This is the version of a paper that I gave to a reunion of former graduate students, which corresponded to the time of my retirement from the University of Oregon.
(The original figures were presented as overhead transparencies which no longer exist. Most of the figures are the same as the transparencies; however some are as near as possible to the originals.)
October 1993
I want to offer my thanks to you all for coming to this fourth reunion of Oregon geographers. I am please that there are so many more of us to unite than there were in 1977 at our first reunion. Since then the faculty has greatly changed–but I can assure you it continues the traditions of friendship, collegiality and concerns for the world in which we directly experience our lives. I wish that my talk was as pleasant as this gathering has been. It’s not, but I present it with good spirit and personal good feelings about our ability to face the future.
GEOGRAPHY OVERTAKES HISTORY
Several months ago, Ev (Smith) wanted a title for this talk. I didn’t have a clue as to what I should say, but I did have a vague idea in the back of my mind that the lessons of history– whatever they may be–were becoming less relevant than those of geography; thus the title. Now several months later, I have to give some body to a vague flicker of a thought. Well here it goes on a very serious attempt to flesh out that idea.
In a world in which population, hunger, migration and the consumption of energy and matter–fresh water, oil and gas, food crops, gravel, wood products–are all growing exponentially from already huge bases, the unexpected and unpredictable consequences in terms of landscapes–physical and built worlds– of social institutions, and of the spiritual glue that holds them together in our minds, will burst forth in ways and at magnitudes unparalleled in the past. No historic lesson is adequate to the scale and to the sort of changes that will soon be upon us.
History’s role has been to organize the thoughts of the modern world. Historic events have focused on changes in the times and in the fortunes of the mostly powerful people who have been responsible for expanding the ecumene–the universal world. Conquests of land and people, and especially of cultural and societal institutions have been well chronicled. But recently, the ecumene has been abstracted into quantifiable measures of markets, trade, production, consumption, jobs, etc. It has also been filled with either masses of increasingly affluent consumers or billions of people who are barely surviving. Both groups are pressing earthly limits, which may not be extended even with increasing efficiencies (however defined) and new technologies.
Paralleling history, geography has described geographic events which focus on lands and landscapes of the expanding ecumene–mostly from the universalizing European perspective of growth and progress. Few moderns, including geographers, have been interested in the Earth except as it is ultimately a source or resource for the immediate use of humans. Even those natural historians who have had a strong literary bent, mostly took a utilitarian approach to the Earth. Europeans and North Americans in particular have imposed their ideas with great success because they were coercively powerful–they had the congeries of capitalism, industrialism, science and technology which enabled them not only to conquer peoples and territories but literally to break into the earth in disrespectful and profane ways. Only rarely did they consider themselves to be stewards of the earth let alone linking themselves to gestalts of the earth in a spirit of deep connection or intimate relationship. These dominant geographical views have remained politically correct for decades: they simply support the dominant European/American thoughts about humans as occupiers of the earth, controlling private or national territory from which they could appropriate wealth.
But unlike history, Geography also harbors a traditional concern for events of an earth community of which humans were merely one element in an infinite physical geography. I think this geographic perspective is based on a heightened awareness both of elements of the physical world, considered at a human scale, and of landscapes that have been increasingly altered by the very processes of modern expansion. It has made at least some geographers aware of the conquest and destructive exploitation of the organic and inorganic worlds.
I suggest that now for the sake of the health of both humanity and the Earth, this minority tradition of geography must replace the progressive and evolutionary political and economic concerns that have dominated the thought of most modern historians and human geographers.
The concerns of history and of the spatial, political and economic traditions of geography which have followed the general spirit of Western society, must largely be replaced by our environmental geographic tradition because we Europeanized humans and those who have come to mimic or adopt many of our ways must be concerned for our very survival if not as a species, then as members of sustaining and stable cultures or societies. Continued growth, progress, change, and greater consumption of earthly products, I believe, will ultimately fail to provide a healthy existence for today’s nearly six billion inhabitants and their descendants. Yes indeed, I am a Malthusian of sorts. I firmly believe that we are deluding ourselves with optimistic assumptions first, that world population growth will level out and stabilize in the next century when every society becomes industrialized and every family adopts birth tactics that result in fewer children or second, that the planet’s carrying capacity will expand to meet the increasing needs of all of the Earth’s new inhabitants.
I believe that population growth and carrying capacity are central to the environmental tradition of geography. The historical and spatial traditions of geography, I think, are just reflections of a particular period in human/earth bonding and that they can no longer adequately serve to inform our actions.
I want to look at worldwide population growth at several scales to help make my point. [Figure 1] First let’s look at the long course of humans on earth. I care not whether we start with Australopithecine’s, Homo erectus, or Homo sapiens–2 millions years ago, 350,000 years ago, or 30,000 years ago. For the sake of my overhead transparencies, let’s look at the growth of population from say 20,000 years ago to the end of this decade.
