|
This is a piece by Jared Diamond in the New York Times. Jared Diamond is the writer of "Guns, Germs, and Steel," for which he won a pulitzer, I believe, and also the author of "Collapse," which explores how various past civilizations have succeeded or failed at dealing with the threat of environmental disaster. This is about 2 pages long. Please feel free to discuss.
----------------------------------------------
What's Your Consumption Factor?
By Jared Diamond
The New York Times
Wednesday 02 January 2008
To mathematicians, 32 is an interesting number: it's 2 raised to the fifth power, 2 times 2 times 2 times 2 times 2. To economists, 32 is even more special, because it measures the difference in lifestyles between the first world and the developing world. The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world. That factor of 32 has big consequences.
To understand them, consider our concern with world population. Today, there are more than 6.5 billion people, and that number may grow to around 9 billion within this half-century. Several decades ago, many people considered rising population to be the main challenge facing humanity. Now we realize that it matters only insofar as people consume and produce.
If most of the world's 6.5 billion people were in cold storage and not metabolizing or consuming, they would create no resource problem. What really matters is total world consumption, the sum of all local consumptions, which is the product of local population times the local per capita consumption rate.
The estimated one billion people who live in developed countries have a relative per capita consumption rate of 32. Most of the world's other 5.5 billion people constitute the developing world, with relative per capita consumption rates below 32, mostly down toward 1.
The population especially of the developing world is growing, and some people remain fixated on this. They note that populations of countries like Kenya are growing rapidly, and they say that's a big problem. Yes, it is a problem for Kenya's more than 30 million people, but it's not a burden on the whole world, because Kenyans consume so little. (Their relative per capita rate is 1.) A real problem for the world is that each of us 300 million Americans consumes as much as 32 Kenyans. With 10 times the population, the United States consumes 320 times more resources than Kenya does.
People in the third world are aware of this difference in per capita consumption, although most of them couldn't specify that it's by a factor of 32. When they believe their chances of catching up to be hopeless, they sometimes get frustrated and angry, and some become terrorists, or tolerate or support terrorists. Since Sept. 11, 2001, it has become clear that the oceans that once protected the United States no longer do so. There will be more terrorist attacks against us and Europe, and perhaps against Japan and Australia, as long as that factorial difference of 32 in consumption rates persists.
People who consume little want to enjoy the high-consumption lifestyle. Governments of developing countries make an increase in living standards a primary goal of national policy. And tens of millions of people in the developing world seek the first-world lifestyle on their own, by emigrating, especially to the United States and Western Europe, Japan and Australia. Each such transfer of a person to a high-consumption country raises world consumption rates, even though most immigrants don't succeed immediately in multiplying their consumption by 32.
Among the developing countries that are seeking to increase per capita consumption rates at home, China stands out. It has the world's fastest growing economy, and there are 1.3 billion Chinese, four times the United States population. The world is already running out of resources, and it will do so even sooner if China achieves American-level consumption rates. Already, China is competing with us for oil and metals on world markets.
Per capita consumption rates in China are still about 11 times below ours, but let's suppose they rise to our level. Let's also make things easy by imagining that nothing else happens to increase world consumption - that is, no other country increases its consumption, all national populations (including China's) remain unchanged and immigration ceases. China's catching up alone would roughly double world consumption rates. Oil consumption would increase by 106 percent, for instance, and world metal consumption by 94 percent.
If India as well as China were to catch up, world consumption rates would triple. If the whole developing world were suddenly to catch up, world rates would increase elevenfold. It would be as if the world population ballooned to 72 billion people (retaining present consumption rates).
Some optimists claim that we could support a world with nine billion people. But I haven't met anyone crazy enough to claim that we could support 72 billion. Yet we often promise developing countries that if they will only adopt good policies - for example, institute honest government and a free-market economy - they, too, will be able to enjoy a first-world lifestyle. This promise is impossible, a cruel hoax: we are having difficulty supporting a first-world lifestyle even now for only one billion people.
