Sunday, March 17, 2013
For pensive, rational non-fiction book reviews, see greatnonfictionbooks.blogspot.com
greatnonfictionbooks.blogspot.com
Successful population control. Three examples.
In his book Collapse, Jared Diamond presents three societies that utilized their natural resources and population control measures successfully for a time. They are the island of Tikopia in the southwestern Pacific, the New Guinea highlands and Japan during the Tokugawa shogunate. Each of these three societies innovated thoughtful solutions to manage their environments. They also effectively prevented their populations from rising. The following represents how these peoples kept their population numbers down.
All three societies employed abortion and contraception to limit their populations. Additionally, lone individuals practiced abstinence or celibacy. But as we have experienced in our present day societies, these techniques are not enough by themselves. So the following immoderate measures came into effect; none of which I can recommend.
Infanticide was a feature within each of the three examples presented by Diamond. Now, I’m sure we could manage this technique within our own society. Just introduce a squalling infant into a fine dining establishment and supply each table with a club. But I’m not clear that we could attain common agreement to its use.
Tikopia, Diamond mentions, has a history of suicide which is a minor population control method. Again, I’m not sure that this is a lesson we could employ. It is possible that we could convince our depressed teenagers to cut deeper in times of famine. But our results may not be effective enough to count this as a consistent policy.
New Guinea had the additional technique of warfare to control its population. In the highlands, competition for land among a multitude of tribes guaranteed almost constant bloodshed. Tikopia went one better than New Guinea by employing total genocide of individual tribes. Diamond records an incident where the Nga Ariki clan exterminated the entire Nga Ravenga clan during a famine. But to be fair to the abilities of the New Guinea warriors, a highland tribe may have committed genocide during New Guinea’s long history of constant warfare, we just don’t have a record of it.
Because the Tokugawa shogunate controlled a more cohesive society with a single leadership, their people did not have the option of inter-tribal warfare. Instead, “during the Tokugawa Period, there were 154 famines, of which 21 were widespread and serious.”* Hardly an improvement over war and genocide; but Tikopia and New Guinea had their shares of famine as well.
So there you have it. The keys to long-term sustainability and population control: infanticide, suicide, genocide, warfare and famine. I’m not sure that we could get a society to voluntarily plan such an internal policy, though I am sure that it’s what we would end up with in the absence of other solutions.
There are other factors that make the lessons of these three societies impracticable for the rest of the world today. First, each of the three environments were unusually rich in soils and vegetation. The rest of the world has less to work with, guaranteeing even more trouble than these societies encountered. Second, all of these locations are isolated islands, allowing them to develop in a relative vacuum. Only later did they experience external pressures. Third, each of these small, isolated situations was eventually invaded by outsiders who were aggressively expansionist in terms of both ambition and population. In the face of these invaders, all three societies drastically altered their population growth and environmental sustainability.
Given both the techniques that these societies chose to control their populations, and the exceptional nature of their environments and locations, I am not sure that the lessons they provide for population control can be applied to the world‘s current population predicament.
Diamond, Jared. Collapse. “Opposite Paths to Success,” pp. 277-308. New York: Penguin Books, 2011.
*Bendan, Lao. "A Chronology of Japanese History." A Chronology of Japanese History. Self, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
All three societies employed abortion and contraception to limit their populations. Additionally, lone individuals practiced abstinence or celibacy. But as we have experienced in our present day societies, these techniques are not enough by themselves. So the following immoderate measures came into effect; none of which I can recommend.
Infanticide was a feature within each of the three examples presented by Diamond. Now, I’m sure we could manage this technique within our own society. Just introduce a squalling infant into a fine dining establishment and supply each table with a club. But I’m not clear that we could attain common agreement to its use.
Tikopia, Diamond mentions, has a history of suicide which is a minor population control method. Again, I’m not sure that this is a lesson we could employ. It is possible that we could convince our depressed teenagers to cut deeper in times of famine. But our results may not be effective enough to count this as a consistent policy.
New Guinea had the additional technique of warfare to control its population. In the highlands, competition for land among a multitude of tribes guaranteed almost constant bloodshed. Tikopia went one better than New Guinea by employing total genocide of individual tribes. Diamond records an incident where the Nga Ariki clan exterminated the entire Nga Ravenga clan during a famine. But to be fair to the abilities of the New Guinea warriors, a highland tribe may have committed genocide during New Guinea’s long history of constant warfare, we just don’t have a record of it.
Because the Tokugawa shogunate controlled a more cohesive society with a single leadership, their people did not have the option of inter-tribal warfare. Instead, “during the Tokugawa Period, there were 154 famines, of which 21 were widespread and serious.”* Hardly an improvement over war and genocide; but Tikopia and New Guinea had their shares of famine as well.
So there you have it. The keys to long-term sustainability and population control: infanticide, suicide, genocide, warfare and famine. I’m not sure that we could get a society to voluntarily plan such an internal policy, though I am sure that it’s what we would end up with in the absence of other solutions.
There are other factors that make the lessons of these three societies impracticable for the rest of the world today. First, each of the three environments were unusually rich in soils and vegetation. The rest of the world has less to work with, guaranteeing even more trouble than these societies encountered. Second, all of these locations are isolated islands, allowing them to develop in a relative vacuum. Only later did they experience external pressures. Third, each of these small, isolated situations was eventually invaded by outsiders who were aggressively expansionist in terms of both ambition and population. In the face of these invaders, all three societies drastically altered their population growth and environmental sustainability.
Given both the techniques that these societies chose to control their populations, and the exceptional nature of their environments and locations, I am not sure that the lessons they provide for population control can be applied to the world‘s current population predicament.
