-->Ich erlaube mir einen Buchauszug zu prÀsentieren. Es handelt sich um eine Teile einer Rede, die niemals gehalten worden ist:
<h2>Growth and the ABCs of ecology</h2>
Among lifeforms found on the surface of our planet, all food energy originates in the green plants and nowhere else. The energy that originates in green plants is passed on to creatures who feed on the plants, and is passed on again to predators who feed on plant eaters, and is passed on again to predators who feed on those predators, and is passed on again to scavengers who return to the soil nutrients that green plants need to keep the cycle going. All this can be said to be the A of the ABCs of ecology.
The various feeding and feeder populations of the community maintain a dynamic balance, by feeding and being fed upon. Imbalances within the communityâcaused, for example, by disease or natural disastersâtend to be damped down and eradicated as the various populations of the community go about their usual business of feeding and being fed upon, generation after generation. Viewed in systems terms, the dynamic of population growth and decline in the biological community is a negative feedback system. If you've got too many deer in the forest, they're going to gobble up their food baseâand this reduction in their food base will cause their population to decline. And as their population declines, their food base replenishes itselfâand since this replenishment makes more food available to the deer, the deer population grows. In turn, the growth of the deer population depletes the availability of food, which in turn causes a decline in the deer population. Within the community, food populations and feeder populations control each other. As food populations increase, feeder populations increase. As feeder populations increase, food populations decrease. As food populations decrease, feeder populations decrease. As feeder populations decrease, food populations increase. And so on. This is the B of the ABCs of ecology.
For systems thinkers, the natural community provides a perfect model of negative feedback. A simpler model is the thermostat that controls your furnace. Conditions at the thermostat convey the information"Too cold," and the thermostat turns the furnace on. After a while, conditions at the thermostat convey the information"Too hot," and the thermostat turns the furnace off. Negative feedback. Great stuff
The A of the ABCs of ecology is food. The community of life is nothing else. It's flying food, running food, swimming food, crawling food, and of course just sitting-there-and-growing food. The B of the ABCs of ecology is this, that the ebb and flow of all populations is a function of food availability. An increase in food availability for a species means growth. A reduction in food availability means decline. Always. Because it's so important let me say that another way: invariably. An increase in food availability for a species means growth. A reduction means decline. Every time, ever and always. <em>Semper et ubique</em>. Without exception. Never otherwise.
More food, growth. Less food, decline. Count on it.
There is no species that dwindles in the midst of abundance, no species that thrives on nothing.
This is the B of the ABCs of ecology.
<h2>Defeating the system's controls</h2>
With the A and the B of ecology in hand, we're ready to go back and look again at the origin of our population explosion. For a hundred and ninety thousand years our species grew at an infinitesimal rate from a few thousand to ten million. Then about ten thousand years ago we began to grow rapidly. This was not a miraculous event or an accidental event or even a mysterious event.
We began to grow more rapidly because we'd found a way to defeat the negative feedback controls of the community. We'd become food producersâagriculturalists. In other words, we'd found a way to increase food availability <em>at will</em>.
This ability to make food available at will is the blessing on which our civilization is founded. It's also the blessing that the pain reliever in my parable stands for. The ability to produce food at will is an undoubted blessing, but its very blessedness can make it dangerousâand dangerously addictiveâjust like the analgesic in my fable.
"At will" is the operative expression here. Because we could now produce food at will, our population was no longer subject to control by food availability on a random basis. Anytime we wanted more food, we could grow it. After a hundred and ninety thousand years of being limited by what was available, we began to <em>control</em> what was availableâand invariably we began to <em>increase</em> what was available. You don't become a farmer in order to <em>reduce</em> food availability, you become a farmer to <em>increase</em> food availability. And so do the folks next door. And so do the folks farming throughout your region. You are all involved in increasing food availability for your species.
And here comes the B in the ABCs of ecology: An increase in food availability for a species means growth for that species. In other words, ecology predicts that the blessing of agriculture will bring us growthâand history confirms ecology's prediction. As soon as we began to increase the availability of our own food, our population began to growânot glacially, as before, when we were subject to the community's negative feedback controlsâbut rapidly.
Population expansion among agriculturalists was followed by territorial expansion among agriculturalists. Territorial expansion made more land available for food productionâand no one goes into farming to <em>reduce</em> food production. More land, more food production, more population growth.
With more people, we need more food. With more food available, we soon have more peopleâas predicted by the laws of ecology. With more people, we need more food. With more food, we soon have more people. With more people, we need more food. With more food, we soon have more people.
Positive feedback, this is called, in systems terminology. Another example: When conditions at the thermostat convey the information"Too hot," the thermostat turns the furnace ON instead of OFF. That's positive feedback. Negative feedback <em>checks</em> an increasing effect. Positive feedback <em>reinforces</em> an increasing effect.