We Americans may think of China's growing consumption as a problem. But the Chinese are only reaching for the consumption rate we already have. To tell them not to try would be futile.
The only approach that China and other developing countries will accept is to aim to make consumption rates and living standards more equal around the world. But the world doesn't have enough resources to allow for raising China's consumption rates, let alone those of the rest of the world, to our levels. Does this mean we're headed for disaster?
No, we could have a stable outcome in which all countries converge on consumption rates considerably below the current highest levels. Americans might object: there is no way we would sacrifice our living standards for the benefit of people in the rest of the world. Nevertheless, whether we get there willingly or not, we shall soon have lower consumption rates, because our present rates are unsustainable.
Real sacrifice wouldn't be required, however, because living standards are not tightly coupled to consumption rates. Much American consumption is wasteful and contributes little or nothing to quality of life. For example, per capita oil consumption in Western Europe is about half of ours, yet Western Europe's standard of living is higher by any reasonable criterion, including life expectancy, health, infant mortality, access to medical care, financial security after retirement, vacation time, quality of public schools and support for the arts. Ask yourself whether Americans' wasteful use of gasoline contributes positively to any of those measures.
Other aspects of our consumption are wasteful, too. Most of the world's fisheries are still operated non-sustainably, and many have already collapsed or fallen to low yields - even though we know how to manage them in such a way as to preserve the environment and the fish supply. If we were to operate all fisheries sustainably, we could extract fish from the oceans at maximum historical rates and carry on indefinitely.
The same is true of forests: we already know how to log them sustainably, and if we did so worldwide, we could extract enough timber to meet the world's wood and paper needs. Yet most forests are managed non-sustainably, with decreasing yields.
Just as it is certain that within most of our lifetimes we'll be consuming less than we do now, it is also certain that per capita consumption rates in many developing countries will one day be more nearly equal to ours. These are desirable trends, not horrible prospects. In fact, we already know how to encourage the trends; the main thing lacking has been political will.
Fortunately, in the last year there have been encouraging signs. Australia held a recent election in which a large majority of voters reversed the head-in-the-sand political course their government had followed for a decade; the new government immediately supported the Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Also in the last year, concern about climate change has increased greatly in the United States. Even in China, vigorous arguments about environmental policy are taking place, and public protests recently halted construction of a huge chemical plant near the center of Xiamen. Hence I am cautiously optimistic. The world has serious consumption problems, but we can solve them if we choose to do so.
----------
Jared Diamond, a professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles, is the author of "Collapse" and "Guns, Germs and Steel."
-------
|
gayest intro/anecdote EVER
|
A point I really liked was this:
"Real sacrifice wouldn't be required, however, because living standards are not tightly coupled to consumption rates. Much American consumption is wasteful and contributes little or nothing to quality of life. For example, per capita oil consumption in Western Europe is about half of ours, yet Western Europe's standard of living is higher by any reasonable criterion, including life expectancy, health, infant mortality, access to medical care, financial security after retirement, vacation time, quality of public schools and support for the arts. Ask yourself whether Americans' wasteful use of gasoline contributes positively to any of those measures."
Jared also points out that depending on how we do things, relatively high levels of consumption could feasibly be maintained. Over-consumption is what threatens environmental balance.
|
United States22883 Posts
Very much agree with him for the most part, except linking terrorism to quality of life. Most Middle Eastern terrorists are from the absurdly wealthy oil states, not drastically poor Palestine and Syria. It's far too complicated to be boiled down into that.
Also, paper making is not really the main culprit for forest problems. Aside from fires, most of the problem (at least in South America) is from residential clearing - removing forests to make new places to live.
I think per capita consumption rate is a bit deceiving, because it's not most of the Chinese people consuming like that. It's the business and industry with the bulk of it.
|
We require more minerals.
|
On January 03 2008 12:00 SonuvBob wrote:
We require more minerals.
