Sustainability is what it's all about.
We need to know the meaning of sustainability. An understanding of exponential arithmetic is a
prerequisite to an understanding
of the problems of achieving sustainability. I assume that you are all well acquainted with the arithmetic
of exponential growth,
and in particular with the fact that steady growth can give astronomically large numbers in a modest
period of time. To
understand sustainability we turn first to the most widely quoted definition, which is for sustainable
development:
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
The World Commission On Environment And Development,
We need a more detailed understanding of the meaning of sustainability than we can gain from this
one statement.
An Oxymoron
The inescapable observation that follows from these two facts is that the term "sustainable growth" is an
oxymoron !
Now let's look at a quotation from our national leaders:
We will renew America's commitment to leave our children a better nation -- a nation whose air,
water, and land are unspoiled, whose natural beauty is undimmed, and whose leadership for
sustainable global growth is unsurpassed.
(Emphasis has been
added)
William J. Clinton, Al Gore
Putting People First: How We Can All Change America
Times Books, New York City, 1992, pg. 94-
95
Our leaders' lack of understanding of sustainability is a major problem.
Let's look at some facts that point to the urgency of thinking seriously about sustainability.
Global warming:
There is a growing scientific consensus that human activities are now having observable effects on the
global climate.
Newsweek for august 11, 1997, pg. 62, reports that "average annual air temperatures on the Antarctic
peninsula have climbed
5 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 50 years, 10 times faster than the global rate.
"Average midwinter temperatures there are up 9 degrees.
"The cause could be natural climate fluctuations. or it could be global warming induced by the heat-
trapping "greenhouse gases"
emitted into the atmosphere."
The Ozone Hole:
The destruction of ozone in the high atmosphere allows more ultra-violet light to reach the surface of
the earth where it can have
serious biological effects. We must recognize that we are now embarked on a global experiment whose
outcome is unknown.
And more frightening, it is not even known if the global response to human activities is reversible.
Are we walking along reversibly on level ground, or are we jumping irreversibly off a cliff ?
Food:
The Worldwatch Institute reports that annual global per capita production of grain has dropped from
346 kilograms per
person in 1984 to 313 kilograms per person in 1996. This is a drop of 9.5 % in the last 8
years!
In an observation that should interest physicists, David and Marcia Pimentel estimate that in the united
states, three units of
fossil fuel energy are needed to produce one unit of food energy.
Oceanic Fisheries:
The annual oceanic fish catch stopped growing in 1989, and many of the world's major fishing
resources are now seriously
depleted.
Fresh water:
A report in January 1997 from Stockholm indicated that by the year 2025, two-thirds of the world's
peoples will suffer from
water shortages. The rate of growth of the use of fresh water is twice the rate of growth of world
population.
Petroleum:
My own analysis suggests that approximately three quarters (75%) of the recoverable petroleum in
the 50 states has been
consumed and we in the U.S. are now coasting downhill on the remaining 25 % of the petroleum. We in
the U.S. now import
more than 50 % of our petroleum.
Further, my analysis, based on geological estimates of the total world resource of petroleum, suggests that
world petroleum
production will peak around the year 2004 and thereafter will start its inevitable decline toward zero.
Think what it will mean to have declining world production of petroleum and an increasing world
population that aspires to
have increasing per capita consumption of petroleum.
In 1996 the average world per capita production of oil was about 1.7 liters per person per day, and
falling.
Population Growth
All of these problems are caused by population growth. None of these problems can be "solved" if
population growth
continues.
Physics Is A Luxury
Physicists tend to worry about physics, while leaving the problems of society, and in particular the
problems of sustainability, to
others. Physicists have a tremendous stake in the global future.
Compared to survival, physics is a luxury that can exist only in an stable society.
The immediate consequence of overpopulation is the decline of democracy, followed by political
instability, which seems to be
on the increase in all parts of the world. In an unstable society, physics will be an early casualty. Can you
imagine trying to do
physics in the former Yugoslovia ?
Reaching The Student
I sense that the topics that are discussed in our texts, and probably in our classes are becoming more
and more theoretical (and
interesting to physicists) but are becoming less and less relevant, in the sense that these topics have little
relation to the world in
which our students will live and function.
Topics such as heat and thermodynamics are given less emphasis, or are omitted, in order to gain time to
talk about exotic
advanced concepts.
I think the most crucial problem is in the introductory physics classes at all levels in institutions ranging
from high schools to the
large universities. The majority of the students in these introductory classes will probably never take
another physics course.
We have only one chance to help these students.
Do we want to frustrate these students by exposing them to some of the vocabulary of quantum
mechanics, or do we want to
try to give them a solid background in the fundamental elementary topics that are essential to an
understanding of the world of
their everyday experiences ?
