Saturday, June 18, 2016

If Switzerland had a Sahara Desert, it would be a small Africa. Does the world really have an "overpopulation problem"?

 
This post was updated on Aug 28th, 2018

This is a fascinating movie in many respects and, at the same time, a movie that makes you feel like screaming in rage. It is clear that Mr. Boote has something to say, and he manages to say it - sometimes forcefully, sometimes obliquely, and sometimes perhaps even as the opposite of what he seems to be intentioned to say.

So, what's the point of the movie? Well, most of it is based on scenes in which we see Mr. Boote going around with his unbrella in places where it never seems to rain. And interviewing people who, frankly, don't seem to have a clue about overpopulation except in attributing it to a conspiracy of the evil Western Elites.

Of course, one man's truth is another man's mistake. So, Mr. Boote has a good point in trying to see the world from the viewpoint of the poor - and I think that if I were, say, a Nigerian citizen, I would tend to think that the Westerners - just like the Whites of Western movies  - speak with forked tongues. They claim to be virtuous because they throw their waste into differently colored bins and they do that after having ruined and destroyed entire ecosystems for their consumption. And now they fault the poor for having too many children!

It is a clash of absolutes, which only a few people, like Werner Boote, are trying to bridge. The result is remarkable: the scene in which we see Boote boarding the pilgrim train in Bangladesh is worth the whole movie. It is a fantastic scene in which we see Boote as the only Wester sitting on the roof of a train chock-full of people, many of them sitting on the roof. It gives you an "ecumenic" feeling. We are all humans and we can live together. And all our screaming about being "green" will not help if we don't learn how to do that.

On the other hand, where the movie often fails is when it tries to buttress its thesis by using quantitative data or historical references. For instance, it starts immediately with misquoting Malthus, accused to "have predicted a catastrophe for 1860." Poor Malthus never said that!

Then, we have a scene where we see Mr Boote (for once without his umbrella) discussing with a man who tells him that Africa is not overpopulated because it has only 40 inhabitants per square km, compared with the 170 of Europe. Then, the man takes Boote somewhere up on a hill and he shows him an empty landscape, saying, "do you see? Africa is not overpopulated!"

Now, there are several problems here. First, the datum for the average population density in Africa seems to be correct, but the population density in Europe is 105 inhabitants per square km, not 170 (and it is just 31 if one includes the European part of Russia.). Maybe Mr Boote's informant meant Western Europe, but if you take that as meaning the European Union, then the population density still is only 116, not 170.

Then, one would be tempted to remind to Mr Boote's informant that Europe doesn't have a Sahara desert; to say nothing about the Kalahari desert and other areas unsuitable for human occupation in Africa. So, he forgets that an African country such as Nigeria has about the same density of population as Switzerland (nearly 200 people per square km), to say nothing about Rwanda, that has 460 people per square km (more than twice than Switzerland).

One could show Mr Boote and his informant some nice Swiss valley with many cows and almost no people and then tell them: "you see? Almost no one lives in Switzerland!"


So, as I said, it is a clash of absolutes. And all clashes of absolutes are difficult to tone down. For  an opposite opinion to the one of Mr. Boote, you would do well reading this post by Jacopo Simonetta. And we keep going, we'll arrive somewhere anyway.






9 comments:

  1. Well you clearly have never been to Yosemite Valley! In summer, it has a population density that rivals San Francisco, at least on the valley floor. Course your example would work just fine in Lassen, or Death Valley, or really anywhere in Yosemite National Park other than the valley. Since the point is that saying "look, hardly any people here" is the population equivalent of making a snowball to discredit AGW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, yes, I have been to Yosemite valley. And I can say that, seen from the road that goes there, it doesn't look so crowded as Los Angeles!

      Delete
  2. I did read that post by Jacopo Simonetta. It explicitly states that the rich pollute more than the poor. (For example: "...we can argue that the very rich produce about 20 tons of CO2 each per year. The affluent 10 tons each; the middle 6 tons each, the poor 2 tons each, and the very poor 0,1 tons each.") So I'm not sure what point you're making in your last sentence.

    I haven't seen the movie, so I won't comment on it. But I can understand why poor people are skeptical of rich people telling them to sacrifice for the good of the planet, when the rich aren't willing to change their behavior at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, it was an unclear sentence. I modified it.

      Delete
    2. Tom

      You make a good and simple point.
      I do not wish to sound anti-USA or complacent about the rest of us well-off people, including me, but every extra 10 million Americans consuming fossil fuels is like adding another half to one billion to the lowest income world population. And these low income people do not consume the high meat diet that needs so much more fossil fuel input as well as directly producing higher GHG emissions.

      It is ironic and sad that so many Americans have such a seriously hard and unhappy time.

      best
      Phil

      Delete
  3. In discussions of human overpopulation, even among experts such as Paul Ehrlich it is rarely if ever mentioned that a formula for the impact of humans on the landscape is not

    impact ~ NR.

    Rather it is something closer to

    impact ~ cN + NR

    where
    c = some constant
    N = number of people in a particular region
    R = average consumption of resources per person in the same region

    Another factor should also be added, the waste that an average person produces in a given period of time. It varies greatly depending on the technological development of the community in question.

    The main point I am making is that every person takes up space, cooks food (using external energy sources such as wood, natural gas or electrical energy), stores food and other materials, builds a residence (house, hut, tent, teepee, etc.) and produces waste.

    Hence, compared to other creatures of comparable size, people have an outsized impact on their environment even if they live a very meager existence. The notion that the poor have a minimal impact on their environment compared to the rich is misleading.

    There is no substitute in the world today for human population reduction. Simplification of lifestyle helps, of course, but is insufficient.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The "film's thesis" reminds me of Pope Francis' 2015 encyclical:

    50. Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health”. Yet “while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development”.[28] To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His Popeness, Vicar of Christ on Earth is correct. The problem is not that the Birth Rate is too high.

      The problem is the Death Rate is too low. If you raise mortality rates high enough, Birth Control will be unnecessary.

      TPTB are working on this problem as we speak.

      RE

      Delete
  5. If the whole world was Alaska, we would not have a Homo Sap population problem. 1.2 Homo Saps/square mile here. :)

    ReplyDelete

Who

Ugo Bardi is a member of the Club of Rome and the author of "Extracted: how the quest for mineral resources is plundering the Planet" (Chelsea Green 2014). His most recent book is "The Seneca Effect" (Springer 2017)