Positive feedback is what we see at work in this agricultural revolution of ours. Increased population stimulates increased food production, which increases the population. More food, more people. More people, more food. More food, more people. More people, more food. More food, more people. Positive feedback. Bad stuff. Dangerous stuff.
<h2>The experiment run 10,000 times</h2>
What is observed in the human population is that intensification of production to feed an increased population invariably leads to a still greater increase in population. I've seen this called a paradox, but in fact it's only what the laws of ecology predict. Listen to it again:"Intensification of production to feed an increased population invariably leads to a still greater increase in population."
Think of it as an experiment that has been performed annually in our culture for the last ten thousand years: Let's see what happens if we increase food production this year. Hey, whaddya know, our population increased too! Let's see what happens next year if we increase food production.
Hey, whaddya know, our population increased again! Do you suppose there's a connection?
Nah, why would there be?
Well, what shall we do this year? Increase production or decrease it? Well, we <em>gotta</em> increase it, don't we, because we've got more mouths to feed!
Okay, let's increase food production again this year and see what happens. Wow, look at that! Population up again.
Well, let's increase production again and see what happens. Who knows, maybe this time the population will go down.
Nope, up again. Amazing.
These thumbnail conversations describe the results of five annual experiments performed in ancient times. Imagine nine thousand nine hundred ninetyfive more of them, bringing us up to the present year, 1996, when we have to ask ourselves, well, what are we going to do <em>this</em> year? Decrease food production?
No way, don't be ridiculous.
Well, whaddya say, let's just keep it the same as last year just for once. You know, see what happens?
Are you kidding? Civilization would crash and burn.
Why? If we produced enough food for five and a half billion people last year, why should civilization crash and burn if we produce enough for five and a half billion people <em>this</em> year?
Because enough for five and a half billion <em>wasn't</em> enough. Millions are starving.
Yeah, but everyone knows that this isn't because food is lacking. The food is there, it's just not getting to the people who are starving. Look, didn't we have this conversation in 1990?
Sure we had it in 1990.
We had it in 1990 and in 1921 during the Russian famine and in 1846 during the Irish famine and in 1783 during the Japanese famine and in 1591 during the Italian famine and in 1315 during the European famine. God, I can remember having this conversation in the sixth century B.C. during the <em>Roman</em> famines.
Well, that's the point I'm making. How many times have we run this experiment?
About ten thousand times. Ten thousand times we've decided to increase food production, and ten thousand times the population has gotten bigger. Doesn't <em>prove</em> anything, of course. This time could be different. This time the population might go <em>down</em>.
Well, okay, let's try it one more time. We'll increase food production again this year and see what happens âŠ.
Hey, whaddya know. The population went up again this time. Quite a coincidence, huh?
<h2>Three demonstrations</h2>
Let me spend a few minutes now outlining a series of demonstrations that will clarify the issues I've raised here.
This is demonstration number one. Into a nice roomy cage we introduce two young, healthy mice. The cage has a builtin feeder that enables us to make food available to the mice in any quantity we like. After installing the two mice, we shove in two kilos of food. This is obviously much more than two mice need, but that will do no harm and you'll soon see the point of it. Next day, we take out the feeder, discard the uneaten food, and replace it with another two kilos. We do this every day. Soon the two mice become four, the four become eight, the eight become sixteen, the sixteen become thirtytwo. This population growth confirms the fact that these mice have plenty of food. We continue to put in two kilos of food every day and, as time goes on, more and more of it is eaten; this isn't a surprise, because there are more and more mice eating it. Eventually there comes a day when all of it is eaten. No matter. We continue to put two kilos of food in the cage every day, and every day the two kilos of food are eaten. Now guess what happens to that population, which has been growing so busily from day one of the demonstration. It <em>stops</em> growing. It levels off. Again, this is no surprise at all. As we continue to supply two kilos of food a day, we count the mice daily for a year and see that the population fluctuates between two hundred eighty and three hundred twenty, with an average of three hundred. Two kilos of food every day will maintain about three hundred mice. That's demonstration one.
Demonstration two begins much the same way. Cage. Two mice. This time, however, we follow a different procedure. Instead of putting in the same amount of food every day, we start with one amount
and increase it daily. However much the pair of mice eat the first day, we put in fifty percent more the second day. However much they eat the second day, we put in fifty percent more the third day. Before long there are four mice. No matter, we follow our procedure. Whatever they eat in a day, we put in fifty percent more the next. Before long there are eight mice, sixteen mice, thirty-two mice. No matter, whatever they eat in one day, we put in fifty percent more the next. Sixtyfour mice, a hundred twentyeight, two hundred fifty, five hundred, a thousand. Whatever the mice eat in one day, we put in fifty percent more the next, carefully extending the sides of the cage as needed to avoid stressful overcrowding. Two thousand, four thousand, eight thousand, sixteen thousand, thirty-two thousand, sixty-four thousand. At this point, someone runs in and yells,"Stop! Stop! This is a population explosion!"
