Forget banking and the automotive industry. Earth is the one system that is truly “too big to fail.” For centuries humans have used up the planet’s resources, saddled it with our waste and simply moved on when a wellspring dried up or the back forty became polluted. But now we’ve exhausted that strategy. Scientists, social thinkers and the global public are realizing that humankind has transformed the natural planet into an industrialized one, and we must transition again to a sustainable planet if we are to survive.
So what is the bailout plan? The first step is determining how close to “failure” the world is. Environmental scientist Jonathan Foley presents the results of a major international collaboration that calculated safe limits for pivotal environmental processes, such as climate change and ocean acidification, that could undermine sustainability if allowed to go too far. The numerical boundaries may need fine-tuning, but knowing which processes matter most tells us where to look for solutions. Scientific American invites eight experts to propose specific remedies.
Those fixes could slow environmental degradation but might not solve the underlying cause. That culprit, according to Middlebury College scholar in residence Bill McKibben, is the very driver of modern society: a relentless quest for economic growth. In an exclusive excerpt from his upcoming book, McKibben argues that we must give up growth and reorganize based on smart maintenance of resources. Critics say the idea is unrealistic; staff editor Mark Fischetti challenges him to respond.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
29 Comments
Add CommentThe "culprit" is "a relentless quest for economic growth"? Seriously?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real culprit isn't capitalism, as fashionable a villain as it is. The real villain is one that our uniquely American, no-compromise adherence to civil liberties forbids us to talk about: population growth. If we can't control the explosion of humanity, it doesn't matter how much we "reorganize based on smart maintenance of resources." In that respect, you might even say that China is the only country that's really serious about saving the planet (irony intended).
Tucker makes a great point. No matter what the problem is, most can be linked back to population growth. I wouldn't throw Industrialisation out though, it only exacerbates the problem. Of course, we could easy lead a sustainable industrialized world, with less people, but I think we try to tackle the issues we feel we are ready to compromise on. People wouldn't dare invade on the sacred idea of having two kids and a dog. Why is this issue so "forbidden" as Tucker puts it. Every scientist knows that the population cannot keep growing like it is, but no one dares address it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat do you think leads to population explosions? The pursuit of economic growth. People need more children because they are valuable for work. The environment and the economy are inextricably linked, and by trying to extract "wealth" from the environment (the only way possible to get wealth, ultimately) we irreparably damage the earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the commentators: we can debate which toxic byproduct will destroy us and how to avoid that, or we can take drastic, humane, steps to reduce the global population and improve our chances of survival in the conditions that are coming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not to give up the fight, but to simply adopt best survival strategy.
Or we can continue the debate until we kill each other off. Either way the population will unavoidably be reduced.
@flyingcircus:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe pursuit of economic growth is not what leads to population explosions; population tends to grow less quickly in industrialized nations in general, and among wealthier populations in particular.
In response to flyingcircus: If the pursuit of economic growth leads to population explosions, why do the most successful economies tend to have stable populations (e.g. the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, etc.), while less prosperous nations grow out of control (e.g. India, Africa, etc.)? I think the actual effect is the opposite of what you suggest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I disagree that the only way to extract wealth is from the environment. The ultimate wealth is energy, which typically comes from the sun, not from the environment. Even fossil fuels are just burning stored solar power. There are exceptions (fission, fusion, and geothermal come to mind), but to a first order the sun is our major energy source, and tapping its energy doesn't inherently require taking stuff from the environment. Yes you also need raw materials, but we've got a good supply of those already extracted, and in any case the extraction process isn't nearly as big a problem as figuring out what to do with the byproducts and the trash.
Your argument doesn't stand up when you look at the poorer nations. They must have more children to sustain the older generation when they cannot work to get food. They are stuck with the choice of life with a lot of kids, or death at a young age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is that mankind is collectively stupid as a species. There are experts that have identified the problems facing us, but democracy has totally failed to adress them, as is proved by the two billion people either starving or living below the poverty line. We urgently need new ways of doing things. The chance of intelligent life existing elsewhere in our galaxy are slim. We only have one chance, so we are condemned to succeed, whatever ruling forces might think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLanorelen, please note, Africa is not a nation. It is a continent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSAVE our NEED is the way to SAVE our EARTH.Max need is no limited, Min need is limited by BREATHLESS.Population explosion is by product of Your Orgasm so you can easily control your self.THAT ALL ..NIRVANA.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe consume, consume, and consume, with no thought about the waste that we are producing.....begin by recycling and reducing plastic waste, quit buying all the "crap" that we don't need...there is no one underlying cause...there are several including the quest for consuming and overpopulation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe consume, consume, and consume, with no thought about the waste that we are producing.....begin by recycling and reducing plastic waste, quit buying all the "crap" that we don't need...there is no one underlying cause...there are several including the quest for consuming and overpopulation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, the existence of so much poverty increases the wasting of environmental resources (forests) and creates disregard for endangered species as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think low birth rates in rich countries is a temporary phenomena. Low fossil fuel costs provide women more opportunities for personal wealth: time spent raising extra kids can be better spent raising extra money. But when fossil fuels are gone and people stay closer to home and live more labor intensive lives, I'd bet women will have time and incentives, both social and economic, to have more children again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTucker M. & Co.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe explosion of humanity should control itself if most of us humans have a good life, and not living in poverty. In poverty you get many children, in a good life you get usually one or two children. Our solar system and it's planets resources is infinite and not at all exhausted. A bit, like your thumb, of a solar flare has so much energy in it that the mankind could have free energy in thousands of years. All other materials we need could be found in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
We have to invest in science and science education, that is the best survival strategy.
