An Interview With Dr. Bartlett

Here's a nice interview with our favorite Malthusian, Dr. Albert Bartlett, Professor Emeritus, Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder. Enjoy!

I have to thank Jeremy Grantham for referencing Albert Bartlett’s talk, “Arithmetic, Population, & Energy”, in his semi annual letter to partners. It inspired me to track down Professor Bartlett and interview him for our readers.

Introduction/Background

Professor Albert Bartlett Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder. In the public space Professor Bartlett is most well known for his lecture titled Arithmetic, Population, and Energy. A Lecture he has given over 1,600 times since September, 1969. Bartlett joined the faculty of the University of Colorado in Boulder in September 1950. His B.A. degree in physics is from Colgate University (1944) and his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in physics are from Harvard University (1948), (1951). In 1978 he was national president of the American Association of Physics Teachers. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 1969 and 1970 he served two terms as the elected Chair of the four-campus Faculty Council of the University of Colorado.

Question & Answers (Copyright 2009-2010 Miguel Barbosa & Albert Bartlett)

You have become very famous for your talk, “Arithmetic, Population, and Energy.” What motivated you to create this talk?

In the late 1960’s I began to realize that people didn’t understand the large numbers that result from steady growth rates. So, forty years ago I developed the talk; I’ve given it an average of once every 8.7 days for 40 years.





Why do you think people have such difficulty understanding (compounding) growth rates?

It’s arithmetic; people don’t like arithmetic. You hear it at cocktail parties. People say, “Oh, I’m terrible at arithmetic.” You never hear anyone say “I can’t read or write.” My impression is that after my talk people understand it very quickly. Years ago I gave it very slowly and in two parts to junior high school students. After the second part, two little kids came up and said, “We can understand it, why can’t grownups?”

You’re a physicist; how did you become interested in physics? And how did you land a job at Los Alamos?

I had a high school physics course that I enjoyed very much. After high school I went to college, but dropped out to work on steamboats in the Great Lakes. After working for a while, I transferred to Colgate University, took my first college physics class, did well, and stuck with it. Richard Feynman once said, “If there was anything more fun than physics I’d be doing it.”…He couldn’t seem to find anything more fun. The same applies to me.

Did you meet Richard Feynman?

Yes. I was at Los Alamos during the war…whenever he would lecture the entire lab would stop to listen to him. He was simultaneously a great physicist and a great clown.

What about Niels Bohr? Tell us about your experiences meeting with him.

“I was sitting at the lunch counter and Niels Bohr sat down beside me. I was amazed.” What was it like being around these scientists? I was in constant awe. I’d often ask myself how ended up in such a place. I barely had a Bachelors degree. But that was sufficient to get me into these secret meetings. I went religiously to those meeting and one thing led to another.

Do you think most politicians understand growth rates, but prefer to look the other way?

These are chamber of commerce types: promoters, builders, architects. Their business is promoting growth. But the single thing to note is that, both at the community level and national level, growth doesn’t pay for itself. The more you grow the greater your debt load. Colorado has had decades of wild and largely uncontrolled growth and is now practically bankrupt. People become fed up with the constant increases in taxes needed to pay the costs of growth and they vote for tax limitation measures. Unfortunately, the growth promoters seem to find ways around these limitations, so the growth continues and the consequent problems escalate rapidly. We can see this happening in California and we have a similar situation brewing in Colorado.

What you are implying is that true growth would lead to profitability and thus state governments could accumulate reserves?

Rational people (leaders) would have reserves for lean years. In fact this reminds me – there’s a little book called, “Better Not Bigger” by Eben Fodor. He looks at the municipal costs of growth in various communities. He estimates that every new house built in Oregon costs the Oregon taxpayer something in the order of $25,000 in costs not paid by taxes on the construction of the home itself.

This reminds us of utilities companies…

Utilities right now are fighting around the country to get more coal and nuclear plants around the country. What they are really fighting for, and what they normally get, is the right to tax customers for the costs of planning and construction. . In a more rational world the investors would bear these responsibilities, and when the plant was finished you could figure the cost into the rate system- so that the people that built it would be reimbursed. Now, rather than going out and borrowing money they want to get money from rate payers while they are planning. Often state regulators are allowing utilities to charge payers for planning costs- and it isn’t even clear that the plants will be built. This is a perpetual growth promoting situation.

If companies grew for very long periods at high rates (say 15% plus) within a matter of years we would all be working forthem.

Some investors fail to realize that growth eventually undoes itself. That is to say growth is mean reverting. For you or me any additional physical growth would either be; obesity or cancer. There’s a time to grow, yet when you reach maturity any further growth is detrimental.

Your book titled, “The Essential Exponential for the Future of our Planet,” contains a chapter called, “Democracy Cannot Survive Overpopulation,” in which you argue convincingly that overpopulation, by raising the number of constituents per elected official, makes it harder for individuals to gain access to representatives and have a voice in politics. Also, overpopulation breeds government regulation to cope with problems caused by population pressure.

Yes, this is a very important issue. To be exact, I took the title of the chapter from Issac Asimov. Here’s an example: When I moved to Boulder Colorado (in 1950) the population was 20,000 and there were 9 city members on the council. Today the population is 100,000 and there are still only 9 city members on the council. So in effect today we only have 20% of the democracy we use to have in 1950.

In essence, it’s harder for the individual to have access to a representative?

Of course. In the decade of the 1990’s the US population grew by 13.1%, while the number of members in the House of Representatives didn’t grow at all. So we can say that at the national level, democracy declined by 13.1% Furthermore, the Constitution requires that the government perform what is called redistricting. This happens after every census. Redistricting ensures that the populations of districts are equal across the country. In our example, the average district needed to have 13.1% more constituents after the 2000 census than after the 1990’s census. This means that every district went from approximately 600,000 constituents to approximately 700,000 constituents. Compare that with the first Congress where the makeup was 30,000 constituents per member of Congress. It’s true that women didn’t vote and thus the electorate makeup was different, but you can imagine one person in Congress representing 30,000. It’s much harder to imagine one person representing 700,000 people. Every district in the country had to grow by 100,000 people. There’s no way you can represent that many people. So it’s much easier as a politician to take your ideas from the lobbyist who has plenty of money. As a result we now often get one dollar-one vote versus what use to be one person-one vote.

Are you suggesting there’s a crowding out effect? That is to say, in a time of many important issues (global warming, health care, and financial crises) people are alienated?

Yes, that’s right.

You say the terms “sustainable” and “sustainability” are popularly used to describe “activities that are ecologically laudable,” but unsustainable. How can the average reader interested in learning about sustainability decide whether publications are seeking to illuminate or obfuscate? Slogans are seemingly designed to “sustain” optimistm and vagueness.

There are a few organizations devoted to alert people of the dangers of population growth. There’s a group called Californians for Population Stabilization. There’s a real good group in Washington called Negative Population Growth; they have the best series of monographs of any group I’m aware of. You can find them on the web at npg.org.

How do you approach reading periodicals that present confusing growth rates?

I approach periodicals with skepticism and look for absurdities. Remember that politicians will try to claim that there isn’t a conflict between saving the environment and smart growth. Unfortunately, both smart growth and dumb growth destroy the environment. The only difference is that smart growth destroys the environment with good taste. It’s like buying a ticket on the Titanic, if you’re smart you go first class. But the outcome is the same…the boat still sinks.