Golly! I guess you're right! What shall we do?
I have a suggestion. Let's start by answering this question: How much did the sixty-four thousand mice eat yesterday? Answer: five hundred kilos of food. Okay. Well, ordinarily, we'd put seventy-five hundred kilos of food into the cage tomorrow, but let's abandon that procedure now. Our new procedure will be based on this theory: Yesterday five hundred kilos was enough for them, so why shouldn't five hundred kilos be enough for them today?
So today we put just five hundred kilos of food into the cage, same as yesterday.
Now watch closely. There are no food riots. Why should there be?
The mice have just as much to eat today as they did yesterday. Now watch closely again. No mice are starving. Why would there be?
Now it's tomorrow, and again we put just five hundred kilos of food into the cage.
Again, watch closely. There are still no food riots. Still no mice starving.
We do it again on day three. Again, no food riots, no mice starving.
But aren't new mice being born? Of courseâand old mice are dying.
Day four, day five, day six. I'm waiting for the food riots, but there are no food riots. I'm waiting for the famine, but there is no famine.
There are sixty-four thousand mice, and five hundred kilos of food will feed sixty-four thousand mice. Why should there be riots? Why should there be famine?
Ohâand I almost forgot to mention itâthe population explosion stopped overnight. What else could it do? Population growth <em>has</em> to be supported by increased food availability. Always. Without exception. Less foodâdecline. More foodâgrowth. Same foodâstability. That's what we've got here: Stability.
Demonstration three. This demonstration is identical to demonstration two right up to the end. Sixtyfour thousand mice, five hundred kilos of food, stability. Then the head of the department charges in and says,"Who needs sixty-four thousand mice? These mice are eating us out of house and home. What's special about sixty-four thousand mice anyhow? Why not eight thousand? Why not four thousand?"
Oh my, what a crisis. Quick-check the Yellow Pages, see if anyone makes condoms for mice! What, no condoms for mice!?! Well, look under Family Planning! What, no family planning for rodents!?!
No, you know this would not be the reaction. You know this because you understand the B in the ABCs of ecology. We don't need birth control. All we need is <em>food</em> control.
Someone says, here's what we do. Yesterday five hundred kilos of food went into the cage. Today we'll reduce that by a kilo. Oh no, another objects. A kilo is too much. Let's reduce it by a quarter of a kilo. So that's what they do. Four hundred ninety-nine and three quarters kilos of food go into the cage. Tension in the lab as everyone waits for food riots and famineâbut of course there are no food riots and no famine. Among sixty-four thousand mice, a quarter of a kilo of food is like a flake of dandruff apiece.
Tomorrow four hundred ninety-nine and a half kilos of food go into the cage. Still no food riots and no famine.
This procedure is followed for a thousand daysâand not once is there a food riot or a famine. After a thousand days only two hundred fifty kilos of food are going into the cageâand guess what? There are no longer sixty-four thousand mice in the cage. There are only thirty
two thousand. Not a miracleâjust a demonstration of the laws of ecology. A decline in food availability has been answered by a decline in population. As always. <em>Semper et ubique</em>. Nothing to do with riots. Nothing to do with famine. Just the normal response of a feeder population to the availability of food.
<h2>Objections</h2>
I've been surprised by how challenging people find these ideas. They feel menaced by them. They get angry. They feel I'm attacking the foundation of their lives. They feel I'm calling into question the blessedness of the greatest blessing of civilized life. They somehow feel I'm questioning the sacredness of human life itself.
I'd like to deal with some of the objections people make to these ideas. I do this not to discourage you from expressing objections of your own but because I can express these objections as rudely as I like to myself without making anyone nervous.
I'll deal with the most general objection first, which is that humans are not mice. This is of course absolutely true, especially at the individual level. Each of us as an individual is capable of making reproductive choices that mice absolutely cannot make. Nonethelessâand this is the point that ecology makes and that I've made here todayâour behavior as a biological population is indistinguishable from the behavior of any other biological population. In defense of that statement, I offer the evidence of ten thousand years of obedience to this fundamental law of ecology: An increase in food availability for a species means <em>growth</em> for that species.
I've been told that it doesn't <em>have</em> to be this way. I've been told that it's possible for us to <em>increase</em> food production and simultaneously <em>reduce</em> our population. This is basically the position taken by birth-control advocates. This is basically the position taken by well-intentioned organizations that undertake to improve indigenous agricultural techniques in Third World countries. They want to give technologically undeveloped peoples the means of increasing their population with one hand and birth-control aids with the other handâeven though we know full well that these birth-control aids don't even work for <em>us</em>! They're certain that we can go on increasing food production while ending population growth through birth control. This represents a denial of the B in the ABCs of ecology.
