Only 8.8% of the planet's land surface remains covered in dense forest according to the latest study employing advanced satellite imaging. Less than 20% of the original forests remain in large tracts of undisturbed forest. More than 3/4 of those are in three countries, Russia, Canada, and Brazil. When it comes to biodiversity, intact tracts are more important than the same numbers of trees in small patches. That is because many animals and plants require large tracts to survive. Fragmentation, even as simple as cutting a few roads through the forest, is the main factor threatening plants and animals with extinction.
Forest devastation is especially pronounced in easily accessible and inhabitable regions. Temperate broadleaf forests are down to less than 4% of what they were a few centuries ago. Boreal forests in Russia, Canada, and Alaska are among the best preserved mainly because they are the hardest to reach and exploit. Not so with tropical forests. While these are still substantial today, they are shrinking incredibly fast. One estimate says tropical forests will last less than 50 years if present trends continue. One and a half acres disappear every second. Along with 137 species per day.
Just fourteen countries control over 90% of the world's remaining intact forest landscapes. Apart from Russia, Canada, and Brazil, nearly all of these are poor countries with weak or puppet governments that are easily persuaded to wreck havoc with resources in return for some hard cash. And the pressure is very high. Big multi-national corporations control the forest trade. Conservation is not on their agenda. Their CEOs are more worried about their oversized pay and retirement packages and the daily fluctuations of the stock price than about some patch of forest in a far away land.
But there would be no business without demand. Many areas are wiped out to make room for agriculture and cattle farming, read cheap fast food hamburgers. Others are removed to facilitate mining and drilling operations. Yet others are stripped for their exotic hardwoods used to decorate overstuffed McMansions. It is ironic to see how many people grossly overextended themselves to spruce up their homes and buy gadgets they could ill afford using cheap mortgages. Many of these are now about to lose their homes in foreclosures.
But the trouble is a world wide phenomenon. The new economies of China of India are bottomless pits that swallow everything whole. China for example, cuts down 25 million trees a year just for disposable chopsticks in restaurants. The country uses 45 billion pairs of disposable chopsticks each and every year. In the 1980s China became the second largest importer of forest products in the world. Earlier it exported wood but now it is so far down on its own resources that importing is easier.
Russia is its main supplier now, followed by Malaysia. Nearly 40% comes from Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, and other South East Asian nations. 40% of imports are hardwood logs and another 25% are conifer logs. And what does China do with all this wood? It manufactures items for rich countries.
China exports wood products to the US, Japan, Hongkong and South Korea. Nearly all exports are processed wood. A large share is veneers and plywood, but the majority is items such as door, frames, carving products, wood toys and tools, etc. China's export trade is slightly larger than its imports but both have grown from less than $1B in the nineties to over $7B today. And there is no end in sight. As long as people insist on building more and larger homes, demand will continue. For another 50 years or so that is. Because then, there won't be anything left.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Thursday, December 6, 2007
boom and bust
One thing tourists like to do is visit the great monuments of the past. Many see these as accomplishments of human ingenuity and intelligence. The view is especially popular in the West, where history is written in terms of individual achievement. The protagonists of history are exceptional heroes who built large empires and created great wealth. We tend to believe that these empires were the result of a personal vision, a sign of greatness in one or at most a few particularly gifted individuals.
And when it comes to the obvious question as to why these civilizations disappeared we have an easy answer. They were overrun by other even greater men (nearly all are men) who built new and bigger empires. We call this progress. Like the US overtaking "old" Europe, the previous empire. And why did this happen? Because Europe somehow lost its nerve. They no longer have "the Right Stuff." Europeans are set in traditional ways that are no match for Yankee ingenuity and creativity. The Europeans are weak we think, they have succumbed to socialism and other degenerate doctrines. They no longer matter all that much. Progress has passed them by.
(Ironically enough this idea of poisoning is also a popular theory of demise. Countless people have tried to prove that lead poisoning did the Romans in. On a more abstract level, some see decadence, or poisoning of the mind, as the real culprit undermining the empire.)
What is surprisingly absent in this view is the dominant player, i.e. nature. But why is it that we should ignore the most obvious actor? It is not that we do not know about nature, climate, and natural resources. But we see nature as the thing that needs to be conquered. It is the clay that needs to be molded. Greatness is achieved by imposing our rule on nature and subjugating it. That is what our monuments are all about. They are witness to our conquests, our victories over the wild. The supremacy of the mind over matter.
We marvel at the pyramids of Egypt, the Acropolis, the temples of Angkor Wat, the Mayan cities of Tikal, the statues of Easter Island. These are so impressive to us that we often resort to supernatural explanations for their creation. We discuss the mysteries of pyramids, the lost knowledge of Alexandria, the enigma of Easter Island, the secrets of Angkor Wat and Machu Picchu. But the mystery is in the eye of the beholder. We believe it mysterious because we assume that people were more primitive back then. Because in our linear view of history, not only do we get more successful at each step, we also get smarter and more technologically advanced. We evolve. And in our view evolution is linear and ever upward. It may be interrupted, but we never go back.