Diamond, Jared. Collapse. “Opposite Paths to Success,” pp. 277-308. New York: Penguin Books, 2011.
*Bendan, Lao. "A Chronology of Japanese History." A Chronology of Japanese History. Self, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
The Unavoidable Population Catastrophe.
Here’s the bottom line about humanity. We’re animals. We’re animals whose only biological reason for being is to put our genetic material into the next generation. Any greater or more noble “purpose” is less compelling and universal for our species.
As animals, we have achieved what other species have not. We have carpeted the planet with people. We are at the top of the food chain. We did not get to the top of the food chain by being humane. We got there by being selfish and ruthless. This isn’t a judgment, it’s a biological reality. We didn’t feed ourselves by sitting around a camp fire singing “Kumbaya” with the antelope. We ate them, devastated their species, and caused several other species to become extinct. So selfishness, voraciousness and ruthlessness, are adaptive survival traits that permitted us to put our genetic material into the next generation. As a result, some predominant traits passed-on to human offspring are selfishness, voraciousness and ruthlessness.
There are times when humans cooperate with other humans. This is only to satisfy selfish needs or survival needs. Humans may collect into a tribe to guard a watering hole against outsiders. Outsiders will also band together for survival. But when one group approaches the watering hole of another, and the resource is scarce, there is going to be a conflict. The loser will go off into the desert and die. The winner will survive to pass on the biologically-based traits of health, ruthlessness, cunning, violence and selfishness, that permitted them to retain control of the watering hole.
There are times when humans band into larger groups based around ethnicity, community values, government, etc. But again, this is a survival tactic. We wouldn’t place ourselves at the effect of governments and communities if it did not suit our survival needs. Witness how often we slaughter those of differing ethnicities, communities and governments, when their needs conflict with our own.
Currently there is a lot of discussion among human animals about how we are devastating our environment and overpopulating our planet. Many feel that we can come up with intelligent solutions to this problem and avert disaster, if we understand the causes and effects of our actions. They are wrong. It doesn’t matter if human beings understand why they are devastating their environment; they are going to continue to do it anyway. Because we are animals, whose reason for existing is to put our genetic material into the next generation, we will continue to reproduce. Our population will continue to rise until an ecological crisis occurs (a shortage in food, water, energy, etc). At that point, we will battle over whatever resource is scarce, like competing tribes at a watering hole.
Nature did not make enough provisions in our brains for long-term thinking about reproduction and survival. We have enough ability to face immediate survival threats and reproduce. That’s it. None of our planning and thinking over the last 50 years has produced a solution because there is no solution. Our biological need to reproduce is more powerful than our minds. Even the most draconian population control measures in China have failed. There have been small, temporarily successful efforts to control human population, in limited environments. They will be discussed during the next installment. But even those temporarily successful (and inhumane) efforts failed when self-contained populations came into contact with expansive populations. We do not have a biological adaptation that would cause us to control our population. Anyone who wishes to pit starry-eyed optimism against this reasoning need only answer one question: “Is our population going up, or is it going down?”
As animals, we have achieved what other species have not. We have carpeted the planet with people. We are at the top of the food chain. We did not get to the top of the food chain by being humane. We got there by being selfish and ruthless. This isn’t a judgment, it’s a biological reality. We didn’t feed ourselves by sitting around a camp fire singing “Kumbaya” with the antelope. We ate them, devastated their species, and caused several other species to become extinct. So selfishness, voraciousness and ruthlessness, are adaptive survival traits that permitted us to put our genetic material into the next generation. As a result, some predominant traits passed-on to human offspring are selfishness, voraciousness and ruthlessness.
There are times when humans cooperate with other humans. This is only to satisfy selfish needs or survival needs. Humans may collect into a tribe to guard a watering hole against outsiders. Outsiders will also band together for survival. But when one group approaches the watering hole of another, and the resource is scarce, there is going to be a conflict. The loser will go off into the desert and die. The winner will survive to pass on the biologically-based traits of health, ruthlessness, cunning, violence and selfishness, that permitted them to retain control of the watering hole.
There are times when humans band into larger groups based around ethnicity, community values, government, etc. But again, this is a survival tactic. We wouldn’t place ourselves at the effect of governments and communities if it did not suit our survival needs. Witness how often we slaughter those of differing ethnicities, communities and governments, when their needs conflict with our own.
Currently there is a lot of discussion among human animals about how we are devastating our environment and overpopulating our planet. Many feel that we can come up with intelligent solutions to this problem and avert disaster, if we understand the causes and effects of our actions. They are wrong. It doesn’t matter if human beings understand why they are devastating their environment; they are going to continue to do it anyway. Because we are animals, whose reason for existing is to put our genetic material into the next generation, we will continue to reproduce. Our population will continue to rise until an ecological crisis occurs (a shortage in food, water, energy, etc). At that point, we will battle over whatever resource is scarce, like competing tribes at a watering hole.
Nature did not make enough provisions in our brains for long-term thinking about reproduction and survival. We have enough ability to face immediate survival threats and reproduce. That’s it. None of our planning and thinking over the last 50 years has produced a solution because there is no solution. Our biological need to reproduce is more powerful than our minds. Even the most draconian population control measures in China have failed. There have been small, temporarily successful efforts to control human population, in limited environments. They will be discussed during the next installment. But even those temporarily successful (and inhumane) efforts failed when self-contained populations came into contact with expansive populations. We do not have a biological adaptation that would cause us to control our population. Anyone who wishes to pit starry-eyed optimism against this reasoning need only answer one question: “Is our population going up, or is it going down?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)