Population and Environment in Australia
A brief critique by Dr Colin Butler highlighting some of the major issues raised in the Online Population and Environment Conference, the forerunner to this conference.

Introduction

Recognition of links between environment and human population size is ancient, including for example, references in the Old Testament. Modern environmental and population sciences acknowledge links between their disciplines. However, despite this, there is no single scientific discipline (apart perhaps, from geography, a discipline that covers many additional subjects) that tries to thoroughly examine the relationship between population and environment as a single entity. As a result, some contend, neither scientific 'wing' involved is particularly well-informed about, or sympathetic towards the other.

This putative discipline would include aspects of demography, sociology, environmental science, economics and political science – a combination of physical and social sciences. This provides a clue to the divide which many believe exists: most environmental scientists have been trained in a traditional of physical science, while most population scholars are more grounded in the social sciences. Yet this unifying discipline would have to bridge these fields.

Further complicating this issue, the topic of population and environment has many subjective, political implications. These are difficult to quantify and uncomfortable to research, especially for physical scientists. Many lobby groups, including those representing business, migration, human rights, diplomatic, and defence interests also seek to influence this debate.

In 2003 the Australian Academy of Science (AAS) hosted an on line conference to discuss aspects of this topic. This conference had four main elements.

1. A commissioned report by myself (56 pages).

2. Two relevant reports and a magazine article, first published elsewhere.

3. Fourteen formal responses, prepared by scholars identified and approached by the AAS, from a range of disciplines, including demography, ecology, politics, and epidemiology.

4. An expandable section for discussion, open to the general public; this eventually comprised 42 topics, 114 postings and over 2200 viewings.

This short critique highlights a few of the many issues raised in this conference.

Is there a genuine gap in the world view and the theoretical understanding of workers concerned with population and environment?

There was divergence regarding this. Two respondents (Katherine Betts and Ian Castles) argued that my report exaggerated this gap, but several respondents (including in the open forum on this topic) agreed with this proposition, some strongly (such as Steve Dovers). Others gave indirect support. For example, Peter McDonald (a demographer) cited several egregious errors in the understanding of demographic factors by environmental scientists, thus lending weight to the idea that at least some environmental scientists lack a sophisticated demographic understanding. At the same time, by restricting his response to population dynamics, his response – perhaps inadvertently – lent support to the view that demographers, in general, lack expertise in environmental issues.

Another demographer, Jack Caldwell, commented upon an unsuccessful dialogue between environmental and population scientists within the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population.  Caldwell regretted that this attempt had not been more successful. Again, this suggests, albeit indirectly, a gap between environmental and population scientists.

Kathryn Betts, in support of her claim that the gap is not as large as I had supposed, pointed out that my report omitted mention of a large body of literature. My report was not intended to be encyclopaedic, and I am still unfamiliar with several of the publications she cited. However, much of the additional literature cited is by workers with a predominantly ecological background, or by demographers (such as L. Day and R. Birrell) whose views are not mainstream – even though, perhaps, environmentalists would consider they should be. An exception to this is Paul Demeny, editor of the Population and Development Review, a very influential and thus mainstream demographer.

Betts cites Demeny's paper 'Demography and the limits to growth' (1988). This paper, which I have studied extensively, in my opinion provides a good example of the divide between population and environmental scientists, rather than concurrence. Demeny himself writes in this paper (p 214):

In several other papers, published in his journal, Demeny called for demographers to more closely examine links between demography and environmental issues. This also lends support to the proposition of a gap in understanding and world view between the workers involved.

In the 1988 paper, Demeny masterfully outlined the historical debate between environmental and population scientists, but in the end settles, in my opinion, for a position far closer to that of the mainstream economist of that time than of a mainstream ecologist. It could be claimed that this reflects an ideological or political bias, but I argue the gap is also scientific. I do not claim expertise on truth or scientific philosophy, but it seems natural that a person predominantly exposed to a certain literature (and world view) will, broadly, be influenced by and substantially reproduce that view. The literature that Demeny predominantly cites in this and his other papers, many of which I have read, is one in which the view of ecologists are held as peripheral. Ian Castles is critical of the peer review process involved in the climate change literature (for stifling minority views and nurturing 'groupthink') – but surely this problem applies to all scientific disciplines.

