What Do You Want From Me?

In just over 2.5 centuries the Earth's population has grown spectacularly quickly. From under a billion people on the planet, to over 7 billion by the early 21st C. Increased life expectancy, the expansion of technologies, urban-life, production scale to meet the demand have depleted the environment at an accelerating rate. Berck, Levy and Chowdhury (2012) argue that we can come to a steady state with our planet through a cyclic feedback of environmental deterioration leading to social concern pressuring policy of production.

They express how "we regard people as reacting to environmental degradation by decreasing their individual exploitation of the environment". Our actions degrade the environment, which increases our concern for it's well-being, and essentially our own. First looking at frameworks of growth helps us to understand processes at work. At the core of capitalist belief is that economic growth begets population growth begets further economic growth etc, thus assuming infinite resources. Malthusian framework realizes the finite limits of the planet, and argues that growth deteriorates natural resources, meaning per capita food output is reduced thus limits population growth, and further limits exploitation of the environment. 

The logic is as follows;

               "Changing carrying capacity and environmental concerns are likely to engender a cyclical environment–population course that converges to the steady state... excess carrying capacity is large and concerns for the environment are low. Hence, population grows rapidly and so also does its aggregate footprint. As the environment deteriorates the excess carrying capacity diminishes and, in turn, population growth decelerates. At the same time, concerns for the environment rise. Negative population growth and rising concerns moderate the aggregate footprint and, subsequently, the environment starts improving. As the environment gradually improves, carrying capacity is slightly increased. Population growth is resumed and is accompanied for a while by moderated concerns. Then, with a bit larger aggregate footprint the environment slightly deteriorates, population growth diminishes and concerns rise, and so on, with gradual convergence to steady state" but our concern is weakened by skepticism of changes in the state of the environment, particularly what is, and isn't, natural variability. It may be necessary for greater global-scientific consensus on what is of concern.

This moderating-feedback loop was simulated by Meadows et al. (1972) showing "that output growth would be impeded by lack of resources" given technology (to increase availability of food and goods) grows linearly, whilst population, non-renewable consumption & pollution grow exponentially. At the least, pollution would put enormous constraint on our ability to survive, requiring either a technological or socio-political revolution to counter the effects. 

There are counters to the simplifications of Malthus/Capitalist economic thinking; Galor and Weil (2000) provided strong evidence showing the opposite to the predicted trends - richer countries were seeing decline in population growth as economic development was reached. Poor and rich countries alike, over the past twenty years environmental concern has grown. The question is, can this be possible for all countries to achieve before we reach our planet's tipping points? After "rounds of international meetings have revealed the inability of nations to cooperate effectively on curbing environmental degradation", where can we turn to for a global scale approach? The market? People? Or abandon it all to fate and head into the stars? It all feels like the challenge is too enormous in scope for any individual to feel they can make a difference, an argument as older than this debate, and yet as always change starts with an individual decision on an individual level. With information, communication, and a desire to reconcile with the environment, policy can be influenced to change to achieve the steady-state Berck et al. discussed.