It never really occurs to us that we may have taken many steps backwards. That we may have lost knowledge. That we may be endlessly repeating the mistakes of the past. That we run around in circles. It never occurs to us that these monuments are more a testimony to failure than to success. That they are like the ghost towns of the West. They show how people were living it up and in the process polluted their environment and outgrew their resources.
The monuments are evidence of massive ecological disasters, in many cases precipitated or encouraged by the very people we think of as heroes. But unlike the dusty ghost towns in the West, these enduring monuments point to civilizations that often survived and thrived for centuries. They were well thought out and well planned. They survived many setbacks and disasters. They had ample time to prepare for the worst and find technological solutions to their problems. And there was no lack of trying. There is plenty of evidence of technological breakthroughs. Some so ingenious we still have not figured out how they worked. But despite all that, these civilizations failed.
This is resource failure on a very grand scale. But it will be nothing compared to our present experiment. Resource depletion and failure on a planetary scale.
And when it comes to the obvious question as to why these civilizations disappeared we have an easy answer. They were overrun by other even greater men (nearly all are men) who built new and bigger empires. We call this progress. Like the US overtaking "old" Europe, the previous empire. And why did this happen? Because Europe somehow lost its nerve. They no longer have "the Right Stuff." Europeans are set in traditional ways that are no match for Yankee ingenuity and creativity. The Europeans are weak we think, they have succumbed to socialism and other degenerate doctrines. They no longer matter all that much. Progress has passed them by.
(Ironically enough this idea of poisoning is also a popular theory of demise. Countless people have tried to prove that lead poisoning did the Romans in. On a more abstract level, some see decadence, or poisoning of the mind, as the real culprit undermining the empire.)
What is surprisingly absent in this view is the dominant player, i.e. nature. But why is it that we should ignore the most obvious actor? It is not that we do not know about nature, climate, and natural resources. But we see nature as the thing that needs to be conquered. It is the clay that needs to be molded. Greatness is achieved by imposing our rule on nature and subjugating it. That is what our monuments are all about. They are witness to our conquests, our victories over the wild. The supremacy of the mind over matter.
We marvel at the pyramids of Egypt, the Acropolis, the temples of Angkor Wat, the Mayan cities of Tikal, the statues of Easter Island. These are so impressive to us that we often resort to supernatural explanations for their creation. We discuss the mysteries of pyramids, the lost knowledge of Alexandria, the enigma of Easter Island, the secrets of Angkor Wat and Machu Picchu. But the mystery is in the eye of the beholder. We believe it mysterious because we assume that people were more primitive back then. Because in our linear view of history, not only do we get more successful at each step, we also get smarter and more technologically advanced. We evolve. And in our view evolution is linear and ever upward. It may be interrupted, but we never go back.
It never really occurs to us that we may have taken many steps backwards. That we may have lost knowledge. That we may be endlessly repeating the mistakes of the past. That we run around in circles. It never occurs to us that these monuments are more a testimony to failure than to success. That they are like the ghost towns of the West. They show how people were living it up and in the process polluted their environment and outgrew their resources.
The monuments are evidence of massive ecological disasters, in many cases precipitated or encouraged by the very people we think of as heroes. But unlike the dusty ghost towns in the West, these enduring monuments point to civilizations that often survived and thrived for centuries. They were well thought out and well planned. They survived many setbacks and disasters. They had ample time to prepare for the worst and find technological solutions to their problems. And there was no lack of trying. There is plenty of evidence of technological breakthroughs. Some so ingenious we still have not figured out how they worked. But despite all that, these civilizations failed.
This is resource failure on a very grand scale. But it will be nothing compared to our present experiment. Resource depletion and failure on a planetary scale.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
dark skies
Flying is seen by many as one of the great triumphs of the 20th century. The wish to take to the skies and fly away is as old as humanity. And these days, people are taking to the skies in droves. The FAA forecast predicts 768 million passengers this year, and more than one billion passengers by 2015. By 2020 the total will reach 1.2 billion. That translates into 81.1 million take-offs, up from 62.5 million today. The growth is equivalent to adding two major metropolitan airports each year for the next 12 years.
Not just more flights and more airline fuel mind you. We also lose land to grow food or sustain trees. Given that some airports are the size of Manhattan that really matters. To say nothing of the surrounding infrastructure that follows. In return for land we get more concrete, more buildings that need round the clock heating and cooling, more parking lots, more cars, and more driving. And that is just for commercial flights. The report also predicts general aviation will increase by 59% by 2020. While the number is much smaller, these guys more than make up for it by their added inefficiency.