Figure 1
The first part of this period–and extending into the distance past– was a time in which humans continued to gain culture–language, religion, art, dance, rituals, and small social groupings, but because of limited numbers and a limited technology of breaking into the earth itself, did little to disrupt the evolutionary and major ecological systems of the earth. I do not want to glorify the human experience of those thousands of years nor try to make this world seem romantic to our eyes. Nevertheless, it was a period when the earth and its human societies were sustainable for far longer periods than the historic societies, polities, and economies of modern times.
The last 2500 years saw the rise of historic events. Histories of the conquest of the earth by farmers, adventurers, explorers, traders, warriors, missionaries, capitalists mark our view of this period. It is a time when humans became aware of overcoming space, territory, and environmental resistances through the use of powerful machines, which were, according to Lewis Mumford, at first based strictly on organizing human labor and only later dependent on inventions made of earthly matter and fueled by the earth’s stored energy. [Figure 2] Populations responded with exponential growth that continues today. With ever increasing power, machines have been so successful in disrupting the very fabric of the land, air and waters of the earth that with some truth it may be said that no part of the earth is now completely natural. I think the chroniclers of the last five thousand years, including those of the last fifty, could not foretell, indeed may still not realize that the success of the mission that they have narrated so well can only end with planet earth whose landscapes are so changed as to become unrecognizable even to those currently living on earth. The concentration of solar power into human institutions and the breaking into the earth’s crust allowed the population to explode
Figure 2
Even with declining rates of population increase, the earth’s still exponentially growing numbers can no longer be accommodated by foods grown on new agricultural lands [which are not growing exponentially] or even by food supplies which are based on ever-increasing use of energy and water. I will return to this later. But let’s now look at these changes at a more personalized scale. [Figure 3]
Figure 3
I can gain perspective about the transition from the importance of an historical view of the world to an environmental one by using the recent genealogy of my branch of the Clan Urquhart as my base. My great-great grandfather, Donald, was born in Scotland in 1800 and died in 1860. His son John was born in 1820 and lived 76 years until 1896. My grandfather Robert was born in Canada in 1868 and died in 1950. My father Orin was born in 1901 in Oregon and died two years ago in 1991. I was born in 1931 and if I live as long as my parents, I will live at least until 2021. My daughter Sarah was born in 1964 and with the same genetic life expectancy could easily live until 2050. And my grandson, Christopher with a similar life expectancy might still be around in 2075. So here are seven generation of Urquharts spanning 275 years. (What a short bit of human population history, yet I have known members of five of those generations.]
OK–here’s the population growth curve of the first 250 years [1800-2050] of those seven generations. The world’s population had not yet reached its first billion when great-great grandfather Donald was born and yet even then (1800) the population was twice that of 1600 and about four times that of a thousand years earlier. By the time of my great grandfather John migrated to Nova Scotia and on to Ontario from Scotland, maybe 40 % more people were alive than when his father was born. Those 400 million are more people than lived on earth at any time before the 15th century. No wonder my relatives migrated from the overpopulated, marginal lands of the Scottish highlands. And yet another 400 million people were alive on earth when my grandfather worked his way from Canada to Wisconsin and the across the US, finally settling in Oregon shortly before my Dad was born in 1901. By the time my younger sister was born in 1927 there were 2 Billion people on earth–twice as many as when great-great grandfather Donald was a boy. When in the early 1940s I first entertained myself by reading the World Almanac, and the Hammonds Atlas of the World, the earth’s population was about 2.3 Billion people. This over two-fold increase in population in only 140 years reflects the Urquhart family’s demographics well. In Scotland, later Canada and the U.S., the Urquharts had experienced steadily improving health and longevity. [ 60 years for my great, great grandfather, 76 years for his son, 82 years for my granddad and 90 years for my dad.] And the birth patterns also reflected the times. [My Great grandfather had 9 children, my grandfather 6, my father 3 and my two sisters and I had 10 baby booming children among the three of us.] Thus the Urquharts paralleled Euro-American population movement through the demographic transition, and into nearly stable populations of the 1930s, and on to the unexpected baby-booming years through 1964. When, as a young college student in the 1950s, I read that the population might actually reach 3.6 Billion by the end of the century, I became alarmed because I remembered stories of the Dust Bowl and of overpopulated lands. But even as public health improved drastically in many parts of the world and the death rate declined everywhere–even unexpectedly in Africa–and the post war baby boomers came along, experts assured us that the earth could accommodate the increased mouths to feed with increased yields from the Green revolution (with hybrid corn leading the way). Birth rates in 3rd World countries would follow the demographic transition of the West and assumed economic growth would be followed by a drop in birthrates as they had in industrialized Europe and the U. S. As expected the annual growth rate for the world’s population has declined from the late 1970s when it peaked at about
1.9 % to today when it is about 1.8 %. Note however that it was even lower, about 1.7 %, in the early ’80s. At present the world’s population is increasing by about 94 million each year [the total world population about time of the rise of Athens to greatness.]
