I think there is a belief that the only way to do forecasting is with some econometric models or mathematical models?I wou

159

Part B – The Mains IV – The Curse of Large Numbers or The Demography of Despair 1 – The Limits, How to Push Them, and Where Things May Come to a Full Stop A little over two centuries ago humankind was finally able to break the Malthu- sian jail. Or rather, the most developed societies of the planet were able to. Should one despair of achieving this escape for all societies, even those that are– remarkably condescendingly–referred to as (already) developing countries? After all, some of them at present seem to be in better (or more promising) shape than the so-called developed, rich states. What Gregory Clark, with delightful irony, has referred to as "survival of the richest" (Clark 2007:112-132) expresses well that there is more to a pleasing (or at least passable) life than mortality and fertil- ity specifics and how statistics express them. Less sardonically put, the desperate dilemma of increase in population/pauperization, for eons the basic pattern of human existence and seemingly only overcome two centuries ago, remains one of the great enigmas and is by no means simply a thing of the past. In order to remain in that blessed state, abundance has to be permanently brought about to a power several times superior to simple subsistence. Generating "wealth" is an inescapable necessity–if only it were more evenly distributed. It is, however, worrisome that–although for some time we seemed to be on a promising trajectory–one can by no means be certain not to be forced back into the penitential universe. How sanguine can we be about that beneficial trajecto- ry: isn't the "developed world" metamorphosing into a dilapidated new type of socio-economic sphere? Penitentiary implies punishment, but penalty for what? One answer might well be: for the "original sin" of being too numerous. Of course no demographer would be happy with such a flippant charge, and it is indeed unnecessary to take pains to bring superstitious concepts ("sin") into play (although on another plane the churches' interdiction of birth control is sure- ly disadvantageous in terms of population control). Yet there also is a strange taboo about saying what merely seems to be a simple truth: throughout history humans mostly were exactly too plentiful and too much given to arbitrary multi- plication. (To be sure, there were phases in history when it seemed that human-

Co py ri gh t © 2 01 2. P et er L an g. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du

ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 1/3/2014 5:31 PM via LINDENWOOD UNIV AN: 488153 ; Schmid, Georg.; In the Presence of the Future : Mapping the Roads of Tomorrow Account: 092-800

160

kind might die out–mainly because of pandemics. But large numbers are by no means a safeguard: a major nuclear conflict can quite conceivably see to the ter- mination of the human race, too, not simply causing a very large number of deaths; quantity is a benchmark here not least because of the possibility that too much crowding might actually amplify the potential of discord and fighting.) There can be no doubt that the planet is overburdened. All the same, the con- clusion that it is the planet itself which should be "saved," its nature, all living beings and even inanimate matter–in short, everything except the humans–seems a tad radical. Retribution indeed. (Remember the seventies bumper sticker saying "Save the planet. Kill yourself!"?) The present argumentation, then, does not in- tend to defend positions holding that the rain forests or the oceans are ends in themselves. That humankind should strive for a reasonable arrangement of its needs and, indeed, ambitions (in terms of comfort and pleasantness, surely of equitableness but also of aesthetics) on the one hand and a durable ecological balance seems so trite a remark that it can all too easily be passed over as a tru- ism. Yet, nothing could be further from the agenda at present than this moderate proposal: outrageous squander coexists with no less preposterous voguish exhor- tations to return to a supposedly harmonious and idyllic pre-industrial (or even pre-Neolithic?) type of society that would leave Mother Nature in peace. It can- not escape one's attention that the latter view–rather an immature, deceptive and ungenerous assessment–is peculiarly frequently expressed by the most posh (and chatty as well as prominent) people. But we should not provoke our fate: a re- lapse into a pre-1800 world is always possible, and the Malthusian prison has never been demolished: it is still there to bid us a welcome back; our freedom may be quite temporary. It serves well to recall that only about a generation ago alarm about non- sustainability of the world's rapidly growing population caused quite some furor (e.g., Meadows et al. 1992). Titles such as The Limits of Growth and Beyond the Age of Waste were common currency. Principally, people seemed to worry a lot about a shortage of energy supply (although the oil crises were, at first, rather quickly brought under at least partial control); apprehension about the "popula- tion bomb," hardly less widespread, was current too. And growth, it was pro- claimed–not only industrial growth but also population growth–, had to be checked in a most decisive way, otherwise the "limits" would soon be reached and collapse would inevitably follow. (Incidentally, some of the key concepts then were the Ozone hole and Waldsterben; nowadays it is practically exclusive- ly global warming. Back then one of the big fears, skillfully depicted in Robert Altman's Quintet, rather was a new ice age.) Obviously, at least some of the re- spective scenarios, then and now, were and are based on reasonable assumptions,