This basically sums up my SC experience, real life, and the article.
|
Jibba, my understanding is that while Saudi Arabia is very wealthy, it is primarily the royalty that enjoy that wealth. But I am not sure I agree with you or Jared on the matter of terrorism.
I'm not sure the middle eastern terrorists are angry because of disproportionate consumption - I think they are angry over other matters such as US support of Israel, intervention in middle eastern politics, etc. That said, it is known that disparities in wealth, combined with status and respect attached to higher levels of wealth, is a cause of crime, and reasonably terrorism as well. (When people feel pressure to obtain a certain lifestyle, but can't do so through legal means, they will turn to crime.) Whether or not previous acts of terrorism have anything to do with inequalities in wealth, it seems reasonable to me that future terrorist acts could revolve around this issue.
My understanding is that the Chinese people are increasingly enjoying a consumer lifestyle. It's a matter of degree, but I think Jared is right that China and its people are moving in that direction, and certainly right that people all over the world would like to attain the American standard of living.
No argument about the tree issue you mention. I think the real point here is that there is a sustainable level of resource use (in this case the resource is lumber) and then there is over-use. Obviously societies need to focus on sustainable use, which ultimately would yeild far more lumber (and wealth) in the long run than over-using the land in the short term.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 03 2008 13:15 nA.Inky wrote:
Jibba, my understanding is that while Saudi Arabia is very wealthy, it is primarily the royalty that enjoy that wealth. But I am not sure I agree with you or Jared on the matter of terrorism. Well, anyone who is descendant from the Saudi tribe (essentially Saudi citizens), receives a monthly (I think) check from the government from the oil wealth. Non-tribesman have much worse living standards (besides Americans/oil workers), but pretty much everyone in the tribe lives a life of extreme comfort. That's part of the reason there are so few social movements in Saudi Arabia. It's one of the most restrictive countries in the Middle East, but the people are paid off so they're pretty content with the status quo.
I'm not sure the middle eastern terrorists are angry because of disproportionate consumption - I think they are angry over other matters such as US support of Israel, intervention in middle eastern politics, etc. That said, it is known that disparities in wealth, combined with status and respect attached to higher levels of wealth, is a cause of crime, and reasonably terrorism as well. (When people feel pressure to obtain a certain lifestyle, but can't do so through legal means, they will turn to crime.) Whether or not previous acts of terrorism have anything to do with inequalities in wealth, it seems reasonable to me that future terrorist acts could revolve around this issue.
Wealth is a factor, but I don't think in the way that they're envious and resorting to it for the reasons we see people resort to petty crimes like theft. It's more about our greed and imperialistic nature, not their greed. Although most everyone in power is hugely influenced by greed (moreso than even the US!)
My understanding is that the Chinese people are increasingly enjoying a consumer lifestyle. It's a matter of degree, but I think Jared is right that China and its people are moving in that direction, and certainly right that people all over the world would like to attain the American standard of living.
Urbanites definitely are. With cars and computers taking off, the people in big cities are definitely being rewarded. I think the majority of the population is rural, however, and their lives are still quite terrible. The Olympics are the most obvious example of the problem. Nice fancy renovations everywhere, and they only had to clear half a million people's homes to build a stadium!
No argument about the tree issue you mention. I think the real point here is that there is a sustainable level of resource use (in this case the resource is lumber) and then there is over-use. Obviously societies need to focus on sustainable use, which ultimately would yeild far more lumber (and wealth) in the long run than over-using the land in the short term.
Very true. Maybe a reduction in paper use will help aid the problem. I don't know enough about the home building/forest razing situation in South America, but I assume it'd be quite difficult to make them stop.
I remember as a kid, donating quarters to plant trees in Israel. Little did I know they were planting them on people's former homes. :/
|
I see several problems with statements in the article. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but here they are as I see them. Please note that I'm not against curbing waste or trying to be an anti environmentalist or whatnot, I'm just pointing out what appear to be logical inconsistencies. And I hate it when people make my side look bad with stupid arguments.