But wait a minute; let ‘s forget temporarily about these deceptively small percentage increases and look at the demographers’ predictions made during and immediately after WW II. [Figure 4] The immediate post-war projections underestimated the probable numbers of the earth’s human inhabitants for the year 2000 by 2.7 Billion people, which is more than double the population of 1950 when 3.6 Billion rather than 6.3 Billion were projected–a prediction error about 75% lower than what we can quite safely predict today. Do you have faith in today’s projections?
Figure 4 Figure 5
Let’s look at the current projections of the World Bank and the United Nations which are blithely extended until 2150. {And to think Malthus was alive 160 years ago.} [Figure 5] First let’s note some of the assumptions: that longevity will increase; there will be a decline in fertility with accelerated family planing; and that birth rates in the developing countries will slowly decline to replacement level sometime in the mid 21st Century as these nations industrialize and urbanize . The medium estimate (with an ultimate TFR of 2.06 to be attained in about 2105] is even higher than the 1980 UN estimate which assumed a slightly higher ultimate TFR of 2.07. [11. 5 billion as opposed to 10.1 billion] Assuming an ultimate TFR of merely 2.17 would mean that the projected population of 2150 would be 20.7 billion. [The current US TFR is about 2.1.] Thus if the TFR of the US was attained by all countries in the world by about 2105, the world’s projected population would be over 12 billion. Incidentally, if the current fertility persisted unchanged–the absurdly high number of 694.2 billion would be projected for 2150. It is further assumed that international migration (except between the US and Mexico) will largely stop and maybe most important of all assumptions: that there will be steady socio- economic growth throughout the world throughout the period.
What is the value of these projections? I think it is to show that neither history nor old geography can be our guide. Furthermore that neither the exploitation of the earth’s non-human creatures, matter, and energy nor the steadily increasing development of new technologies can be projected to accommodate the projected increased populations. Unless there are completely unforeseen developments, [events we might label miracles] the per capita availability of land, food, water, and concentrated energy will decline. Lester Brown and the Worldwatch Institute and Donella Meadows are currently chronicling these declines.
So what! Unlike the bland hopes of the UN or Word Bank demographers and even the unsupported assertion of the World watch Institute, I predict that, unless something completely unforeseen by any major influential institution arises to change the course of events, the world is headed for social, political, economic, cultural, and physical disruptions at a scale unprecedented in world history.
The population projections, which are abstract, aseptic, generally upbeat, and little concerned with global or regional ecology are not predictions, and probably are no better help to us than those projections made in estimating population only 40-50 years ago. It is far easier and certainly much more politically upbeat to predict a population that continues to grow and to assume that there will be greater longevity, better health, and greater economic prosperity throughout the world than to assume that there will be more famines, wars, national jealousies, ethnic conflicts, and greater disparities in social and physical welfare among large groups of people, any one of which might result in a decline in population . Of course these events are not amenable to trend line projections because they are unpredictable in both time and place.
However, I believe that we must think not of a world of increasing peace–such as we have experienced generally in the last 50 years, but a world of increasing conflict–of increasing problems such as famine and strife in Somalia, ethnic warfare in Bosnia, the floods of Bangladesh, the flow of unwanted refugees from many troubled spots of the world. I don’t believe that a GATT agreement, the approval of NAFTA , further jargon about sustainable development, nor the development of cheap solar energy will avert human tragedies from unfolding, unpredictably in the century ahead.
Let me show you what I worry about with yet another look at a population projection of Urquharts. If I live to be 90 like my father and mother I may squeak by the worst of the doom I see ahead. Denial may still get me through. Maybe the United States will be able to isolate itself from some of the problems and continue to overexploit earthly resources simply because it is powerful economically and martially. Maybe all Americans can survive a while longer through denial. [I selfishly still have hopes that my retirement will be enjoyable without too many great readjustments. You know what I mean–I, like you, want to plan to have a garden and a house, do some traveling, eat good food and have family and friends who lead healthy lives. Modest by our present expectations–but wildly generous by world standards of the next century.]
But what of my daughters, if they have a 90 year life span, and my grandchildren whom I should hope will still be alive in 2050 when the population of the world is projected to be somewhere between the unrealistically low figure of nearly 8 billion people to the equally unrealistic high figure of 21 billion. The low figure is based on an ultimate world TFR of 1.70. The high figure is a projection of the current fertility trends. Still 8 Billion people is twice that of1974 and 21 billion is almost more than 4 times the current population. 10 billion is the “medium” projection used most frequently in speaking of population projections, simply because it is somewhere in between. I think that a world of merely 10 billion, can only be filled with unresolved conflicts that will result in famine, war, refugees, and economic and social hardships in many parts of the world, if we humans continue to base our behavior on the lessons of history, of the lessons of current land use, of the lessons of our parents’ and our own lives. These lessons of history and of traditional geography have got us where we are today. Only if we look at the world as being limited can we even see the major problems ahead let alone begin to work on them effectively.