Well if the outcome is the same, then most sustainable solutions are pseudosolutions. Tells us about pseudosolutions…

It’s so discouraging when you see Al Gore’s book & film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Early in his book he says population growth has changed our whole way of life. With those words he is saying that he understands that population growth is the cause of the problem. Unfortunately at the end of his book when outlining the things you can do to avoid environmental problems (changing bulbs etc), Gore never mentions curbing population growth. This behavior is what Mark Twain would call a “silent lie.” If you have information that would help other people if you shared it, but you kee it hidden. Then you are guilty of what Mark Twain would call a silent lie.

In 1994, you wrote “In the manner of Alice in Wonderland, and without regard for accuracy or consistency, ‘sustainability’ seems to have been redefined flexibly to suit a variety of wishes and conveniences.” How are you seeing sustainability used by current politicians and businesses? Has it gotten worse? And what are the most recent clear examples of misuse of sustainability by politicians?

I couldn’t quantify it, but I believe so. Everything now is called “sustainable.” It’s the “in” thing to do, whether it’s sustainable or not.

According to your interpretation of the Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin 1968) your writings suggest that there will always be large opposition to programs of making population growth pay for itself. Those who profit from (uneconomic)growth will use their considerable resources to convince the community that the community should pay the costs of growth. How does the tragedy of the commons relate to launching wars?

The world’s oceans are a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. By and large they are unmanaged commons and they are destroyed by high tech fisheries. This is tragic for local fishermen who have lived off the oceans for centuries. Small conflicts over resources can lead to wars.”

When it comes to war… look at Iraq. The poor GIs getting shot and killed are paying an enormous cost. Bush seems to think there is a law of conservation of terrorists, that is to say, “There are a certain number of terrorists in the world and you kill them all and you solve the problem.” Unfortunately, this doesn’t solve the problem at all. We aren’t reducing terrorism; rather, we are increasing it.

Where does the role of economist, Kenneth Boulding, play into the topic of population growth?

He’s one of the few economists that I can respect. He was a colleague at the University of Colorado. He is known for saying that, “Anyone who thinks that steady growth can continue indefinitely, is either a madman or an economist.” I once asked Boulding if he said that, he gave me a funny smile and said, “Yes, I think so.” Boulding’s three laws are related to sustainability. In fact, in my opinion, they say it all. The second law is the important one. It says, the solution to problems create more problems. “The main source of problems is solutions.

Excerpt of Boulding’s Three Laws:

First Theorem: “The Dismal Theorem” If the only ultimate check on the growth of population is misery, then the population will grow until it is miserable enough to stop its growth.

Second Theorem: “The Utterly Dismal Theorem” This theorem states that any technical improvement can only relieve misery for a while, for so long as misery is the only check on population, the [technical] improvement will enable population to grow, and will soon enable more people to live in misery than before. The final result of [technical] improvements, therefore, is to increase the equilibrium population which is to increase the total sum of human misery.

Third Theorem: “The moderately cheerful form of the Dismal Theorem” Fortunately, it is not too difficult to restate the Dismal Theorem in a moderately cheerful form, which states that if something else, other than misery and starvation, can be found which will keep a prosperous population in check, the population does not have to grow until it is miserable and starves, and it can be stably prosperous. Until we know more, the Cheerful Theorem remains a question mark. Misery we know will do the trick. This is the only sure- fire automatic method of bringing population to equilibrium. Other things may do it.

This is reminiscent of Eric Sevareid’s Law – The Chief Cause of Problems is Solutions. In a society as complex as ours is there a way around this issue?

I don’t believe there is a way around this issue. In a society as complex as ours it’s impossible to anticipate the interaction of all agents. It’s very much like the operation of the National Electric Grid. No one knows exactly how it operates. So if a squirrel crosses the wrong power line the east coast can go without power. These things do in fact happen. More importantly, because our system is so complex it’s vulnerable. If we are talking about a war on terror we wouldn’t want such a vulnerable system.

In preparation for this interview you sent us a book review. My favorite quote from this review is the following: “A society that is totally dependent on high tech for the functioning of every aspect of the lives of its people is vulnerable to disruption by acts of God and acts of people. The complexities of our pres¬ent infrastructure predictably lead to unpredictable failures. More complex infrastructures anticipated for the future will probably experience larger unpredictable failures.”

There is big talk in Europe right now about putting large fields of solar collectors in the Sahara Desert and then transmitting the power under the Mediterranean Sea to Europe. It looks good on paper, but the long extended transmission lines will be vulnerable to the forces of nature and to terrorists. A small group of individuals could deprive Europe of a big fraction of its electricity for long periods of time. “Insanity” is the only word I can think of to describe plans to build this incredibly expensive system that is so transparently vulnerable to sabotage.”

In other words, complex infrastructure(s) translate into unpredictable failures. When it comes to alternative energy, most solutions are complex. What’s your opinion of alternative energy sources?

If alternative energies are to replace existing technologies very sizable investments would be required. I often wonder if there is enough capital in the world to replace this existing energy production, that is, to go from coal & natural gas to geothermal, wind or or solar. I don’t know the answer to the investment question.

What I do know is that it’s very difficult to manage wind energy. Currently, coal plants provide base loads and then natural gas (or hydroelectric) turbines are used to meet peak loads. But when you factor wind into your management scheme things become very difficult. You don’t know where the wind is blowing, how much, when, or in what direction it’s blowing. Then you have to factor this into your management. With 5% of your electricity coming from wind this “might” be manageable but to increase it to 50% or 60% it’s very difficult. Most people don’t pay attention to the difficulties of managing electrical demand.





Is the culprit of global warming population growth? Are you suggesting that unless we have major breakthroughs in technology population growth will undermine most current energy initiatives?

Al Gore understands that population growth is the problem. But he doesn’t recommend doing anything to reduce overpopulation which is the cause of the problems.. It is politically incorrect to talk about population growth. The last US president that worried about population was Richard Nixon. He charted a major study called “The Rockefeller Commission Report.” This study was put together by some very talented people. Their conclusion was simple; they couldn’t see any benefit to further population growth in the US. Unfortunately, the study was put on the shelf and forgotten.



This reminds me of the Red Queen…the more she runs the more the walls/scenery catch up. What can we do?

This is something Malthus understood years ago. We still have economists and politicians that claim that Malthus was wrong. This is nonsense. I’ve read Malthus three times and he presents population problems very clearly. The message of Malthus, translated to today’s problems would be something like this: “Population growth has the potential to outstrip the growth in production of any of the resources that are necessary to sustain our population. This is as true today as it was a hundred years ago when he wrote his essay.

I’d like to ask you a question from the title of your own piece, “Why have scientists succumbed to political correctness?”

I don’t know. I think there is a widespread feeling amongst scientists and certainly among the population that science and technology will save us, so why worry about it? Here’s a story… I was once met with a state senator; he said to me “I’m not worried about running out of petroleum, you (pointing to me) scientists will figure out what ever we need.” So I asked him what was the last new source of energy scientists found? He didn’t have an answer,

so I suggested nuclear power – the process was discovered in Germany in 1939. Enrico Fermi had a reactor operating in 1942. By 1956 we had first commercial nuclear power reactor in this country. Since then, we have spent billions of public and private dollars and we only receive 20% of our electricity from nuclear power. Innovation on the large scale required by our overpopulated society will take time and costs billions of dollars..

