Population and consumption

32 views
Skip to first unread message

JOHN DE GRAAF,* JOHN DE GRAAF

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 12:09:45 AMJun 1
to sco...@googlegroups.com
Just something to think about for those who don't see a connection between population and overconsumption: Population Growth is Not Good for People or the Planet | Inter Press Service (ipsnews.net)
 
--from the article:
 
Population growth deepens social and economic inequality and has negative impacts on unemployment, housing costs, inflation, infrastructure, resource scarcity, pollution, and well-being. It even fuels resource conflicts and wars.
 
It’s also one of the key variables determining overall consumption and pollution levels, which are jeopardizing planetary life support systems on which we and Earth’s remaining biodiversity depend.
 
We can't really separate these things.  I agree that our focus should be consumption but we can't ignore the impact of population growth.
 
I won't carry this debate on but I was a little troubled by the effort to foreclose any discussion of population.
 
best,
John
 

John de Graaf

www.johndegraaf.com

Ashwani Vasishth

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 3:41:46 AMJun 1
to sco...@googlegroups.com

Dear John,

I hope you know I respect your mind.  But the issue here is NOT whether population and consumption are related--they are, and cleanly.  The question is, of all the myriad pressures we are putting on our ecosphere, is the current (falling) rate of population growth a pressing concern, worthy of priority attention?

I will maintain it cannot be so framed.  Yes, I care about population dynamics--growth and contraction, each of which generates it's own pressures.

My own opposition is not to the issue but to the now-obsolete characterization of "the population bomb."  I am really grateful to the Ehrlichs--we all should be--for that warning shot.  But, John, more than any other force, evolution undergirds our existence. We--planetary society--responded to that book.  We DID things.  Including child-birth limits in China and forced sterilization camps in India.  We now KNOW with clarity (or can if we only look) that education is the best contraceptive.  Give women a platform, and we are all better off.

My second objection is to the singling out of "Population", from the i=P*A*T formulation.  All three factors--population, consumption and waste--affect our impact.  And their relative weight is a function of society's collective actions.  And their relative weight does vary, with time and circumstance.  But never has one acted alone.

-- 

     Ashwani
        Vasishth         vasi...@ramapo.edu          (201) 684-6616 (Jabber-enabled)
                   http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth
          --------------------------------------------------------
                      Professor of Sustainability
                  Convener, Sustainability Program (BA)
              Convenor, Environmental Studies Program (BA)
                    Director, Center for Sustainability
                      http://ramapo.edu/ramapo-green
                     http://ramapo.edu/sustainability

You can ALWAYS set up an Appointment with me, without negotiation, seven days a week,
              at: https://calendly.com/vasishth/webex-meeting

                       Ramapo College of New Jersey
              505 Ramapo Valley Road, SSHS, Mahwah, NJ 07430
         --------------------------------------------------------

I respectfully acknowledge that Ramapo College is located on the ancestral and traditional Indigenous territory of the Ramapough Lenape Nation.
--
- SCORAI website: https://scorai.net
- Join SCORAI: https://scorai.net/join
- Submit an item to next newsletter: daniel...@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/136287998.587049.1685592560631%40connect.xfinity.com.

Stephens, Jennie

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 5:10:22 AMJun 1
to ashwani....@gmail.com, sco...@googlegroups.com

The other critical point is that if we had a regenerative economy that prioritized human well-being, and ecological health, human population would not be an issue.  So focusing on population is a distortion, distraction and a convenient delay strategy for those who do not want to face the systemic changes that are needed away from an economy reliant on extraction and exploitation.  Just as there is no technological fix – there is no population-fix.  Of course population plays a role in ecological health, but population dynamics emerge from the socio-economic structure – not the other way around. So from a feminist, antiracist, decolonial perspective a focus on population is dangerous and destructive. 

 

For those interested in social and ecological justice, this new article on earth system justice is interesting. 

Gupta, J., Liverman, D., Prodani, K., Aldunce, P., Bai, X., Broadgate, W., . . . Verburg, P. H. (2023). Earth system justice needed to identify and live within Earth system boundaries. Nature Sustainability. doi:10.1038/s41893-023-01064-1

 

Jennie C. Stephens, PhD  (she/her)

Dean’s Professor of Sustainability Science & Policy

Northeastern University, School of Public Policy & Urban Affairs, Boston, MA USA

jenniecstephens.com    @jenniecstephens

 

Recent Publications

Fossil fuel companies' climate communication strategies: Industry messaging on renewables and natural gas  Energy Research & Social Science, 2023.

