John Feeney

[Please see the updates under this post. Until a likely article on horticulture and indigenous land management, they will serve as a first pass at the subject.]

[Revised 4/30/16]

Time for an update listing some simple, related points which underlie my thinking today.

A fuller version of these and other ideas will appear in a new article I've written. (Here's a link.)

So here's the gist...

Civilization is inherently destructive and unsustainable. A key reason for this is that civilization is founded on agriculture. Agriculture circumvents the natural processes which regulated human population numbers prior to its inception. It is the basic ecological factor which has caused our numbers to overshoot carrying capacity so enormously. Along the way, agriculture destroys topsoil and ecosystems, tearing down the web of life, our global life support system. Agriculture is therefore unsustainable. 

Civilization will therefore come to an end. Because the human population is deeply into overshoot, we know that ending will involve a tremendous decline in our numbers. Converging issues such as oil depletion, climate change, topsoil and groundwater depletion, and the human-caused sixth mass extinction event in Earth's history suggest this may occur not many centuries from now, but sooner. How much sooner, no one can say. Though this signals the potential for tough times ahead, it also means an end to what's killing the earth.

Immediate-return hunting and gathering (see below) is arguably the only human way of living proven ecologically sustainable. It thus makes great sense to study it to learn all we can.

In light of the progressive destruction of Earth's life support systems, we see the reason for calls for a resistance movement from writers such as Zerzan and Jensen. Every day civilization remains intact brings more destruction of the web of life. Yet the potential for unintended consequences of such resistance actions presents a thorny dilemma to would-be advocates.

An easier yet tremendously valuable option is to do what we can through established conservation measures to protect as much habitat and biodiversity as possible, helping to preserve those things for the future. One of the most important and ambitious conservation projects today involves "rewilding" by restoring, protecing, and connecting wildlands corridors containing large predators on a continental scale. That and other projects are represented in "organizations" page on this site.

If you're interested in this topic, see the "core ecological issues" page for relevant links.

_______

Image source: David Barrie's photostream, flickr.com, creative commons license

In response to a recent opinion piece by anthropologist Donald Attwood in the Montreal Gazette, I wrote a letter to the editor. I wanted to nudge a general readership to begin thinking about the corner we've painted ourselves into via agriculture. It's what John Zerzan calls the "demon engine of civilization." Here's the letter (or read it at the Gazette):

I share Donald Attwood's concern that children not go hungry. But as an environmental writer, I suggest his argument ignores a fundamental ecological principle: Population follows food supply. This is the base mechanism that kept human population size within carrying capacity for most of our history. It works well for all species on Earth, regulating fertility rates with no particular suffering.

Ten thousand years ago, with the adoption of agriculture, we began to circumvent this natural process, slowly clearing land and tearing down the web of life (spurring the sixth mass-extinction event in Earth's history) to produce an ever-increasing global food supply. More recently we added fossil fuels to the equation, inflating the food supply even more. The result of these developments has been an explosion of human numbers of over 130,000 percent.

Other layers of influences do come into play as well, which is why many countries now have lower fertility rates. Social factors such as the education of women and the widespread availability of family planning options do appear to correlate with reductions in fertility rates. If we want to encourage lower fertility rates in sub-Saharan Africa, we should focus on those factors. This does not mean forgoing food aid. But we must begin to confront how we have short-circuited nature's normal mechanism for population regulation. Short term, the best suggestion seems to be one of tying food aid to increases in family-planning options (and media strategies encouraging their use) as well as increased education for women.

Slightly longer term, we need to take a hard look at the problem of large-scale agriculture. It won't be easy; agriculture is the very foundation of civilization. But it has pushed us into gross overshoot of human carrying capacity with the threat of a massive population crash looming in the future.

John C. Feeney

Boulder, Colo.

It is, in many ways, a key topic facing humanity. I doubt mainstream society will voluntarily confront it in any serious way, but there's value in people coming to consider the core problems which make civilization an unsustainable trap. It's essential knowledge for those interested in ecology and the human role on the planet.

[Revised on 8/30/10, 9/9/10, 9/20/13]

Lately it appears more people are beginning to consider the problem of human population size as it relates to carrying capacity. Nevertheless, misunderstanding abounds. Since my focus is elsewhere right now, and I have no plan to write on this topic for publication in the near future, I offer a few thoughts here. This is merely a quick sketch with much detail, some points of logic, and additional convincing evidence omitted. I may flesh it out sometime in the future.

_______

Have we exceeded the earth's carrying capacity for humans? Many observers conclude there is no way to answer the question with any confidence. I believe their view stems from an assumption which fails to hold up to analysis. It is the common notion that, through human ingenuity, we've regularly been able through the course of history to increase carrying capacity.

This idea stems in part from the correct observation that the advent of agriculture and our later use of fossil fuels were central among those developments which allowed us to grow the human population as enormously as we have. It does not follow, however, that these developments increased carrying capacity.