Even if science/technology develops the appropriate energy solutions. These solutions would have to be developed and implemented at the same rate as the population growth?

What you must realize is that technological improvements by design allow for and encourage more growth. This is like prescribing aspirin for cancer. As for the timing you’re absolutely right: while technology develops populations keep compounding. And because the scale is so large it’s impossible to implement changes quick enough. In other words, it’s very difficult to get 30% of the population using hybrid electric cars in anything short of 20 years.

Let’s talk about employment. Does growth solve unemployment problems?

If creating jobs reduced unemployment, Colorado would have negative unemployment (or whatever that means). For decades we have been creating jobs and we still have unemployment. No matter how many jobs you create you can’t get off unemployment. This is a consequence of people moving around – a constitutionally protected right.

Newly created jobs in a community temporarily lowers the unemployment rate (say from 5% to 4%), but then people move into the community to restore the unemployment rate to its earlier higher value (of 5%). Yet this is 5% of the no larger population, so more individuals are out of work than before.

What’s your opinion of national unemployment rates and the recent crisis?

For years, we have promoted an insane policy of exporting jobs and importing people. So now it’s catching up with us. Any country that has to import people to do the work of the country is unsustainable. One cannot sustain a world in which some regions have high standards of living while others have low standards of living. All countries cannot simultaneously be net importers of carrying capacity. World trade involves the exportation and importation of carrying capacity.

Tell us more about carrying capacity and trade.

Carrying capacity is a measure of how many people can be supported indefinitely. Therefore if any fraction of global warming is due to the actions of humans, this alone proves that human populations are larger than the carrying capacity of the earth. Sustainability requires that the size of the population be less than or equal to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem for the desired standard of living.

Many economists have raised concerns over countries particularly European countries which have experienced zero population growth rates (or negative population rates). They claim that these rates will burden “entitlements” such as social security… So clearly the answer is to have higher birth rates…unfortunately this only exacerbates the problems of “sustainability.” What’s your take?

Social Security and such projects are Ponzi schemes. They depend on having more and more people paying every year or they collapse. In effect, Social Security will collapse when there aren’t enough young workers. Getting the population back on the growth curve isn’t a long term answer. That makes all the other problems more difficult. So what you have to do is refinance social security – by raising taxes, reducing benefits, or altering the retirement age.

It’s so sad to see European politicians offering bonuses to couples to have more children because they are afraid of slowing growth rates. What people don’t realize is that declining growth rates are the way to sustainability.

You talk about how zero or negative population growth rates translate into higher standards of living. Can you comment on this?

Thirty years ago when the Chinese put their one child per family policy, there statement of justification was that population growth interferes with economic development. In 30 years, they have proven this is true. We in the U.S. haven’t learned this lesson – if you spend all your resources to take care of new people you have no resources to take care of existing citizens.

That’s interesting; we look at China as an economic miracle. Not many attribute much of this success to controlled population growth. This brings me to my next question: many population problems will not be solved unless Americans are consistently implementing plans for the next 70 years. How do we manage this given our political structures? Does China have an advantage?

That’s a great difficulty. Planning horizons in a democracy are based in term years (2, 4, 6 years). Unfortunately, if you change fertility rates it can take 50-70 years before you see the full effects of a change in fertility. This is called population momentum which is a mismatch to our democracy. Politicians implement changes that benefit us in the short term over the long term.

Have you ever calculated the required population for all countries to enjoy the standard of living experienced by Americans?

I haven’t done that, and there isn’t any specific formula. It depends on the standard of living. The most I can do is quote David Pimentel who is a global agricultural scientist at Cornell University. He says that a sustainable world population living at current US dietary level would consist of two billion people. Furthermore, he suggests that a sustainable US population at current dietary levels would have to be around 130-150 million people, which is the population of the US around World War II.

So, how do we get there? My answer is that the government should bring the issue to the forefront and ask; how large do we (as a nation) want to be and what benefit is there from population growth. Then, we need to set goals and plan accordingly. The key is to make family planning available widely throughout the US and the world – with the goal that every child is a wanted child.

You’ve written that, “The benefits of population growth accrue to a few; while the costs are borne by all of society.” Let’s enumerate some of the costs borne by society and a potential solution.

Individuals who benefit from growth will continue to exert strong pressures supporting and encouraging both population growth and growth in rates of consumption of resources.

The individuals who promote growth are motivated by the recognition that growth is good for them. In order to gain public support for their goals, they must convince people that population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources are also good for society. [This is the Charles Wilson argument: if it is good for General Motors, it is good for the United States.] (Yates 1983) As for the costs borne by society – with increased growth you have to provide police, fire, schools, waste removal, clean water, and a variety of other infrastructure projects. These services have to be paid for – but they aren’t paid for by growth. Schools in particular suffer. The school systems get their operating expenses from the taxes and to get capital expenses they have to issue bonds. Thus, all tax payers have to pay higher taxes to accommodate schools for new kids.

The solution is to tax growth, put a tax on real estate transactions (both at local levels and state levels) and use this tax to fund new projects.

Where are most economists confused on this issue of growth rates & consumption?

Economists think of infinite substitutability. They cite the example of shifting out of whale oil to petroleum or from wood to coal. Economists suggest that this can continue indefinitely. Unfortunately there are no close substitutes for petroleum. Furthermore, we already know which substitutes exist and they are very costly to access. The substitutability age is no longer as prominent.

What books would you recommend we read to understand population growth rate issues?

I recommend reading Richard Heinberg’s books, “Peak Oil” and “Peak Everything.” He clearly understands the issues.

Is there any hope given the actions of the current administration?

I certainly welcome the new administration, but the problem is we have the same Congress. This Congress enjoys the status quo, they are protective of their own interests, and tey listen to lobbyists. So as someone once said, “we have the best government money can buy.”

Growth never pays for itself. One of the biggest culprits is the federal government. Almost all states have requirements for a balanced budget. The federal government does not have this requirement. As a consequence the federal government is now paying for state schools, highways, sewage systems, bridges. This has happened because the local economy can’t support local population growth. Therefore, the main responsibility of members of Congress is to bring home federal grants to pay for the results of population growth in their representative district.

Another thing to remember is that inflation is a tax on everyone. So if the federal government issues bonds to pay for the consequences of growth (infrastructure, etc) this is likely to result in inflation. Thus, we will all bear the costs. Having looked at our national debt levels, I’m worried that the inflation could be very severe.

That said, stopping population growth is a necessary condition for sustainability, but it isn’t a sufficient condition.

Let’s assume we could implement population growth constraints. What else must be done?

Assuming you can constrain population growth rates, you have to implement every possible efficiency improvement (meaning energy, design, etc). In addition, you would have to create an environmental agency to stop polluters and require existing sources of pollution to be removed. The US population growth rate is the highest of any industrial nation. The US can’t preach for other countries to limit population growth unless we are willing to set an example and do so first.