Climate Justice in Higher Education: A proposed paradigm shift towards a transformative role for colleges and universities Climatic Change. 2023

The Fed is Out of Touch on Climate. The Hill, 2023

Higher Education Needs a New Mission. How about Climate Justice?  Boston Globe. 2022

Feminist, Antiracist Values for Climate Justice: Moving Beyond Climate Isolationism. Sacred Civics: Building Seven Generation Cities. 2022

Toward Dangerous US Unilateralism on Solar Geoengineering Environmental Politics, 2022

 

Book

Diversifying Power: Why We Need Antiracist, Feminist Leadership on Climate and Energy, Island Press, 2020

Diversifying Power thumbmail

JOHN DE GRAAF,* JOHN DE GRAAF

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 11:41:44 AMJun 1
to j.ste...@northeastern.edu, Stephens, Jennie' via SCORAI, ashwani....@gmail.com
Jennie, with all due respect you don't seem to have read the article, written by an Indian feminist, which answers all your objections.  Please do so before labeling things racist or colonialism.  Best, John

John de Graaf

www.johndegraaf.com

vikis

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 1:00:30 PMJun 1
to scorai
That someone comes from a different perspective does not necessarily mean they are labeling others behaviors or beliefs.  I agree that population is too often used as a decoy issue "those who do not want to face the systemic changes that are needed away from an economy reliant on extraction and exploitation" and that overpopulation relative to resource access is a source of real suffering for people and the planet.  A question for those engaged here is how can we have generative discussions when encountering differences? 

Speaking from feeling discomfort in John's response to Jennie,  Viki



---- On Thu, 01 Jun 2023 08:41:18 -0700 JOHN DE GRAAF,* JOHN DE GRAAF <jo...@comcast.net> wrote ---

Tom Walker

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 4:08:04 PMJun 1
to vi...@ecopraxis.org, scorai
Viki wrote, "...how can we have generative discussions when encountering differences?"

That is indeed the question. 

Cheers,

Tom Walker (Sandwichman)


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/18877e733b1.d23b53df2296922.6142751562826765938%40ecopraxis.org.

Rees, William E.

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 9:55:56 PMJun 1
to vi...@ecopraxis.org, lumpo...@gmail.com, scorai

Hello All -


One answer to Viki's question regarding differences is for all of us to share a commitment to facts and analysis and try to separate our interpretation of facts and analyses from our personal preferences or socially constructed ideology.  


On the present question, let me contribute three complex facts for discussion:  


First fact: the apparent dichotomy between consumption and population is to some degree false, at the very least misleading.  The human enterprise is in a state of overshoot.  In the aggregate we are consuming/depleting even renewable resources faster than ecosystems can regenerate (fisheries, soils, tropical forests, etc.) and dumping (often toxic) wastes in excess of the ecosphere's assimilation capacity.  (Even anthropogenic climate change is an excess waste problem since carbon dioxide is the largest waste product by weight of industrial economies.)


In other words, the proximate cause of overshoot (or the eco-crisis) is overconsumption and pollution.  That said, it is people who are doing the consumption and pollution -- all people are to some extent consumers and polluters -- so one cannot separate population from consumption


It is true, of course, that the wealthy quarter or so of the human population is responsible historically for about 75% of the problem, i.e., income generates consumption.  However, actual data show that population growth is a larger contribution to carbon emissions and overshoot at the margin than is rising income in all income quartiles, i.e., population growth is presently adding more to the human eco-footprint and the overshoot crisis than is income growth. (References available on request.)


Bottom line: If we are to address overshoot/eco-crisis, we must address BOTH egregious inequality AND population. 


Second fact.  Since we are in overshoot (some estimates suggest by as much as 75%) it follows that current average (inadequate?) levels of consumption are excessive.  This means that even if the present population of eight billion enjoyed absolute social and material equality, then climate change would continue to accelerate, biodiversity would still be plummeting, etc., etc.  -- and we would all be poor.   In other words to focus only on social justice and equity issues would not solve the problem.  It is not at all clear that "... if we had a regenerative economy that prioritized human well-being, and ecological health, human population would not be an issue."   


Third related fact:  It follows from the foregoing that to achieve sustainability -- i.e., to thrive more equitably within the regenerative capacity of the ecosphere --  the human enterprise (or at least consumption and pollution will have to contract.  This is the motivation for the "degrowth" movement.


Estimates vary but globally contraction should be about 40% rising to 80% or so in wealthy countries.  As noted in the previous paragraph, reducing consumption alone would not work -- it is doubtful that Earth could support the present population of eight billion at a materially adequate or acceptable standard of living.  So, if we really wish to have a stable human civilization on the single planet Earth, we have to find that population size that could thrive at an acceptable (generous?) material standard within global carrying capacity.  


Informed estimates suggest that the appropriate population is between one and three billion.  

   

Bottom line: If we are to address overshoot/eco-crisis, we must address BOTH egregious inequality AND population.