Co py ri gh t © 2 01 2. P et er L an g. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du

ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 1/3/2014 5:31 PM via LINDENWOOD UNIV AN: 488153 ; Schmid, Georg.; In the Presence of the Future : Mapping the Roads of Tomorrow Account: 092-800

161

and the fact that–at least so far–total upset could be avoided should not lead us to believe that things can go on the way they seemingly always did. Paul Ehrlich, in 1968, estimated that as early as by the 1970s the world's population could outpace the production of foodstuffs, resources and energy. This would have meant humans falling back into a Malthusian world already then–though that time not only because of exponential population growth. It is a reasonable supposition that very large numbers of humans will provide no chance of ever breaking free again. Promised to final doom–either because of the lack of an industrial and agricultural revolution or, ironically, exactly because of them, as those revolutions made the survival of many more humans possible in the first place. In previous eras, then, societies had ultimately ample room to multiply; in our age, however, the planet is already jam-packed. Malthusianism, in its most comprehensible rendering, contends that the growth of the means of subsistence will never be proportional to the increase in population, the former tending to follow an arithmetical progression, the latter being exponential. Thus the popula- tions should be checked, be it only to avoid severe dearths in food supplies. Ehr- lich's works, then, proved to be not only important with regard to the ecological debates but also in terms of politics of contraception and, consequently, no doubt also sexual techniques. (There is no reason to assume that people will refrain from sex, for instance simply because one or the other established church says so; hence sexual techniques that avoid reproduction should be encouraged. Evi- dently, this is in total contradiction with the laments that in many societies there are too many old and too few young people.) The "developed" countries from 1800 onwards seemed to disprove Malthusi- anism. For reasons still offering a phenomenal spectrum of deliberation and dis- pute, a number of factors combined that enabled the most mature societies to break the spell. Veritably all of a sudden, rapid expansion of populations did not automatically and inevitably mean impoverishment, famine and deteriorating life expectancy. It is only now–with grave doubts in regard to the sustainability of current global growth policies–that a new type of Malthusian worries manifests itself. There is then another contradiction: growth is necessary in order to nourish a still growing world population and is seen as negative because, conceivably, it is pushing the planet over the edge. The reappearance of the Malthusian threat seems to have come as a kind of shock; it is worth remembering that, for instance, the Club of Rome was criti- cized as Neo-Malthusian (which was meant as a reproach for unfounded alarm- ism). The present-day phenomenally influential climate change movement, how- ever, focuses (in a somewhat obsessive way) on ill-understood meteorological

Co py ri gh t © 2 01 2. P et er L an g. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du

ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 1/3/2014 5:31 PM via LINDENWOOD UNIV AN: 488153 ; Schmid, Georg.; In the Presence of the Future : Mapping the Roads of Tomorrow Account: 092-800

162

phenomena. This, in parenthesis, may well turn out to be, qua too restricted a perspective, an insufficient basis for a broad discussion of future courses. In a sense, the global warming angst could identify the increasing number of humans as the reason for willful damage of the planet. Outlooks in regard to the population the planet is able to "handle" can be qualified as (tendentially) optimistic or pessimistic; inverted commas would come in handy for these two labels–they are quite inadequate although they could well be characterized as anti-Malthusian or (Neo-)Malthusian, too. To what an extent should one put trust into human control, and to what an extent can it in effect be truly exercised? Quite obviously, questions such as these are but the beginning of a large number of further intricately interlocked issues. In con- crete terms, nobody will know with absolute certainty how far the limits can be pushed–until it'd be too late with no more remedial action possible. (Airplanes have so-called flight envelopes beyond whose boundaries no recovery is possi- ble. Evidently, absolute laws of physics cannot be overcome by even the most refined electronic tricks. Once these boundaries are reached, the "window of re- covery" ceases to exist.) Given this "unknowability," the utmost caution is advis- able. But a finally one-dimensional approach, staging anxiety mainly if not ex- clusively in regard to "global warming," is positively insufficient to sharpen people's awareness of a whole cluster of major and possibly life-threatening risks. It certainly won't do to classify uneasiness about limits as unnecessarily pes- simistic. Although it is true that for about two or three decades modern agricul- ture has made such enormous progress that the goal of adequately nourishing the global population seems attainable, a new series of setbacks is becoming mani- fest. Population growth continues, its ominous characteristic being a specific non-prognosticability: there are no clear procedures of working out changes in variables such as life expectancy, populations' susceptibilities to fall victim to epidemics, famines or the demographic consequences of wars and, above all, their interconnections. Like the debates about "peak oil" or "climate change," the controversies relative to maybe probable but lastly unprognosticable tendencies of population growth are too much ideologized; that's to say, there are lots of preconceived opinions–worse: beaten tracks and dogmas. They make many peo- ple simply subscribe to them and reiterate supposedly well-backed allegations. One can be under the impression that these persuasions non-intentionally con- tribute to circumvent the basic underlying obstacles. That way, the reappearance of acute apprehensions à la Ehrlich, Meadows and others was in effect likely to come as a shock: earlier convictions have been repressed and are now reappear- ing in an even more terrifying shape.