According to the FAA, "Aviation is a critical part of our national economy, providing for the movement of people and goods throughout the world, enabling economic growth." It also says that since the 1970's there has been a six-fold increase in the mobility provided by the US transportation system. And during that same time, there was a 60% improvement in aircraft fuel efficiency and a 95% reduction in the number of people impacted by noise.
So all is well it appears. Flying translates to freedom and growth, two key indicators of success, and its astonishing expansion proves as much. And the trend is expected to continue in the near future. Until we hit the wall I suppose. Unlike what they tell you in history classes, humans never seem to learn from their past mistakes. The successive stock market bubbles illustrate that point quite well. Like a stock market bubble this type of growth is not sustainable forever.
Note that the expansion in flying dwarfs the gains in fuel economy. And that has been the story throughout. Fuel efficiency for cars and trucks has also gone up dramatically, but its effect has been totally negative. The supposed gains were more than wiped out by bigger engines and heavier cars. To say nothing of the growth in the number of cars and the number of miles driven. It appears people always want to be somewhere else. What it is they are running towards or away from is anybody's guess. No doubt this restlessness must be due to happiness. Or is it?
Not just more flights and more airline fuel mind you. We also lose land to grow food or sustain trees. Given that some airports are the size of Manhattan that really matters. To say nothing of the surrounding infrastructure that follows. In return for land we get more concrete, more buildings that need round the clock heating and cooling, more parking lots, more cars, and more driving. And that is just for commercial flights. The report also predicts general aviation will increase by 59% by 2020. While the number is much smaller, these guys more than make up for it by their added inefficiency.
According to the FAA, "Aviation is a critical part of our national economy, providing for the movement of people and goods throughout the world, enabling economic growth." It also says that since the 1970's there has been a six-fold increase in the mobility provided by the US transportation system. And during that same time, there was a 60% improvement in aircraft fuel efficiency and a 95% reduction in the number of people impacted by noise.
So all is well it appears. Flying translates to freedom and growth, two key indicators of success, and its astonishing expansion proves as much. And the trend is expected to continue in the near future. Until we hit the wall I suppose. Unlike what they tell you in history classes, humans never seem to learn from their past mistakes. The successive stock market bubbles illustrate that point quite well. Like a stock market bubble this type of growth is not sustainable forever.
Note that the expansion in flying dwarfs the gains in fuel economy. And that has been the story throughout. Fuel efficiency for cars and trucks has also gone up dramatically, but its effect has been totally negative. The supposed gains were more than wiped out by bigger engines and heavier cars. To say nothing of the growth in the number of cars and the number of miles driven. It appears people always want to be somewhere else. What it is they are running towards or away from is anybody's guess. No doubt this restlessness must be due to happiness. Or is it?
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
nonlinearities
Physical systems are nonlinear. Global climate is one good example. In general, nonlinear problems are hard to solve and they are not as easy to understand as linear systems. Furthermore, linear systems are quite predictable whereas nonlinear ones are inherently not. While this may sound like a lot of techno-babble, rest assured that it is something all of us are familiar with.
Most of the time we assume things will behave linearly. What that means is that we believe things are additive. Something like, if you eat twice as much you will gain twice as much weight. This sort of thinking is extremely common in popular medicine. People think that if some vitamin is good for them, then twice as much vitamin must be twice as good. Or if a lot of alcohol is bad for them then some alcohol must be somewhat bad. But this is not always true.
A common nonlinearity that interferes with this type of prediction is a threshold. We are all familiar with thresholds. For example it takes some energy to get something moving. Once it moves however, things return to "normal." And by normal we mean it behaves more or less linearly. If you push twice as hard, it will move twice as fast. And everyday experience is usually in that realm. When you ride a bike as a kid, you are really moving too slowly for air resistance to become much of a problem. Within your normal operating conditions all you worry about is rolling resistance, which is pretty much linear. You pedal harder and you go faster. And the harder you pedal the faster you go.
Many physical systems have these "linear regimes," and it therefore becomes really tempting to think that things are always linear. Until something weird happens. All living systems eventually cross another threshold called death. And nothing is weirder than having someone die in a freak accident. Such an unpredictable event leaves us wondering and shaking our heads. That is the problem with thresholds and nonlinearities. There is often no going back.
But most of us would rather not think about that ultimate nonlinearity called death. Although death is certain, predicting when it will strike is impossible. And although we have grown accustomed to not expecting it during everyday normal activities, occasionally it does strike out of the blue. And when it does we look for a reason. Something of higher purpose that is more predictable. We yearn for linearity because it gives us some measure of control.
And the same is true for our ecosystem. We would like to think it is under control. We would like to think it will always return to normal. And although there are freak incidents such as storms, earthquakes, and other turmoil, at the end of the day we think it will all blow over. There is always another day. But nonlinear systems do not behave that way. Sometimes they cross a threshold and take another course altogether. They go on a new path that is radically different from the one traveled before. And the change may be irreversible.
