Excellent piece as always, Ugo. You hit the nail on the head regarding the limits of linear projections - demographics don't exist in a vacuum, and the Seneca Cliff rarely waits around for a peaceful demographic transition.
However, relying on declining birth cohorts or demographic momentum to bring us back within carrying capacity assumes a level of stability we simply don't have. The impact of past births will be cut short long before demographic age pyramids have time to naturally resolve the issue.
The hard, thermodynamic facts of our current predicament - accelerating topsoil loss, industrial agricultural dependency on dwindling fossil inputs, depletion of key minerals, and compounding climate disruption to basic food baskets - mean ecological overshoot will dictate the timeline, not natality statistics.
Humanity won't have the luxury of a demographic self-regulation process winding down over generations. Biophysical feedback loops operate on a much faster timescale than human generational cycles. By the time today's smaller cohorts reach adulthood, the biospheric limits we are breaching right now will have already forced the outcome.
Demographic decline won't be what pulls us back from the brink; it's just along for the ride on a system that's rapidly running out of energy, materials, and minerals🤔✌️
I am afraid so Ugo, we (humanity) set in motion the predicaments of the poly and metacrisis, and as I’m sure you know predicaments, unlike problems that have solutions, predicaments don’t, only outcomes, of which we have little if any control.
But is there anything we can do, yes, on a psychological and existential level, the greatest challenge of a poly and metacrisis is avoiding either paralysing despair or destructive nihilism. What remains is the practice of being present. It is the decision to act decently, find joy, care for others, and appreciate the living world because it is precious, not because it guarantees a happy ending. It is doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do today.
When the macro-outcomes are out of our hands, our responsibility isn't to control the future, it's to be honorable, capable, and compassionate custodians of the present.
To put it in a single line: "Plant trees whose shade you know you will never sit under, and tend the soil while you're here."
And for those that can’t deal with the thought of human regression; before it reaches, black dog depression, I recommend they read Sarah Wilson’s recently published book “I Eat The Stars: How to live fully and beautifully in a collapsing world”🤔
I agree with your analysis. It is a fortunate event that we are producing fewer children. I am the youngest of 7 girls and I cannot see that a human life is a really wonderful gift to give the unsuspecting. I have never had children. My sister who had the most children, five in all, is a psychopath and does not give a damn what happens to other people. Perhaps psychopaths will do well in the disorderly future I can feel arriving.
Now Maxine, Ugo doesn’t like me mentioning Dr. Sofia Pineda Ochoa’s philosophy of visceral awakening through “ecological awareness" and “enlightened choice” through intellectual debate as a tool to control population, and especially not her docu-film “GREENWASHED”, he believes it’s tainted with the likes of the fossil fuel lobby, except to my knowledge there isn’t a shred of evidence, I keep asking but none’s appeared. there I’ve said it he’ll most likely banish me from ever replying to anything of his again. That being case I’ll spend my last few words saying, from what you’ve written you seem like an ideal candidate to check out Dr. Sofia Pineda Ochoa and particularly her docu-film “GREENWASHED”, it’s available to view free on YouTube. It’s quite a lengthy film at just under 3 hrs, it’s in 5 parts so you can view it over a day or two, or 3, or whatever. But a warning it does contain some disturbing and concerning scenes and facts from the start🤞
I think the real issue is that we (humans) are way beyond the carrying capacity of Earth, and we achieved that by using fossil energy and displacing nearly all species from their habitats. A large mammal like humans perhaps only number in the millions to be in equilibrium with other species. So, arguing over a few billion here or there is meaningless. I do think every species has a right to live in its habitat. Regardless we cannot live without an ecosphere (which we are consuming).
But it's still too many people. I am old, and the population of the world has almost quadrupled in my lifetime. My ideal population would be about 600 million. That will be a while.
Fortunately, anyone can find Marcus Aurelius's Meditations online, its copyright having long expired. As far as I know, most of its aphorisms were written by M.A. himself.
I've paid close attention to your thoughts on population, and as usual, your thinking is rigorous, scientifically grounded, and unafraid to go against conventional thinking.