Key Points to Remember: By Albert Bartlett:

When applied to material things, the term “sustainable growth” is an oxymoron. (It is possible to have sustainable growth of non-material things such as inflation.) Perhaps this is why inflation rates are sustainable or as some politicians would say hopefully sustainable in moderate amounts. We have seen how major national and international reports misrepresent and downplay (marginalize) the quantitative importance of the arithmetic of population sizes and growth.

1. One has to ask if it is possible to have an increase in economic activity (growth) without having increases in the rates of consumption of non-renewable resources? If so, under what conditions can this happen? Are we moving toward those conditions today?

2. What courses of action that could be followed to meet the needs of the present, but which, in doing so, would not limit the ability of generations, throughout the distant future, to meet their own needs?

3. The size of population that can be sustained (the carrying capacity) and the sustainable average standards of living of the population are inversely related to one another. “This runs counter to most traditional entrepreneurial myths of sustainable growth and rising standards of living”

I come back to an Eric Sevareid quote: “The chief cause of problems is solutions.” That is so important. For example, as long as there’s population growth, urban planning is bound to make everything worse. Here’s why. Essentially all the problems planners must deal with are caused by population growth. And planners are trained to solve problems. For a planner, a problem is anything that inhibits population growth. So when you solve the problem you are encouraging more population growth, and this makes everything worse.

Professor thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. We will continue to track your progress. I wish you the best of health. For More information about Professor Bartlett visit Albartlett.org

Miguel Barbosa
Founder of
[www.simoleonsense.com]

Dr. Bartlett's Laws of Sustainability

Few words are as carelessly, ignorantly and malevolently misused as "sustainability." Our friend, Dr.Albert Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of the University of Colorado at Boulder, and star of the classic "Arithmetic, Population and Energy" video referenced on this blog many times, has compiled the following laws of real sustainability (ideally, one would view the video prior to perusing these, but here they are anyway). (Copied from The Oil Drum)

LAWS OF SUSTAINABILITY

The Laws that follow are offered to define the term "sustainability." In some cases these statements are accompanied by corollaries that are identified by capital letters. They all apply for populations and rates of consumption of goods and resources of the sizes and scales found in the world in 2005, and may not be applicable for small numbers of people or to groups in primitive tribal situations.

These Laws are believed to hold rigorously.

The list is but a single compilation, and hence may be incomplete. Readers are invited to communicate with the author in regard to items that should or should not be in this list.

First Law: Population growth and / or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained.

A) A population growth rate less than or equal to zero and declining rates of consumption of resources are a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for a sustainable society.

B) Unsustainability will be the certain result of any program of "development," that does not plan the achievement of zero (or a period of negative) growth of populations and of rates of consumption of resources. This is true even if the program is said to be “sustainable.”

C) The research and regulation programs of governmental agencies that are charged with protecting the environment and promoting "sustainability" are, in the long run, irrelevant, unless these programs address vigorously and quantitatively the concept of carrying capacities and unless the programs study in depth the demographic causes and consequences of environmental problems.

D) Societies, or sectors of a society, that depend on population growth or growth in their rates of consumption of resources, are unsustainable.

E) Persons who advocate population growth and / or growth in the rates of consumption of resources are advocating unsustainability.

F) Persons who suggest that sustainability can be achieved without stopping population growth are misleading themselves and others.

G) Persons whose actions directly or indirectly cause increases in population or in the rates of consumption of resources are moving society away from sustainability.

H) The term "Sustainable Growth" is an oxymoron.

I) In terms of population sizes and rates of resource consumption, “The only smart growth is no growth.” (Hammond, 1999)

Second Law: In a society with a growing population and / or growing rates of consumption of resources, the larger the population, and / or the larger the rates of consumption of resources, the more difficult it will be to transform the society to the condition of sustainability.

Third Law: The response time of populations to changes in the human fertility rate is the average length of a human life, or approximately 70 years. (Bartlett and Lytwak 1995) [This is called "population momentum."]

A) A nation can achieve zero population growth if:
a) the fertility rate is maintained at the replacement level for 70 years, and
b) there is no net migration during the 70 years.
During the 70 years the population continues to grow, but at declining rates until the growth finally stops after approximately 70 years.

B) If we want to make changes in the total fertility rates so as to stabilize the population by the mid - to late 21st century, we must make the necessary changes now.

C) The time horizon of political leaders is of the order of two to eight years.

D) It will be difficult to convince political leaders to act now to change course, when the full results of the change may not become apparent in the lifetimes of those leaders.

Fourth Law: The size of population that can be sustained (the carrying capacity) and the sustainable average standard of living of the population are inversely related to one another. (This must be true even though Cohen asserts that the numerical size of the carrying capacity of the Earth cannot be determined, (Cohen 1995))

A) The higher the standard of living one wishes to sustain, the more urgent it is to stop population growth.

B) Reductions in the rates of consumption of resources and reductions in the rates of production of pollution can shift the carrying capacity in the direction of sustaining a larger population.

Fifth Law: One cannot sustain a world in which some regions have high standards of living while others have low standards of living.

Sixth Law: All countries cannot simultaneously be net importers of carrying capacity.

A) World trade involves the exportation and importation of carrying capacity.

Seventh Law: A society that has to import people to do its daily work (“We can’t find locals who will do the work,”) is not sustainable.

Eighth Law: Sustainability requires that the size of the population be less than or equal to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem for the desired standard of living.

A) Sustainability requires an equilibrium between human society and dynamic but stable ecosystems.

B) Destruction of ecosystems tends to reduce the carrying capacity and / or the sustainable standard of living.

C) The rate of destruction of ecosystems increases as the rate of growth of the population increases.

D) Affluent countries, through world trade, destroy the ecosystems of less developed countries.

E) Population growth rates less than or equal to zero are necessary, but are not sufficient, conditions for halting the destruction of the environment. This is true locally and globally.

Ninth Law: ( The lesson of "The Tragedy of the Commons" ) (Hardin 1968): The benefits of population growth and of growth in the rates of consumption of resources accrue to a few; the costs of population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources are borne by all of society.

A) Individuals who benefit from growth will continue to exert strong pressures supporting and encouraging both population growth and growth in rates of consumption of resources.

B) The individuals who promote growth are motivated by the recognition that growth is good for them. In order to gain public support for their goals, they must convince people that population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources, are also good for society. [This is the Charles Wilson argument: if it is good for General Motors, it is good for the United States.] (Yates 1983)

Tenth Law: Growth in the rate of consumption of a non-renewable resource, such as a fossil fuel, causes a dramatic decrease in the life-expectancy of the resource.

A) In a world of growing rates of consumption of resources, it is seriously misleading to state the life-expectancy of a non-renewable resource "at present rates of consumption," i.e., with no growth. More relevant than the life-expectancy of a resource is the expected date of the peak production of the resource, i.e. the peak of the Hubbert curve. (Hubbert 1972)

B) It is intellectually dishonest to advocate growth in the rate of consumption of non-renewable resources while, at the same time, reassuring people about how long the resources will last "at present rates of consumption.” (zero growth)

Eleventh Law: The time of expiration of non-renewable resources can be postponed, possibly for a very long time, by:

i ) technological improvements in the efficiency with which the resources are recovered and used

ii ) using the resources in accord with a program of "Sustained Availability," (Bartlett 1986)

iii ) recycling

iv ) the use of substitute resources.

