Part 14: Sustainable growth is unsustainable

Richard Stengel, managing editor of Time Magazine, in October 2006 wrote an essay promoting America’s population growth, “We need to continue growing but in smarter more sustainable ways.”

A picture of Stengel wearing a suit and tie along with a smile accompanied his essay “Tracking America’s Journey.” He looks intelligent, but his words betray his understanding of America’s population dilemma. Stengel illustrates 20th century thinking in the harsh realities of the 21st century. In other words, he’s clueless as to what he’s talking about. However, he looks good, so millions of people think he knows what he’s promoting. He does not!

Albert Einstein warned, “The problems in the world today are so enormous they cannot be solved with the level of thinking that created them.”

In his essay, Stengel illustrated our glorious past population growth and projected our adding 100 million people in three decades. He said, “Unlike Japan and Europe, the U.S. is still growing at a healthy clip.” He neglected to state that millions of those immigrants flee from overpopulated countries that can’t feed their populations. That phenomenon fuels our population growth.

Stengel neglected to understand that you can’t maintain a ‘healthy’ and ‘sustainable’ growing population ad infinitum. The two stand diametrically opposed to one another. Stengel subscribes to antiquated 20th century thinking. He presents well, but he’s totally out of touch with the consequences of what he promotes.

His kind of thinking drives California’s current 37.5 million onward to 79 million in 40 years. Stengel’s thinking adds 12 million people to Texas in 18 years.

Let’s get down to brass tacks on the absurdity of unending growth and sustainability!

Dr. Albert Bartlett, physics professor at the University of Colorado, and brilliant demographic expert wrote, “Arithmetic, Population and Energy.” You may obtain a copy of the video by calling 303-492-2670 or emailing Mr. Herb Rodriguez at herb.rodriguez@colorado.edu That video would cause Time Editor Richard Stengel to write a different essay on America’s future. Why? He could no longer romanticize. He couldn’t write glowingly about the future with an added 100 million people. He couldn’t obfuscate the facts we face as civilization headed for an unsustainable future. Dr. Bartlett writes:

THE MEANING OF SUSTAINABILITY

First, we must accept the idea that "sustainable" has to mean “for an unspecified long period of time.”

Second, we must acknowledge the mathematical fact that steady growth gives very large numbers in modest periods of time. For example, a population of 10,000 people growing at 7 percent per year will become a population of 10,000,000 people in just 100 years.

From these two statements we can see that the term "sustainable growth"

implies "increasing endlessly," which means that the growing quantity will

tend to become infinite in size. The finite size of resources, ecosystems,

the environment, and the Earth, lead one to the most fundamental truth of

sustainability:

When applied to material things, the term "sustainable growth" is an oxymoron.

SUSTAINABILITY

The terms "sustainable" and "sustainability" burst into the global lexicon in the 1980s as the electronic news media made people increasingly aware of the growing global problems of overpopulation, drought, famine, and environmental degradation that had been the subject of “Limits to Growth” in the early 1970s.

A great increase of awareness came with the publication of the report of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, the Brundtland Report, which is available in bookstores under the title “Our Common Future.”

In graphic and heart-wrenching detail, the report places before the reader the enormous problems and suffering that are being experienced with growing intensity every day throughout the underdeveloped world. In the foreword, before there was any definition of "sustainable," there was the ringing call:

“What is needed now is a new era of economic growth - growth that is forceful and at the same time socially and environmentally sustainable.”

One should be struck by the fact that here is a call for "economic growth" that is "sustainable." One has to ask if it is possible to have an increase in economic activity without having increases in the rates of consumption of non-renewable resources. If so, under what conditions can this happen? Are we moving toward those conditions today? What is meant by the undefined terms, “socially sustainable” and “environmentally sustainable?” Can we have one without the other?

As we have seen, these two concepts of “growth” and “sustainability" are in conflict with one another, yet here we see the call for both. The use of the word "forceful" would seem to imply "rapid," but if this is the intended meaning, it would just heighten the conflict.

Thus sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and

growth are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the

ecosystem.

One begins to feel uneasy. “Population size and growth” are vaguely

identified as possible problem areas, but we don’t know what the Commission means by the phrase "in harmony with...?" It can mean anything. By page 11 the Commission acknowledges that population growth is a serious problem, but then: The issue is not just numbers of people, but how those numbers relate to available resources. Urgent steps are needed to limit extreme rates of population growth.

Once you read or watch Dr. Bartlett’s presentation, you will be more in touch with reality than Time’s Editor Richard Stengel. There’s no way we need to or can add 100 million people to the United States by 2040, which is 34 years from now.

I’ve seen Dr. Bartlett give his presentation personally. There’s no dancing around his facts, figures and harsh reality check. In my world travels, I’ve witnessed population growth’s worst outcomes. America already walks on the thin ice edge of our own demise with 300 million people. We either stabilize our U.S. population, or we become victims of our own numbers.

We cannot sustain unlimited growth. We cannot break the laws of nature as to “carrying capacity.” We cannot add 40 million more people to California and think we can provide water to drink, for crops, for animals, habitat for all other life and room to live a decent life. We cannot be THAT stupid, but, as of this writing, and in concert with Time Editor Richard Stengel, we are!

What to do? We must enact a 10 year moratorium on all immigration. We must create a National Population Policy. The human race can’t keep burning 80 million barrels of oil daily and maintain arrogance that all is well. We must develop alternative energy at breakneck speed. We must educate ourselves faster than we procreate ourselves.

"Unbeknownst to many Americans, there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that we are very close to reaching a point of no turning back on global warming, which is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. We are approaching a point at which all of the following will become unavoidable: massive desertification, rising sea level, explosive growth of insect populations, widespread habitat destruction, mass extinctions, mass migrations (including of humans), the disappearance of sea life, and in all likelihood wars over drinking water that will make the wars over oil look civilized." David Swanson

“Exponential growth is adding one billion people to our planet every 12 years. Ninety percent of this growth stems from the developing world. The consequences are grave. Environmental destruction escalates as more people compete for water, land, clean air, food, fuel and amenities. Civil conflicts and ethnic wars roil societies as Balkanized people attempt to gain advantage through resource grabs at the expense of neighbors. Millions of the dispossessed are forced to migrate—straining the infrastructure and good will of richer nations.” William B. Dickinson author of the “The Biocentric Imperative”

##