But I was born and raised in a depopulated part of the American West, where the nearest town had a population of 35 and a 200,000 acre wilderness was out the back door. I'm certain our ideas of an appropriate population of humans on the planet are culturally conditioned by the amount of neighbors within a hundred kilometers. I'm thinking that 250 to 100 million humans would be an adequate number to produce the occasional Shakespeare or Einstein and give everybody else a sustainable, rational, educated, ecosystem-preserving lifestyle, and maybe figure out a way to reach the stars in a millennium or two.
The problem would be loneliness for ex-urbanites, and the peaceful reduction of our numbers by 98.75% or so. The key word is peaceful. Otherwise the numbers go to zero.
It you want to see a fictional rendition of such a world, Clifford D. Cimak's City, a wonderfully humane volume of linked science fiction stories, is a good start.
The Seneca Effect... It is what it is. The sins of the Fathers (and Mothers) being visited unto their sons (and daughters) even unto the seventh generation. Human exceptionalism cost us everything...😞
Sembla mentida quanta gent (de la meva edat, al voltant de la jubilació espanyola) està encallada en les imatges apocalíptiques dels seixanta i setanta: els nens de Biafra i la pel·lícula "Soylent green".
M'ha fascinat la conversa final. "No creus que la gent gran serà un gran problema en el futur?", "De cap manera", confusió i un silenci comprensiu. Fascina i horroritza. I no dic més.
It seems to me that the ethical issue is not that fertility is falling, but why. Set aside the antagonism pitting natalism against limits to growth. While from a high level fertility collapse may be a necessary adjustment to overshoot, at the human level it seems to be a consequence of a loss of meaning and connection. Young people want children but aren't coupling up or it just isn't working out. At least that's what I've heard. It is possible to imagine a culture where fertility rates are sustainable, just as it is possible to imagine one that is poorer in things yet richer in spirit. But my impression is that the drivers of decline are instead alienation and despair. I think there is a case to made for babies - not to excess - as continuity between the past and a worthy future.
I am trying to push the idea that the fertility decline is due only in part to people not wanting children. It may well be that the main factor is that people CANNOT have children because of the effects of pollution on the human reproductive system. But it is extremely difficult to disentangle two factors that cause the same effect.
Excellent piece as always, Ugo. You hit the nail on the head regarding the limits of linear projections - demographics don't exist in a vacuum, and the Seneca Cliff rarely waits around for a peaceful demographic transition.
However, relying on declining birth cohorts or demographic momentum to bring us back within carrying capacity assumes a level of stability we simply don't have. The impact of past births will be cut short long before demographic age pyramids have time to naturally resolve the issue.
The hard, thermodynamic facts of our current predicament - accelerating topsoil loss, industrial agricultural dependency on dwindling fossil inputs, depletion of key minerals, and compounding climate disruption to basic food baskets - mean ecological overshoot will dictate the timeline, not natality statistics.
Humanity won't have the luxury of a demographic self-regulation process winding down over generations. Biophysical feedback loops operate on a much faster timescale than human generational cycles. By the time today's smaller cohorts reach adulthood, the biospheric limits we are breaching right now will have already forced the outcome.
Demographic decline won't be what pulls us back from the brink; it's just along for the ride on a system that's rapidly running out of energy, materials, and minerals🤔✌️
Ah, well. This is the basic point. Then, the details will unfold themselves.
I am afraid so Ugo, we (humanity) set in motion the predicaments of the poly and metacrisis, and as I’m sure you know predicaments, unlike problems that have solutions, predicaments don’t, only outcomes, of which we have little if any control.
But is there anything we can do, yes, on a psychological and existential level, the greatest challenge of a poly and metacrisis is avoiding either paralysing despair or destructive nihilism. What remains is the practice of being present. It is the decision to act decently, find joy, care for others, and appreciate the living world because it is precious, not because it guarantees a happy ending. It is doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do today.
When the macro-outcomes are out of our hands, our responsibility isn't to control the future, it's to be honorable, capable, and compassionate custodians of the present.
To put it in a single line: "Plant trees whose shade you know you will never sit under, and tend the soil while you're here."
And for those that can’t deal with the thought of human regression; before it reaches, black dog depression, I recommend they read Sarah Wilson’s recently published book “I Eat The Stars: How to live fully and beautifully in a collapsing world”🤔
I agree with your analysis. It is a fortunate event that we are producing fewer children. I am the youngest of 7 girls and I cannot see that a human life is a really wonderful gift to give the unsuspecting. I have never had children. My sister who had the most children, five in all, is a psychopath and does not give a damn what happens to other people. Perhaps psychopaths will do well in the disorderly future I can feel arriving.