Co py ri gh t © 2 01 2. P et er L an g. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du

ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 1/3/2014 5:31 PM via LINDENWOOD UNIV AN: 488153 ; Schmid, Georg.; In the Presence of the Future : Mapping the Roads of Tomorrow Account: 092-800

163

There are a few certainties though. The world's population continues to aug- ment–if supposedly at a less frenetic pace–, and there can be no doubt that criti- cal resources have been becoming scarce enough to bring about at least the early stages of distribution conflicts. We are now at about seven billion humans, but can we be sure that the present trends will really make world population top out at a little over nine billion around 2050 (the U.N. projection)? And to whatever degree it will turn out to be possible to push the limits, raw materials, energy supplies, foodstuffs and, conceivably most importantly, drinking water reserves simply are finite. We are using renewables in a by far insufficient way. Even if the menacing population growth can be stopped, indeed even if the number of humans could be decisively reduced by peaceful means, that wouldn't change anything about the fact that the planet's resources are in all probability already much too much depleted. Resources, once exhausted, for the most part have the unpleasant quality of not reappearing miraculously; at any rate, even wind- generated energy might be quantitatively as insufficient as wood as building ma- terial is ill-adapted for each and everything (there is no such thing as a tramway d'osier, to quote the title of a novel by Nella Bielski). What is more, a further massive increase of exploitation of all the finite re- sources has to be anticipated at least until the mid-century. So even in case popu- lations such as the Chinese remain stable (and even if some populations actually quantitatively decline somewhat) the increase in demand of just about every- thing, as yet not clearly foreseeable, will additionally complicate the situation. Distribution conflicts, then. Such problems are rather well understood as such, but even trenchant, quite radical measures could not possibly provide alleviation because it is too late already: it takes some time to make a U-turn with an aircraft carrier. Rudder input, immediately applied, will take some time to even become noticeable. Well then, within just around thirty or forty years the total fertility rate has dropped from about six children per average woman to roughly three. But this breakthrough could only be seen as a success if its consequences were immedi- ately perceptible. In fact, the contrary is the case: its exact effects are still not well calculable, at best long in coming, the repercussions of the reduction of fer- tility will imaginably not have decisive consequences until mid-century and, still more crucial, will be offset by increasing demands of populations craving for more material goods or quite simply adequate sustenance. The "population con- trollers" are correct to point to their success in reversing an epochal trend–but its results are disappointingly inadequate, insufficient. By no means their fault, the desired consequences fall far short of what would be necessary to "save"–as the saying goes–"the planet," the ludicrous parlance expressing in a painfully clumsy

Co py ri gh t © 2 01 2. P et er L an g. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du

ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 1/3/2014 5:31 PM via LINDENWOOD UNIV AN: 488153 ; Schmid, Georg.; In the Presence of the Future : Mapping the Roads of Tomorrow Account: 092-800