The error here is in failing to account properly for overshoot. It is well established that animal populations sometimes overshoot or grow beyond carrying capacity. It is simple enough to demonstrate this has happened with the human population. Agriculture and fossil fuels have not increased carrying capacity; they have merely led to our overshooting it, our numbers supported entirely by what William Catton calls "phantom carrying capacity." It is not carrying capacity at all, and is only temporary. [1]

This is especially easy to see with regard to fossil fuel depletion. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Relying on them, therefore, to support global food production can only be temporary.

But there are some less widely recognized observations which also support my point. (Recall here the definition of overshoot referenced above.) First, agriculture as we know it has always been unsustainable. It has brought with it soil erosion and an inevitable depletion of soil nutrients at rates far faster than their natural rates of renewal. This is comparable to our depletion of finite resources such as oil. It may have taken ten thousand years for us to see this, but that is barely an eye blink in human history. [2] [3]

Second, consider that none of the processes that have allowed our numbers to explode has come without progressive cost to the web of life. We know well enough about the environmental impacts of extracting and burning fossil fuels. Less discussed is the cost of agriculture to other species. Cultivation agriculture means the elimination of all life from a piece of land, turning it then exclusively to human use via one or a few crops. [4] [5] Multiply this by over a billion hectares and we see clearly how agriculture has been the primary driver of today's highly accelerated extinction rates. These extinctions are believed by many experts to signal a Sixth Mass Extinction of species in Earth's history. This is the direct destruction of Earth's life support systems. Indeed, it is well accepted that this extinction event began (or entered a new, accelerated phase) upon the human transition to agriculture.

Third, in all species population follows food supply. Natural limits on food supply hold population sizes within appropriate limits. (Under normal circumstances, this works, by the way, with no particular suffering.) But by adopting agriculture we circumvent this normal process, thereby inevitably growing our numbers far beyond carrying capacity.

This point is often misunderstood, perhaps because it has seldom been thoroughly explained. Additionally, many people have trouble accepting (a) that humans are subject to the same natural processes as other species, and (b) that those processes worked perfectly well for us for nearly all of human history prior to civilization's stepping in and interfering. [6]

Not only have we not increased carrying capacity, we have decreased it. It's simple ecology. We depend on the web of life for our own survival. When a species consumes resources faster than they are renewed, degrading the habitat on which it depends, it erodes carrying capacity.

The damage we have done to the biosphere and the web of life has temporarily allowed us to grow our numbers but has reduced carrying capacity. This may be hard to believe when we consider that for nearly all of human history, prior to exploding into the billions, our numbers never exceeded more than a few million. It underscores the shocking degree by which we've overshot carrying capacity.

No, there is no clear evidence we have ever increased carrying capacity. [7] Rather, basic principles of ecology reveal we have managed only to overshoot it by an incredible margin.

_______

For some underlying fundamentals of carrying capacity please see the article Six Steps to "Getting" the Global Ecological Crisis.

[1] For much more see Catton's classic text, Overshoot.

[2] For more detail see Agriculture: Unsustainable Resource Depletion Began 10,000 Years Ago by soil scientist Peter Salonius.

[3] Note the interacting nature of factors involved in overshoot. For instance, also putting fossil fuel use in the category of "phantom carrying capacity" is it's direct link to life-threatening climate change.

[4] For an illuminating description of this process see Lierre Kieth's The Vegetarian Myth.

[5] On a large enough scale, even a major improvement such as permaculture-based horticulture would seem to suffer from a similar problem of transforming the land excessively for human consumption. It is intended, however, to be practiced on a scale small enough -- and with ethical constraints against large populations -- that it might prove sustainable under conditions of a much smaller human population. This is not to suggest it as an "alternative" to agriculture, without which humans did quite well for most of our history. As an approach to small-scale gardening -- something practiced by many hunter-gatherers -- it makes great sense. Once we begin to depend, though, on growing food as our primary means of subsistence, upping the scale by altering large tracts of habitat, taking control of our food supply by creating and storing unnecessary surpluses, the problems start. (I am aware of nothing concrete, by the way, built into the practice of permaculture which would prevent population growth. I welcome information to the contrary.)

That said, should today's civilization come to an end, it is plausible that there may be a transitional period when permaculture and related approaches to food production will be essential to many of those shifting toward true sustainability.

[For more recent thoughts on horticulture, see the updates under this post.]

[6] References include the journal articles available on Russ Hopfenberg's site where you can also view this slide presentation.

[7] Among the only arguable exceptions might be a few very limited, very early developments such as our learning to control fire (which may go back a million years or more) and the use of certain tools. Yet even these technologies may not strictly qualify as exceptions as they likely directly or indirectly did cause some damage to ecosystems. (Recall the definition of carrying capacity referenced above.) Of course this was essentially imperceptible compared to what came later.

This article was published today at the Green Room. It examines the taboo currently suppressing open, public discussion of human overpopulation. It introduces the Global Population Speak Out, a project designed to weaken the taboo.

One point I'd like to have made more strongly is that the taboo is especially visible in the failure of major environmental organizations to speak up about overpopulation. They need to be pushed until they do. Otherwise, they have no chance of playing a major role in solving the global ecological crisis.