Now Maxine, Ugo doesn’t like me mentioning Dr. Sofia Pineda Ochoa’s philosophy of visceral awakening through “ecological awareness" and “enlightened choice” through intellectual debate as a tool to control population, and especially not her docu-film “GREENWASHED”, he believes it’s tainted with the likes of the fossil fuel lobby, except to my knowledge there isn’t a shred of evidence, I keep asking but none’s appeared. there I’ve said it he’ll most likely banish me from ever replying to anything of his again. That being case I’ll spend my last few words saying, from what you’ve written you seem like an ideal candidate to check out Dr. Sofia Pineda Ochoa and particularly her docu-film “GREENWASHED”, it’s available to view free on YouTube. It’s quite a lengthy film at just under 3 hrs, it’s in 5 parts so you can view it over a day or two, or 3, or whatever. But a warning it does contain some disturbing and concerning scenes and facts from the start🤞
I think the real issue is that we (humans) are way beyond the carrying capacity of Earth, and we achieved that by using fossil energy and displacing nearly all species from their habitats. A large mammal like humans perhaps only number in the millions to be in equilibrium with other species. So, arguing over a few billion here or there is meaningless. I do think every species has a right to live in its habitat. Regardless we cannot live without an ecosphere (which we are consuming).
But it's still too many people. I am old, and the population of the world has almost quadrupled in my lifetime. My ideal population would be about 600 million. That will be a while.
Ugo--
Fortunately, anyone can find Marcus Aurelius's Meditations online, its copyright having long expired. As far as I know, most of its aphorisms were written by M.A. himself.
I've paid close attention to your thoughts on population, and as usual, your thinking is rigorous, scientifically grounded, and unafraid to go against conventional thinking.
But I was born and raised in a depopulated part of the American West, where the nearest town had a population of 35 and a 200,000 acre wilderness was out the back door. I'm certain our ideas of an appropriate population of humans on the planet are culturally conditioned by the amount of neighbors within a hundred kilometers. I'm thinking that 250 to 100 million humans would be an adequate number to produce the occasional Shakespeare or Einstein and give everybody else a sustainable, rational, educated, ecosystem-preserving lifestyle, and maybe figure out a way to reach the stars in a millennium or two.
The problem would be loneliness for ex-urbanites, and the peaceful reduction of our numbers by 98.75% or so. The key word is peaceful. Otherwise the numbers go to zero.
It you want to see a fictional rendition of such a world, Clifford D. Cimak's City, a wonderfully humane volume of linked science fiction stories, is a good start.
The Seneca Effect... It is what it is. The sins of the Fathers (and Mothers) being visited unto their sons (and daughters) even unto the seventh generation. Human exceptionalism cost us everything...😞
Sembla mentida quanta gent (de la meva edat, al voltant de la jubilació espanyola) està encallada en les imatges apocalíptiques dels seixanta i setanta: els nens de Biafra i la pel·lícula "Soylent green".
M'ha fascinat la conversa final. "No creus que la gent gran serà un gran problema en el futur?", "De cap manera", confusió i un silenci comprensiu. Fascina i horroritza. I no dic més.
This year the world population increased by 70 million, exactly as half a century ago.
No emissions decrease is possible with these numbers
Thanks Ugo. Maintain your health daily for as long as possible... That's the key we hold.
It seems to me that the ethical issue is not that fertility is falling, but why. Set aside the antagonism pitting natalism against limits to growth. While from a high level fertility collapse may be a necessary adjustment to overshoot, at the human level it seems to be a consequence of a loss of meaning and connection. Young people want children but aren't coupling up or it just isn't working out. At least that's what I've heard. It is possible to imagine a culture where fertility rates are sustainable, just as it is possible to imagine one that is poorer in things yet richer in spirit. But my impression is that the drivers of decline are instead alienation and despair. I think there is a case to made for babies - not to excess - as continuity between the past and a worthy future.
I am trying to push the idea that the fertility decline is due only in part to people not wanting children. It may well be that the main factor is that people CANNOT have children because of the effects of pollution on the human reproductive system. But it is extremely difficult to disentangle two factors that cause the same effect.
Those dinner conversations are as useful as pondering the failed Saturn propulsion or erratic space module communications systems.