Twelfth Law: When large efforts are made to improve the efficiency with which resources are used, the resulting savings are easily and completely wiped out by the added resources that are consumed as a consequence of modest increases in population.

A) When the efficiency of resource use is increased, the consequence often is that the "saved" resources are not put aside for the use of future generations, but instead are used immediately to encourage and support larger populations.

B) Humans have an enormous compulsion to find an immediate use for all available resources.

Thirteenth Law: The benefits of large efforts to preserve the environment are easily canceled by the added demands on the environment that result from small increases in human population.

Fourteenth Law: (Second Law of Thermodynamics) When rates of pollution exceed the natural cleansing capacity of the environment, it is easier to pollute than it is to clean up the environment.

Fifteenth Law: (Eric Sevareid's Law); The chief cause of problems is solutions. (Sevareid 1970)

A) This law should be a central part of higher education, especially in engineering.

Sixteenth Law: Humans will always be dependent on agriculture. (This is the first of Malthus’ two postulata.)

A) Supermarkets alone are not sufficient.

B) The central task in sustainable agriculture is to preserve agricultural land. The agricultural land must be protected from losses due to things such as:

i ) Urbanization and development

ii ) Erosion

iii ) Poisoning by chemicals

Seventeenth Law: If, for whatever reason, humans fail to stop population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources, Nature will stop these growths.

A) By contemporary western standards, Nature's method of stopping growth is cruel and inhumane.

B) Glimpses of Nature's method of dealing with populations that have exceeded the carrying capacity of their lands can be seen each night on the television news reports from places where large populations are experiencing starvation and misery.

Eighteenth Law: In local situations within the U.S., creating jobs increases the number of people locally who are out of work.

A) Newly created jobs in a community temporarily lowers the unemployment rate (say from 5% to 4%), but then people move into the community to restore the unemployment rate to its earlier higher value (of 5%), but this is 5% of the larger population, so more individuals are out of work than before.

Nineteenth Law: Starving people don't care about sustainability.

A) If sustainability is to be achieved, the necessary leadership and resources must be supplied by people who are not starving.

Twentieth Law: The addition of the word "sustainable" to our vocabulary, to our reports, programs, and papers, to the names of our academic institutes and research programs, and to our community initiatives, is not sufficient to ensure that our society becomes sustainable.

Twenty-First Law: Extinction is forever.
SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

The challenge of making the transition to a sustainable society is enormous, in part because of a major global effort to keep people from recognizing the centrality of population growth to the enormous problems of the U.S. and the world.

• On the global scale, we need to support family planning throughout the world, and we should generally restrict our foreign aid to those countries that make continued demonstrated progress in reducing population growth rates and sizes.

• The immediate task is to restore numeracy to the population programs in the local, national and global agendas.

• On the national scale, we can work for the selection of leaders who will recognize that population growth is the major problem in the U.S. and who will initiate a national dialog on the problem. With a lot of work at the grassroots, our system of representative government will respond.

• On the local and national levels, we must focus serious attention and large fiscal resources on the development of renewable energy sources.

• On the local and national levels, we need to work to improve social justice and equity.

• On the community level in the U.S., we should work to make growth pay for itself.

An Answer To Technocopians

Of all those living in denial, there are few who Chaos finds so completely annoying as the Kurzweil technocopians, those who have an unshakable faith that technology will enable humanity to transcend laws of nature, physics, and arithmetic. The smug ignorance of these beings simply defies rational and logical thought, simply because they are true believers in a different kind of religious cult. To debunk this ridiculous system, here's a nice rebuttal, albeit written a few years back. Funny stuff, and true, as well.

Super Doomer Porn: The Coming Anarchy

Here's a great read for those who take interest in humanity's merry drive off the cliff: overpopulation, resource, species and habitat destruction, disease, famine, and just in general, all the aspects of industrial civilization that cause writers like Derrick Jensen to conclude that it all must come to an end. As an added bonus, the piece was composed in 1994 (it has since become a book) and is entertaining to contemplate how the world has changed (for the worse, naturally) since the projections were made. Those who are familiar with Mike Davis' Planet of Slums will find this old hat, but new initiates may find some insight.

Endless, Mindless Population Growth

One inevitable consequence (there are many others, all of them bad) of human overpopulation is species extinction, both from habitat destruction and for human stomachs, in the case of some species deemed edible by the killer apes. Nowhere is this phenomenon more heartbreaking than in the case of the world's fish. A potent reminder appears in today's paper of record. Also included are reasons that farmed fish, by and large, are vastly inferior nutritionally and ridiculously expensive in terms of calories, to produce, but oh well. Humanity clearly will adapt to its own systematic and progressive destruction of the planet and all life, long before it voluntarily limits its growth.

On The Lack Of Manners, And What To Do About It

Taking a break from the most severe economic news, have a look at this very short but funny piece in the nation's paper of record concerning the lack of civility (well, it is set in New York City, after all) and the author's attempts to remedy the situation. Nice.

The State of the Oceans: Bad, And Getting Worse

Thanks to humanity's ever-increasing heavy "footprint" on the planet, the state of the oceans has never been poorer. Having killed off most of the larger fish in the oceans (by overfishing), unsurprisingly researchers are discovering that these predators are responsible for the health of the coral reefs. Comes now a couple of articles (here, and here) confirming what Chaos has recently read in a book (specifically, The World Without Us, highly recommended), to the effect that most of the oceans have suffered greatly from the human population explosion. It requires very little prognostication skill to see that the planet in the future will be terribly degraded, and no, humanity will not "wake up just in time" to mitigate its tremendously negative impact. It's not news (at least here it's not) that humanity has overshot the carrying capacity of the planet, and not by just a little. Just a few thoughts on what actually matters, as opposed to the ridiculous gladiatorial contests sweeping the national and local news media.

Two Views On Population: What We Cannot Say

It is not news to regular readers that Chaos wholeheartedly agrees with Dr. Bartlett's assertion that overpopulation (along with exponential growth) constitutes the root of most of humanity's troubles. Equally clear is the fact that these topics are not permitted to be discussed on any level; don't look for your favorite presidential candidate to add them to a stump speech, or your favorite flavor of political party to adopt them as 'planks' in their 'platforms.' Why not? Well, read Kurt Cobb's explanation of what happens when you do bring up the issue. Along the way, the author provides an excellent overview of the concept of "carrying capacity" and how OECD countries export their resource degradation to the rest of the world. Another view of the issue comes from this op-ed in the nation's paper of record by the eminent anthropologist Jared Diamond. Diamond reflects the current understanding among those concerned about the natural world that one's resource 'footprint' is more important than the numbers of humans inhabiting the planet. An other wise insightful article is marred towards the end by the now almost obligatory references to hopeful examples of growing awareness of the problems (along with an exhortation that diminished resource consumption need not constitute a diminished lifestyle, a ridiculous assertion but one necessary to publish in a mainstream newspaper, because nobody wants to hear anything like they might have to live differently than they do now), which Chaos found to be underwhelming at best, and mendacious at worst. Chaos' own view is that both population control and resource conservation are essential components of an effective strategy of solving the current woes, but not to worry: the Cobb article explains quite clearly that even a discussion of these is not ever going to happen.