From the GPSO blog:

A seldom discussed, tragic consequence of human population growth is the loss of tribal cultures and peoples. It is the loss, as well, of ways of life which persisted for nearly all of human history until our population exploded in the last fraction of one percent of our time on Earth.

If anyone participating in GPSO wants to to speak out on one of the most underreported consequences of the growth of the human population, this would be a good choice.

An excellent source of information is the site of Survival International.

***********

I would add that Survival International seems to say little about the obvious, fundamental link between population growth and the loss of tribal peoples. I suspect it's a sign of how powerful the taboo against mention of overpopulation has been. I hope they'll feel freer in the future to talk about it. It's hard to imagine any hope for tribal cultures if the rest of the world's population grows much bigger.

Here's the word from George Plumb, President of Vermonters for a Sustainable Population:

In conjunction with the the GPSO the weekly community newspaper of the state capitol of Montpelier, Vermont has proposed doing an eight page supplement on population. I think this will be pretty ground breaking. How many newspapers in the country have devoted a supplement to population? The only problem is Vermonters for a Sustainable Population, of which I am the president, needs to come up with $3,000 to help pay for the xtra costs. Unfortunately we have no major donors cpable of this kind of financial support in our thrity member organization. If anyone knows of a potential source I would really appreciate your ideas.

That would be a first wouldn't it? So if you know any source to help with funding please let me know and I'll forward your message to George, or go here to contact George directly.

A recent issue of Science contains a short piece on GPSO. If you're registered there, you'll find it here. It's in the "Random Samples" section of the October 31 issue, Volume 322, Issue 5902. From the piece:

At a time when some developed nations are paying citizens to bolster flagging birth-rates (Science, 30 June 2006, p. 1894), a grass-roots group of scientists and environmentalists is calling for a new push to limit human numbers.

Overpopulation is threatening life as we know it on the planet, say members of a movement called Global Population Speak Out (http://gpso.wordpress.com/), which aims to persuade at least 50 “respected voices” to “speak out in some way” about the problem for a month next year.

GPSO is bringing scientific voices worldwide to bear on the population issue. It's great to have the opportunity to alert a large portion of the scientific community to what we're doing.

The GPSO letter (see the prior entry here) is now going out and we are receiving pledges. Note that you do not have to receive the GPSO letter to participate. Please go here, read the directions, and send in your pledge! Chances are you might fit in some way into one of the official categories of invitees. But that is not a necessity; we cannot cover every reasonable category. We will make every effort to document whatever action you take to speak out. So just pledge!

Be a part of this historic event. Send your pledge to GlobalPopulationSpeakOut [at] gmail [dot] com

(Go straight to the GPSO website)

I write to raise awareness of certain fundamental but underreported and generally misunderstood ecological issues, particularly the problem of the size and growth of the human population. Sometimes something other than writing may hold more potential in that regard.

Not long ago I came up with an idea for a small project aimed at bringing new or returning voices to the public discussion of population issues. That project is now a reality. It's called the Global Population Speak Out (GPSO) and is documented on its own website.

It's an effort to weaken the taboo against speaking out on population. It came from a simple idea: What would happen if a lot of new, qualified voices were to speak out on population all at once? Wouldn't that go a long way toward breaking down the taboo?

GPSO hinges on a letter (actually an email) we will send to a large number of scientists, environmental writers, executives of environmental NGOs, and other prominent people. Only a few are widely known for public statements on the population issue. We invite them to speak out on it during February in any way they choose.  A key is that they can be sure they will have plenty of good company in speaking out; for only if we get at least 50 pledges to speak out will we ask participants to honor their pledges.

Note that you too can participate!

Our hope is that by concentrating these messages about population into one month and seeing to it that most come from voices not already widely associated with the issue, we'll grow the number of people who speak publicly on the topic, raise the prominence of the issue, and make it a little easier for others to speak out in the future.

I'm pleased to report that some highly respected scientists, writers, environmental activists, and others have lent their names to the project as signers of the GPSO letter. Their willingness to sign on speaks to the urgency of the population issue and gives the project a real chance to succeed.

Let's see how this thing goes!

Relevant to an article on which I'm slowly working, an important new study looking at human population growth and the Quaternary Megafauna Extinction shows our population has grown at the direct expense of other species. Here's marine scientist Emmett Duffy's summary and discussion of the study:

Here's the study:

We must be cautious though in interpreting these data. They do not mean pre-agricultural people were causing extinctions at rates resembling those we're seeing today. In fact, the evidence is clear that for nearly all of human history prior to agriculture, hunting-gathering ways of living came much, much closer than today's society to true sustainability -- in part because population sizes were so much smaller. (Evidence suggests, in fact, that many hunting-gathering societies made efforts to hold their populations to within ecological limits. [1]) As mentioned in the article, species extinction rates were modest until not long before the advent of agriculture when the growth of the human population began to accelerate.

Click to read more ...