issues
support pci
The Age of Missing Information
Blog post
Zero-Sum Game
Posted Feb 12, 2009 by Richard Heinberg
Oops!—bad timing. The announcement that California taxpayers will have to pay most of the costs for raising the famous octuplets born recently near Los Angeles is provoking widespread indignation about what is often taken to be a fundamental human right—i.e., the right to reproduce ad infinitum.
The story might have raised eyebrows a year ago or five. But the fact that the 33-year-old single, unemployed mother’s plight is capturing headlines at the very moment when the State of California is in effect declaring bankruptcy (and laying off teachers and other state workers) not only provides grist for irate radio call-ins, it also highlights a profound shift taking place just beneath the surface of our collective awareness.
For most of the last century or two, economic growth has lifted all boats and temporarily increased Earth’s effective carrying capacity. Though the human population was growing relentlessly and at an unprecedented rate, few worried: every year there were more jobs, more opportunities, new careers. The pie was expanding, so the fact that there were always more people at the table was perceived as a plus. With more folks to talk to, life was becoming richer! Whatever area of skill you might be interested in, you could see records being broken, unheard-of achievements being made: there were better pianists and violinists than anyone had ever heard before, better athletes than anyone had ever seen, more brilliant mathematicians, surgeons—you name it—just because there were so many people competing with one another to develop excellence in their areas of expertise. What a time to be alive!
Now suddenly the game has changed. The pie has stopped getting bigger. As more people arrive at the table, everyone nervously eyes the remaining crumbs, anxious to avert a free-for-all but also keen to avoid being left out.
Welcome to the post-peak economic meltdown!
A lot is going to change due to the fact that we have reached the end of economic growth as we’ve known it. One non-trivial item concerns our attitude toward population.
Environmentalists like Paul Ehrlich have for decades been pointing out the obvious truism that the Earth can support only so many humans, and that the more of us there are, the more likely we are to undermine our planetary life-support systems, perhaps eventually triggering a humanitarian as well as an ecological crisis of apocalyptic dimensions.
Some listened; most did not. Efforts were made world-wide to reduce fertility through family planning; in China a one-child policy successfully reduced (but failed to end) population growth. However, on the whole our species continued to pursue its opportunities for expansion, and our numbers continued to grow (current total: 6.7 billion and counting).
Without more cheap energy, without cheap credit, and without economic growth, feelings will change. Are changing. Fewer people will want to bring a large family into the world knowing that economic opportunities are dwindling—but some will still do so. Attitudes toward parenthood are deep-seated, culturally sensitive, and controversial. But they are not immutable.
Here’s the rub: Unless previous beliefs about the sacredness of unlimited fertility (and the corresponding proof-of-masculinity afforded by the siring of many offspring) can be openly questioned and honestly discussed in these new circumstances, the cognitive dissonance between long-held beliefs and deep-seated biological urges on one hand, and the painful awareness of ecological and economic limits on the other, is likely to lead to a kind of societal explosion that will take the forms of heightened demographic competition and intercultural violence.
It doesn’t have to be that way. The discussion about the octuplets now taking place in the popular media is a good thing if it can help us collectively process new information and let go of old thinking. The point is not to blame the single mom; the point is to use this current news trivium as a mirror by which to see ourselves and reassess and change what we observe.
Get The End of Growth http://www.postcarbon.org/eog | Watch the animation Who Killed Economic Growth? http://bit.ly/whokilledgrowth
Like this post?
Keep the information flowing: Donate to Post Carbon Institute
Stay connected: Receive our monthly e-newsletter
Reposting: See our reposting policy
meet our fellows
what is pci?
Reader Comments
17 comments
Chipping Away at the Cognitive Dissonance
From: Dave Gardner, Mar 31, 2009 04:47 AM
Very well said, Mr. Heinberg. I want you all to know I am working on a non-profit film that examines the denial and other societal roadblocks preventing us from becoming a sustainable society. Forgive the promotion, but the success of my project depends on building a large grass roots network to support completion and arrange screenings once it's complete late this year. I invite you to join the cause.
We have much work to do to dismantle the belief system standing in our way, but we must all continue to chip away by having this conversation more often, in more places, at higher volume.
Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
http://www.growthbusters.com
Too Many People
From: Joyce Tarnow, Mar 28, 2009 05:29 AM
The Twelve Step Program in AA states that the first step is to identify and acknowledge the problem. We are not there yet. Notwithstanding all the excellent publications since Earth Day 1970, and the three Presidential Commissions since 1972 and the Rockefeller report, our "leaders" ignore the "Population Bomb" that Dr. Paul Ehrlich described so well. We have not learned from histories such as the demise of Easter Island and the Golden Triangle. Lovelock said it is too late to correct our overreaching economics and exploitation of the Earth's resources and ability to mend. I am afraid he is not far wrong.
population
From: Green michael, Mar 13, 2009 05:01 PM
It would be nice to think that we could have a calm debate on reproductive rights and population but we all know that this is the calm before the storm and its nice to have this these pleasant chats during this "happy time". Growth has ended and we are now entering the contraction phase of industrial civilisation but our institutions are highly resistant to change and so will try to bare the load long past the adjustment point and will then fail catastrophically instigating great distress. We are not rational and have never been so, for most of us the earth is still flat and Darwin was wrong, we know we are separate from the rest of nature and special(of the divine). In our hearts we know what is going to happen as we slide down the energy slope, we are going to fight like cats in a bag for what is available. We will continue our current strategy of robbing the many of their needs to meet our desires and the only real difference is that this started to move inside our borders rather that being mostly a foreign policy strategy. It is very naive to think that humans will suddenly change behaviour now that crunch time has arrived what is almost certain to occur is that people will do what they always do when faced with a contracting resources, they will divide into groups kill one another for access to those resources. I live in Ireland where a genetic profile would be of no use in distinuising between the separate groups yet we are capable of butchering one another at the drop of a hat. If you can face reality you have a better chance of dealing with it positively.
Having 14 kids is a bit much
From: Anonymous, Mar 12, 2009 01:08 PM
The last time I checked, octo-mom had 14 little mouths to feed and not a pot to piss in. So this isn't about her marital status. It's about her abject lack of rationality oblivious to limits and an insatiable greed. Not a bad representation of human life on the planet.
Relative problems
From: A modest proposal, Feb 25, 2009 11:56 PM
Firmly believing that the party is over, I must say that Richard is being very moderate in his approach to societal problems, while he waits for the rest of the world to slowly catch up and for the right conditions to arise where people realize what the true situation is.
Thankfully someone is doing the thinking. Keep it up.
PS. Is there really still no hope for nuclear fusion?
Soft Landings
From: Richard Parmelee, Feb 25, 2009 06:27 PM
If you really want to make a soft landing on the downward slide, America isn't going to be the place to do it. Bigger they are... Probably not best to try and reinvent the smokestack with the greenies in a densely populated, heavily armed country who’s populace is not comprised of many proven self sustainable types.
So, instead of experiencing collapse first hand with many hungry and violent people a change of locale would be best. Moving to a country that has a low reliance on fossil fuels, a mild climate, a strong agricultural base and being located near the sea would be beneficial. The more rural and isolated the better with a good population to arable land ratio.
While flights are still cheap, exploratory trips after extensive research should be considered. When returning have a pocket full of email addresses or better yet mailing addresses. Learn the language and write to your new friends often. When you are ready to take the plunge find a community to embrace. Pay to have the parish restored for ten grand when you move there, become devote in the community’s religion of choice, marry into a large family and you might end up looking at the inevitable from a distance.
having 8 kids *is* a problem!!
From: Anna Synick, Feb 17, 2009 05:23 PM
I do object to single mothers having 8 kids (whether in one go or more). In fact, I object to anyone, married, divorced or single, having 8 kids. Really, in this day and age you cannot justify putting such a burden on the world. It's utterly selfish, not only to the world around you but also to the kids you're putting on this earth who are going to have a pretty awful life if you think of what we're facing (peak everything).
Overpopulation is a huge problem, but since it's practically pointless to discuss how we can reduce our population, it's not much use even writing about it anymore. Religion, emotion, free will, basically everything gets in the way of a true, sober look at what we've done and what we're doing to the world around us with our relentless growth. On top of that we would need to make some serious sacrifices if we were to do something about this problem, and who is really willing to go down that path? We're not even just affecting our own species, but other species as well. It's so frustrating to observe, and so frustrating to hear parents come up with any excuse why others should not have kids but theirs are alright (most classic one being that there should be at least some people of higher intelligence around -- why, so they can understand even better what dire situation they will find themselves in??).