Historyâand not just thirty years of history but ten thousand years of historyâoffers no support whatever for the idea that we can simultaneously increase food production and end population growth. On the contrary, history resoundingly confirms what ecology teaches: If you make more food available, there will be more people to consume it.
Obviously the matter is different at the individual level. Old Macdonald on his farm can increase food production and simultaneously hold his family's growth to zero, but this clearly isn't the end of the story. What's he going to do with that increase he produced on his farm? Is he going to soak it in gasoline and burn it? If so, then he hasn't actually produced an increase at all. Is he going to sell it? Presumably that is what he's going to do with it, and if he does sell it, then that increase enters the annual agricultural increase that serves to support our global population growth.
I'm often told that even if we <em>stop</em> increasing food production, our population will <em>continue</em> to grow. This represents a denial of both the A and the B of the ABCs of ecology. The A in the ABCs of ecology is this: <em>We are food</em>. We are food because we are what we eatâand what we eat is food. To put it plainly, each and every one of us is <em>made from food</em>.
When people tell me that our population will continue to add new millions even if we stop increasing food production, then I have to ask what these additional millions of people will be made of, since no additional food is being produced for them. I have to say,"Please bring me some of these people, because if they're not made of food, I want to know what they <em>are</em> made of. Is it moonbeams or rainbow dust or starlight or angel's breath or what?"
Almost invariably someone asks if I'm not aware that population growth is much slower in the food-rich North than in the food-poor South. This fact seems to be offered as proof that human societies are <em>not</em> subject to the laws of ecology, which (it is assumed) predict that the more food the faster the growth. But this is <em>not</em> what ecology predicts. Let me repeat that: Ecology does <em>not</em> predict that the population in a food-rich area will grow more rapidly than the population in a food-poor area. What ecology predicts is: When more food is made available, the population will increase. Every year more food is made available in the North, and every year the population increases. Every year more food is made available in the South, and every year the population increases.
Then I will be told very emphatically that more food is <em>not</em> being made available in the South. The population is growing like wildfire, but this growth is <em>not</em> being supported by any increase in food. All I can say about this is, if what you say is true, then we are clearly in the presence of a miracle. These people are not being made from food, because, according to you, no food is being made available for them. They must be made of air or icicles or dirt. But if it turns outâas I strongly suspect it willâthat these people are <em>not</em> made of air or icicles or dirt but ordinary flesh and blood, then I'll have to say, what do you think this stuff is? [Here B grabbed the skin on his arm.] Do you think you can make this flesh and blood out of <em>nothing</em>? No, the existence of the flesh and blood is <em>proof</em> that these people are being made out of food. And if there are more <em>people</em> here this year, this is proof that there is more <em>food</em> here this year.
And of course I have to deal with the starving millions. Don't we have to continue to increase food production in order to feed the starving millions? There are two things to understand here. The first is that the excess that we produce each year does <em>not</em> go to feed the starving millions. It didn't go to feed the starving millions in 1995, it didn't go to feed the starving millions in 1994, it didn't go to feed the starving millions in 1993, it didn't go to feed the starving millions in 1992âand it won't go to feed the starving millions in 1996. Where did it go? It went to fuel our population explosion.
That's the first thing. The second thing is that everyone involved in the problem of world hunger knows that the problem is not a shortage of food. Producing more food does <em>not</em> solve the problem, because that's simply <em>not</em> the problem. Producing more food just produces more people.
Then people will ask,"Don't you realize that our agricultural base is already being destroyed? We're eliminating millions of tons of top-soil every <em>year</em>. Even the sea isn't yielding as much food as before. Yet the population explosion continues." The point of the objection is contained in that last sentence: Our food production capacity is declining, yet the population explosion continues. This nonfact is offered as proof that there is no connection between food and growth. Once again, I'm afraid I must insist that this is magical thinking. Our population explosion can no more continue without food than a fire can continue without fuel. The fact that our population continues to grow year after year <em>is proof</em> that we're producing more food year after year. Until people start showing up who are made of shadows or metal filings or gravelâwhen that happens, then I'll have to back off this point.
When all else fails, it will be objected that the people of the world will not tolerate a limit on food. That may be, but it has nothing to do with the facts I've presented here.
No one has ever specifically asked me what I have against birth control, but I'll answer the question anyway. I don't have a thing against birth control as such. It just represents very poor problem-solving strategy. The rule in crisis management is, Don't make it your goal to control effects, make it your goal to control causes. If you control causes, then you don't <em>have</em> to control effects. This is why they make you go through airport security <em>before</em> you get on the plane. They don't want to control effects. They want to control causes. Birth control is a strategy aimed at effects. Food-production control is a strategy aimed at causes.
We'd better have a look at it.
|