Nature is very intricate and complex. There are many checks and balances, and things tend to settle in a solid and stable equilibrium. Look at our bodies. They can take a fair beating and survive large parameter swings. They are extremely adaptable. They are robust and have many built-in mechanisms to restore equilibrium. But occasionally a very small disturbance in one key parameter will take them across a lethal threshold. Suddenly a radically different path is taken. One that is irreversible and undesirable. And the same body that held together so well and weathered so many storms is now quickly taken apart.
As any parent knows, it is dangerous to play with fire- or greenhouse gases for that matter.
Most of the time we assume things will behave linearly. What that means is that we believe things are additive. Something like, if you eat twice as much you will gain twice as much weight. This sort of thinking is extremely common in popular medicine. People think that if some vitamin is good for them, then twice as much vitamin must be twice as good. Or if a lot of alcohol is bad for them then some alcohol must be somewhat bad. But this is not always true.
A common nonlinearity that interferes with this type of prediction is a threshold. We are all familiar with thresholds. For example it takes some energy to get something moving. Once it moves however, things return to "normal." And by normal we mean it behaves more or less linearly. If you push twice as hard, it will move twice as fast. And everyday experience is usually in that realm. When you ride a bike as a kid, you are really moving too slowly for air resistance to become much of a problem. Within your normal operating conditions all you worry about is rolling resistance, which is pretty much linear. You pedal harder and you go faster. And the harder you pedal the faster you go.
Many physical systems have these "linear regimes," and it therefore becomes really tempting to think that things are always linear. Until something weird happens. All living systems eventually cross another threshold called death. And nothing is weirder than having someone die in a freak accident. Such an unpredictable event leaves us wondering and shaking our heads. That is the problem with thresholds and nonlinearities. There is often no going back.
But most of us would rather not think about that ultimate nonlinearity called death. Although death is certain, predicting when it will strike is impossible. And although we have grown accustomed to not expecting it during everyday normal activities, occasionally it does strike out of the blue. And when it does we look for a reason. Something of higher purpose that is more predictable. We yearn for linearity because it gives us some measure of control.
And the same is true for our ecosystem. We would like to think it is under control. We would like to think it will always return to normal. And although there are freak incidents such as storms, earthquakes, and other turmoil, at the end of the day we think it will all blow over. There is always another day. But nonlinear systems do not behave that way. Sometimes they cross a threshold and take another course altogether. They go on a new path that is radically different from the one traveled before. And the change may be irreversible.
Nature is very intricate and complex. There are many checks and balances, and things tend to settle in a solid and stable equilibrium. Look at our bodies. They can take a fair beating and survive large parameter swings. They are extremely adaptable. They are robust and have many built-in mechanisms to restore equilibrium. But occasionally a very small disturbance in one key parameter will take them across a lethal threshold. Suddenly a radically different path is taken. One that is irreversible and undesirable. And the same body that held together so well and weathered so many storms is now quickly taken apart.
As any parent knows, it is dangerous to play with fire- or greenhouse gases for that matter.
Monday, December 3, 2007
mckinsey and greenhouse gases
Today, McKinsey issued a report showing how the US could reduce greenhouse emissions in 2030 by 3.0 to 4.5 gigatons of CO2-equivalent using "tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies." What that research-speak really means is that we could easily reduce our emissions significantly by just applying what we already know. Furthermore, the extensive research shows that the country would incur minimal costs to do so and in the long run it would save money too. I wonder how much people paid to get to these mostly common sense conclusions. I offer you my free advice.
Before I delve into the conclusions let me cite some rather frightening facts that were also in the report. The US government projects that annual greenhouse gases would rise from 7.2 gigatons in 2005 to 9.7 gigatons in 2030, an increase of 35%. And this would be due to three factors: a continued expansion of the US economy, a rapid growth in buildings, appliances, and transportation, driven by a population increase of 70 million and rising consumption; and finally an increased use of carbon-based power in electricity generation (read dirty coal).
And to add icing to the cake, the growth in emissions would be accompanied by a decrease in the carbon absorption by forests and agricultural lands. It would decline from 1.1 gigatons in 2005 to 1.0 gigatons in 2030. This is what the government thinks. The current government that is, one that isn't shy of adjusting a few numbers here and there if it suits their purpose. They don't have to worry about re-election. It seems they don't worry about what comes after them in any case.
Here is what we can do:
1. We can improve the energy efficiency in buildings and appliances for 710 to 870 megatons. This includes such no-brainers as lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, insulation, etc.
2. Increase the fuel efficiency of transportation for 340 to 660 megatons. It includes lightweighting, diesel use, turbocharging, etc.
3. Various options in the energy-intensive portions of industry for 620 to 770 megatons. These too are efficiency in heating, cooling, power, etc.
4. Expanding and enhancing carbon sinks, for 440 to 590 megatons. Here we increase forest stock, improve soil management, etc.