Unfortunately nature always wins and no doubt will teach us a hard lesson. Let's just hope that we won't have destroyed everything around us on the way down.
@Anonymous: Actually, I
From: okalokee, Feb 16, 2009 08:39 PM
@Anonymous:
Actually, I think it's perfectly reasonable for Richard to say that economic growth has lifted all boats in the last century. Even the worst-off people in 2009 (like, say, the unfortunate homeless, jobless sick guys I see waiting in line at the shelters and soup kitchens in my city every day) have it better off than their counterparts of 1909.
As for folks lucky enough to have jobs and incomes: well, a lot of us may not necessarily be *happier* than our counterparts of 1909, but we certainly have a lot more buying power, which is what I think Richard was ultimately referring to.
And as far as your comment about what Richard said about "discussions in the media," I think you're overreaching. Yes, some of the subtext is more of the old classist/racist "those darn welfare queens" crap. But I think the point is that the discussion in the media could be worth it just by virtue of the fact that the "value" of intentionally pursuing big families is being discussed at *all*. That probably would not have been the case even ten years ago.
"For most of the last
From: Anonymous, Feb 16, 2009 05:36 PM
"For most of the last century or two, economic growth has lifted all boats"
All boats? ALL boats? C'mon Richard, you know better than that! Maybe you were trying to ironically capture the essence of official ideology, as opposed to reality. The reality was far, far from "all boats" being lifted, as you surely know. Let's not perpetuate that.
"The discussion about the octuplets now taking place in the popular media is a good thing if it can help us collectively process new information.." The discussions are NOT about this. They are NOT about "the right to reproduce ad infinitum" just about the usual predjudices about single mothers. It's about the "those poor folks just have babies so they can get more money from welfare!" nonsense, never mind that the extra pay from welfare is less than the cost of the new baby, so you come out behind. Never mind Suleman was married and later divorced...in 2008, at which point she moved in with parents: all that matters is that she is a SINGLE mother, therefore EVIL in rightwing ideology. Compare, or should I say, contrast with the way the Palin family is portrayed or other well to do family with 6, 7 or more kids. Very little criticism of the doctors who were grossly irresponsible by allowing this to happen and unlike Nadia, are professionals whose professional and legal duty is violated when they use high tech drugs and overzealous embryo implanting.. to make things like this happen..they got a tiny bit of criticism. But the Single Mother?? Paging Dan Quayle! Single Mothers With Lots of Babies Are Evil! Never mind the Mad Doctors who implanted her with so many embryos (and who knows what drugs) to make octuplets happen.
New attitudes about procreation? That isn't what's happening here. Just same old 1980s culture wars, and while wanting to 'hook' into recent headlines is reasonable, someone like you should be careful what you may be accidentally celebrating, accidentally encouraging, or the mirage of positive attitude changes you may think is happening, which isn't...
But "lifted ALL boats"?? This is not the Richard Heinberg I've known and admired...he knows better than to say such utter falsehoods...not one of your better pieces...
Are we out of Options?
From: Nana Twum, Feb 16, 2009 06:27 AM
Living on a farm will be far better than living in the city in the short to medium term (5 - 15 years). However, as the cities start to collapse and law and order breaks down then god help all of us. Those of us living on farms will need the protection of some warlord or gang leader to enable us keep what we have in farm produce (at least some of it). And who will protect the water? The same warlord or gang leader.
when this population bomb goes off, Somalia will look like a walk in the park!!! the bushmen of the khalahari with their sip wells hidden deep in the desert sands will be in paradise!!! They have learnt to live without much in a place few can survive.
Our best option is to come up with a new vision (as Ishmael) advises.
Zero-Sum Game
From: Caren Black, Feb 15, 2009 05:05 PM
"...the sacredness of unlimited fertility (and the corresponding proof-of-masculinity afforded by the siring of many offspring"
Women, too, can feel the need to reproduce to "prove" their femininity. This "sacredness", this defense of gender, this need to "prove oneself" is part-and-parcel of Empire's Hierarchy. Fear, competition, imposed "sacredness," forced belief systems (and language), male over female, rich over poor, white over color. Empire's time, however, I believe is finally over. I hope we've reached Peak Hierarchy.