Let me just indicate a few sets of statistics to support my conjectures.[Figure 6] The first is of soil degradation. Ignoring all previous soil degradation prior to 1945, the Global Assessment of Soil Degradation indicates that worldwide, 17% of the vegetated lands of the globe have been degraded in the last 45 years, 10% of them moderately, severely, or extremely so. The least degradation was noted for Anglo America, the most for Mexico and Central America. But 1970 estimates should put that seemingly bright picture into perspective.
Figure 6
Figure 7
Second, let’s look at the change in grain production per capita. [Figure 7] Note that in Africa, with the highest rates of population increase, the pe rcapita grain production is falling from an already low level. In the Near East and Latin America, grain production has, until now, kept up with population growth. Per capita production is increasing in the Far East–from a relatively low base. In Europe, with high agricultural subsidies and low population growth rates, grain production per capita is increasing and in the US and Canada the peak may have been reached. Of course much of this high production goes to other parts of the world in the form of exports which fill in the gaps between production and consumption.
. Let’s also look at basic resources per person in terms of land areas devoted to grains, irrigation, forest, and grazing. [Figure 8] In all of these categories, per capita amounts are decreasing. [Figure 9] Only with increased inputs or efficiencies can these lands keep up with population growth. (Figure 10-Omitted)
Figure 8 Figure 9
When we turn to energy use–the source of much of the inputs for greater production–we see that the use of fossil fuels continues its upward exponential climb on a worldwide bases.
Let’s look at Urquharts again. [Figure 11] But I believe that King Hubert was correct in his modeling of production and consumption. [Figure 12]And surely there is a very close relationship between population growth and energy consumption. If population continues to grow but fossil fuels decrease, I think we may fall into greater disorder than was created by the growth in fossil fuel use in the past 150 years. And what are the implications for the 7 generations of Urquharts if we are at or near the peak of production in this decade?
Figure 11
Figure 12
Putting population figures into the equation alongside of the indicators of food per capita, energy consumption per capita, and soil degradation, sustainability of the earth is possible only with one of three, equally unlikely alternatives: the rapid lowering of populations to less than replacement levels–either through dramatic increases in birth control or through a much higher death rate; the continuation of technological innovation in food production at a much faster rate than at present (and this can only offer a temporary respite); or some combination of the first two with increased soil restoration and a new and less polluting source of energy with which to power the massive work of reorienting the world to greater efficiencies, and the restoration of clean air, water, land and habitats for life.
Where does geography come into the picture? Geographers or someone else practicing geography must look at the world as a giant ecosystem, as a series of regional ecosystems, and as local ecosystems, all of which include humans as the most active manipulators of natural communities which were the result of millions of years of evolution and adjustments to changing physical forces. To get back to the title of this talk, History can not remain our guide because it has recorded humans as overpowerers of our natural world as well as of other humans. It has been part of the humanistic traditions whidh hav glorified men above all other creatures. We geographers of all academics, must recognize the absolute necessity of trying to maintain stability of places. And to follow our recognition of past changes and the need for stable ecosystems, we must become leaders in initiating radical changes aiming at stability in every community, state, or nation. I think that the very least we geographers can do is to ask the question of every action, “does this lead towards a more stable world, not only for us humans directly, but for all life forms and habitats?” We cannot use the historic past as our compass. It leads us to value instability. I believe that only in asking this crucial question can the miracles happen that must happen if our children and grandchildren are to attain lasting health. Otherwise, the burgeoning human population will be forced to participate in disasters and tragedies–both human and natural–at a scale never before even imagined. You may get hints of the potential problems, if not disasters that may occur, if you look at the population projections for just a few countries of the world. Just look at the yearly increases that must be accommodated in China and India; of the dramatic increases in Nigeria and Kenya and on already overworked land where ethnic conflict lies latent; of Mexico which already shows severe signs of soil degradation; of Somalia, Iraq and Egypt; of Israel and its Arab neighbors.
Aren’t all of these area of great potential tragedies unless population stops growing? And from our experiences in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Mexico, we know that the US has to take part in these events.
I enjoy life tremendously. I have no answers except to be an environmentally focused geographer–even in retirement–who knows the direction he thinks the world must go if we are to continue to experience a healthy life of talking, dancing, singing, loving, playing, eating, and moving through rich, diverse, and beautiful landscapes. Must not we devote ourselves to preserving all remaining wild lands, restoring degraded lands, building wildness into our urban experiences and acting with modesty, humility and restraint as we enjoy the glory of the privileged lives and landscapes that have graced our existence.