5. Reducing the carbon efficiency of electric power generation for 800 to 1,570 megatons. Here we can switch to nuclear, wind and solar generation, and clean up our coal plants.
I just want to add some free advice here. No need to pay me high "research costs." These will help immediately and will save you money. Not only that, they make sense and they will improve your health as well. Think of the billions we will spend "curing" heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity. Plus you will feel better. It is all related really.
1. Turn off your lights. You don't really need to buy CFLs. You can just turn off your lights when you don't need them and leave all other lights off too. You can turn down your thermostat and wear a sweater. You can stop heating and cooling your entire house. You definitely want to stop heating and cooling it when you aren't there. You can buy a smaller house when you are in the market. It may also help your credit rating.
2. Stop buying bulky, impractical and oversized cars. Stop driving unless you have to. Buy a bike and cycle. Walk. Have your kids walk to school. Walk with them. Remove all the unnecessary weight from your car. Empty the trunk, throw out the "entertainment system," etc. You don't need to turn your car into a living room. If you do, you are spending too much time there. Walking maybe faster. Also buy local. Don't buy cheap imports and don't buy food that was grown elsewhere. Then you can save even more. You won't need vitamins, supplements, and other pharma junk.
3. Turn off the lights and your computer at work. Turn off all the stuff you don't need when you leave. Stop printing and copying unless you have to. Save paper.
4. Plant a tree. Remove your lawn. Throw out your lawn mower. Forget the fertilizer. Stop wasting water. It needs to pumped to your house. It is heavy. It uses tons of energy and produces tons of greenhouse gases. If you want to grow anything, grow vegetables and fruits. They taste better than the ones you can buy, they are healthier, and you get a workout taking care of them.
5. Electricity is very dirty. Especially in the South, where coal dominates. Use less of it. Throw out your power tools and get a workout. It will help your heart. You will feel better. You will be healthier. Remove all chargers from outlets unless you need them. Stop buying electric gadgets.
In essence, it is time to downsize. Downsize your girth, your house, your car. And don't think of it as stepping back. Because it isn't. You will be better off. You won't have to work two jobs to keep up on all your payments. You won't have to worry about saving enough for retirement. You will be healthier, feel better, and live longer.
Before I delve into the conclusions let me cite some rather frightening facts that were also in the report. The US government projects that annual greenhouse gases would rise from 7.2 gigatons in 2005 to 9.7 gigatons in 2030, an increase of 35%. And this would be due to three factors: a continued expansion of the US economy, a rapid growth in buildings, appliances, and transportation, driven by a population increase of 70 million and rising consumption; and finally an increased use of carbon-based power in electricity generation (read dirty coal).
And to add icing to the cake, the growth in emissions would be accompanied by a decrease in the carbon absorption by forests and agricultural lands. It would decline from 1.1 gigatons in 2005 to 1.0 gigatons in 2030. This is what the government thinks. The current government that is, one that isn't shy of adjusting a few numbers here and there if it suits their purpose. They don't have to worry about re-election. It seems they don't worry about what comes after them in any case.
Here is what we can do:
1. We can improve the energy efficiency in buildings and appliances for 710 to 870 megatons. This includes such no-brainers as lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, insulation, etc.
2. Increase the fuel efficiency of transportation for 340 to 660 megatons. It includes lightweighting, diesel use, turbocharging, etc.
3. Various options in the energy-intensive portions of industry for 620 to 770 megatons. These too are efficiency in heating, cooling, power, etc.
4. Expanding and enhancing carbon sinks, for 440 to 590 megatons. Here we increase forest stock, improve soil management, etc.
5. Reducing the carbon efficiency of electric power generation for 800 to 1,570 megatons. Here we can switch to nuclear, wind and solar generation, and clean up our coal plants.
I just want to add some free advice here. No need to pay me high "research costs." These will help immediately and will save you money. Not only that, they make sense and they will improve your health as well. Think of the billions we will spend "curing" heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity. Plus you will feel better. It is all related really.
1. Turn off your lights. You don't really need to buy CFLs. You can just turn off your lights when you don't need them and leave all other lights off too. You can turn down your thermostat and wear a sweater. You can stop heating and cooling your entire house. You definitely want to stop heating and cooling it when you aren't there. You can buy a smaller house when you are in the market. It may also help your credit rating.
2. Stop buying bulky, impractical and oversized cars. Stop driving unless you have to. Buy a bike and cycle. Walk. Have your kids walk to school. Walk with them. Remove all the unnecessary weight from your car. Empty the trunk, throw out the "entertainment system," etc. You don't need to turn your car into a living room. If you do, you are spending too much time there. Walking maybe faster. Also buy local. Don't buy cheap imports and don't buy food that was grown elsewhere. Then you can save even more. You won't need vitamins, supplements, and other pharma junk.