1.The world cannot sustain more than x number of humans, with this x being somewhere under 72 billion.
This statement is assumed to be true, justified by 'I have not met anyone crazy enough to claim otherwise,' which implies that anyone who disagrees is crazy. Not only is this illogical, it is also an underhanded attack on people who do not agree.
However, if the world's population were to reduce consumption of resources to a bare minimum (which is at the most "1" unit of consumption, and possibly lower), then the current resource production could conceivably meet the demand of such a large population. The inconsistency is evident.
Also, this talk of "at current consumption rate" is ambiguous at best: whose current consumption rate? The world average? The Americans'? The Africans'? He speaks of an effective population of 72 billion if the consumption rate changed to match those of Americans', and in the same model uses the "current consumption rate."
2. The amount of resources produced is inherently limited; any discrepancy between consumption and supply must be resolved by limiting consumption.
I will postulate that there are non-renewable, non-recyclable, non-replacable, critical resources for which no known acceptable substitute exists. I really can't think of any off the top of my head, but we'll work on the assumption that there is.
The result of such an assumption is that everyone dies. If you need it and you can't have it, what happens? Whatever it is, we're going to run out at some point. The only difference that reducing consumption of that resource is going to make is that we're going to die more slowly. There is the added dimension that we might develop a workable replacement if we have more time, but I find it hard to believe that such a timeframe exists and applies to our (and I mean our world) situation.
That leaves renewable or recyclable or replacable resources. Who does the renewing, recycling, or replacing? The people. Obviously, it takes less than one person to produce enough for more than one person; otherwise, there would be a clear and immediate lack of things to consume, or everyone would be in the manufacturing industry. The problem is the solution, in this case.
Also, historically, production per capita has been increasing. In some areas, this growth is sublinear, in others it is exponential. If we applied the article's logic to the production rates of a pre-industrial revolution world, we would find that the current world status is not possible, because we did not account for advances in production methods.
|
United States22883 Posts
|
On January 03 2008 15:08 BottleAbuser wrote:
If we applied the article's logic to the production rates of a pre-industrial revolution world, we would find that the current world status is not possible, because we did not account for advances in production methods.
This is exactly it. I find all too often the importance of technological improvements is neglected when looking at the scarcity of resources issue. Dare I say, politicians should be spending less time negotiating environmental target treaties and more time encouraging co-operation and more funds available to researchers developing the world's technological state. For example, assuming the introduction of increased anti-pollution regulations costs businesses $X a year. Instead of having these increased regulations the government instead taxed businesses receiving revenue of a$X, where a is a constant that may be greater or less than 1 since the efficiency of the tax relative to the increased cost of meeting regulations is unknown (although I would assume a < 1). I would rather $aX be then transferred to research and development than simply raising costs on businesses.
The fact world leaders sign something like the Kyoto treaty is a move to gain votes; even if the target are set after their governmental term is over the political party (and the leader) can easily tell the electorate what they've done to help the environment, and similarly, the electorate can easily understand what's happened. Whereas research and development may take, say, a decade before tangible results are seen while in the meantime leaving politicians who support such paths with a relatively less impressive pro-environmental image.
|
BottleAbuser, I think a lot of this article could be written better, but I think his point about consumption rates is sound (what you address as point 1.)
He is saying that if everyone consumed like Americans do, it would be as if there are 72 billion people in the world in our PRESENT condition. His point is awkward, but it is sound. Again, IF everyone consumed like Americans (hypothetical) it would be as if there were 72 billion people in the world (given real present day conditions). Another way it is frequently put is that for everyone to consume like Americans, we would need 3+ Earths to sustain the level of consumption.
On point 2, I don't think Diamond is talking about non-renewable resources. He is talking about the rates at which we use renewable resources (like trees.)
To make a simplistic math example out of the problem, say there is some finite amount of trees, and they replenish themselves at a rate of 10/year. This means we can sustainably use trees at a rate of 10 or less per year - forever. But if we start taking more than 10 a year, we will deplete the pool of trees. That's all he is saying.