This is the version of a paper that I gave to a reunion of former graduate students, which corresponded to the time of my retirement from the University of Oregon.
(The original figures were presented as overhead transparencies which no longer exist. Most of the figures are the same as the transparencies; however some are as near as possible to the originals.)
October 1993
I want to offer my thanks to you all for coming to this fourth reunion of Oregon geographers. I am please that there are so many more of us to unite than there were in 1977 at our first reunion. Since then the faculty has greatly changed–but I can assure you it continues the traditions of friendship, collegiality and concerns for the world in which we directly experience our lives. I wish that my talk was as pleasant as this gathering has been. It’s not, but I present it with good spirit and personal good feelings about our ability to face the future.
GEOGRAPHY OVERTAKES HISTORY
Several months ago, Ev (Smith) wanted a title for this talk. I didn’t have a clue as to what I should say, but I did have a vague idea in the back of my mind that the lessons of history– whatever they may be–were becoming less relevant than those of geography; thus the title. Now several months later, I have to give some body to a vague flicker of a thought. Well here it goes on a very serious attempt to flesh out that idea.
In a world in which population, hunger, migration and the consumption of energy and matter–fresh water, oil and gas, food crops, gravel, wood products–are all growing exponentially from already huge bases, the unexpected and unpredictable consequences in terms of landscapes–physical and built worlds– of social institutions, and of the spiritual glue that holds them together in our minds, will burst forth in ways and at magnitudes unparalleled in the past. No historic lesson is adequate to the scale and to the sort of changes that will soon be upon us.
History’s role has been to organize the thoughts of the modern world. Historic events have focused on changes in the times and in the fortunes of the mostly powerful people who have been responsible for expanding the ecumene–the universal world. Conquests of land and people, and especially of cultural and societal institutions have been well chronicled. But recently, the ecumene has been abstracted into quantifiable measures of markets, trade, production, consumption, jobs, etc. It has also been filled with either masses of increasingly affluent consumers or billions of people who are barely surviving. Both groups are pressing earthly limits, which may not be extended even with increasing efficiencies (however defined) and new technologies.
Paralleling history, geography has described geographic events which focus on lands and landscapes of the expanding ecumene–mostly from the universalizing European perspective of growth and progress. Few moderns, including geographers, have been interested in the Earth except as it is ultimately a source or resource for the immediate use of humans. Even those natural historians who have had a strong literary bent, mostly took a utilitarian approach to the Earth. Europeans and North Americans in particular have imposed their ideas with great success because they were coercively powerful–they had the congeries of capitalism, industrialism, science and technology which enabled them not only to conquer peoples and territories but literally to break into the earth in disrespectful and profane ways. Only rarely did they consider themselves to be stewards of the earth let alone linking themselves to gestalts of the earth in a spirit of deep connection or intimate relationship. These dominant geographical views have remained politically correct for decades: they simply support the dominant European/American thoughts about humans as occupiers of the earth, controlling private or national territory from which they could appropriate wealth.
But unlike history, Geography also harbors a traditional concern for events of an earth community of which humans were merely one element in an infinite physical geography. I think this geographic perspective is based on a heightened awareness both of elements of the physical world, considered at a human scale, and of landscapes that have been increasingly altered by the very processes of modern expansion. It has made at least some geographers aware of the conquest and destructive exploitation of the organic and inorganic worlds.
I suggest that now for the sake of the health of both humanity and the Earth, this minority tradition of geography must replace the progressive and evolutionary political and economic concerns that have dominated the thought of most modern historians and human geographers.
The concerns of history and of the spatial, political and economic traditions of geography which have followed the general spirit of Western society, must largely be replaced by our environmental geographic tradition because we Europeanized humans and those who have come to mimic or adopt many of our ways must be concerned for our very survival if not as a species, then as members of sustaining and stable cultures or societies. Continued growth, progress, change, and greater consumption of earthly products, I believe, will ultimately fail to provide a healthy existence for today’s nearly six billion inhabitants and their descendants. Yes indeed, I am a Malthusian of sorts. I firmly believe that we are deluding ourselves with optimistic assumptions first, that world population growth will level out and stabilize in the next century when every society becomes industrialized and every family adopts birth tactics that result in fewer children or second, that the planet’s carrying capacity will expand to meet the increasing needs of all of the Earth’s new inhabitants.
I believe that population growth and carrying capacity are central to the environmental tradition of geography. The historical and spatial traditions of geography, I think, are just reflections of a particular period in human/earth bonding and that they can no longer adequately serve to inform our actions.
I want to look at worldwide population growth at several scales to help make my point. [Figure 1] First let’s look at the long course of humans on earth. I care not whether we start with Australopithecine’s, Homo erectus, or Homo sapiens–2 millions years ago, 350,000 years ago, or 30,000 years ago. For the sake of my overhead transparencies, let’s look at the growth of population from say 20,000 years ago to the end of this decade.