3. Turn off the lights and your computer at work. Turn off all the stuff you don't need when you leave. Stop printing and copying unless you have to. Save paper.
4. Plant a tree. Remove your lawn. Throw out your lawn mower. Forget the fertilizer. Stop wasting water. It needs to pumped to your house. It is heavy. It uses tons of energy and produces tons of greenhouse gases. If you want to grow anything, grow vegetables and fruits. They taste better than the ones you can buy, they are healthier, and you get a workout taking care of them.
5. Electricity is very dirty. Especially in the South, where coal dominates. Use less of it. Throw out your power tools and get a workout. It will help your heart. You will feel better. You will be healthier. Remove all chargers from outlets unless you need them. Stop buying electric gadgets.
In essence, it is time to downsize. Downsize your girth, your house, your car. And don't think of it as stepping back. Because it isn't. You will be better off. You won't have to work two jobs to keep up on all your payments. You won't have to worry about saving enough for retirement. You will be healthier, feel better, and live longer.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
the club of rome revisited
Those of you part of the baby boomer generation may remember the Club of Rome. You may remember that the Report to the Club of Rome, a rather popular book, painted a dismal picture of the future. You probably also do remember that it turned out to be wrong. Or was it? Turns out you may be misinformed.
The report to the Club of Rome was published in 1972. It was based on an early computer model done at MIT and it predicted strict limits to future growth on the planet. However, given that it was based on a scientific approach it made certain assumptions and its true predictions were rather far out into the future. They were also not exact dates, but rather crude estimates, give or take 25-50 years. Too imprecise and too far out for any normal person's attention span. Nevertheless it caused a ripple.
Somehow the report got tangled up in the irrational fears and wild predictions surrounding the turn of the century. Many people quickly associated Y2K problems with the environmental and other disaster scenarios that were gaining widespread attention. When nothing happened around 2000, all these scenarios were decisively discarded as unfounded doomsday predictions.
But the report to the Club had already suffered heavy damage beforehand. It had already receded into the background. When it was announced it was quickly followed by several years of high inflation, oil crises, and other turmoil that many took to be early signs of the problem. When these issues were resolved and huge successes were scored, first in the bond markets and then later in the stock market bubble, everyone was convinced it had all been nothing but a false alarm. Decades later the Y2K debacle put the final nail in the coffin.
But what did the MIT model predict ? It basically said the following: if present trends continue, limits to growth will be reached sometime in the next 100 years. Notice that the target year is 2072, and even today that is still quite a ways off. The most probably scenario will then be a sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity. Sort of like a new Middle Ages. The model was also ran with a set of very optimistic assumptions to see how sensitive it was to disturbances. These optimistic scenarios are often invoked today as solutions to our problems.
The first assumption was that nuclear energy would solve all energy resource problems. That a reduction in pollution from all sources would start in 1975. And that the yield per hectare (100 sq. m) would increase by a factor of 2 starting in 1975. Lastly there would be perfect birth control. Even given those very favorable assumptions growth would end before 2100. Notice that very little time is gained even under extreme measures.
The reasons for this decline were overuse of lands leading to erosion and drops in food production. Resource depletion by increasing prosperity worldwide -although still below current US levels, and the return of pollution causing a further drop in food production. We are actually seeing some of this today in India and China.
The model does not take into account any social adaptation. It assumes we all continue living the way we do now (or did back then). There is a strong implication that we would have to change to stave off disaster.
The model revealed a fundamental problem that cannot be solved with new technology or increases in productivity. New technology and better yields may postpone the inevitable but they cannot remove the problem of essentially exponential growth in a finite and complex space. Given that growth is exponential, any remedy will be increasingly ineffective and buy ever shorter time.
Much can be said about the Report and it is a rather crude approximation to be sure. That is understandable given the limited compute capabilities at the time. But it is for sure that we have not seen the end of the Club of Rome yet. And that burying it prematurely or laughing it away may ultimately prove very foolish indeed.
The report to the Club of Rome was published in 1972. It was based on an early computer model done at MIT and it predicted strict limits to future growth on the planet. However, given that it was based on a scientific approach it made certain assumptions and its true predictions were rather far out into the future. They were also not exact dates, but rather crude estimates, give or take 25-50 years. Too imprecise and too far out for any normal person's attention span. Nevertheless it caused a ripple.
Somehow the report got tangled up in the irrational fears and wild predictions surrounding the turn of the century. Many people quickly associated Y2K problems with the environmental and other disaster scenarios that were gaining widespread attention. When nothing happened around 2000, all these scenarios were decisively discarded as unfounded doomsday predictions.
But the report to the Club had already suffered heavy damage beforehand. It had already receded into the background. When it was announced it was quickly followed by several years of high inflation, oil crises, and other turmoil that many took to be early signs of the problem. When these issues were resolved and huge successes were scored, first in the bond markets and then later in the stock market bubble, everyone was convinced it had all been nothing but a false alarm. Decades later the Y2K debacle put the final nail in the coffin.
