Population and the Planet

[Guest]

Have just finished the third volume of memoir by Kathleen Raine, The Lion's Mouth - where she tells the story of her relationship with Maxwell. Poet, scholar and mystic, she tells their story in often harrowing detail. She was introduced to Maxwell when his fortunes were at a low ebb after the failure of his basking shark fishery on Soay, and encouraged him to turn the experience to advantage by writing his first book, Harpoon at a Venture (1952). Away from their shared interests in the West Highlands she and Maxwell moved in different circles - he, aristocratic by birth, even escorted Princess Margaret on occasion, she associated with her fellow poets and artists, and researched and taught at Cambridge. She came to terms, or thought she did, with his homosexuality, which meant they could never be lovers, which meant his brief marriage (after the breach between them) was deeply wounding.

There is the cruellest of twists right at the end, when towards the end of his life during a brief reconciliation in Greece (he was staying with his brother, she with a friend), she showed him the manuscript for this book. He was horrified at the portrayal of their relationship, making her realise how deeply she had misunderstood their relationship. She had thought she was the most important figure in his life - she learnt she wasn't.

She was equally wounded by the way she was treated in Raven Seek Thy Brother. She was hurt at the lack of any acknowledgement in person or in his writing of her contribution to the Camusfeàrna idyll, even when he played her the theme song from the film whose title, like that of the book, came from her poem. She was warned by friends from early on - "Gavin does not love you". From having been, as she thought, the established figure helping him in his hour of need, it was she who became the needy one as he grew more successful and distant. Her part in the death of the first otter was the point of no return.

She is unflinching in her portrayal of herself and her failings, devastating in the poetic insight with which she unpicks everything that happened between them. Times and dates are rarely mentioned - this is a memoir of the soul, perhaps the most devastating work of autobiography I have ever read.

[aeolium]

Richard, do you think that at least with some naturalists the intensity of their relationship with animals or the natural world almost results in a degree of intolerance or callousness towards humanity (or even downright misanthropy in some cases)? I was thinking for instance of Konrad Lorenz whose zoological studies led him to conclude that Nazi racial eugenic ideas were justified, and he even reportedly participated as an examining psychologist in racial profiling in occupied Poland during the war. Henry Williamson, of Tarka the Otter fame, was another who had pretty unpleasant views such as believing the bombing of London had had a cathartic effect (and incidentally joined Mosley's British Union of Fascists before the war). And it's not just naturalists but some writers about nature, such as D H Lawrence who seems to me to write much more sympathetically about animals than he does about humans, as does T H White - like Maxwell, a self-repressed homosexual. Even "national treasure" David Attenborough would rather have more animals and fewer humans

Not that I'm suggesting any necessary linkage between a love of the natural world and a dislike for humanity, though I do sometimes get the impression that people in Britain would get much more worked up about cruelty to animals, especially dogs, than cruelty to children....

[Richard Tarleton]

An interesting line of enquiry aeolium - one can think of a few more cranky or misanthropic zoologists - Dian Fossey, the Adamsons, and another leading female primatologist who is still with us....I daresay they are self-selected in the first place, as you'd clearly want to enjoy living in remote places with just animals for company, and that a feedback loop operates once you're there, reinforcing those tendencies. Having myself lived and worked on nature reserves and for a time on a small island (all in the UK) I have noticed one's tendencies towards territorial behaviour tend to be, er, enhanced.

But David Attenborough a different case altogether - he's an environmentalist who has had unique opportunities to observe ecosystems across the planet and man's effect on them. He is informed by a concern for the sustainability of all life on the planet, not misanthropy. When he talks about population size, he's stating nothing less than the obvious. He's also a genial and clubbable man. Maxwell, White, Williamson were all in their very different ways polymaths, authors and eccentrics rather than environmentalists first and foremost.

Ferney I think the case of the dogs' home was something entirely different - I don't suppose there were too many environmentalists among the people who jumped into their cars and clogged the M6 in their eagerness to adopt the surviving dogs, or who donated money. I don't think that phenomenon, worthy of study as it may be, has anything whatsoever to do with a desire to get close to nature or conduct zoological studies.

A timely reminder today from the Zoological Society of London that wildlife populations around the world have more than halved since 1970 - so we've got plenty to be misanthropic about, IMV

[aeolium]

But David Attenborough a different case altogether - he's an environmentalist who has had unique opportunities to observe ecosystems across the planet and man's effect on them. He is informed by a concern for the sustainability of all life on the planet, not misanthropy. When he talks about population size, he's stating nothing less than the obvious.