You point out that new production methods and technological advances make more efficient production possible. This is true. However, the gains in efficiency are off-set by ever expanding consumption. Never before has more waste and more consumption occured in the history of the world.
It is also important to guard against using the past to predict the future. Because humanity has avoided environmental catastrophe in the past does not mean it will in the future. (Actually, many civilizations have fallen due to how they lived in and treated their environment - this is the subject matter of Jared's book, Collapse.)
|
MiltonFriedman: The problem with focusing purely on technological development to solve environmental problems is that while technology can reduce pollution and increase productive efficiency, the "gains" that result are eaten up by expanded growth and consumption. If we curtailed economic growth and consumption, while employing improved technologies, it would go a long way towards avoiding the environmental crisis. However, virtually all politicians and businesses operate under the assumption of perpetual growth. No matter how greatly our environmental impact is reduced, as long as it exists and expands indefinitely, we will bring about environmental destruction. (Edit: the key here is *constant expansion* - consumption itself can be sustained, but endless growth in consumption cannot.)
It is worth considering, too, that technology itself has played perhaps the biggest role in creating present day environmental threats. The last hundred years have seen the rise of all manner of toxic chemicals, incredible increases in pollution and waste, and all manner of extremely powerful technologies. Much new technology is infact so complex that it is beyond democratic control, and it is simultaneously more powerful and dangerous than ever.
The view that technology will invariably take care of all problems is "technological fundamentalism." We must recognize this. Many people here speak of Christian or Islamic fundamentalism negatively, not realizing that they too possess fundamentalist views - an irrational faith in science and technology (not that science or technology are inherently wrong - just that nothing is absolute and we must always be critical and discerning.)
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 04 2008 01:05 nA.Inky wrote:
MiltonFriedman: The problem with focusing purely on technological development to solve environmental problems is that while technology can reduce pollution and increase productive efficiency, the "gains" that result are eaten up by expanded growth and consumption. If we curtailed economic growth and consumption, while employing improved technologies, it would go a long way towards avoiding the environmental crisis. However, virtually all politicians and businesses operate under the assumption of perpetual growth. No matter how greatly our environmental impact is reduced, as long as it exists and expands indefinitely, we will bring about environmental destruction. (Edit: the key here is *constant expansion* - consumption itself can be sustained, but endless growth in consumption cannot.)
It is worth considering, too, that technology itself has played perhaps the biggest role in creating present day environmental threats. The last hundred years have seen the rise of all manner of toxic chemicals, incredible increases in pollution and waste, and all manner of extremely powerful technologies. Much new technology is infact so complex that it is beyond democratic control, and it is simultaneously more powerful and dangerous than ever.
The view that technology will invariably take care of all problems is "technological fundamentalism." We must recognize this. Many people here speak of Christian or Islamic fundamentalism negatively, not realizing that they too possess fundamentalist views - an irrational faith in science and technology (not that science or technology are inherently wrong - just that nothing is absolute and we must always be critical and discerning.)
This is the crux of what we disagree upon. We are critical and discerning, and that's what has led is from the concern over car crash safety to the concern of car emissions safety. Technology and development have had a visibly negative impact on nature, but in the past our entire focus with them was to improve our quality of life. We've reached a point where that is no longer the singular goal. Still technology should be used to improve the lives of everyone on the planet, but we can also direct it towards helping the planet itself, which is a brand new concept.
You're absolutely right that our old technology is the primary cause of our huge increase in consumption, but the purpose of new technology is to provide far less impactful replacements. 72 billion people living off of coal power plants and 10 year old car engines would probably be disastrous, but we're trying to make sure that's not the issue we face.
|
Even if we reduced our impact 4 or 5 times over, the present 6.6 billion population (which, again, is projected to grow) would not be able to sustain the PRESENT American standard of living (not everyone can live like Americans, even with vastly improved technology). This can be seen from the fact that the world is already facing extreme problems just from 1.5 billion people living the affluent lifestyle.