The key to sustainability lies in understanding the simple classical science of the everyday Newtonian
world.
Is there anywhere in the large introductory courses where we can reach large numbers of students with
discussions of the
problems of growing populations and sustainability? This question gains great urgency from the fact that
we live in a world that
worships growth and that talks enthusiastically about "sustainable growth," which is a clear
impossibility.
Worship of Growth
This optimistic exclusion of reality exists not only at the national level; it also exists in the
communities where we live and work.
Here in Boulder, Colorado we have the Boulder County Health Communities Initiative. This has
consisted of a series of well
organized monthly "town meetings" in which concerned people from all walks of life assemble regularly
to talk about the
problems that we face in Boulder County; problems such as overcrowding of schools, traffic congestion,
air pollution, excessive
regulation and control, high and rising taxes, uncivil behavior, etc.
The leaders of the initiative often speak of working to achieve sustainability. All of these problems are
caused by population
growth. None of these problems can be solved as long as population growth continues
Yet in the monthly meetings, I am the only person who speaks up to call attention to the causal role of
population growth in all
of these problems, and to point out that if we are serious about sustainability, the first thing we must do is
to stop the population
growth. When I raise the issue, almost everyone, including the leaders, listens politely and then goes on as
though nothing had
been said.
We know we are facing limits; we deny this critical fact. Yet the population continues to grow, and
physicists who have the
ability to understand the problems, by and large don't speak out in our classrooms or in the public that we
serve. We pride
ourselves on our critical thinking, yet most of us fail to apply our critical thinking abilities to the
contemporary problems of
society.
Five Examples
Let's look at five examples of widely accepted arguments that are routinely offered by the promoters
of population growth in
our communities. These arguments can be proven wrong by the simplest of analysis. We all have
encountered this kind of
non-critical thinking at the local level where we as individuals can speak up and point out the fallacies of
these arguments
First: Was there ever a politician who did not love to say, "we have to create new jobs?" Now
think critically, and you will see
that creating jobs in your community increases the number of people in your community who are out of
work.
Here's how it happens:
The equilibrium unemployment rate is about 5 %. When new jobs are created in your community, the
unemployment rate might
drop perhaps to 3 %. But then new people move into the community to take the jobs and restore the
unemployment rate to the equilibrium value of 5 %.
But this is 5 % of a larger population, so the number of people out of work in your community has
increased. You can't have a
region of permanent low unemployment in the U.S. any more than you can have a region of permanent
low pressure in a
closed container of gas.
One can say with confidence that there are twice as many people out of work in Denver today, as there
were when Denver had
half of its present population. And you can say with confidence, that for every 100 new jobs created in
your community, the
number of unemployed people in your community will increase by approximately 5 .
Second: "We have to attract more people and more factories in order to get more municipal tax
revenue - - that is, to broaden
the tax base."
Of course, more people result in more tax income to the community, but they also result in more
infrastructure demands on the
tax revenue.The demands always grow faster than the revenue. Indeed, using national data, I have
estimated that on the
average, the per capita annual municipal taxes vary as
(Municipal Population)^ 0.3
The fundamental rule is: "Population growth never pays for itself!" Even with more people paying
taxes, each person's
municipal taxes have to go up to pay for growth. A recent study in Oregon indicated that every new home
built in Oregon
generates public costs of about $26,000 !
Third: How often have you heard it said that we have to upgrade our two-lane highways to giant
multi-lane freeways, "in order
to reduce air pollution?"
Of course, if you drive a given distance nonstop, the pollution generated by your car is less than if you
drive the same distance
stop-and-go. But the new presence of a multi-lane freeway generates enormous new volumes of traffic,
not previously present,
whose added pollution overwhelms the small reduction in pollution per each vehicle generates per unit of
distance driven.
Ultimately the large freeways are congested and drivers experience much larger traffic jams than they had
on the earlier
two-lane roads.
The complete and unequivocal proof of the fallacy of the argument lies in the observation that if building
freeways reduced air
pollution, Los Angeles would have negative air pollution, whatever that is!
Fourth: "Allowing bigger and heavier trucks on our highways will be more efficient and will
reduce costs."
This is the favorite refrain of the trucking lobbies, and right now congress is under pressure from the truck
lobbies to allow
increases in the lengths and weights of trucks on our highways.
What are the facts? The highway damage per kilometer as a function of the mass of the vehicle goes up as
something like the
3rd or higher power of the mass of the vehicle! So it has been said that essentially all highway damage is
due to heavy
trucks.
Allowing heavier trucks saves money for the trucking company, but simultaneously it generates enormous
cost increases for the
taxpayers who must pay for repair of the damaged highways and for the repair of the damage to cars that
have been hurt by
being driven on the damaged highways. Allowing heavier trucks does reduce the truckers' costs. it does
so by shifting these
costs to the public.