Figure 1
The first part of this period–and extending into the distance past– was a time in which humans continued to gain culture–language, religion, art, dance, rituals, and small social groupings, but because of limited numbers and a limited technology of breaking into the earth itself, did little to disrupt the evolutionary and major ecological systems of the earth. I do not want to glorify the human experience of those thousands of years nor try to make this world seem romantic to our eyes. Nevertheless, it was a period when the earth and its human societies were sustainable for far longer periods than the historic societies, polities, and economies of modern times.
The last 2500 years saw the rise of historic events. Histories of the conquest of the earth by farmers, adventurers, explorers, traders, warriors, missionaries, capitalists mark our view of this period. It is a time when humans became aware of overcoming space, territory, and environmental resistances through the use of powerful machines, which were, according to Lewis Mumford, at first based strictly on organizing human labor and only later dependent on inventions made of earthly matter and fueled by the earth’s stored energy. [Figure 2] Populations responded with exponential growth that continues today. With ever increasing power, machines have been so successful in disrupting the very fabric of the land, air and waters of the earth that with some truth it may be said that no part of the earth is now completely natural. I think the chroniclers of the last five thousand years, including those of the last fifty, could not foretell, indeed may still not realize that the success of the mission that they have narrated so well can only end with planet earth whose landscapes are so changed as to become unrecognizable even to those currently living on earth. The concentration of solar power into human institutions and the breaking into the earth’s crust allowed the population to explode
Figure 2
Even with declining rates of population increase, the earth’s still exponentially growing numbers can no longer be accommodated by foods grown on new agricultural lands [which are not growing exponentially] or even by food supplies which are based on ever-increasing use of energy and water. I will return to this later. But let’s now look at these changes at a more personalized scale. [Figure 3]
Figure 3
I can gain perspective about the transition from the importance of an historical view of the world to an environmental one by using the recent genealogy of my branch of the Clan Urquhart as my base. My great-great grandfather, Donald, was born in Scotland in 1800 and died in 1860. His son John was born in 1820 and lived 76 years until 1896. My grandfather Robert was born in Canada in 1868 and died in 1950. My father Orin was born in 1901 in Oregon and died two years ago in 1991. I was born in 1931 and if I live as long as my parents, I will live at least until 2021. My daughter Sarah was born in 1964 and with the same genetic life expectancy could easily live until 2050. And my grandson, Christopher with a similar life expectancy might still be around in 2075. So here are seven generation of Urquharts spanning 275 years. (What a short bit of human population history, yet I have known members of five of those generations.]
OK–here’s the population growth curve of the first 250 years [1800-2050] of those seven generations. The world’s population had not yet reached its first billion when great-great grandfather Donald was born and yet even then (1800) the population was twice that of 1600 and about four times that of a thousand years earlier. By the time of my great grandfather John migrated to Nova Scotia and on to Ontario from Scotland, maybe 40 % more people were alive than when his father was born. Those 400 million are more people than lived on earth at any time before the 15th century. No wonder my relatives migrated from the overpopulated, marginal lands of the Scottish highlands. And yet another 400 million people were alive on earth when my grandfather worked his way from Canada to Wisconsin and the across the US, finally settling in Oregon shortly before my Dad was born in 1901. By the time my younger sister was born in 1927 there were 2 Billion people on earth–twice as many as when great-great grandfather Donald was a boy. When in the early 1940s I first entertained myself by reading the World Almanac, and the Hammonds Atlas of the World, the earth’s population was about 2.3 Billion people. This over two-fold increase in population in only 140 years reflects the Urquhart family’s demographics well. In Scotland, later Canada and the U.S., the Urquharts had experienced steadily improving health and longevity. [ 60 years for my great, great grandfather, 76 years for his son, 82 years for my granddad and 90 years for my dad.] And the birth patterns also reflected the times. [My Great grandfather had 9 children, my grandfather 6, my father 3 and my two sisters and I had 10 baby booming children among the three of us.] Thus the Urquharts paralleled Euro-American population movement through the demographic transition, and into nearly stable populations of the 1930s, and on to the unexpected baby-booming years through 1964. When, as a young college student in the 1950s, I read that the population might actually reach 3.6 Billion by the end of the century, I became alarmed because I remembered stories of the Dust Bowl and of overpopulated lands. But even as public health improved drastically in many parts of the world and the death rate declined everywhere–even unexpectedly in Africa–and the post war baby boomers came along, experts assured us that the earth could accommodate the increased mouths to feed with increased yields from the Green revolution (with hybrid corn leading the way). Birth rates in 3rd World countries would follow the demographic transition of the West and assumed economic growth would be followed by a drop in birthrates as they had in industrialized Europe and the U. S. As expected the annual growth rate for the world’s population has declined from the late 1970s when it peaked at about
1.9 % to today when it is about 1.8 %. Note however that it was even lower, about 1.7 %, in the early ’80s. At present the world’s population is increasing by about 94 million each year [the total world population about time of the rise of Athens to greatness.]