But is it obvious? Growth rate in population has been declining in every continent of the world in recent decades. The birth rate in Ethiopia has gone down by a third since the 1950s. The only reason that the population is not declining is that the death rate (including infant mortality) has decreased even faster, notwithstanding famine and war and AIDS. And this is true in most places, including developing countries. The problem is not too many births but not enough deaths, though it's hard to see how it is desirable to rectify that

And when Attenborough goes on about population size being the problem in Ethiopia, as he does in these (in my view) rather crass comments, is he correct? Isn't famine more to do with climate change and bad government, with periodic civil wars? Climate change which may be influencing the more frequent long droughts in the Horn of Africa is generally thought to be the result of excessive carbon emissions from principally the developed world. Is Attenborough, with his own substantial carbon footprint, really in a position to tell developing countries what they should be doing to cut their own population?

[Sorry if this is getting rather OT from discussion of Gavin Maxwell - if necessary perhaps some helpful host could hive off this and other relevant comments to a different thread?]

[Richard Tarleton]

But is it obvious? Growth rate in population has been declining in every continent of the world in recent decades.

The human population has risen from 3.7 billion in 1970 to 7.2 billion today, and is on course to reach 9.6 billion by 2050. That's a big increase. There are of course fluctuations in the birth rate in different countries. And the demands on resources are increasing exponentially. The ZSL study also looks at the ecological footprint of different countries. Residents of Kuwait require the equivalent of 10 hectares per citizen to produce the goods and services they require, the USA 7, East Timor 0.5. "If all the people on the planet had the footprint of the average resident of Qatar, we would need 48 planets", says the report.

DA a naturalist not a politician or economist and may have picked poor examples, but if he's saying that population can't keep growing and using all these resources, surely he's right?

Separate thread on Population and the Planet? ff, cali, anyone looking in?

[Serial_Apologist]

Is Attenborough, with his own substantial carbon footprint, really in a position to tell developing countries what they should be doing to cut their own population?

I think these people should be extenuated - as humanity's informants they've had to visit far-off places so we can be warned off. That said, I don't ever remember Attenborough mentioning ecotourism.

[aeolium]

DA a naturalist not a politician or economist and may have picked poor examples, but if he's saying that population can't keep growing and using all these resources, surely he's right?

Yes, if that's what he says (it came across as just the population bit). But the key surely is the vastly different consumption of resources in different areas of the world, and it seems harsh to pick on a country with a largely subsistence economy and very low carbon footprint and per head consumption to make that point. And the world population increase is, as I suggested previously, more to do with greater longevity and greatly reduced infant mortality in developing countries than increasing birthrate. You must admit there is a certain irony in someone flying all over the world several times, in the process leaving a huge carbon footprint, and then saying that people whose consumption is infinitely smaller are having too many children for the world's resources.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think these people should be extenuated - as humanity's informants they've had to visit far-off places so we can be warned off. That said, I don't ever remember Attenborough mentioning ecotourism.

You must admit there is a certain irony in someone flying all over the world several times, in the process leaving a huge carbon footprint, and then saying that people whose consumption is infinitely smaller are having too many children for the world's resources.

[aeolium]

I think these people should be extenuated - as humanity's informants they've had to visit far-off places so we can be warned off. That said, I don't ever remember Attenborough mentioning ecotourism.

There may be extenuating circumstances for his travel as you say, but I don't think that entitles him to take poor people in Ethiopia to task for having too many children when the birth rate there has declined 35% in the last 50 years.

[teamsaint]

There may be extenuating circumstances for his travel as you say, but I don't think that entitles him to take poor people in Ethiopia to task for having too many children when the birth rate there has declined 35% in the last 50 years.

this is close to the nub of the issue.

The developed world needs to cut its consumption, demonstrate how good quality lifestyles can be achieved with reasonable resource use, and to stop blaming poor people for the world's ills.

Cut " defence " spending.
REALLY invest in renewables.
Target a serious reduction in meat consumption.
deal with our absurd transport patterns....would be good places to start.

Overpopulation is always other peoples fault, and never rich people's fault.

Gosh, that was easy !!

[Pabmusic]

... if he's saying that population can't keep growing and using all these resources, surely he's right?

Separate thread on Population and the Planet? ff, cali, anyone looking in?