Fifth: "Improved design of our new subdivisions will help save the environment"
This improved design is often called "smart growth." This is crazy! Building new subdivisions on open
land destroys the
environment of the open land, whether the new subdivisions are well-designed, or poorly designed.
The well-designed subdivisions may consume less land per person than the poorly designed ones. But in
either case, the new
subdivision is destroying the environment. The rate of destruction with "smart growth" is less than the
rate with "dumb growth."
So smart growth is better than dumb growth, but it's like buying a ticket on the Titanic. You can be smart
and go first class or
you can be dumb and go steerage
but the end result is the same.
Municipal Mythology
So, here are five everyday examples of non-critical thinking that are foisted off onto the American
public every day in every
part of the country. These are part of my collection of "municipal mythology." These fallacies are part of
the great efforts to
promote population growth and in so doing, to move the country farther from the goal of
sustainability.
Role of Technology
Now let's ask, "what role have science and technology played in the creation of the problems of
overpopulation ?"
Let me demonstrate that science and technology are largely responsible for the population problems and
hence for all of the
problems that we are facing!
1) Medical sciences have reduced death rates from disease and accidents. This contributes very much to
the growth of
populations.
2) Technology makes it possible for more people to live in areas that earlier supported only small
populations. For example,
two hundred years ago, this "Great American Desert" of the western U.S., supported perhaps a million
native Americans.
Now, thanks to engineering and technology we may have a hundred million people living here.
The contribution of medical advances to overpopulation is very clear. The contribution of engineering and
technology needs to
be examined. As populations grew, cities grew even more rapidly. The problems of supply and
distribution of water and other
utilities became difficult. Engineers "solved" the problems by developing safe systems for gathering,
treating and distributing
water.
As cities grew, the disposal of wastes became a serious problem. Engineers "solved" the problem by
developing sanitary
sewers, treatment plants, and systems for collecting and disposing of trash.
When cities became crowded, engineers invented skyscrapers which will let even more people crowd into
the center cities.
Engineers then had to invent transportation systems to get people in and out of the cities so that they can
fill the skyscrapers.
We build networks of urban freeways and big bridges so that people can live residentially in distant
agricultural land, displacing
the farmers, and then the people can commute long distances into the downtown skyscrapers to
work.
As the farms are displaced farther from the centers of the cities, we depend increasingly on petroleum-
based transportation
technologies to bring us our food. I believe I have read that the average distance traveled by food from
farm to the consumer is
now something like 1200 miles.
The whole goal of engineering might be summed in two statements.
- Engineering makes it possible to crowd more people into our cities and countryside,
and
- Engineering makes possible the gadgets and gizmos that increase our per capita consumption of
resources.
Both of these are justified as contributions to "the better life." We individually are the beneficiaries of
the wonderful advances
made in medicine. By themselves, these benefits result in population growth. Yet we have taken these
benefits and have ignored
the responsibility that goes with the benefits, that is, humans have an obligation to lower fertility so that
there would be a stable
population.
If we had a stable population, a larger fraction of the world's people would be able to experience the
benefits of the better life
that comes with technology. In some primitive cultures, the people understood the concept of "carrying
capacity." but the
concept became lost when the people were "educated" and the cultures were modernized.
For example, the natives on bikini island in the pacific ocean numbered about 120 when the U.S. Navy
moved them out in
1946 for the weapons tests. The population had probably not deviated very much from 120 persons for the
entire period of
human habitation of the island. The natives understood the concept of the carrying capacity of the
environment that was
immediately available to them.
But then the natives were thrust into our society. They were moved to another island and a supply ship
was sent in every month
or so. The supply ship removed the necessity of living within the carrying capacity of the island. Their
population began to
expand, and now they number perhaps 1500, and this present population could never return to its ancestral
homeland and
survive without a supply ship. Their forced encounter with civilization transformed their society from
being sustainable to being
unsustainable.
But not all native populations understood the concept of carrying capacity and the limits of resources.
Archaeologists are
reconstructing the history of the people who lived on easter island, where the magnificent stone monoliths
stand. These giant
stones were, quarried, carved and moved to their present positions in some period long ago.
Initially, the Easter Island was heavily forested. Large trees provided food, fiber, and building materials
for deep sea canoes, for
operating the stone quarries, for moving and erecting the monoliths and for shelters. Then the day came
when the islanders cut
the last large tree.
Very quickly everything degenerated, the dwindling resources led to warfare and decline. All the
knowledge and technology of
the earlier times was quickly lost. Even in that primitive situation, it is hard to imagine that people could
fail see that the tree
resource was expiring, so people could take remedial actions to preserve the resource that was essential to
the whole society.
But look around today. Look at our colleagues in physics.
