Geography 2412 Lecture Notes (Final Set) Dec. 2, 4 and 9
Alternative Futures
(Chap. 7)
[The lecture material did not track the order of concepts in the chapter,
but are offered here as discussed in class so that these notes should conform
to your class notes. Page numbers are given here so you can find the
appropriate section of Chapter 7.]
1. Back to the
doom/gloom vs. Optimistic scenarios (pp. 276-282)
We circle back now to the question raised at the start of the class: does
the future offer strict environmental limits on human development or can we
count on technology and innovation to allow essentially un-limited
human development? This, of course, takes us back to Cassandras
and Pollyannas, with a bit of a twist because this
chapter examines their predictions a bit more closely.
The text examines the bi-polar future. A future
without natural limits (“The Cornucopian Scenario”)
and one with natural limits is described via the “Limits to Growth” and
“Outbreak-Crash” prognostications.
(a) The Cornucopian Future (pp. 277-279)
The Cornucopians, represented by economist
Herman Kahn, envision a “great transition” to a post-industrial society in
which all needs are met, growth rates decline, but per capita consumption
increases and stabilizes at a universally-high standard of living. Recognizing
the signs that there are some bumps on the road to such a future, they argue
that over the next 50-75 years we will be in a “transitional gap” as the
“super-industrial” societies create the technological and wealth needed to move
to a post-industrial world, but that there will be lots of problems during that
transition (pollution, global warming, social tensions). They do not see those
problems as any worse than those that have occurred in the first phase of the industrial
revolution, in fact for many environmental and natural resource problems, they
see us already past the worst of these problems. This is a true “human exceptionalism” argument: humans can be freed from natural
constraints.
(b) Limits to Growth
(pp. 279-282)
I showed their two key “Limits” (or “finite world paradigm”) books in
class---the first was The Limits to Growth (1972) by Donella
Meadows, Dennis meadows, Jorgen Randers and William Behrens III. These were a groups on engineers at Dartmouth
College who developed a model of the world’s resources, allowing them to
extrapolate how population, production,
consumption, and resource supplies would play out over the next century
(this is a “World Systems Model”).
They were funded by a “think tank” of international businesspersons
called the “Club of Rome” and thus their work is often referred to as the Club
of Rome analyses and predictions. Note that they published in 1972, right in
the heat of increasing concerns about environmental problems and the world
running out of resources. Their logic is basically Malthusian, and expects that
not only will we run into fixed resource limits, but that human demand (driven
by growing population and affluence) will over-shoot those limits and cause a
worse crash (the “outbreak-crash” scenario---these words come from animal
population studies, where, for example, lemming or deer populations explode
(outbreak) then decline (crash).
Although your text describes the predictions as showing a crash after
2100, the graph of the “standard run” of the model (p. 281; Figure 7.3)
actually shows the crash starting in industrial output and food in about 2020,
and population crashing after about 2030 (I think Harper has it wrong, the
modelers expect the crash sooner than 2100).
The “outbreak-crash” scenario has been criticized for adopting a very
simplistic concept of human society (it does not seem as adaptable as real
human society) and because some of the predictions made in the 1972 book did
not pan out (many minerals are now cheaper and more abundant, and food
production has kept up with pop growth). In their second book, Beyond the
Limits, the same authors argued that we were still on a path toward a
global crash and don’t even recognize yet that we are now past the point of
unsustainable resource use.
2. Ways of
conceptualizing the Human Impact (pp. 267-269)
The complications of the World Systems Model suggests a simpler approach, captured in the
equation:
I = PAT
Where:
I = impact of humans on environment and ecosystems
P = population
A = level of Affluence
T = the technologies in use (in regard to the damage they do)
The whole point of this equation is to illustrate that different
circumstances allow for different impacts, and that changes, like development,
can yield different outcomes depending on how evolve. Obviously, a growing LDC
that takes a fossil fuel route, maybe mostly coal, can have a big negative
impact because its P term and T term both grow in terms of negative impact.
But, a relatively stable MDC can still increase its negative impact it is
manages to consume more per person (as when people shift their consumption up
the food chain 9to more meat) and/or t larger cars (SUVs
vs, sedans or compacts)
Harper discusses various formulations of I=PAT in pp. 269-276, but we ran
out of time to go over this material, so simply be aware of the basic nature of
the idea, as described here and on [WER1]
3. Idea of the middle
ground: SUSTAINABLE DEVLEOPMENT
(pp. 264-267 and 291-294)
Sustainability and sustainable development are somewhat ill-defined, but
suggest societies must live within limits while still increasing development
and Quality of life. The “World Commission on Environment and Development” is
quoted in the text as saying that SD is “development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of the future to meet their own
needs.” But, as Harper points out, the problem is what do we really need? How
much consumption? How much development?.
Depending on view, SD can include arguments about ecology, economics and
equity (so the environmental justice movement has a role to play too). And
because it calls for “development” there is room for technological innovation
and application, if it meets the criteria of reducing per capita or per unit of
production impact on the environment. SD can even include idea that development
leads to env protection.
What would a SUSTAINABLE society look like? It would: (pp.291-293)
·
Dampen pop growth
·
Restore/preserve biological base
·
Minimize/phase out fossil fuels
·
Increase economic efficiencies
·
Create adaptable management and governance institutions
compatible with these natural, technical and economic characteristics.
·
Would develop cultural and social paradigms in keeping
with the above, and would participate in regional and global efforts to achieve
sustainability