Just so. There are effectively two ways to slow population growth: control either birth or death. We might reverse all the things that have lead to our living longer (like medicines, for instance) but I doubt that would be popular. Neither would be a cull of populations that are very large. So it's birth control, then. And that almost inevitably means that it is the poorer states that will have to adjust most. It's taken 14 years for the Philippines to amend its constitution to allow for government-sponsored birth control for the poorest; it will be years before people are encouraged to use it widely.

I suppose there is a third option - redistribute land - but that really means "make the USA, Russia and other fertile but sparsely populated countries take in millions of immigrants. I suspect that's a 'no' as well.

So there you have it - state-imposed eugenics or lebensraum.

[richardfinegold]

An interesting line of enquiry aeolium - one can think of a few more cranky or misanthropic zoologists - Dian Fossey, the Adamsons, and another leading female primatologist who is still with us....I daresay they are self-selected in the first place, as you'd clearly want to enjoy living in remote places with just animals for company, and that a feedback loop operates once you're there, reinforcing those tendencies. Having myself lived and worked on nature reserves and for a time on a small island (all in the UK) I have noticed one's tendencies towards territorial behaviour tend to be, er, enhanced.

But David Attenborough a different case altogether - he's an environmentalist who has had unique opportunities to observe ecosystems across the planet and man's effect on them. He is informed by a concern for the sustainability of all life on the planet, not misanthropy. When he talks about population size, he's stating nothing less than the obvious. He's also a genial and clubbable man. Maxwell, White, Williamson were all in their very different ways polymaths, authors and eccentrics rather than environmentalists first and foremost.

Ferney I think the case of the dogs' home was something entirely different - I don't suppose there were too many environmentalists among the people who jumped into their cars and clogged the M6 in their eagerness to adopt the surviving dogs, or who donated money. I don't think that phenomenon, worthy of study as it may be, has anything whatsoever to do with a desire to get close to nature or conduct zoological studies.

A timely reminder today from the Zoological Society of London that wildlife populations around the world have more than halved since 1970 - so we've got plenty to be misanthropic about, IMV

Darwin was a naturalist. He wasn't cranky. He can't be blamed for the Social Darwinism that followed in his wake.

[Pabmusic]

Darwin was a naturalist. He wasn't cranky. He can't be blamed for the Social Darwinism that followed in his wake.

Of course not. Natural selection is an entirely natural process driven by constantly changing factors. The totalitarian "Brave New World" idea is an artificial process usually driven by fixed ideology. But we have interfered with natural selection a lot, since we have developed drugs and medical procedures, hygiene, better homes, etc, all of which contribute to our living longer, rather than many of us being culled by natural selection.

I'm really pleased at the way we've overcome natural selection - but there's a cost.

[ahinton]

this is close to the nub of the issue.

The developed world needs to cut its consumption, demonstrate how good quality lifestyles can be achieved with reasonable resource use, and to stop blaming poor people for the world's ills.

Cut " defence " spending.
REALLY invest in renewables.
Target a serious reduction in meat consumption.
deal with our absurd transport patterns....would be good places to start.

Overpopulation is always other peoples fault, and never rich people's fault.

Gosh, that was easy !!

Easy, perhaps, but only partially right, I think. Cut "defence" speding? Undoubtedly! REALLY invest in renewables? Of course. But then doing the first means that considerable sums of money become available for more socially acceptable spending, some of which could well be on the second - but successful investment in renewables in sufficient quantities means that consumption can remain unchanged or even increase without the downsides of such issues as carbon footprints, environmental air pollution, environmental noise pollution and the rest.

A reduction in meat consumption is not, I suspect, as effective a solution as you appear to believe it to be; yes, it could have benefits but also disadvantages, one of which would be the need to grow crops in immense quantities which could be equally damaging environmentally. Harvesting the world's resources sensibly is vital; cutting consumption merely for the sake of so doing seems to me to be rather akin to dispensing with all musical instruments that could be seen as allowing and encouraging ever more indulgent expression (in other words, get rid of the latest 8-octave-+ monster grand pianos and go back to the Érards and Playels of the mid-19th century) - it would in all probability be no more than a sop to the consciences of those who effected such cuts rather than a measure designed to benefit and capable of advantaging future generations. Those poorest of whom you speak are unable to consume enough and their survival depends upon their being able to consume more, not less. A small reduction in meat consumption can bring with it health benefits; cutting it out completely could bring the very opposite.

[Jonathan]

Did anyone here see this BBC2 programme (broadcast in November 2013):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03h8r1j

It was fascinating and argued that the population of the Earth is going to level off and drop within the next few decades.