How many physicists today are even bothering to look at the problems of the high rates of consumption of
non-renewable
resources? Our education system has failed to educate us about the most important facts that we need to
know in order to have
a sustainable society. We have textbooks on environmental science that give good treatments of all
manner of minutiae, but omit
serious discussion of population growth as the most important environmental problem.
Even worse than these failures, scientists and technologists have given people the belief that science and
technology can solve
all of our resource problems, forever.
To some degree this is understandable.
After all, in physics and engineering, much of the emphasis of our courses is on the solving of problems.
This belief that science
and technology can solve all of our problems gives rise to the non-scientists such as Julian Simon who
recently wrote:
"Technology exists now to produce in virtually inexhaustible quantities just about all of the products
made by nature - - foodstuffs, oil, even pearls and diamonds...
"We have in our hands now -- actually in our libraries -- the technology to feed clothe and supply
energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years...
"Even if no new knowledge were ever gained ... we would be able to go on increasing our population
forever."
This quotation is not from scribblings on a restroom wall, this is the front page story in the official
publication of one of the most
influential high-level think tanks in Washington, D.C.! People in Washington love to hear this sort of
thing: they don't want to
worry about the real problems of population. They welcome a Ph.D. "scholar" who says that there is no
need to worry.
Critical thinking
With regard to experts, it is important that we and our students remember a fundamental law: For
every Ph.D. there is an
equal and opposite Ph.D. Or, as a president of Harvard once said, "there's a Harvard man on the wrong
side of every
argument."
Somehow, critical thinking about everyday things has disappeared from American education. We have an
obligation to help
restore critical thinking to American education.
Kenneth Boulding was an economist, but he was also a profound and independent thinker. Ponder
Boulding's three theorems
on population.
Kenneth Boulding's First Theorem
The Dismal Theorem
If the only ultimate check on the growth of population is misery, then the population will grow until it
is miserable
enough to stop its growth.
Kenneth Boulding's Second Theorem
The Utterly Dismal Theorem
Any technical improvement can only relieve misery for a while, for so long as misery is the only
check on population, the [technical] improvement will enable population to grow, and will soon enable
more people to live in misery than before. the final result of [technical] improvements therefore, is to
increase the equilibrium population which is to increase the sum total of human misery.
Kenneth Boulding's Third Theorem
The Moderately Cheerful Form Of The Dismal Theorem
If something else, other than misery and starvation, can be found which will keep a prosperous
population in check, the population does not have to grow until it is miserable and starves, and it can be
stably prosperous.
Boulding clearly understood the population problem. A broad-brush condemnation of our failure in higher
education was
provided recently by Peter Drucker who said, (Science, July 18, 1997, pg. 311)
"I consider the American research university of the last 40 years to be a failure. the great educational
needs of tomorrow are
not on the research side but on the learning side."
Failure of Education
He predicted that in the future the bulk of learning will not occur on the traditional residential
university campuses, but through
some form of distance learning. The research universities, which Drucker says have failed, are the model
which is emumlated by
most of higher education, including the secondary schools.
In Scientific American for august 1997, pg. 16, "Bruce M. Alberts, president of the national academy of
sciences says that
scientists: Ôhave to think more broadly about what they respect.'
"He bemoans Ôintellectual snobbery' that values only work that probes the deepest mysteries.
"Alberts maintains that Ôthe future stability of the world' could depend on whether researchers can, for
instance, provide the world's poor with rewarding ways to live that do not entail moving to
overcrowded cities."
The concept of sustainability addresses the fundamental question of the survival of society. Education for
sustainability must
start in our classrooms. We have the obligation to work with the large numbers of students in our
introductory classes, to lead
them to explore the meaning of sustainability, even though sustainability is not now in our textbooks or
curricula.
Laws of Sustainability
Here are the laws of sustainability as I worked them out for an article that was published in 1994.
First law:
Population growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained.
Second law:
The larger the population of a society, and / or the larger its rates of consumption of resources, the
more difficult it will be to
transform the society to the condition of sustainability.
Third law:
The response time of populations to changes in the total fertility rate is the length of time people live,
or approximately fifty to
seventy years. (the consequence of this is called "population momentum.")
Fourth law:
The size of a population that can be sustained (the carrying capacity) and the average standard of
living of the population are
inversely related to one another.
Fifth law:
Sustainability requires that the size of the population be less than or equal to the carrying capacity of
the ecosystem for the
desired standard of living.
Sixth law:
The benefits of population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources accrue to a
few individuals; the costs of
population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources are borne by all of society.
Seventh law:
Growth in the rate of consumption of a non-renewable resource such as a fossil fuel, causes a
dramatic decrease in the
life-expectancy of the resource.
Eighth law:
The time of expiration of non-renewable resources can be postponed, possibly for a very long time,
by