164

way that there is that disconcerting blooper: shouldn't the well-being of the planet's inhabitants be seen as the fundamental criterion? Population stabilization is insufficient, population reduction would be prefer- able. "The planet" is not really habitable anymore–or rather, life for a large num- ber of its inhabitants is less than agreeable, indeed much less acceptable than it could and should be. The reason simply is: ongoing population growth plus di- minishing resources. Any triumphant song–that it has been possible to defuse the population bomb–is offensively misplaced. It must equally categorically be re- futed to withhold a comfortable (if not opulent) existence from non-Western populations. And the reverse contention–that the "Westerners" are morally obliged to retrogress to a materially curtailed (if not outright derelict) existence in order to make it possible for all to arrive at appropriate levels of affluence–is also illogical and even immoral. It would be a truly lunatic misinterpretation of "socialistic" principles of pari- ty to stipulate that the lives of all should be equally miserable. The already fash- ionable doctrine that the Occident "took away" planet, plenty and prosperity from Africans and Asians, in fact everyone, is utter nonsense, just party gabble: there is a difference between finding out, perchance, things somewhat earlier than others and criminal acts and simple robbery. The politically correct addi- tion–that indeed colonial crimes have been committed–can be passed over: every civilization, given the opportunity, has always done ugly things. This is quite a different matter from finding out, maybe by pure dumb luck, how to escape from the Malthusian prison–there is nothing morally dishonorable about that, particu- larly taking into consideration that the relevant expertise can be exploited by everybody (which is exactly being done right now). Rather, it is asinine to accuse of disregard of "ancient rules" the first to find out how to break the jail; it is also infamy to hold their successful escape against them. In these respects quite sick interpretative motifs have taken hold; the often implied reading that the Europeans emigrated to America with the express pur- pose to commit mass murder is, incidentally, another of the charming verdicts of the same cast that have gained traction and wide support by the trustees of "polit- ical correctness." Such attitudes and distortions do not exactly facilitate the scholarly task of contributing ideas for at least partial solutions of terrible quan- daries. The limits of mindless chatter have indeed been reached; its harmful con- sequences are clearly to be seen already. This kind of self-absorbed misrepresentations of history merely serves the purpose of procuring "good vibrations" for a posteriori wiseacres. But it is also a dead giveaway: the well-meaning chattering classes still think in categories of the ones and the others–one party being good, the other bad, one entitled to long,

Co py ri gh t © 2 01 2. P et er L an g. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du

ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 1/3/2014 5:31 PM via LINDENWOOD UNIV AN: 488153 ; Schmid, Georg.; In the Presence of the Future : Mapping the Roads of Tomorrow Account: 092-800

165

happy lives of fulfillment and rapture, the other condemned to eternal damnation because of the sins of their fathers. But a simple inversion won't do. Meanwhile, the Malthusian prison is still there. And even if the "well-meaning" ones appar- ently wouldn't mind to lock themselves up again, that would strand those who are still inside where they always have been: in a place they surely want to leave behind. All these distortions, pseudo-humanist chatter and the countless taboos re- sulting thereof make us miss the one decisive point: there are too many humans. 2 – Race Wars and Age Wars If the assessment that there are "more people than the planet can endure" is war- ranted–and in view of the general dearth of resources and the impossibility of permanently (and ad infinitum) augmenting agricultural output it is surely diffi- cult to deny it out of hand–the question logically follows, who has to go? (Let us notwithstanding never forget that it is not a problem of the planet, a non-sentient if big thing, but a predicament of the humans who inhabit it: "too many" implies reduction as the planet itself cannot be enlarged, output not increased without limit). Population control–which finally always means reduction, at least of growth rates–has long been influenced by eugenics (Connelly 2008); conse- quently, the issue of supposed inherent qualities of different human races comes into play, even if well-hidden or pre-consciously. This seems a thing of the past; there are seminal qualitative inversions in the field of the hierarchisations of cul- tures. Given that there is, of late, again much talk about a "new population bomb" (Goldstone 2010) and that the global financial and economic crisis which began in 2007 (with intensifying deterioration since 2011) saw to increasing undersup- ply if not outright inadequacy of foodstuffs and alarming increases in their pric- es, the burning question of whether Neo-Malthusianism should not be taken seri- ously is obtruding upon any serious discussion of demography. It would obvi- ously be a grave mistake to consider demographic issues without taking into ac- count underlying economic circumstances (not least because of what you could term Malthusian fundamentals) and supplemental co-determining factors (for instance religious obfuscations). After some decades of justified optimism– mainly vindicated by quite astounding advancements in agricultural techniques– the pendulum seems to swing back: skepticism is in place, be it because of the limits of maximum stress on the ecosystem or the increasing scarcity of basic materials.