Whilst it may be true at some future epoc that there may be overpopulation, what is dangerous today is something else. This is the unwillingness of land-owning monopolists to allow for equality of opportunity to use natural resources, so that everyone who wants can earn a reasonable living. So much land is not being used due to these speculators, that its competitive price is very high and as a result the cost of production is also raised.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJeremy Rifkin pointed out with complete clarity that all of these problems are a function of population/overpopulation. His 1980 book called "Entropy". On target 30 years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah! It's quite true that China is one of the countries that are trying to do something useful for the sustaining of our earth, if not the only one. It has done a lot to control its population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe pursuit of economic growth is stronger in Asian and African countries. in already developed nations, about a hundred years ago, it wasn't hard to find families with three or more children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthey developed all that time ago, got their economic growth and now are developed countries.
the developing countries and third world countries are pursuing economic growth and will tend to have more population.
controlling needs is an answer. i don't know why people like you tend to talk about population growth, when just cutting down consumption can also be done. again, both things done in tandem is more sustainable than either of them.
earth has enough for everybody's need, not a single man's greed.
chart p 55 April 2010 issue. Puzzling seeming contradiction on Ocean Acidification (Boundary 2.75; current 2/90, but blue band is inside 2.75 boundary) and Ozone Depletion (boundary 276, current 283, but green area is inside boundary) Am I missing something here? Bob Horn, Stanford University, author of Visual Language: Global Communication for the 21st Century. hornbob@earthlink.net
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisp.55 April 2010 issue. Puzzling two areas in chart: Ocean acidification (current 2.9, boundary 2.75, but blue area indicating current is inside rather than outside boundary. Same problem with Stratospheric Ozone Depletion. Am I missing something here? Are the numbers right or is the colored area right? Bob Horn
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would agree with a great number of opinions expressed: Unrestrained population growth is the main culprit. Of course these populations themselves are not to be blamed, it is lack of education and detremental standards of living that should be addressed. A new Marshall Plan would be needed for the third world, such as has worked so well with Europe after it had been destroyed during the second world war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't see good perspectives for a super-populated planet by a species that scaped natural selection. I think mankind is passing through a maximum of specimens ant that it exceeded the sustainability of the planet resources. It has to diminish, for good or otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScaped the natural selection is possibly a miope vision, a perspective of whom is involved in the process. Super-population, as the Paleontology teach us is followed by degenerescence and extinction. As homo-sapiens is full of art it is possible that they could administrate the problem and go ahead, but the most probable is that is a few generations we should have to get a lower level of number of specimens.
If we do not succeed is doing that Nature will take care and will do it her style, which, if you don't dnow how it is , it's better don't pass through the experience, she plays hard and do not give perdon.
I can't see goodd perspectives for a super-populated planet by a specie that scaped natural selection. I think mankind is passing through a maximim os specimens and that it exceeded the sustainability of the planet rerources. It has to diminish, for good ou otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScaped natural selection is possibly a miope vision, a perspective of whom is involved in the process. Super population, as Paleontology teach us, is followed by degenerescence and extinction. As homo-sapiens is full of art it is possible that they could administrate tyhe problem and go ahead, but the most probable is that is a few generations we should have to get a lower level of number of specimens. If we don't suceed in doing that Nature will take care and will do it her style, which, if you don't know how it is, better don't pass through the experience, she play hard and do not give perdon.
Besides disease, resource starvation and fast-food, humankind has no predators. This allows for abnormal population growth. As unethical as it may sound, war is the answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumankind's lengthy survival may have depended upon self-inflicted population control as painted subtly by our history.
Audubon is the only organization courageous enough to say that we must shrink population. Both the US and the EU has rapidly growing populations on an environmental timescale. Technical advances will not solve our problems. Nor will economic restraints on consumption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLarge scale solar arrays in space, which can microwave back unlimited energy will solve many of our problems; however, not unless we control population growth. While population growth is near ZPG in most native born populations (excluding immigrants) of 1st World Nations, the third world continues to over-breed. Institution of "one child" policies in these nations, similar to China's policy, will enable these countries to rise out of poverty and provide improved standards of living for smaller future populations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Foley observes that we have co-opted from one-third to one half of all the photosynthesis on the planet. If the population triples, then what? Any exponential growth will eventually fill the entire planet, but something will stop it before then. I can think of three factors, birth control, famine and disease, or that staple of science fiction authors, gentle termination at some designated age. I didn't see any of these mentioned in the April issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause those economies turn outward in search of unlimited growth potential. They start selling food to impoverished countries in order to increase population so they can sell more goods ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny economic system that has to grow eternally, without limit, in order to succeed, must eventually fail.