As David Korten advocates, we need to turn toward a cooperation-based, earth-centered (rather than money-centered), egalitarian life system.
Fortunately, we have precedents, though we have to go back 5000 years in Western culture to find them, when the female was (as) divine (as the male). (Merlin Stone, Riane Eisler, et al) Or, we can find models in more recent Indigenous cultures. Either way, we must have within us primal memories of managing our world differently.
I know Richard is aware of all this. I hope we will include these ideas in the reassessments and changes he advocates. For, we cannot create a new way while standing in the old one. We must let go.
Oil drives everything including population growth
From: John Mack, Feb 15, 2009 02:13 PM
The abundance of oil in the past is, I believe, what drove the tremendous population growth of the past 2 centuries, as many others have concluded. As this energy source becomes scarcer, it will necessarily put pressure on society to have smaller families. It's interesting how I first became acquainted with Peak Oil. I saw an interview on TV a year ago of Representative Roscoe Bartlett where he was discussing the impending peaking of global oil production. At first I was alarmed but then I asked myself, "Why aren't other people talking about this serious problem if in fact what Rep. Bartlett is saying is true?" I then dismissed Rep. Bartlett's warning because I didn't see anyone else discussing it. It never occurred to me that a whole society could be in a state of denial about such a momentous problem. Only when oil prices went to $147/barrel did I realize that society in general was simply in denial about Peak Oil -- and still is, incredibly enough.
Zero-sum game
From: acerbas, Feb 13, 2009 11:29 AM
Can you say overshoot? Several years ago Richard called attention to a marvelous book by that title published almost 30 years ago. The human population had overshot the planetary carrying capacity then, and is in even deeper doo-doo now. Those rural folk will have help aplenty raising crops without any need to contribute to the longage of people, there will be a massive exodus from the cropless, waterless cities, and the farmers will have to worry about defending their turf. There will be widespread starvation, and I wonder whether it will come down to dining on one's progeny, as happened in rural China during "the Great Leap Forward." I'm glad that I am of an age where I will be gone before the worst effects are felt, and I hope that my son, now in his mid-forties, conceived before I read Ehrlich and got my tubes cut, will be able to cope. He is pretty smart, good with tools, and resourceful, so I think he has a chance. My stepdaughter, the lawyer, on the hand, also in her forties, conceived twins via in vitro fertilization two years ago, and I am afraid those kids are just up the creek without a paddle. Will they have to eat bark off the trees like the North Korean peasants did during their great starvation?
Sanity will require...
From: Matt Holbert, Feb 13, 2009 09:39 AM
Anonymous says: "those rural families will have the 8 child families and will be able to justify and feed them"
So long as there is an unemployed population in the cities, it will not make sense to breed and feed young workers on the farm. It makes more sense to bring the unemployed to the farm. This can be done in many ways, but with a little creativity it can be done in a way that brings joy to all those involved.
Fertility motivations
From: Nurdbahl, Feb 12, 2009 06:25 PM
In "Depletion and Abundance" Sharon Astyk argues that fertility is inversely proportional to security and she provides good references to support this. While economics, religion, food availability and government attitudes do pay a role, the key determinant of births per capita has always been the degree of perceived security in the future. Having more kids is one of the few things people can do to (try to) offset their poverty. So, will this play out during the current economic slide? Could we actually see a bump in births when the logical course would be to reduce the number?
Perhaps we need to focus on redefining "security" and "prosperity". If we look to our Wall street jobs and our bank accounts to provide these, we will surely be disappointed. We can lessen the impact by cultivating a sense of security that comes from self-sufficiency. The more we rely on our own skills, neighbors and local production, the less we’ll fear the meltdown of the current money economy.
In the short and medium term
From: Anonymous, Feb 12, 2009 04:09 PM
In the short and medium term the population crisis will be tremendously pronounced. I should think many former specialists and factory workers will become compelled to become farmers or share croppers depending on their means to obtain land. In the longer term those rural families will have the 8 child families and will be able to justify and feed them, the rest society and the world will have to make do with one or none I fear.