Co py ri gh t © 2 01 2. P et er L an g. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du

ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 1/3/2014 5:31 PM via LINDENWOOD UNIV AN: 488153 ; Schmid, Georg.; In the Presence of the Future : Mapping the Roads of Tomorrow Account: 092-800

166

And yet it is by no means just a question of feeding the world population or providing it with sufficient drinkable water: a number of other important factors, medical attendance and socio-cultural services principal among them, also are of elementary importance. (In France for instance, some of these "basics" are sub- sumed under the catchword services publiques: their verbal invocation, however, does not make them appear as though commanded by sheer magic–making you think of Solow's bon mot that Adam Smith's invisible hand maybe is invisible because it's not there.) Too many humans, then: a large number is/must be considered expendable. That, of course, implies decrees about expendability. Let's not beat about the bush: the persuasion that the world is overpopulated (which the present argumen- tation considers to simply be an actuality) will lead to "displacement wars." By choosing such a stopgap term, I am trying to approach an elementary (and fright- ening) quandary. In an increasing measure the–still somewhat veiled–answer to the implicit question "who has to go" is: old people. Of course, there continue to be inhibitions to muster the bluntness necessary to move from innuendo to intim- idation. But the increasingly frequent references to ageing populations, thinning out the "productive" segments of societies, and above all the more commonplace and obsequious assertion that the baby boomers have "stolen" the younger gen- erations' future are quite betraying indeed. Not only have those baby boomers ruined the planet, their squandering lifestyle has sapped just about everything, from resources to energy, both in the literal sense and the figurative meaning. To be sure, expectable decrease in working-age populations, mainly in most European countries, but also in Japan or South Korea and China, will pose con- siderable problems (and indeed already does). However, they appear, as I will presently argue, not unsolvable at all. There is nothing ineluctable there: timely reforms of traditions and, verily, taboos steering societies away from stagnation to fundamental modernization can avert most of the respective problems. Possi- ble elements of a comprehensive solution comprise longer working lives, new approaches to the organization of labor and more exotic-seeming ideas such as making better use of the expertise of older generations. Although I shall take up some of these considerations again later, here–again–are two French examples. It is a self-defeating, shortsighted, truly stupid idea to fight against an upward ad- justment of the retirement age; conversely, an intelligent strategy would insist on decisive alleviations with increasing age while emphasizing the indispensability of the experience of weathered workers of all walks of life. One could refer to that as making use of the "ripe stuff." And, more specifically, why would anyone literally chase professors from their universities at a–relatively–modest age when they are still useful, not seldom even famed and popular with the students; they

Co py ri gh t © 2 01 2. P et er L an g. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du

ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 1/3/2014 5:31 PM via LINDENWOOD UNIV AN: 488153 ; Schmid, Georg.; In the Presence of the Future : Mapping the Roads of Tomorrow Account: 092-800

167

could go on to be of service with a reduced workload and a proportionally recon- figured income, increasingly paid by the retirement fund; they could continue to generate wealth by contributing valuable knowledge–just as others could also hand on their skills–while, in parallel, their formal posts are taken over by the up-and-coming scholars and teachers and artisans and staff of all kinds.11 Remember that, only a few years ago, the lowering of the retirement age was not least "sold" under the heading that older people had to make way for the young generation by "liberating" their posts. There certainly are professions where this is not only possible but quite feasible; there is extremely arduous, even unsavory work that one should be able to retire from as early as possible. In higher education though and particularly in research such a strategy quickly leads to undesirable results. By and large, in this limited field the consequences are arguably marginal in respect to hiring young people but as a rule ruinous in terms of expertise. Basically the same is true for many other categories of pro- fessions: workmanship can also be passed on incrementally and doesn't have to be learned solely from scratch by each subsequent generation. But the laments about something like a stolen future can be heard more and more frequently. Although doubtlessly politically incorrect, they couple the (supposed) remarkable life expectancy of the baby boomers to the imputation that they have already plundered the planet by indulging in a wasteful lifestyle. It is inferred that their lack of responsibility and foresight has caused the shortages and shortcomings we are experiencing today. The innuendoes are all too easily transfigured from grave rebuke to ill-concealed if hardly ever openly articulated admonitions to make room. Contrast this unpleasant (and indeed immoral) sug- gestion with the–logically opposed–whining that this or that country is "dying out." The hysterics of a gradual extinction of "precious races" (preferably German- ic, blond, blue-eyed) has been, as a sort of leitmotiv, with us for a long time; they have subsided, but beneath the smooth surface of cultivated chatter you can still spot the remnants of superficially reworked offensive irresponsibility. This col- lective-psychotic Umbau can perhaps most clearly be seen in anxieties about emerging eastern countries. Certai

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.