang (Lit. Ten million as a sustainable population size*), started on Paul & Anne Erlich’s The Population Explosion, downloaded various UN-reports, and ordered T.R. Malthus’ An Essay on the Principle of Population, Massimo LiviBacci’s A Concise History of World Population and D.H. Meadows’ The Limits To Growth: A 30-Year Update.

I will try to find some more moderate or dissenting literature, but I hope to avoid Björn Lomborg’s work, since I can’t really take him seriously anymore as I’ve read convincing counterarguments to his book on different topics. Maybe I’ll give him a chance, especially if someone does recommend him.

So, what can you expect?
I will more or less give summaries and reviews of any books, websites, reports, documentaries, articles and movies that I encounter on the topic. I will attempt to categorize them based on their format but, more importantly, based on their stance, so that you may read what people on both ends of the debate, and those in between, have to say.

*The Dutch population is currently at 16,5 million people.