But what did the MIT model predict ? It basically said the following: if present trends continue, limits to growth will be reached sometime in the next 100 years. Notice that the target year is 2072, and even today that is still quite a ways off. The most probably scenario will then be a sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity. Sort of like a new Middle Ages. The model was also ran with a set of very optimistic assumptions to see how sensitive it was to disturbances. These optimistic scenarios are often invoked today as solutions to our problems.
The first assumption was that nuclear energy would solve all energy resource problems. That a reduction in pollution from all sources would start in 1975. And that the yield per hectare (100 sq. m) would increase by a factor of 2 starting in 1975. Lastly there would be perfect birth control. Even given those very favorable assumptions growth would end before 2100. Notice that very little time is gained even under extreme measures.
The reasons for this decline were overuse of lands leading to erosion and drops in food production. Resource depletion by increasing prosperity worldwide -although still below current US levels, and the return of pollution causing a further drop in food production. We are actually seeing some of this today in India and China.
The model does not take into account any social adaptation. It assumes we all continue living the way we do now (or did back then). There is a strong implication that we would have to change to stave off disaster.
The model revealed a fundamental problem that cannot be solved with new technology or increases in productivity. New technology and better yields may postpone the inevitable but they cannot remove the problem of essentially exponential growth in a finite and complex space. Given that growth is exponential, any remedy will be increasingly ineffective and buy ever shorter time.
Much can be said about the Report and it is a rather crude approximation to be sure. That is understandable given the limited compute capabilities at the time. But it is for sure that we have not seen the end of the Club of Rome yet. And that burying it prematurely or laughing it away may ultimately prove very foolish indeed.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
irrational fear
Fear is a very powerful emotion and one that affects everyone, even if they don't want to acknowledge it. Fear is an important driver of human behavior and it is blatantly obvious everywhere. Marketers and politicians exploit it constantly. However, pointing that out is fraught with danger and people often react violently to insinuations or claims that fear drives their behavior. Acknowledging fear is displaying weakness. It is largely a taboo subject.
Fear is a primary driver in suburban development. People move to suburbia because they fear violence and crime. They also fear others who are not like them. Suburbs are often segregated in many ways. Many "require" overt signs of group identity such as manicured lawns. These are cleverly disguised as "rules" and enforced by home-owner associations. Fear lurks behind racism, gay bashing, and other xenophobic behaviors and attitudes. When combined with suppressed anger it is often expressed as deep hatred.
Fear also drives the search for a "good education," and a rather violent reaction to "illegal immigration." It is not so much education -in the sense of learning- that people are after, but conformity and social ranking. The citizens who want a good education may not want the school to teach subversive ideas such as evolution for example. Never mind reality.
The same applies to immigration policies. People fear the poor, especially the poor from different ethnicities. Because they are out to get us, to steal from us. But we don't mind if they clean our house, or tend to our garden. We don't even mind if they watch our kids. As long as they have limited rights and are under control.
Fear is used extensively in politics. After 9-11 it has become very fashionable and very effective to use fear to implement all kinds of unpopular policies. But it is not just limited to merely unpopular. Many rules and laws have been pushed through that people would normally strongly object to. Basic constitutional protections such as habeas corpus that are at the core of a free society have been abolished or rendered ineffective. It is surprising to see how quickly people surrender their personal freedoms in exchange for a vague promise of security.
Fear is also part and parcel of military recruitment. Be all that you can be, delivers the message that you can overcome your fears. You can take action and be strong. This is underscored by the use of music and images of powerful machines and technological gadgetry. The trend has also spilled over into civilian life. There are more military style vehicles on the road now. And even "regular" vehicles have seen an increase in the aggressiveness component. Beefier looks, larger headlights, and more pronounced radiator grilles that look like fangs or teeth. Young people have embraced this phenomenon and military style boots, camouflage, tattoos, and body piercings are more common.
But fear marketing is also invading the home. And it is not just long term favorites like surveillance items and weaponry. Fear is entering the household with novel products that aim to kill invisible germs. It all started rather innocently with disinfectant wipes and cleaning products. Then came clothing, bedding and carpeting with stitched in silver and copper. Anti-bacterials and anti-infectives were added to soaps and deodorants. And now it has moved to major appliances such as steamers, dishwashers, laundry machines, vacuum cleaners and the like.
Most of this fear is irrational. Terrorism kills very few people. The US is in no danger of being overrun or overthrown. No world power has ever met its inevitable demise that way. They usually fall apart from within. Most foreigners are people just like us. They like to get ahead in life, live in peace, and get a good future for their children. The vast majority of people are honest and display a fair amount of altruism. Random violent crime is rather rare, even in big cities. And the military is there to convince smaller countries to give us free or highly discounted access to their goodies such as oil and minerals. Even Alan Greenspan knew that the Iraq war was largely about oil. We don't intervene in other regions -such as Africa- unless they have goodies we want. We certainly prefer a trustworthy puppet dictator over the "wrong democracy." We don't want elections where the "wrong" parties win. But all of that is rather trivial really.