But wait a minute; let ‘s forget temporarily about these deceptively small percentage increases and look at the demographers’ predictions made during and immediately after WW II. [Figure 4] The immediate post-war projections underestimated the probable numbers of the earth’s human inhabitants for the year 2000 by 2.7 Billion people, which is more than double the population of 1950 when 3.6 Billion rather than 6.3 Billion were projected–a prediction error about 75% lower than what we can quite safely predict today. Do you have faith in today’s projections?
Figure 4 Figure 5
Let’s look at the current projections of the World Bank and the United Nations which are blithely extended until 2150. {And to think Malthus was alive 160 years ago.} [Figure 5] First let’s note some of the assumptions: that longevity will increase; there will be a decline in fertility with accelerated family planing; and that birth rates in the developing countries will slowly decline to replacement level sometime in the mid 21st Century as these nations industrialize and urbanize . The medium estimate (with an ultimate TFR of 2.06 to be attained in about 2105] is even higher than the 1980 UN estimate which assumed a slightly higher ultimate TFR of 2.07. [11. 5 billion as opposed to 10.1 billion] Assuming an ultimate TFR of merely 2.17 would mean that the projected population of 2150 would be 20.7 billion. [The current US TFR is about 2.1.] Thus if the TFR of the US was attained by all countries in the world by about 2105, the world’s projected population would be over 12 billion. Incidentally, if the current fertility persisted unchanged–the absurdly high number of 694.2 billion would be projected for 2150. It is further assumed that international migration (except between the US and Mexico) will largely stop and maybe most important of all assumptions: that there will be steady socio- economic growth throughout the world throughout the period.
What is the value of these projections? I think it is to show that neither history nor old geography can be our guide. Furthermore that neither the exploitation of the earth’s non-human creatures, matter, and energy nor the steadily increasing development of new technologies can be projected to accommodate the projected increased populations. Unless there are completely unforeseen developments, [events we might label miracles] the per capita availability of land, food, water, and concentrated energy will decline. Lester Brown and the Worldwatch Institute and Donella Meadows are currently chronicling these declines.
So what! Unlike the bland hopes of the UN or Word Bank demographers and even the unsupported assertion of the World watch Institute, I predict that, unless something completely unforeseen by any major influential institution arises to change the course of events, the world is headed for social, political, economic, cultural, and physical disruptions at a scale unprecedented in world history.
The population projections, which are abstract, aseptic, generally upbeat, and little concerned with global or regional ecology are not predictions, and probably are no better help to us than those projections made in estimating population only 40-50 years ago. It is far easier and certainly much more politically upbeat to predict a population that continues to grow and to assume that there will be greater longevity, better health, and greater economic prosperity throughout the world than to assume that there will be more famines, wars, national jealousies, ethnic conflicts, and greater disparities in social and physical welfare among large groups of people, any one of which might result in a decline in population . Of course these events are not amenable to trend line projections because they are unpredictable in both time and place.
However, I believe that we must think not of a world of increasing peace–such as we have experienced generally in the last 50 years, but a world of increasing conflict–of increasing problems such as famine and strife in Somalia, ethnic warfare in Bosnia, the floods of Bangladesh, the flow of unwanted refugees from many troubled spots of the world. I don’t believe that a GATT agreement, the approval of NAFTA , further jargon about sustainable development, nor the development of cheap solar energy will avert human tragedies from unfolding, unpredictably in the century ahead.
Let me show you what I worry about with yet another look at a population projection of Urquharts. If I live to be 90 like my father and mother I may squeak by the worst of the doom I see ahead. Denial may still get me through. Maybe the United States will be able to isolate itself from some of the problems and continue to overexploit earthly resources simply because it is powerful economically and martially. Maybe all Americans can survive a while longer through denial. [I selfishly still have hopes that my retirement will be enjoyable without too many great readjustments. You know what I mean–I, like you, want to plan to have a garden and a house, do some traveling, eat good food and have family and friends who lead healthy lives. Modest by our present expectations–but wildly generous by world standards of the next century.]
But what of my daughters, if they have a 90 year life span, and my grandchildren whom I should hope will still be alive in 2050 when the population of the world is projected to be somewhere between the unrealistically low figure of nearly 8 billion people to the equally unrealistic high figure of 21 billion. The low figure is based on an ultimate world TFR of 1.70. The high figure is a projection of the current fertility trends. Still 8 Billion people is twice that of1974 and 21 billion is almost more than 4 times the current population. 10 billion is the “medium” projection used most frequently in speaking of population projections, simply because it is somewhere in between. I think that a world of merely 10 billion, can only be filled with unresolved conflicts that will result in famine, war, refugees, and economic and social hardships in many parts of the world, if we humans continue to base our behavior on the lessons of history, of the lessons of current land use, of the lessons of our parents’ and our own lives. These lessons of history and of traditional geography have got us where we are today. Only if we look at the world as being limited can we even see the major problems ahead let alone begin to work on them effectively.