Your thoughts?

Bill


From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Tom Walker <lumpo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 1:07 PM
To: vi...@ecopraxis.org
Cc: scorai

Subject: Re: [SCORAI] Population and consumption
 
[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

JOHN DE GRAAF,* JOHN DE GRAAF

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 10:07:20 PMJun 1
to wr...@mail.ubc.ca, Rees, William E.' via SCORAI, vi...@ecopraxis.org, lumpo...@gmail.com
Of course, I agree fully with you Bill, which was my original point and the point of the article I shared.  best, John

John de Graaf

www.johndegraaf.com

Richard Rosen

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 4:49:36 AMJun 2
to wr...@mail.ubc.ca, vi...@ecopraxis.org, lumpo...@gmail.com, scorai
One thought that I have had recently, Bill, is that while the term "overshoot" has been extremely useful and effective in the past to get people to understand a key aspect of the problem with human civilization, I am not sure that one can or should really try to quantify the degree of overshoot, like the 75% figure you use, or any other figure.  The reason I question quantification is because most components of our current overshoot and use of resources are resources that are not and will never be renewable.  So the consumption of non-renewable resources will always be in overshoot, no matter how small.  Thus, I see the quantification of the degree of overshoot at any particular point in time as only applying to the earth's ability/capacity to renew renewable resources, which mostly applies to ecosystem and land-use related resources, no?

What do you think of this distinction, Bill?

--- Rich Rosen

Stephens, Jennie

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 6:32:00 AMJun 2
to jo...@comcast.net, wr...@mail.ubc.ca, Rees, William E.' via SCORAI, vi...@ecopraxis.org, lumpo...@gmail.com

Thanks to all for these reflections.  

 

For generative discussions, I would suggest humility.  I also would suggest we consider the value of unlearning – unlearning is the process of letting go of existing knowledge, beliefs, behaviors and assumptions to allow for appreciation of new perspectives and information that may not align with our previous understanding.   This includes being willing to expand our preconceived ideas about what “facts and analysis” are relevant to the questions we are collectively exploring. 

 

And for those curious about a feminist view on population, I highly recommend this article (PDF attached)

Bhatia, R., Sasser, J. S., Ojeda, D., Hendrixson, A., Nadimpally, S., & Foley, E. E. (2019). A feminist exploration of ‘populationism’: engaging contemporary forms of population control. Gender, Place & Culture, 27(3), 333-350. doi:10.1080/0966369X.2018.1553859

 

This analysis describes how defining an optimal population size is a form of population engineering that “promotes racialized, gendered, and classist “solutions” to climate change, environmental degradation and poverty.”  The analysis of Bhatia et al (2019) also points out how populationism “results in a highly classist, neocolonialist, racist, and masculinized bias behind the compilation and analyses of (supposedly apolitical) statistics that systematically identify marginalized (poor, women of color in the global South) individuals as problematic bodies of fertility control.”    

 

 

Jennie C. Stephens, PhD  (she/her)

Dean’s Professor of Sustainability Science & Policy

Northeastern University, School of Public Policy & Urban Affairs, Boston, MA USA

jenniecstephens.com    @jenniecstephens

 

Radcliffe-Salata Climate Justice Fellow at Harvard 2023-2024

Bhatia et al 2019 A_feminist_exploration_of_populationism.pdf

Richard Rosen

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 7:25:49 AMJun 2
to j.ste...@northeastern.edu, SCORAI Group
Dear Jennie,

I really think that you owe your colleagues in Scorai a more precise answer to their critiques of your comments, rather than just saying they should unlearn what they know.  Which facts or analyses do you dispute, and why?  It is not appropriate to imply that no one else's arguments are reasonable, except yours.

--- Rich Rosen

Jean Boucher

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 7:41:25 AMJun 2
to richard...@gmail.com, j.ste...@northeastern.edu, SCORAI Group
and Hi Jennie, I can't access the article, but, academically and if I'm understanding your argument correctly, I'm not understanding how conversations on limiting population are--seemingly--a priori “racialized, gendered, and classist."  I would suspect the contexts would first need critique, no?

Best,

Jean  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAMZghTZwTAKUWQOCnAjeYG7%3DrYp1zmo2BWY8r1RZ-q1SpbnKHw%40mail.gmail.com.

Joe Zammit-Lucia

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 8:18:21 AMJun 2
to scorai
A couple of comments if I may.

First, let me suggest that 'inequality' may be a bit of a red herring. If every one of the 8 billion people on this Earth were a billionaire, then we would have 'solved' the inequality problem but not the consumption/overshoot problem. In fact, most of our efforts at reducing inequality goes in this direction - making the poor wealthier - which, simply from a narrow environmental perspective, is problematic.

