Saturday, July 09, 2005
The implications of growth
If something grows at a specified percentage rate per year (say population at 2%), what does that mean? Albert A. Bartlett explains it simply: divide 70 by that rate and you get the doubling time. Thus, with steady population growth at 2% per year, that population will double in 35 years.
Bartlett argues that the very foundation of western civilization is steady and sustained growth: more people, more energy, more resources, more houses, more roads, more food... He then asks, is this practical? What are the implications? The answer is NO! For example, with steady and sustained growth, it can be shown that there will come a time when, for example, there is one person per square meter of the entire dry land surface of the earth. Or, the entire dry land surface of the earth is covered with roads, houses, food crops, mines, or whatever. These end members all represent impossibilities, the human race and life on Earth couldn't survive any one of these conditions.
Bartlett makes some compelling conclusions.
1. Failure to understand the implications of the exponential function and what it means can have tragic results.
2. No problem (healthcare, food, pestilence and pandemics, energy, clean air, clean water, shelter, whatever) was EVER made better or solved by a continuing and unchecked increase in population. (of course, we all remember Paul Erlich's "Population Bomb")
Bartlett argues that the very foundation of western civilization is steady and sustained growth: more people, more energy, more resources, more houses, more roads, more food... He then asks, is this practical? What are the implications? The answer is NO! For example, with steady and sustained growth, it can be shown that there will come a time when, for example, there is one person per square meter of the entire dry land surface of the earth. Or, the entire dry land surface of the earth is covered with roads, houses, food crops, mines, or whatever. These end members all represent impossibilities, the human race and life on Earth couldn't survive any one of these conditions.
Bartlett makes some compelling conclusions.
1. Failure to understand the implications of the exponential function and what it means can have tragic results.
2. No problem (healthcare, food, pestilence and pandemics, energy, clean air, clean water, shelter, whatever) was EVER made better or solved by a continuing and unchecked increase in population. (of course, we all remember Paul Erlich's "Population Bomb")