Let me just indicate a few sets of statistics to support my conjectures.[Figure 6] The first is of soil degradation. Ignoring all previous soil degradation prior to 1945, the Global Assessment of Soil Degradation indicates that worldwide, 17% of the vegetated lands of the globe have been degraded in the last 45 years, 10% of them moderately, severely, or extremely so. The least degradation was noted for Anglo America, the most for Mexico and Central America. But 1970 estimates should put that seemingly bright picture into perspective.
Figure 6
Figure 7
Second, let’s look at the change in grain production per capita. [Figure 7] Note that in Africa, with the highest rates of population increase, the pe rcapita grain production is falling from an already low level. In the Near East and Latin America, grain production has, until now, kept up with population growth. Per capita production is increasing in the Far East–from a relatively low base. In Europe, with high agricultural subsidies and low population growth rates, grain production per capita is increasing and in the US and Canada the peak may have been reached. Of course much of this high production goes to other parts of the world in the form of exports which fill in the gaps between production and consumption.
. Let’s also look at basic resources per person in terms of land areas devoted to grains, irrigation, forest, and grazing. [Figure 8] In all of these categories, per capita amounts are decreasing. [Figure 9] Only with increased inputs or efficiencies can these lands keep up with population growth. (Figure 10-Omitted)
Figure 8 Figure 9
When we turn to energy use–the source of much of the inputs for greater production–we see that the use of fossil fuels continues its upward exponential climb on a worldwide bases.
Let’s look at Urquharts again. [Figure 11] But I believe that King Hubert was correct in his modeling of production and consumption. [Figure 12]And surely there is a very close relationship between population growth and energy consumption. If population continues to grow but fossil fuels decrease, I think we may fall into greater disorder than was created by the growth in fossil fuel use in the past 150 years. And what are the implications for the 7 generations of Urquharts if we are at or near the peak of production in this decade?
Figure 11
Figure 12
Putting population figures into the equation alongside of the indicators of food per capita, energy consumption per capita, and soil degradation, sustainability of the earth is possible only with one of three, equally unlikely alternatives: the rapid lowering of populations to less than replacement levels–either through dramatic increases in birth control or through a much higher death rate; the continuation of technological innovation in food production at a much faster rate than at present (and this can only offer a temporary respite); or some combination of the first two with increased soil restoration and a new and less polluting source of energy with which to power the massive work of reorienting the world to greater efficiencies, and the restoration of clean air, water, land and habitats for life.
Where does geography come into the picture? Geographers or someone else practicing geography must look at the world as a giant ecosystem, as a series of regional ecosystems, and as local ecosystems, all of which include humans as the most active manipulators of natural communities which were the result of millions of years of evolution and adjustments to changing physical forces. To get back to the title of this talk, History can not remain our guide because it has recorded humans as overpowerers of our natural world as well as of other humans. It has been part of the humanistic traditions whidh hav glorified men above all other creatures. We geographers of all academics, must recognize the absolute necessity of trying to maintain stability of places. And to follow our recognition of past changes and the need for stable ecosystems, we must become leaders in initiating radical changes aiming at stability in every community, state, or nation. I think that the very least we geographers can do is to ask the question of every action, “does this lead towards a more stable world, not only for us humans directly, but for all life forms and habitats?” We cannot use the historic past as our compass. It leads us to value instability. I believe that only in asking this crucial question can the miracles happen that must happen if our children and grandchildren are to attain lasting health. Otherwise, the burgeoning human population will be forced to participate in disasters and tragedies–both human and natural–at a scale never before even imagined. You may get hints of the potential problems, if not disasters that may occur, if you look at the population projections for just a few countries of the world. Just look at the yearly increases that must be accommodated in China and India; of the dramatic increases in Nigeria and Kenya and on already overworked land where ethnic conflict lies latent; of Mexico which already shows severe signs of soil degradation; of Somalia, Iraq and Egypt; of Israel and its Arab neighbors.
Aren’t all of these area of great potential tragedies unless population stops growing? And from our experiences in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Mexico, we know that the US has to take part in these events.
I enjoy life tremendously. I have no answers except to be an environmentally focused geographer–even in retirement–who knows the direction he thinks the world must go if we are to continue to experience a healthy life of talking, dancing, singing, loving, playing, eating, and moving through rich, diverse, and beautiful landscapes. Must not we devote ourselves to preserving all remaining wild lands, restoring degraded lands, building wildness into our urban experiences and acting with modesty, humility and restraint as we enjoy the glory of the privileged lives and landscapes that have graced our existence.