Actual Carrying Capacity

by XSilent (Jan 2003)
http://www3.telus.net/arktos/xsilent/index.html

The difference between the actual long-term carrying capacity of an ecosystem, and that which it may sustain over a period of time may be remarkably different. In the human instance, we have repeatedly extended the carrying capacity of our ecosystems using technological means - primarily through capturing more energy resources. This has been remarkably successful for the last 10,000 years and seems limitless to a culture that ignores 'pre'-history.

The density at which forager peoples inhabited their ecosystems varied with the richness of the area. Obviously a desert environment would sustain less !Kung bushmen than a rich coastal environment would support the Sechelt people. However, in all cases the number of people that were sustained (usually measured in persons per square kilometer) was significantly less than even our simple historical civilizations.

If we assume that biodiveristy equals stability and resilience, then we must acknowledge that when an increasing amount of the resources in an ecosystem are appropriated for one species, this destabilizes the system. In a climax ecosystem, all the participating species have come to a balance in terms of their populations and their inter-relating roles. An indisputable sign of a 'pioneer' ecosystem (not at climax or 'old-growth' stage) is that one or several populations are growing exponentially.

I probably do not need to detail exponential human growth. This single phenomenon points to an ecosystem that cannot be in balance. Combined with a strategy of extracting more and more from our environment per capita, it leads to the inevitable destruction of the carrying capacity itself. Most historical civilizations experienced this (why do you think the cradle of civilization is a desert?) and the delusion that we have escaped this natural law is one of the most pathological mental states we can boast of. Is there any possibility at all of creating a sustainable society with the current level of world population? I have become increasingly pessimistic about this. Even those who argue that some reduction will be necessary do not look at some statistics that worry me:

By about 12,000 years ago it is generally assumed that humans had populated all the corners of the world. Even after about 8,000 years of exponential growth after the advent of agriculture, it is estimated that world population was about 150 million people at year 1 CE (AD). Now this number may be low, but consider that there were still less than 1 billion humans at 1800 CE. Since then we have grown at an insane rate. What will it take to bring populations to sustainable levels? Unfortunately more than wishful thinking, effective lobbying, or well-meaning policy. It will take mass death.

Although Malthus' views on the human condition were biased by the European world of 1798, he clearly observed that War, Starvation and Disease are the main controls of population. The only qualification I would make is that these are the controls in 'civilized' cultures. Have I lost hope? No, but fear is a very honest response when faced by imminent danger. The sad thing in my point of view is that, not only will our population levels be violently reduced, but the ultimate carrying capacity of the earth for humans will be lowered (thanks to us) to levels lower than what they could be. This will probably recover over the next thousand years, but it will not help those who have to live in the mean time.

Even in progressive papers such as Optimum Human Population Size, the conservative estimate for long-term capacity is in the range of 1.5 to 2 billion. I think that this may still be horribly optimistic. Most of the high-density population in the world around 1900 (when populations were this level) was in resource-destructive urban cultures such as Western Europe, China, and India. Even if these people were spread out over the globe, I have doubts that it would be any better. Essentially, the impact of these population groups was spread over the world in terms of resource extraction. Particularly, the impact of Western Europe was extended over the whole planet. As one of the most obvious examples, the Americas were stripped of resources and the indigenous inhabitants murdered to support Europe.

Ultimately it comes down, once again, to expectations of life-style. This, in turn, is based on a culture's view of the universe. Our view of the universe is hostile and, as such, we must strive for 'security' and control of our world. As long as this mentality is universal there is no hope of any sustainable population level. Researchers are careful to not offend when questioning modern life-style; only telling North-Americans that they may have to get used to European levels of consumption. Really, it all needs to be scrapped. Out with the cars, pink insulation, telephones, pianos, paved roads, EKG machines, electricity, and hierarchical government. We pride ourselves on being such an inventive species, but if thousands of intelligent people can volunteer to design a marvel of technology such as the Linux computer operating system, then why can't we really think differently?

It is time to start thinking outside of civilization.







Maps are from an article by John H. Tanton, "End of the Migration Epoch," reprinted by The Social Contract, Vol IV, No 3 and Vol. V, No. 1, 1995. Each dot represents 1 million people.
From the website: Population Maps