Transcript The Other 60%: Getting Population Transitions Back on the

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