My question is whether the 'degrowth' agenda implies that we need to make most (maybe all) people in wealthy countries poorer, reduce their consumption capacity and their 'quality of life' as they would currently define it? If that's what we're saying, then we should say it. We should stop eliding that bald statement and try to hide it in language that attempts to clothe it in some sort of social justice language that might make us feel better but fools nobody. 

If we go down that route, then it may be worth identifying a 'typical family' that would allow 8 or 10 billion people to stay within what some have defined as environmental limits. Is the aim that we all need to live within the same resource constraint as, say, today's family of two in rural India, or sub-sharan Africa? What is the lifestyle that is 'permissible' if we are to live within what some have defined as our ecological means? And does that reflect our technological abilities as they are today? Or does it take into account how technological advances might be able to make more efficient use of resources and therefore an increase in sustainable consumption levels? And is a degrowth economy likely to be able to deliver such useful innovations?

Of course, that then leads us to the how. Is it possible to make such a story broadly appealing? Is anyone running for office on such a platform likely to get elected? Or is the natural implication of this trajectory the need for some kind of global coercive autocracy with the ability to force it on everyone around the globe? A global, green, hair shirt dictatorship?

And, as Richard points out, none of this addresses the issue that many resources that we use are non-renewable. Still, when they run out, they run out and we'll have to do without or with substitutes.

None of this is to argue that we shouldn't address consumption issues as best we can. It is, however, worth reflecting on the real implications of looking at the world primarily through a consumption/population lens. We should be honest and realistic as to how much of what is a complex, fiendishly difficult set of interlocking environmental/social/political issues are likely to be solvable through this approach while dismissing other potentially helpful and complementary approaches such as technological innovation as simply part of the "MTI culture" to be looked upon with ideological disdain.

All best

Dan Kasper

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 9:37:55 AMJun 2
to jlb...@gmail.com, richard...@gmail.com, j.ste...@northeastern.edu, SCORAI Group
Hi, Jennie. To ask a specific question building on Jean's point (I cannot access the article either), how does the belief that women everywhere - especially in the global South, where patriarchy is strongest and population growth is happening - should be empowered to control their own fertility (as the article that John shared clearly states) "racialized, gendered, and classist?" This is a genuine question, because this is an issue that I bring up to students and other folks with some frequency. 

Best,
Dan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CA%2BsiMmgxq41sGvdPKDFqZEq2nAU27_9nSdXORCm%3D3sDwPMWPLw%40mail.gmail.com.

JOHN DE GRAAF,* JOHN DE GRAAF

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 1:05:45 PMJun 2
to daniel....@gmail.com, jlb...@gmail.com, richard...@gmail.com, j.ste...@northeastern.edu, SCORAI Group
Thank you Dan.  I should probably stay out of this for fear of being "called out" but this quote from Jennie:   
 
"The analysis of Bhatia et al (2019) also points out how populationism “results in a highly classist, neocolonialist, racist, and masculinized bias behind the compilation and analyses of (supposedly apolitical) statistics that systematically identify marginalized (poor, women of color in the global South) individuals as problematic bodies of fertility control.” 
 
precisely points out why so many people view the academic left as completely out of touch, with identity languages and terms like "problematic bodies" that themselves marginalize (the under-academisized--my own silly creation) and attempt to convince by big words and now-favored identities. It's one reason I am so concerned with how we communicate messages.  
 
Just look at the buzz words in that paragraph--does anybody actually speak like that?  It's why it's so hard to begin to more more open conservatives and moderates to a more progressive and ecological view--they find this sort of thing amazingly elitist.  It's really a new form of bullying, aimed at shutting off dialogue not encouraging it.  I find that when I challenge this sort of thing, many write me and say they agree but are reluctant to speak publicly about it.  It's happened over and over on several listservs, so we have a big problem here.   
 
The article I shared, written by a woman from the "global South" and published in the very progressive Interpress, addressed the issues of population and why they indeed, should concern ALL of us, in some detail.  I had no intent to push population as an issue, and certainly not to elevate it over consumption, especially not for SCORAI, but unless we at least acknowledge it, as Bill Rees eloquently pointed out, we are willfillly blind to a major aspect of the ecological crisis.
 
If I'm the only one who feels this way, I should probably respectfully bow out of SCORAI/
 
My best to all.
John

John de Graaf

www.johndegraaf.com

Tom Walker

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 1:10:38 PMJun 2
to daniel....@gmail.com, jlb...@gmail.com, richard...@gmail.com, j.ste...@northeastern.edu, SCORAI Group
I'm with Jennie on this. Partly. The article she cited is not hard to access. It is attached at the bottom of Jennie's message. What is "racialized, gendered and classist" about post-control populationism is that it seeks to address symptoms while leaving the systemic sources of ecological and social collapse unexamined. That would also be my criticism of the article. It criticizes populationism extensively without broaching a substantive alternative -- unless the alternative is simply "don't do that!" 