What is not so trivial is our war with parasites such as bacteria and viruses. That is rather fundamental. And our misunderstandings here have serious consequences. The over-use of antibiotics is already creating huge problems. The new rage to disinfect everything can only add fuel to fire. People don't realize that we have a pact with the parasites. We often tolerate and even encourage "good" bacteria to inhabit our bodies. This is not without risk and when we are ill or immune suppressed the friendlies may kill us. But our pact is far better than the alternative. And more realistic too. The good ones keep the bad ones from growing. They deprive them of resources.
This is a far better strategy than attempting the impossible goal of sterilizing everything. Not only is sterilizing prohibitively expensive, it doesn't work. As in all of life, it is often better to strike a deal with the enemy than to sink in a never ending quagmire.
Fear is a primary driver in suburban development. People move to suburbia because they fear violence and crime. They also fear others who are not like them. Suburbs are often segregated in many ways. Many "require" overt signs of group identity such as manicured lawns. These are cleverly disguised as "rules" and enforced by home-owner associations. Fear lurks behind racism, gay bashing, and other xenophobic behaviors and attitudes. When combined with suppressed anger it is often expressed as deep hatred.
Fear also drives the search for a "good education," and a rather violent reaction to "illegal immigration." It is not so much education -in the sense of learning- that people are after, but conformity and social ranking. The citizens who want a good education may not want the school to teach subversive ideas such as evolution for example. Never mind reality.
The same applies to immigration policies. People fear the poor, especially the poor from different ethnicities. Because they are out to get us, to steal from us. But we don't mind if they clean our house, or tend to our garden. We don't even mind if they watch our kids. As long as they have limited rights and are under control.
Fear is used extensively in politics. After 9-11 it has become very fashionable and very effective to use fear to implement all kinds of unpopular policies. But it is not just limited to merely unpopular. Many rules and laws have been pushed through that people would normally strongly object to. Basic constitutional protections such as habeas corpus that are at the core of a free society have been abolished or rendered ineffective. It is surprising to see how quickly people surrender their personal freedoms in exchange for a vague promise of security.
Fear is also part and parcel of military recruitment. Be all that you can be, delivers the message that you can overcome your fears. You can take action and be strong. This is underscored by the use of music and images of powerful machines and technological gadgetry. The trend has also spilled over into civilian life. There are more military style vehicles on the road now. And even "regular" vehicles have seen an increase in the aggressiveness component. Beefier looks, larger headlights, and more pronounced radiator grilles that look like fangs or teeth. Young people have embraced this phenomenon and military style boots, camouflage, tattoos, and body piercings are more common.
But fear marketing is also invading the home. And it is not just long term favorites like surveillance items and weaponry. Fear is entering the household with novel products that aim to kill invisible germs. It all started rather innocently with disinfectant wipes and cleaning products. Then came clothing, bedding and carpeting with stitched in silver and copper. Anti-bacterials and anti-infectives were added to soaps and deodorants. And now it has moved to major appliances such as steamers, dishwashers, laundry machines, vacuum cleaners and the like.
Most of this fear is irrational. Terrorism kills very few people. The US is in no danger of being overrun or overthrown. No world power has ever met its inevitable demise that way. They usually fall apart from within. Most foreigners are people just like us. They like to get ahead in life, live in peace, and get a good future for their children. The vast majority of people are honest and display a fair amount of altruism. Random violent crime is rather rare, even in big cities. And the military is there to convince smaller countries to give us free or highly discounted access to their goodies such as oil and minerals. Even Alan Greenspan knew that the Iraq war was largely about oil. We don't intervene in other regions -such as Africa- unless they have goodies we want. We certainly prefer a trustworthy puppet dictator over the "wrong democracy." We don't want elections where the "wrong" parties win. But all of that is rather trivial really.
What is not so trivial is our war with parasites such as bacteria and viruses. That is rather fundamental. And our misunderstandings here have serious consequences. The over-use of antibiotics is already creating huge problems. The new rage to disinfect everything can only add fuel to fire. People don't realize that we have a pact with the parasites. We often tolerate and even encourage "good" bacteria to inhabit our bodies. This is not without risk and when we are ill or immune suppressed the friendlies may kill us. But our pact is far better than the alternative. And more realistic too. The good ones keep the bad ones from growing. They deprive them of resources.
This is a far better strategy than attempting the impossible goal of sterilizing everything. Not only is sterilizing prohibitively expensive, it doesn't work. As in all of life, it is often better to strike a deal with the enemy than to sink in a never ending quagmire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