Another Reason To Be A Doomer

Chaos has become somewhat fatalistic of late, having come to the end of a rather long and dramatic journey of discovery and revelation. It serves little purpose, to Chaos' mind, to continue to repeat the same tired stories that recur daily or weekly concerning peak oil, global heating, resource and habitat depletion, and the like, when the chronicling itself has become a measurement of how deeply most sentient beings remain in denial of the truly catastrophic issues facing the human population of the planet. Chaos has frequently observed, to minimal effect, that the seminal issue of all these issues is overpopulation, which is one of many subjects which are unable to be rationally discussed in the intellectual wasteland that is contemporary western society. To read one commentator's reasons why not, see this very fine piece by Kurt Cobb of The Energy Bulletin.

The Annual Population Roundup

Since one of the "topics" here at the Edge is demographics (read: overpopulation), Chaos would be remiss if the annual Population Reference Bureau's 2007 report went unremarked. Since overpopulation is the root of most of humanity's problems, now and most especially in the future, one should become familiar with the mainstream demographers' and their predictions. Chaos is well aware that most readers will not have the time to peruse the entire report, but the executive summary(warning: pdf file) should give most at least a passing familiarity with world population growth.

Funny Endless Growth Stuff From The Onion

Readers wanting comic relief (because there's an upcoming post about the healthcare system) should check out this uproarious article from the masters of satire, The Onion. Exerpt:
"As we move into the 21st century, it is our responsibility to think of the future of the earth—not for ourselves, but for those who will inherit what my husband and I leave behind when we're gone. If we do not join together and do what's best for this, our only planet, there may not be an environment left in which my five children, and their 25 children's 125 children, can grow up and raise large upper-middle-class families of their own."

Enjoy.

Too Many People Ruin Wineries

From the "the root of the problem is just too many people" department, comes this story about how ever-larger crowds have poisoned the atmosphere of the genteel wine tasting and generally, messed it up for everyone. Just a tiny story, the subject of which is not likely to be of interest to any but snobby New York Times readers and oenophiles, but do recall Dr. Bartlett's primary point about overpopulation. Readers are conditioned to view endless growth in population as beneficial, but in fact, humanity's gigantic footprint is poisoning the planet. This story provides a clue that endless population growth results in negative consequences.

Overshoot Primer: The Elephant in the Room

For those who have not the time to read the classic "Overshoot" but would like to know what terms like "carrying capacity," "sustainability," "dieoff" and of course, "overshoot" mean, and why overpopulation is really the problem we need to address, but won't (of course, those who have viewed Prof. Bartlett's video will already be familiar with this issue), this post from The Oil Drum (by contributor Guilder Guider) is probably the best short tutorial. If you have time, you might read the many and varied comments at the end, and note how uncomfortable some persons are with these ideas and how they attempt, vainly, to dispute the principles. Very entertaining, and sobering. It is, of course, exactly why any "solutions" will be fruitless.

A Look At Water Depletion In Australia

Think that oil, natural gas, uranium and coal are the only resources that are subject to permanent depletion? Sorry, but even so-called "renewable" resources can behave like nonrenewables when drawn down at unsustainable rates, which, by some coincidence, is starting to happen in many parts of the world due to (you guessed it) increasing population and resource use. Particularly in the case of the world's fresh water, this is quite a cause for concern, since water is used not only for drinking, but innumerable other uses, including industrial, and agricultural. A nice snapshot of efforts to contain profligate water use in the Murray-Darling river in South Australia is contained in this article. Chaos was heartened to read that a water conservation and use plan concerning the river was making headway, but along came a severe drought, causing all plans to grind to a halt. Interesting that the underlying problems continue not to be recognized (and certainly not ever in a mainstream publication like The Economist), but Chaos supposes that when the water runs out , as it eventually will, humans may begin to see. Best hopes for population dieoff!

Magnum Opus, Part 1:The Sun Begins to Set

A recent comment here, however ineptly phrased, has started Chaos musing about the direction the Edge has taken since the beginning of its short life. Because Chaos is of a certain, well, age, potential for life changes has inevitably diminished, although there are still opportunities for movement. Younger sentient beings, however, may face a future quite different from the present conditions. How to identify and react to certain forces which may determine the conditions in that future is the subject of this post. To consider the conclusion first, Chaos would offer the following advice to those of fewer years: consider a geographic change; leave the Empire. The reasons for this stark admonition are many and deserve thoughtful exploration. In so doing, Chaos recognizes the fallacy of reaching a conclusion based upon insufficient evidence or tunnel thinking; we therefore look for many indications rather than just a singularity. Chaos also realizes that predictions of the future are invariably wrong in some or many respects; hence, the further desirability of considering multiple factors and being as conservative as possible. At the outset, on the other hand, it is necessary to realize that simply because certain conditions have been present for long periods of time does not mean that they will always continue, e.g., empires eventually collapse, (all of them have to date) and with great suddenness upon occasion. Dmitry Orlov makes for good reading in this regard.

The Peak Oil Thesis: Location Matters

As Orlov notes, the fact of peak oil is not really in dispute anymore. The timing is, for sure, and its effects and potential “solutions” are endlessly argued (Chaos sometimes likens this to mental masturbation…). Ones’ biases and prejudices seem to be reflected in the solutions one advocates or the vision of the future one finds most compelling. To remind readers, then, of Chaos’ somewhat obvious (and hopefully noncontroversial) theses on the subject: first, societies and regions can and do vary with respect to their awareness of and attempts at mitigation of peak oil. For example, Sweden aspires to be oil-free by 2020, while the Empire’s politicians avoid the truth about the causes of recent oil price gyrations, and the Empire’s citizens blame the oil companies. Large portions of African and Asia may not lose much at all, for these regions use very little oil presently (although what little they use is vital to their survival, a grim prognosis). Germany and Japan lead Western nations in alternatives such as solar and conservation. (These examples represent the very ends of the spectrum). Second, the most oil-addicted places which have done the least mitigation will suffer the most, when oil begins its long decline. This does not seem to require an unreasonable leap of logic or predictive ability. To the extent that it proves true, ones’ location will be important. (Chaos’ reference to “awareness” above is a shorthand way of referring to the culture of a location’s inhabitants; one then might rephrase the theses as “a nation’s culture determines its response to peak oil, or other major catastrophe; the US response to Hurricane Katrina is instructive in this regard). It is also beyond debate that the Empire uses by far the most energy per capita on the planet. In response, optimists would say there is quite a bit of room for conservation (undeniably true), to which the pessimistic (Kunstler, et al) would point out that the way the Empire is structured is entirely based upon cheap energy, i.e., beyond a certain point, there is a limit to demand destruction, after which will come a hard and long visit to the House of Pain. A look at any sprawling suburban development in the US through the prism of limited energy is an eye opening experience (for more, see Kunstler’s opus, The Long Emergency). At any rate, it is clear that if one uses the above as a guide, one is compelled to look beyond the borders of the Empire. Not enough? Let’s now explore other reasons for emigration, beginning with

