Approaching the Peak

I just empirically derived the logistic function for world population growth. As I described in the post “Discontinuity, ” humanity has been able to approach the maximum limit to consumption of ecological resources by radically increasing what I call the “extraction mass,” and the new analysis shows that our population growth is adapting just as populations of other species do when faced with similar constraints: by reducing population growth through competition.

Our consumption is converging toward a value that is twice the amount of renewable resources that the natural world produces (its “biocapacity”). Since 1980, we have been consuming both biocapacity and “natural capital” -- the parts of the biosphere which generate that biocapacity. Natural capital recycles as well, by an amount that appears to be equal to biocapacity, accounting for the other “Earth.” This is the ultimate power of our technology: to destroy our planet's mechanisms for sustaining life. If we ever reached that limit, we would either need a totally artificial life support system (for us) or our population would crash, perhaps never to recover.

My analysis indicates that the maximum population is 8.69 billion people, based on the current value of extraction mass (which, together with the apparently constant “transaction mass,” determines consumption). World population is currently about 7 billion, and is projected to be within 10% of the peak by 2023. For contrast, in 1980, when we were consuming just all of the biocapacity, the population was 4.53 billion; this is how many people a healthy world could support at our current average lifestyle (represented by extraction mass).

Ironically, if we hadn't increased extraction mass right after World War Two, from an equivalent ecological footprint of 0.018 hectare to 2.5 hectares, the maximum population (for consuming two Earths) would have been 29.09 billion people, and for consuming one Earth it would have been 20.48 billion people. More people could have lived, but they would have had a lower life expectancy (at the peak: 55 years for one Earth and 58 years for two Earths) and happiness (42% for one Earth and 47% for two Earths, again at the peak). At our present population, the average world consumption would have been 8% of its current value, life expectancy would have been 45 years, and happiness would have been 30%.

Evidence continues to accumulate that biocapacity has been degraded by our consumption of natural capital – effectively overwhelming the natural world. Not the least of this evidence is related to global warming, which at this point may be unstoppable. The most obvious consequence is a reduction in the maximum population, and I'm afraid that the only real control we have is with the variable that pushed us so close to disaster: our lifestyle. It may be inevitable that mortality will increase, and it will come from either growing competition as we approach peak population, or less time for each of us to make an impact as we let the natural world have more influence over our lives. 

Peak Happiness

NOTE: This post is a continuation of “Lessons from a Simulated History,” whose underlying data has been updated.  It has also been corrected with more accurate numbers since its original release on February 16.

If my analysis of global trends is accurate, the terrorist attacks of September 2001 may have been the equivalent of the first earthquake in a massive seismic shift. As some members of the world's population reached the peak of happiness and life expectancy, the relentless pursuit of its growth raised the level of the poorest for the first time in human history. A decade later, we are seeing repressive regimes toppling or under siege while the ultra-rich try desperately to push beyond the peak they are stuck at.

If these trends could continue, I conservatively estimate that the population would increase from 7 billion now to 148 billion in 2212, and level off when everyone attains maximum happiness. The total mass of resources consumed each year would be 432 times what it was at the end of 2010, and in the intervening period we would use 770 times the total amount of resources our planet has left. Because we would need to transport that material in at least one transaction each year, our speed would increase by the same factor as our consumption, and we would almost certainly be covering interplanetary distances.

This week's Time magazine features a cover story about the certainty some people have that by 2045 technology will enable humans to become effectively immortal by transferring our minds into computers. Meanwhile, biotechnology is progressing fast enough that we may soon be able to arrest and possibly reverse the aging of our current bodies. In addition, nanotechnology (the controlled atomic-level restructuring of matter) could conceivably allow us to use and reuse everything, thus eliminating the waste problem that forces us to seek out new resources all the time.

In the context of my own research, these developments amount to pushing through peak happiness on an exponential basis, fueled by an increase in locally reusable resources. The fastest possible growth I can foresee is an exponential increase in minimum happiness. Coupled with an increasing maximum, transport speed would need to reach the speed of light by 2131 if we started now and were using non-renewable resources, consuming more than one-millionth the mass of Earth each year; this is the amount of mass we would instead be recycling. At that maximum speed, we would be at another peak in happiness, only another 49% more than the present maximum, with a life expectancy of 140 years. Of course, I'm still assuming we would be humans instead of machines that may require less. Whatever the assumptions, the mercilessness of exponential consumption would eventually reach a limit such as the speed of light, imposed by natural laws that can't be broken no matter how smart our machines become.

Trepidation 2010

As the end of 2010 approaches, I have more trepidation than I can remember.  A large part of this comes from growing evidence that projections of an impending population crash are likely to be accurate.  Critical natural resources are becoming noticeably depleted, such as fossil fuel, fresh water, and phosphorous.  The world economy is still struggling in a recession caused by unbridled greed and unjustifiable speculation about future performance.  Facing incontrovertible evidence of accelerating global warming, nations continue to avoid taking the necessary steps to reduce their contributions to it.  The only viable political party in the United States that has something resembling a realistic view of how the world works has resorted to bribery to keep the government from being totally stymied by the party of greed and delusional denial of the harm it causes. 

Personally, I am struggling like many others to deal with the impact of sporadic employment and declining wages.  Now officially middle-aged, I would be facing an extremely uncertain future even if civilization wasn’t on the verge of collapsing, especially since I lack the strongly competitive personality that seems to be required for “success” in our growth-oriented economy.  Of course, it doesn’t help that I’ve come to spurn the whole idea of a “growth-oriented economy.”

In my most recent period of unemployment, now three months long, I have developed a better sense of the kind of world I want to live in (“Imagining the Future”), and just begun to discover what will be required to create it.  Comparing this with what is likely just adds to my fear.  At a time when humanity’s survival depends on people coming together and sharing resources, the existing socio-economic system is making its last stand to preserve the artificial isolation that enables a few people to hoard or render useless the resources the majority of others need for basic survival. 

Many of us are focusing our efforts on increasing how much money we will have in the future, forgetting that money is an artificial creation whose value and use is determined arbitrarily by us; it is not a physical substance subject to the natural laws of mass and energy conservation like the natural resources we are using it to squander.  The collective We, the human species, must “get real” soon, changing the nature of our interactions with each other (which we have allowed money, as a tool, to help shape) so we can responsibly manage our impact on the flows of physical substances we and other species require for our continued existence.  There is no way to overstate the urgency of doing this, and how difficult will be, but we must first agree that it’s necessary. 

Luckily, a growing number of people are agreeing, both in what they say and what they do.  Many are trying to tweak the existing system by increasing demand for “green” products and working to identify, at least in an abstract way, the environmental impact of production, use, and disposal of these and other products.  Others are finding ways to reconnect with Nature in both physical and psychological ways, and a few are attempting to opt out of society altogether.

Despite my trepidation, I’m grateful for the awareness I’ve found, the opportunity to do something important with my life, and the friendships that have evolved along the way.  For me, the best cure for fear is action, and I intend to take much more of it in the coming year.