But the goal is not even to maintain the present standard of living with less high impact technology. The goal, first and foremost, is economic growth (expanded consumption/production with expanded waste as a byproduct). People are increasingly concerned about efficiency of technology, but again.. gains in efficiency are "wasted" on increased growth.
Again, the goal primarily discussed by politicians and producers is growth. Economic growth for those who are already filthy rich, and economic growth for the global poor. Growth everywhere.
Edit: it is important to realize that neither I nor Diamond are taking a stand against technology. No one here is recommending a return to a hunter-gatherer way of life, or a return to the Dark Ages. Instead, this is a well reasoned call to recognize limitations. We have to set limits.
|
United States22883 Posts
The gains of efficiency are much greater than 4-5 times, and the reasonable belief scientists have is that they will far surpass our growth. Cutting back on driving a car from 1990 is one approach, but it's one that would lower productivity, comfort and the economy. Driving a car from 2008 or 2012 or 2020 is the another, and you're not sacrificing those things. Furthermore, automobiles are an essential technology. Arguably not for house wives or teenagers, but for any industry you can think of. Pumping more money into their development is the fastest way to get things up to acceptable standards.
|
I think there are few renewable resources in which personnel is not the limiting factor. Planting and tending trees takes some finite amount of manpower, as well as some amount of materiel and land. I do not have any numbers, but given the vast amounts of surplus food that is "dumped" (literally thrown away) by the agriculture industry, I doubt that it would be very costly to ramp up production of lumber by several factors.
Also, the article argues that since forests are mismanaged to the point that they are not renewing, we should reduce consumption. It is far more likely and possible, and productive on top of that, to change how we are treating the forests than to change the behavior of millions of consumers.
As for technological advance: We can count on slow, incremental technological improvements, and wait for breakthroughs. I agree that it would be as illogical as religion to depend on some breakthrough to save us, but there is no problem with trusting a growth trend that exceeds consumption trends.
|
Well, it seems the bullshit argument is pretty much refuted already.
Condensed version:
There exist no non-renewable resources. [With energy and present-day technology, there is nothing we cannot create.] We have access to an amount of energy, from the sun, which by far surpasses the requirement of 72 billion Americans. With this amount of energy, it is very possible to recycle any so-called finite resource, such as metals and fresh water. The article is based on completely groundless and false assumptions about the possible production of the Earth.
EDIT: First paragraph is nonsense. 32 is a special number to mathematicians? Since when?
|
Zherak's statement above is a prime example of technological fundamentalism. I mean, think of the Christians on the one hand: "whatever happens is irrelevent, Jesus is coming back and all the Christians will be saved." Then think of folks like Zherak: "whatever happens is irrelevent, technology will keep evolving and will solve all problems."
These ideas are rooted in faith, and faith in technology is probably as misguided as any faith, given that the great looming crises are largely a product of technological development. Our power has exceeded our wisdom, and this causes us to act unwisely. The solution - let's ask Zherak.... "more technology! More power!"
Again, it's not that consumption is bad. It's not even that waste is necessarily bad. It's a question of SCALE. The present scale of consumption, production, and waste is staggering - not sustainable. As we speak, the scale is increasing greatly, and there are many poor people who want to jump in and play the modern game - catch the affluenza bug. About 1.5 billion of the Earth's population is in the consumption class, and the Earth is already buckling under this pressure. Add another 6 billion people to the consumption class and then what?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
look at developmental dynamics going forward. that is what matters, not some theoretical technological utopia. the problem here is simple, whether a certain development is sustainable, and for what social cost. increases in efficient production techniques 'could' lead to less costly consumption, but you have to make the argument that this si likely or will happen, and act appropriately. otherwise you are suffering from the very blindness of dynamics that you apparently critiicse.
added in is the concept of efficient use. only a myopic Capitalist!!11 would argue that the resources spent beautifying a corner of manhattan is not better spent raising the living standards in some poor place. but hey, who gives a shit about them, right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