The Decline of the Empire

Not for nothing does Chaos refer to the mighty USA as an empire. From the 750+ military bases worldwide to the heavy-handed way it throws its weight around, the nation still dominates and influences the rest of the planet. (For excellent reading on the subject, check out the month of January, 2007 at TomDispatch and any book by Chalmers Johnson). It is apparent, however, that the chinks in the armor have become ever larger cracks as the country flails impotently at foreign adventures designed in part to “project” American strength and intimidate those who might oppose its thirst for cheap energy. Alas, all the recent “war” has done is to expose the weaknesses and limitations of American power, while painting a target on the backs of its citizens. It should go without saying that the costs of these forays are borne directly by the taxpayer, and they are disastrously high now and likely to rise higher (see Economics, below). Far from securing the country, America’s imperial adventures have made it much more likely to attract the attentions of terrorists, although Chaos would be the first to say that the odds of such are currently still exceedingly low for any one individual living here (and certainly do not justify the ridiculous rationales and justifications given for the loss of civil rights, see below). However, “low” does not equate to zero, and it is reasonable to assume that a smaller, more peaceable nation may have much less chance of being victimized by destruction and chaos (sorry). In some ways, all this and that which follows are inevitable, and the US started down this road a long time ago, with the more obvious signs only visible recently, not that anyone should succumb to it any more readily. The care and feeding of the most expensive military machine on the planet may contribute to the eventual collapse of the Empire, caused by

Economics

Again to quote Orlov, the United States at this moment is essentially bankrupt, having engaged in ruinously expensive military adventures, refused to live within its means and continued to run record-setting trade deficits with the rest of the world. The price of oil has a good deal to do with the latter, which is to say that the higher oil goes, the larger the trade deficit. The country has also become the chief and unwitting victim of globalization, trading its former world-leading industrial capacity for service jobs and importing large quantities of cheap goods made in third world nations. Some of this is inevitable, and is perhaps a further signature of a declining empire, but the vulnerability it poses is quite real. Some recent signs of a potential global “rebalancing” of the scales include the tendency of some trading partners (China) or energy exporters (Russia) and others to diversify away from the dollar, which has historically been the “currency of record” worldwide. Income and wealth disparities between the very rich and most other citizens are becoming more pronounced, to the detriment of the nation’s economic health (and social stability). Chaos notes that the phrase “shrinking middle class” has become quite prevalent of late, and indeed, average real wages have remained stagnant for perhaps 20 years or so. The savings rate among citizens has declined to zero in the last few years, reflecting both cheap and easy credit and a “something for nothing” mentality. Trade and budget deficits, income stagnation, inequality and lack of savings, while alarming, pale in comparison to the looming Medicare/Social Security crisis, which features a projected shortfall of 74 trillion dollars. There are only two solutions to this particular problem: 1. (much) higher taxes on working (younger) people, and 2. fewer benefits for the recipients (older folks). The first is more likely, considering the voting demographics in the Empire, but there may be a combination of these two imposed, and at any rate, a younger citizen of the Empire might prudently consider there to be no pension protection waiting upon retirement. In this instance, many other Western nations (and other pension systems within the Empire) are subject to similar mechanisms, due to similar demographics of the retiring Baby Boom Generation, but the version in the United States will be particularly severe, due in part to the

Health Care Crisis

Kindly recall that Chaos has had personal experience (recently repeated) with the hugely wasteful and dysfunctional US healthcare system. It is also worth noting that the costs of this leviathan have outpaced inflation as a whole for quite some time, and there is no realistic prospect for much slowing. The Medicare/Social Security crisis referred to above is in fact primarily caused by Medicare expenses. In fact, it is becoming clear that the costs of the healthcare system are mutating into distortions (or disincentives if you like) of economic behavior (e.g., CEO of Starbucks indicates that the price of healthcare for employees surpasses the cost of the coffee beans the chain sells, employees taking or remaining at jobs solely for the health insurance, the rise of “medical tourism”). These are classic indicators of diminishing marginal returns, a la Tainter (in other words, spending more resources to get less return, and participants beginning to opt out of the system). The results of the US system are equally eye-opening: the nation spends more money on healthcare than any Western nation, and US residents have higher infant mortality rates and lower life expectancies than most Western countries and some third world ones, including Costa Rica and Cuba. The medical profession (hospital infections, doctor errors) is the cause of more deaths than any other. Once again, it is not a leap of intuitive logic, predictive ability or rank speculation to project that things will continue to get worse, and an imagining of the system in 20 years or so is simply to say that there may only be a working apparatus for the wealthy. As with income and wealth, there exists now a vast gulf between the haves and have nots in the US regarding healthcare, and this will most probably continue to widen. It may surprise residents of the US to know that some countries consider health care to be an actual right, rather than something whose availablility depends on one’s financial and employment status. In other places, health care, while not a formal right, is simply more reasonably priced and affordable for most people.

Overpopulation

As has been noted, the US has one of the worst population problems on the planet, because its energy use per capita far surpasses any other nations. The country is anomalous vis a vis other Western nations in that its population rate is projected to increase by another 100 million or so by 2050. Whatever the problems that now exist due to numerous people (and there are many), another 100 million will make the country a vastly more uncomfortable place in which to reside. Overcrowding, overuse of resources, loss of civility, pollution, crime, and various other negatives are all associated with overpopulation. (For an interesting exercise, consider the issues discussed in the local or national news and realize how many are caused by simply too many people). On a basic level, a large country teeming with people, most of whom live from one paycheck to another and possess little survival skills (and a notable lack of affinity for reality, see discussion of a nation’s culture, above), is not the place one would want to be when one or more crises erupt. Perhaps Dr. Bartlett’s most startling insight relating to population is that more population is correlated with less freedom; the usefulness of this concept as an organizing principle is without peer. As we can deduce, the country is already on a path towards

Less Civil Rights, More Military Might

From the events of the last five years, it has become depressingly clear that the American public will gladly trade its civil rights away (or, more correctly, not protest when these are stolen by power-hungry officials) for the illusion of “security.” One has only to imagine what draconian restrictions might be imposed the next time a terrorist attack occurs within the country’s boundaries to see where it might end. As it stands now, the Emperor and his minions have willingly engaged in flagrant violations of the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the like, to the point where the US has now become known around the world as an advocate of kidnapping, torture, and imprisonment without charges, rights or trial. The increasing militarization of the country is positively associated with this trend. For example, the Bush administration used its astounding failure in New Orleans as an excuse to authorize the military to respond to the next domestic catastrophe, a historic and profound change (until now, the military never operated domestically). Halliburton has been engaged to construct “enclosures” for unnamed populations of undocumented persons or refugees (or perhaps your friends and neighbors) under vaguely underdescribed scenarios. The NSA and other agencies are right now engaged in spying on American citizens at home, on the telephone, emails, and snail mail, apparently simply because they can. A national identification card (in fact, if not in name) may be instituted soon. The use of video cameras are on the rise. In fact, examples are endless, and the direction of the trend can be easily discerned: less freedom, not more. Here, we again adopt the principle that past conditions (America as the beacon of freedom for the world) are simply no longer true.