The article mentions neo-Malthusianism four times and neoliberalism nine. Perhaps that is sufficient for the initiated to understand that the alternative can be found elsewhere in the extensive literature criticizing neo-Malthusianism and/or neoliberalism. I am not so sure about that. My impression is that most of the criticism of neo-Malthusianism comes from sources that are triumphantly pro-growth. Mainstream economics is a case in point. Of course most neoliberalism is also rabidly pro-growth, so the neo-Malthusian faction of neoliberalism may seem at first a bit of an anomaly. It's not really. The idea is that continued growth requires more of population X and much less of population Y. Nobody advocates the other way around except in Tucker Carlson's imagination of the Great Replacement.

Thomas Chalmers, perhaps the first neo-Malthusian would have assigned the group X to the "disposable population," in the sense of being potentially useful in a variety of ways, while group Y is disposable in the other sense of the term. I am familiar with two profound critiques of Chalmers's disposable population, one explicit and the other implicit. I would suggest that a better understanding of the nexus between neoliberalism and neo-Malthusianism begins with consideration of those two critiques.

Cheers,

Tom Walker (Sandwichman)


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CANA8G%3DLOa6bETtNM04TOUfMhiqiLRxLTkM%2BZqyxVGZCtm%2BFakA%40mail.gmail.com.

Dan Kasper

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 2:22:44 PMJun 2
to Tom Walker, jlb...@gmail.com, richard...@gmail.com, j.ste...@northeastern.edu, SCORAI Group
Tom and Jennie. My apologies - I did not see the attached article. Respectfully, it, nor anyone else here sufficiently answers my question. Tom, you refer to "post-control populationism." You need to define what you mean by that, as the article refers to three different types of populationism, well 4 really given the post-population control definition we are currently operating under.  Why should we not do what we can to empower women (walk) while we address consumption and all of the other "systemic sources of ecological and social collapse" (which of course also needs to happen) (chew gum) at the same time? Fair point that she does not offer a substantive alternative, but is there no value at all in "don't do that?" To Joe's original point, population is an issue that should be discussed. 

I don't dispute any of the assertions of Jennie's article, but I don't see an answer to my question in any of the critiques presented, as far as I can tell. If I advocate for abolishment of patriarchy, am I automatically lumped in with "neo-Malthusians, donors, eugenicists, pro-natalists, nativists, birth controllers, and others" and others with "racialized, gendered and classist" views of the world? Please know that I am not being combative - this is a serious question. I don't consider myself any of those (at least I try not to be) and would if nothing else like to know that I am. 

Isn't the alternative to my assertion not abolishing patriarchy? And if so, where does that leave us in terms of addressing the issue? We are painted into a corner, it seems.

Best,
Dan

Philip Vergragt

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 2:36:30 PMJun 2
to jlb...@gmail.com, richard...@gmail.com, j.ste...@northeastern.edu, SCORAI Group

Hi Jean and all,

Here is the article again; I hope you can access it now.

Philip

Bhatia et al 2019 A_feminist_exploration_of_populationism.pdf

Tom Walker

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 5:03:21 PMJun 2
to daniel....@gmail.com, jlb...@gmail.com, richard...@gmail.com, j.ste...@northeastern.edu, SCORAI Group

Good points, Dan.

"Why should we not do what we can to empower women (walk) while we address consumption and all of the other "systemic sources of ecological and social collapse" (which of course also needs to happen) (chew gum) at the same time?"

The problem I see here is the "O.K. we're agreed on that one thing let's start with that," from the neoliberal neo-Malthusians... and the second part gets deferred indefinitely.

"Fair point that she does not offer a substantive alternative, but is there no value at all in "don't do that?" To Joe's original point, population is an issue that should be discussed." 

I'm not sure I follow. The first sentence suggests there may be value in cancelling the discourse, the second sentence endorses the discourse.

As for the Demo-Geo-Bio distinctions of populationism: they are interesting but I think they all boil down to one principle, which is against equality, whether demographic, geographic or biological. Robert Malthus was more forthright about what the issue was two centuries ago: political justice* may seem like a good thing but it is really a bad thing. 

