implementing k * choosing and moving t owards optimum g lobal c arrying c apacity for ...
DESCRIPTION
Implementing K * Choosing and moving t owards optimum g lobal c arrying c apacity for humans. Max Kummerow Curtin University, Perth, Australia (Economics) Vicki Watson University of Montana Missoula (Environmental Studies) [email protected] [email protected]. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
MAX KUMMEROWC U R T I N U N I V E R S I T Y, P E R T H , A U S T R A L I A ( E C O N O M I C S )
VICKI WATSONU N I V E R S I T Y O F M O N TA N A M I S S O U L A ( E N V I R O N M E N TA L S T U D I E S )
m a x k u m m e r o w @ y a h o o . c o mv i c k i . w a t s o n @ u m o n t a n a . e d u
Implementing K* Choosing and moving towards optimum global carrying capacity for humans
Observe or choose?
Positivism: change beliefs if they differ from factsEthics: try to change facts, where they differ from
beliefs Scott Gordon History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences
Natural sciences: Observe & reportSocial sciences: Observe, design, create, choose, act
“economics is a moral science….it involves introspection and judgments of value”
J.M. Keynes Letter to Harrod
Choose K* (optimum) < K (maximum) ?
Humanity can adjust reproduction behaviors to target a preferred population level, K* (K star)
Feasible (and cheap) via birth control, abortion, sterilization, education, economic incentives
Implement via institutional changes Cultural family size preferences Health care & family planning technology & delivery Education & empowerment of women Pro or anti natalist policies & incentives
Choice of K* depends on many factors:
Desired standard of living for self and others Dietary trophic level (how much meat to eat?) Expected rate of technology innovations
(increases K) Exhaustion of natural capital stocks (decreases K) Space allocated to other species Worry about risks of changing the planet too much Aesthetics & preferences for space, congestion,
freedom, wildness Worry about future generations
Human Fertility
2.1 = replacement rate with low mortality12-14 = “natural” fertility rate without
contraception Before 20th century, child and infant mortality
rates (~500/1000), TFR ~5-72012 country fertility rates range from <1 to
>7
Demographic momentum
Populations increase for 40+ years after fertility falls One child policy 1979, 900 m., China peaks 2040, 1.4
b. Births exceed deaths after fertility falls
Between 1972 and 2012 World growth fell from 2% to 1% But population doubled from 3.5 billion to 7 billion.
Growth 80 million per year, 1 billion in 12 years
World Fertility Experiment Results
28 peaceful countries TFR 1.6, 28 violent countries TFR 4.7
(41% low,43% mid, 16% high)
Source: U.N & World Bank 2006-2008 figures
Fertility Category Countries
Total Pop. (billions)
Years life
Infant deaths/1000
Per Capita Income
2006 GDP Growth
Low (<2.1) 73 2.72 76.6 9 25,589$ 4.7%Mid (2.1-4.1) 67 2.88 70.1 24 12,797$ 4.6%High (>4.1) 62 1.09 55.6 67 5,037$ 3.6%
Backlash against family planning
Reagan & Bush opposed abortion, cut family planning budgets
Birth control linked to environmentalists, opposed by polluters
Labeled racist by political left (Marx opposed Malthus)
Some assumed problem solved due to falling fertilityFocus on “growth” and “jobs” disregards ecological
limits, assumes population growth a goalMale opposition to empowering women (key to lower
fertility) Population almost a taboo subject, even at ecology
meetings
Theoretical v Actual Demographic Transitions
Assumption: Occurs automatically with modernization
Reality:Requires empowerment of women, education, legal abortion, leadership, PR campaigns, funding, major cultural changes, not at all certain to be completed
1 billion to 10 billion in 250 years, 1800-2050 (7.2 b. now)
Growth in poor, high fertility countries = migration pressures
Projections contingent on future fertility
Medium, low and high fertility differ by 1/2 child/couple
Medium assumes convergence of all countries to near 2.1 (replacement) by 2050.