Conclusion

Chaos suggested at the beginning of this screed that a nation’s culture determines its destiny. To that end, study closely the cultural values of the United States of America at this particular moment in time. Chaos would suggest that some of these are the belief that it is possible to get something for nothing, that trivia and celebrity trump issues of substance, that magical beliefs in supernatural beings are more valid than science, bigger is better, that the nation somehow has the right to more than its share of the world’s resources for its own benefit, that savings are passé and all these things will continue. It is also important to note that the timing of all the events discussed here is quite unpredictable, but it would be reasonable to assume that once certain events begin, the time for considering relocation will be short or nonexistent. Chaos, then, is advocating advance planning for an uncertain future. The decision to relocate not a trivial one, and should not be undertaken without a thorough understanding of the consequences, not the least of which might be the disapproval or bewilderment of family and friends. One is, in effect, voting with one’s feet and rejecting the country of one’s birth, which requires a certain intellectual flexibility to even consider, which most beings are simply unable to contemplate. One should also analyze in detail the potential cultural differences and other factors between the US and other locations before taking a hasty plunge. On the other hand, close attention should always be paid to the surroundings (or the landscape, if you will), and such scrutiny compels a sober hint that the future of and in the United States may be quite different, in some or many negative respects, than today. Some or all of the issues discussed here may not play out in the future in a linear fashion, making predictions difficult or simply wrong. Nonetheless, a flawed or incomplete analysis of the future is still better than nothing, and Chaos believes the value in attempting to synthesize many trends at once may partially mitigate the hazards of prognosticating. In Part II of this series, Chaos will outline some criteria for locations and offer some suggestions for consideration of individual countries.

A Wistful Morning: Tahiti

Humanity's accelerating "footprint" on the planet is the subject of today's article in the nation's paper of record. Oh, you won't see anything in the piece dealing with the underlying causes of the ruination of the islands once called "Paradise on Earth," but the article is a fine one in that it encapsulates humanity's current problems (perhaps intensified on this small string of Pacific islands). To whit: the main islands of French Polynesia no longer resemble utopia, what with the degradation caused by (oh yes) too many people and their resulting waste. Instead, to get the full experience, it is necessary to move to the outer islands, whose future is very much in doubt due to global heating. There are many sights in this world that will soon be gone forever, so Chaos recommends readers to see as many of them as possible.

The Mountain of Shame, Continued

"You cannot do only one thing"---Garrett Hardin (Hardin's First Law of Ecology)

The perfect symbol of overshoot, environmental destruction, overpopulation, unrestrained exponential growth, and utter cluelessness of the local citizenry continues to burn, stymieing efforts to quench the flames. The first attempts to put out the fire with water resulted in pollution of several aquifer wells nearby (for the unitiated, the Edwards Aquifer is the primary source of fresh water for the region, and is the most vulnerable to spoilage from humans). A more elaborate (and expensive) scheme is now planned, with officials promising to have the thing out by the end of the month. Chaos wonders what other environmental dangers this project might expose; the law of unintended consequences certainly applies. For those in the immediate area, it certainly is worth a short drive to view this monstrous and terrible monument.

Amazing But True: Overpopulation and Nostalgia

Chaos has long speculated on the human "faulty memory problem" (which is to say, how people tend to forget or minimize negative memories and overemphasize positive ones) and how it contributes to sometimes quite powerful feelings of nostalgia. Chaos has also become aware at the same time that one of the real differences between the past and today is that there are more (much more) people at this very moment than at any time previous. As is sometimes the case, another being has encapsulated this in a most erudite and effective manner, and in the nation's paper of record, no less. The exemplary essay is also a primer on the negative effects of overpopulation (and there are many), and so it is highly recommended for those in the Imperial Bubble who can only glimpse fragments of the issue through the lens of the MSM: (here's an excerpt)

"It is futile to want the old days back, but that doesn’t mean one should ignore the lessons of the visitable past — say, when there were half that number of people in the country. In some important ways life really was better then because of it. The overcrowded, much noisier, more hectic, intensely urbanized and vertical world of the present can seem hostile and hallucinatory to anyone who knew America in a simpler form.

In my lifetime the population has doubled. I’m glad I grew up when the number of Americans was so much smaller. How does one explain to anyone under 50, or to the grateful unfazed immigrant from an overpopulated nation, that this was once a country of enormous silence and ordinariness — empty spaces not just in the Midwest and the rural South but in the outer suburbs of New England, like the one I grew up in, citified on one margin and thinning to woods on the other. That roomier and simpler America shaped me by giving me and others of my generation a love for space and a taste for solitude."

Sadly, the issue is a worldwide one as well, and so there is no escape (or is there? there will be a future post addressing this....) At any rate, this is one well stated and sobering piece of work.

Something You Won't Read Here: Too Many People

Leave it to the BBC to say what you cannot say here in the Empire: there are too many people, which are the cause of all the planet's problems, and we must reduce our population to get to "Utopia." Uh, no, that will not be on CNN, the NY Times, WashPost, LA Times, or your local birdcage liner. You won't read it in People, Time, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, or anywhere else. You can, however, read it here on the Edge, just by clicking here. Don't you feel special?

Endless Growth, Our National Religion

At one point our estimable friend, Dr. Albert Bartlett, in his presentation on Arithmetic, Energy and Population, states that endless exponential growth is our national religion. A startling statement, to be sure, but one which certainly will serve readers of MSM stories in good stead. Like so. To be brief, the semi-arid region in which Chaos currently resides is undergoing explosive growth, and concerns have been raised, as they have for many years, about sufficient water to enable said growth. There is zero recognition in local rag that perhaps there might be, at some point, and hopefully before all the water is gone, an end to growth, or perhaps just a slowing. Chaos would suggest to gentle readers to employ the 'national religion' framework in their daily perusal of news, both local and worldwide; the results are quite interesting. Equally compelling is applying the concept that "overpopulation is the root cause of most human problems" to a few news reports one might encounter. Try it, you'll have fun.
Update: Here's a local letter to the paper that you can contemplate:

"It was a simpler time

Back in the good old days, remember when:

Our flag was respected, both at home and abroad. The government was of the people, by the people and for the people, not of the politicians, by the politicians and for the politicians. Families took care of families, not the government.

Girls in high school did not have children. You felt safe in your own home. Your house was seldom locked or windows closed. The key to the car was kept in the ignition. There was no such term as "drive by shooting." There was no need for a "war on drugs."

Children walked alone safely to and from school. Police and security guards were not needed at schools. Boys gathered at parks, vacant lots, open fields, etc. to play baseball and other sports. There were no knives, no guns and no need for adult supervision. It was a good time to be a boy.

Movies and TV did not rely on sex and violence to entertain; they entertained the old fashioned way. They did it with talent. You had a competent and caring personal doctor, not today's impersonal socialized medicine system. We were paid to work, not to not work. U.S. Grant was a president, not a government handout.

Children were taught manners. Your word was your bond. A person's good reputation was his most prized possession. Defending our country was a man's responsibility. Democrats and Republicans did not hate each other; they were Americans first and foremost. We fought wars for the right reasons and actually fought to win the wars. And on and on.

Today's society has more modern conveniences, but the good old days were truly "the good old days."

Yeah, those wars were pretty good, weren't they? Chaos supposes not so good for those killed in them, but pardon the digression. At any rate, an expanding population will certainly account for the effects mentioned in the letter, and the writer is to be commended for noticing the difference, although seemingly unaware of the reasons for it.