*that is to say, William Godwin's An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice

Cheers,

Tom Walker (Sandwichman)

Dan Kasper

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 7:13:31 PMJun 2
to Tom Walker, jlb...@gmail.com, richard...@gmail.com, j.ste...@northeastern.edu, SCORAI Group
Thanks for the conversation, Tom. (I am sorry to continue this, but I am sure I am not the only one that has stated that empowering women is essential.) From Joe's original email: "Just something to think about for those who don't see a connection between population and overconsumption"...So the point is that we should discuss population. I think we all know that Joe is wise enough to know that it is not The Solution. But is the human population not an issue that we should be concerned with? Again, I recognize that it is not The Solution, and that the history and modern conception of populationism/population control is fraught, and that wealthy countries should be considered overpopulated b/c of the their disproportionate footprint and that is rarely talked about, but population growth elsewhere is part of the problem (especially as middle classes grow), no? If so, what should be done about it? 

If eliminating the patriarchy and overall empowerment of women is not a least an important part of the answer, then what is the answer? That is the question I was hoping to have answered through the collective expertise of this group. Unfortunately I don't see it in any of our dialogue or the article(s) shared, unless I am missing something (which I admit is possible). But it seems that the only answer I have is "don't say that, because it makes you a classist, racist, neoliberal, etc. neo-Malthusian." I'm still not convinced of that, but okay, if so what is the alternative? How can I discuss sustainable population issues while not being any of those things? Or is the point that I can't and population trends and patriarchal dominance shall continue unabated? Again, I state this from a place of genuine curiosity.

Thanks,
Dan

Rees, William E.

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 8:22:31 PMJun 2
to Tom Walker, daniel....@gmail.com, jlb...@gmail.com, richard...@gmail.com, j.ste...@northeastern.edu, SCORAI Group

Hello again -

Another thought on interpreting the population conundrum:

I suggest tthat in the post-modern world some social scientists and humanists conflate  very different domains of reality.  

Consider the biophysical realm. We can determine objective facts, state testable hypotheses and perform logical analyses about biophysical entities and phenomena.  If measurements and experiments are replicable, the results are accepted by the scientific community; this is how scientific knowledge accumulates.  Are we seriously going to debate the speed of light, acceleration due to gravity, the climate forcing factor of carbon dioxide, or the fecundity of field mice under favourable conditions?  There is of course, room for measurement error, and perhaps your measurements are better than mine, but much about the biophysical world is measurable at least in the Newtonian time-space framework in which we live.  

Now consider the socially-constructed realm (which may differ among cultures, but is common to all cultures).  In modern so-called democracies, for example, there  are many real 'things' such as civil rights, democracy, and freedom of speech that are entirely products of the human mind. They do not exist outside of the sociocultural domain and perhaps not even in other human cultures.  

In the domain of social constructs one can disagree, express preferences, debate the 'truth', etc.,-- i.e., much comes down to personal preferences  (i.e., prejudices and biases) which one usually unconsciously acquires from the cultural context in which one has grown up and matured. The 'right to abortion', for example, is a real concept previously accepted by most, but now once again in fluid debate  causing much angst and division in US society.  

It should be obvious that there is a crucial difference between the purely biophysical and purely socially constructed realms of reality.  Most important is the difference between those things that are at least theoretically consistently measurable in time and space and those things that exist solely  by social agreement.  The latter can be unlearned and replaced, possibly at no cost, or even for the better -- arguably, true democracy is preferable to dictatorship.  

On the other hand, it is fallacious to argue that measurement data and accepted theory about real-world biophysical entities and processes are mere  beliefs and assumptions that should  be unlearned.   Would you fly in an airplane designed by engineers who had 'unlearned' math and physics and who had 'let go' of everything they had learned about friction, fluid dynamics and gravity?   

Of course, some real things lie on a spectrum between the biophysically undeniable and the entirely made up.  Neo-liberal economics, for example, is a socially constructed model about how economic activities -- real material exchanges and relationships -- should be organized.  however, there are many possible social constructs about the organization of real-world material exchanges and relationships.   Here's a extract from a paper I wrote some time ago about social construction using 'economy' example but which is relevant to the present discussion:
 
"....It is important to underscore that, although it masquerades as ‘reality’ in our consciousness, all formal ‘knowledge’ is, in fact, socially constructed. 

Some constructs are entirely made up—there is no corresponding structure in the natural world for ‘civil rights’ or ‘communism’, for example. These well-known concepts were birthed and given legs entirely through words and social discourse. Other socially-constructed frameworks have been erected specifically to describe corresponding real-world phenomena. For example, everyone reading this will agree that ‘the economy’ is that set of activities central to the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services in a specified region or country. Nevertheless, such activities exist in all societies whether or not the people have any formally constructed concept of ‘the economy’.

[snip]
[It follows that] there are many different ways of conceiving the ‘appropriate’ structure and function of the economy. 
[snip]
 Alternative economic paradigms may differ radically—entities or activities that are given prominence in one paradigm may be marginalized or omitted altogether from another. Things can get complicated—an economic paradigm is a socially-constructed model that may contain other models that are themselves socially constructed!  [or not -- tellingly, neo-liberal economics has no model of 'the environment' for example.]

