What's Really Killing Us?

Global warming is a symptom of the disease. Overpopulation is another symptom of the same disease. The degradation of our farmland, the loss of biodiversity, deforestation, the freshwater crisis, the collapse of populations of wildlife both terrestrial and aquatic - they're all symptoms of this killer disease.

So what's this disease? It's pretty simple. It is us, mankind, and our abject refusal to live in harmony with nature. This cascade of threats trace back to our insatiable appetite for ever more. Neoliberalism is all about "ever more" - the pursuit of perpetual exponential growth. Justin Trudeau is a disciple. Andrew Scheer is a disciple. The Republicans and their Democrat rivals are all disciples.

These symptoms are nature's way of saying "no" to our demands for ever more. There's no more to be had. We're already consuming resources at 1.7 times our biosphere's ability to replenish them, 1.7 times Earth's ecological carrying capacity.  We've gone through the current account into our savings and, even as our savings dwindle, our overdraft increases.

It's not just that we're taking more than the planet can deliver. That's not the worst part. It's our absolute dependence on ever more, that's the worst part.  The UN FAO predicts that by 2050 we'll need to produce 50 per cent more food to meet the needs of an insanely large population. OPEC and the IEA foresee us burning 30 to 40 per cent more fossil fuels by 2040. We were supposed to be largely carbon-free by then.

Why, with all this evidence, of this looming multi-faceted existential threat aren't we racing to respond to avert the worst? My guess is that's not the way humans work. We're not inclined to work cooperatively, even when the writing is on the wall.

We react when we're directly affected. Take climate change. We don't all experience the same thing at the same time. The coming decade is expected to bring a new type of warming called "climate departure." It's predicted to set in around 2023 but not where we're at. It will begin in more equatorial regions. Closest to home will be Central America and some Caribbean island states.  Those living in these first affected areas will have two choices: die in place or migrate poleward to a place of refuge. Let's not dwell on how that plays out.

In this "what's in it for me?" world, global solidarity is hard to visualize. We have no global consensus and there are powerful but narrow interests working very hard to see that never happens.

So, if we're not going to avert climate catastrophe, what then? That depends on where you live. If you're in the developed world or at least the northernmost nations of the developed world and if you can prevent some nuclear exchange, your best bet might be to ride it out and simply become bystanders to a Great Die Off of the little brown people in distant lands.

Those who study these things suggest the world's carrying capacity, as far as humanity goes, is now about two billion people. It was three billion back in the early 70s but things change. We're now at eight billion heading, by some projections, to nine, ten billion or more.  We can do that by burning massively more fossil fuels and getting our already degraded soils to increase output by 50 per cent. Yeah, right.

If you subtract two billion from eight billion that means six billion simply have to go. That's when those six billion go from being our fellow human beings, kumbaya, into our scourge.

The lucky two billion won't get off scot-free. We'll also be hammered, just not quite as bad as the unlucky six or at least not as soon. We'll be dealing with our own problems which means we're not apt to be willing, in our weakened condition, to worry about their problems except to the extent they threaten us.

The only effective solutions are global but we simply can't, more properly 'won't,' respond at that level.  The advantaged who are also best positioned would have to make the greatest sacrifices and, face it, we won't hear of it.

Festung Europa, meet Festung El Norte.