Current country TFR ranges from < 1 to > 7U.N. Population Projections 2012, billions
Constant Low High Medium
2050
11.1
8.3
10.9 9.5
2100
28.6
6.7
16.6 10.8
Culture as an evolutionary selection factor
“In developed countries, family size preferences make “cultural selection” the strongest driver of evolutionary change. Moreover, Lamarckian transmission of acquired characteristics does occur with “memes.”” Kaufman, Eric Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth, 2010
Fundamentalists of all religions have more children, even in the context of developed countries
2 Mormons 1829, 14.1 million 2012 = 9% growth rate
Fertility differences change population proportions fast
>2.1 exponential growth, <2.1 exponential decay
Secular 1.5 kids
Fundamentalist 3 kids
%Secular
% Fundamentalist
Total Population
Weighted avg Fertility
Gen 1 1.00
1.00 50.0% 50.0%
2.0
2.25
Gen 2 0.75
1.50 33.3% 66.7%
2.3
2.50
Gen 3 0.56
2.25 20.0% 80.0%
2.8
2.70
Gen 4 0.42
3.38 11.1% 88.9%
3.8
2.83
Gen 5 0.32
5.06 5.9% 94.1%
5.4
2.91
Gen 10
0.08
38.44 0.2% 99.8%
38.5
3.00
Current economy unsustainable
Species holocaust, ecological instablityClimate changeHalf of world’s food from natural gas
(N2+CH4)Soil loss exceeds soil formation on crop lands
“Energy slaves” from fossil fuels) increase output multiplying Labor in production function by 200 Y =f(T,K,L*200)
In 1800 small economy, big world
Now big economy small world
30-50% over long term carrying capacity
Exponential growth, fixed resource
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/coastal/economics/images/sa7_fig06.gif
Herman Daly: Steady State Economy
Reproduction a fundamental human right
All must have equal childbearing rights Reject racism of early Social Darwinists
But reproduction creates external effects on others
And emergent effects—climate change, extinctionIndividual rationality causes collective irrationality
Game Theory Prisoner’s Dilemma “Tragedy of the commons”
So regulation of family size by society justified
Elizabeth Kolbert’s “The Case Against KidsNew Yorker, April 12, 2012
Some additional people add to quality of life, but too many make life poorer, less safe
In biology, too much is as bad as too little (like number of people in a lifeboat)
Personal rationale for K*
Check your ecological footprint: http://www.myfootprint.org/ (author’s takes 7 earths to support everybody at my level)
So multiply current population by 1/7 Multiply by ½ to allow slack in the system and allow ecosystems
to recover Conclusion: K* = about half a billion people
Allows scale economies, high energy urban lifestyles 10 cities 10 m, 20 cities 5 m, small cities 200 m, 100 m rural
Feasible paths to 500 millionGlobal one child for 4 generations (or faster or
slower) 8 (in year 2025), 4, 2, 1, .5 (by 2125?) )
Or higher mortality & permanent decrease in K Lovelock predicts 1 billion by 2100 Limits to growth predicts collapse, 10 billion to 5 billion
by 2100
Fertility transitions implemented by:
Choose target population and path to K* via public debate
Top level government leadershipEmpowerment and education of womenCultural change (via education, research, etc.)Public relations campaigns (Mexican novellas)Legal abortionSubsidies for birth control“One child” or “two child” policiesSubsidize first child, internalize external costs of
third child World Bank The Global Family Planning Revolution
Family planning alone not enough to save the earth
Reform media and education Inform not sell (current mass media profit motivated) Educated public essential for democracy to function
Reduce population Transition half done, needs completion
Steady state economy Huge cultural change (less greed, less consumption, more “leisure”) Cuban and “happiness research” development model—salsa & relationships , not stuff
Protect environment Carbon tax, protect bio-diversity
Social justice Universal human rights & equality
Synergy, interdependence & simultaneity
Low fertility K* feasible utopia
Operate economy on current solar energy inputsEnd depletion of natural capital stocksEconomy of abundance rather than scarcityLong lives, high energy lifestyles, peace
Reality check: Sweden: kids do not starve, peaceful, forests, TFR
1.8 Afghanistan : TFR 5.5, violence, infant mortality
120/1000
21st century moral choices
Standard of living? (How much energy use?)
Do future generations count?
Do other species matter?
Can the world be stable & peaceful half rich and half poor?
Low birth rates/long lives or
High birth rates/short lives?
Astronaut’s insight:
“It’s a long way to the
next waterhole”The Home Planet,
Kevin Kelley, editor.