Despite being mere constructs, ideologies and paradigms are extremely powerful. They are perceptual filters through which we interpret all new data and information; while essentially subjective, they constitute our perceived ‘reality’ and determine how people ‘act out’ in the real world. 

It is therefore important to emphasize that: a) no economic paradigm can ever be more than a partial representation of external reality, and; b) while all paradigms belong in the domain of conjectural knowledge, not all conjectures are created equal. Some conjectures are demonstrably better than others, particularly in terms of how well they represent the real [biophysical] world. “Conjectures are our trial balloons, and we test them by criticizing them and by trying to replace them, by trying to show that there can be better or worse conjectures, and that they can be improved upon”… “So long as a theory stands up to the severest tests we can design, it is accepted; if it does not, it is rejected” (Popper 1972)."

 
Allow me to submit that the contribution of population and of population growth to material overshoot is quantifiable in time and space. While there may be different approaches to measurement and varying interpretations of the data's significance, the physical quantities being measured are real quantities.  They are not simply beliefs and assumptions untethered from biophysical reality. 

Bottom line: Analysis shows that population growth is an important contributing factor to the human eco-crisis [1]. This is no longer a mere conjectural 'trial balloon.' As long as the data stand up to the severest tests, they should be accepted and acted upon.  Unlearning and letting go of these results and their implications makes little sense as climate change and the wider eco-crisis deepens.

With respect, 

Bill. 

[1] A note pertaining to inequality:  An increase in the population of  rich countries is perhaps 10 times as ecologically damaging as a comparable increase in the poorest countries -- which is why governments lamenting 'peak population' and decline are on a wrong tack (ecologically at least) and why those concerned about overshoot should celebrate the population downturn in high-income societies.)  Of course, this does not let population growth in other countries off the hook -- it's virtually the only factor contributing to incremental overshoot in the poorest countries where it also dilutes the per capita benefits of national income growth.

From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Dan Kasper <daniel....@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 4:13:17 PM
To: Tom Walker
Cc: jlb...@gmail.com; richard...@gmail.com; j.ste...@northeastern.edu; SCORAI Group

Tom Walker

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 8:57:09 PMJun 2
to daniel....@gmail.com, jlb...@gmail.com, richard...@gmail.com, j.ste...@northeastern.edu, SCORAI Group
What is the alternative? The proper question is what was Malthus's theory of population an alternative to? (Hint, the answer is in the subtitle). Malthus was eager to show that William Godwin's Utopian dream of a society of universal leisure was a crackpot. I apologize for quoting at length from my latest paper...

In Book 8, “Of Property,” which Godwin touted as “the key-stone that completes the fabric of political justice” (Godwin 1793: 323), he urged the gradual elimination, not of private property per se, but of those institutions of property that compelled the many to labour ceaselessly – not to improve their own condition, but mostly to provide superfluous luxuries for the few. In chapter 6 of Book 8, “Objection to this system from the allurements of sloth,” Godwin outlined his vision of a leisure society. 
Godwin’s argument was distinctly not that the direct elimination of inequality would result in a leisurely paradise on earth. Rather, his expectation was that equality would follow universal intellectual improvement fostered by the expansion of leisure. To demonstrate this prospect, Godwin performed a series of rough calculations on the principle that “the object, in the present state of society, is to multiply labour; in another state, it will be to simplify it.” The resulting estimate was “that half an hour a day employed in manual labour by every member of the community would sufficiently supply the whole with necessaries. Who is there that would shrink from this degree of industry?” (Ibid: 356).

To sum up, Godwin's argument was that reducing inequality would expand leisure and consequently lead to an increase in learning. People would gradually become too educated to fall for the trap of luxury consumption (with all its social and environmental consequence, we might add today.)

But don't take my word for it that Malthus's theory of population was fundamentally an argument against equality. Here's what he added to his treatise in 1817, just in case readers weren't getting the point:

Let us suppose that in a system of equality, in spite of the best exertions to procure more food, the population is pressing hard against the limits of subsistence, and all are becoming very poor. It is evidently necessary under these circumstances, in order to prevent the society from starving, that the rate at which the population increases should be retarded. But who are the persons that are to exercise the restraint thus called for, and either to marry late or not at all? It does not seem to be a necessary consequence of a system of equality that all the human passions should be at once extinguished by it; but if not, those who might wish to marry would feel it hard that they should be among the number forced to restrain their inclinations. As all would be equal, and in similar circumstances, there would be no reason whatever why one individual should think himself obliged to practise the duty of restraint more than another. The thing however must be done, with any hope of avoiding universal misery; and in a state of equality, the necessary restraint could only be effected by some general law. But how is this law to be supported, and how are the violations of it to be punished? Is the man who marries early to be pointed at with the finger of scorn? is he to be whipped at the cart’s tail? is he to be confined for years in a prison? is he to have his children exposed? Are not all direct punishments for an offence of this kind shocking and unnatural to the last degree? And yet, if it be absolutely necessary, in order to prevent the most overwhelming wretchedness, that there should be some restraint on the tendency to early marriages, when the resources of the country are only sufficient to support a slow rate of increase, can the most fertile imagination conceive one at once so natural, so just, so consonant to the laws of God and to the best laws framed by the most enlightened men, as that each individual should be responsible for the maintenance of his own children; that is, that he should be subjected to the natural inconveniences and difficulties arising from the indulgence of his inclinations, and to no other whatever?

Not to put too fine a point on it, Malthus's premise here is that "the natural inconveniences and difficulties" that poor people face arise from their "indulgence of [their] inclinations," and therefore they should be made to bear those consequences. I should mention that Godwin's and Malthus's positions were not the last words on the question of population versus equality. But they did frame the subsequent debate and they continue to frame the current debate despite the refusal of most participants to admit that those are the terms of it.

Cheers,

Tom Walker (Sandwichman)

Dan Kasper

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 11:01:09 PMJun 2
to Tom Walker, Jean Boucher, Richard Rosen, j.ste...@northeastern.edu, SCORAI Group
Thanks, Jon, for bringing this discussion back closer to earth. For what it's worth, I agree that the use of jargon can be used to shut down conversation, and I have also witnessed it here and elsewhere. I also agree that the use of such language is not the way to win the "average" person over. I did not think that patriarchy was a disagreed-upon word, especially in this context, as I understand that it refers to societies in which males hold all or most of the power, especially with regards to reproduction. Your point is taken that empowerment of women does not always require eliminating patriarchy, so thanks for that. As to how to eliminate patriarchy (still a desirable goal), that is a very good question. But at least through this part of the discussion we agree that it is a question worth asking.

I would appreciate you sharing your Udall film, thanks so much for the offer. Speaking of films, what's that line from The Social Network? "Talking to you is like running on a treadmill," I think. I can empathize with her character at times like this email chain.

Thanks, Bill for bringing this discussion back to (the biophysical limits of the) earth.You make a good case for being concerned about population. So again, it is a problem worth discussing.

Tom, you have made your point clear that by bringing this up, you believe I (and Bill) am a neo-Malthusian at best, and racist, classist, etc. at worst. I am sorry, but I remain unconvinced. It feels like we are disagreeing about what to call one of the small lifeboats on the Titanic. "We need to lower that lifeboat." "But a 17th century slave owner came up with the term 'lifeboat' and transported slaves in them, you can't call them that." "But people are drowning." "Use the right term and we can start moving chairs around." At risk of overdoing the analogy, it also feels like there is a bigger lifeboat (the S.S. Consumption, perhaps) and I am being told that we can only pick one boat, even though we could use both.

If anyone can help to answer my question, I would appreciate it, or perhaps point me in the direction of some resources to find it. If eliminating the patriarchy and overall empowerment of women is not at least an important part of the answer, then what is the answer to help establish a (more) sustainable population in the Global South, especially given the burgeoning middle class? (This is in addition to addressing overconsumption in wealthy countries and elsewhere, recognizing the biophysical limits of the planet, establishing circular economies and promoting sufficiency, etc.) Are telenovelas the answer? But didn't that help empower women by educating them? 

Best to all,
Dan

Tom Walker

unread,
Jun 2, 2023, 11:09:02 PMJun 2
to daniel....@gmail.com, Jean Boucher, Richard Rosen, j.ste...@northeastern.edu, SCORAI Group
"Tom, you have made your point clear that by bringing this up, you believe I (and Bill) am a neo-Malthusian at best, and racist, classist, etc. at worst. I am sorry, but I remain unconvinced."

I suppose that's a conclusion you could jump to if a. you didn't read what I wrote or b. you had a preconceived notion of what I would say that you pack what I said into, or c. you have such a strong identification with the discourse that you take criticism of the discourse personally. I am sorry that we haven't been able to communicate.


Cheers,

Tom Walker (Sandwichman)

dvskasper

unread,
Jun 3, 2023, 6:00:06 AMJun 3
to daniel....@gmail.com, Jean Boucher, Richard Rosen, SCORAI Group, Tom Walker, j.ste...@northeastern.edu
Thank you Dan, John, Bill, and others for your questions, insights, and persistence. 

In exchanges like these, where different languages, worldviews, assumptions, and sensitivities make genuine communication difficult, it’s all too easy to just disengage. I appreciate and benefit from your dogged commitment to achieving clarity through dialog, and not shying away from the tension that often accompanies contention.

Debbie