Another insight to this was provided almost 400 years ago by Descartes, and quoted in Val Brown's response:

In summary, Demeny expresses a well-written, authoritative view based on the interpretation of a wide scientific literature. Nevertheless, these views are regarded as contentious to those influenced by another broad scientific literature (ecology and environmental science). The real question may not be the determination of how far this divergence arises from scientific, ideological or political factors, but how important this is. Of course (naturally!) even this is disputed. As several of the commissioned replies pointed out (such as by Val Brown and Tony McMichael, Alan Jones and Richard Eckersley) this importance is likely to substantially influenced by our differing experiences, aspirations and values.

Politics and defence

Though it seems fruitless to precisely quantify the degree to which political constraints are central to the divergence between environmental and population scientists, I interpreted Betts' paper as supporting my own view that they are central. As well, almost alone among the respondents, Betts expressed sympathy for the view I expressed that military strategists are likely to pay substantial attention to the strength of Australia's future economy, which in turn will be influenced by many demographic, environmental, social and technological factors.

The one politician among the respondents (Barry Jones) was sceptical of the reality of any future military threat. He pointed out (and I agree) that Australia's resources cannot provide affluence to more than a small fraction of the excess population in our region. But this does not mean that whatever spare human carrying capacity exists in future Australia would be so small as to be useless, or unattractive to a foreign power, should circumstances change in a way that made the foreign power more capable of appropriating this carrying capacity, and at the same time made Australia less capable of defending it. If we continue this thought experiment to an absurd length, and envisage that Australia in future has no people left whatsoever, then, clearly, Australia at some future point would be re-colonised, even if it could only support a few million people. My point is that military planners will be reluctant to test the approach to a point where Australia's economy is so weak that the calculus for colonisation would become irresistible.

Rawdon Dalrymple, a political scientist and former diplomat, criticised my discussion of national security and vulnerability as very over-simplified. However, he called for greater discussion of this general topic and agreed with my summary that:

In part, I had in mind that these forces are likely to have a military aspect. Dalrymple, rather tantalizingly, did not reveal his own position on this matter.  He also noted the difficulty of quantifying political and historical phenomena, thus underscoring the gap between the population and environmental disciplines.

Since writing this report I have learned of the work of Steven LeBlanc, an archaeologist, who argues, as I do, that most large scale conflicts (at least until 1700) can be substantially analysed in terms of human carrying capacity, or of its overshoot. I would go further than LeBlanc, arguing that many conflicts since 1700 also have carrying capacity elements, including the current occupation of Iraq (this was also hinted in Barney Foran's response).

No other invited respondents commented on the subject of national security. This reflects a prudent, sensible reluctance to make comments in print on areas outside of one's immediate field. However, I think this reticence also derives from the extreme sensitivity of matters of defence and national security. Why is this matter so sensitive? Some may argue that their discussion could itself contribute to insecurity, either by supplying ammunition to one's enemies, or by fomenting disquiet among the Australian population. But a counterpoint is that these matters should not be left solely to diplomats, the military and politicians, and that the handling of asylum seekers and so called border protection is already evidence of a deep insecurity within the Australian population.

The general silence by the invited respondents regarding politics, resources and defence was not reflected by the general public. More than one fifth of the total views of the fora were for the topic called 'resources and politics'; no other topic stimulated more than 6% of the 'hits'. This topic also generated by far the greatest number of postings.

The utility of the concepts of human carrying capacity and optimal population

There was an interesting divergence over this issue. Two commentators (Jones and Betts) questioned my assertion that, in some cases, an additional person could add to carrying capacity, except perhaps at very low numbers, such as in the case of Robinson Crusoe and Man Friday. I did not mean to suggest any escape from zero sum limits. That is, unless the additional person can access resources from another planet, his or her migration to Australia will only substantially increase Australian carrying capacity at the expense of carrying capacity elsewhere. For example, a migrating billionaire would be welcomed (and indeed is, under current immigration policy), as it would be assumed that he or she would be accompanied by resources from elsewhere on Earth. In theory, if the additional person is a genius, able to innovate or reorganise society in a way that reduces the total environmental footprint then he or she would also improve national carrying capacity, as would an internationally successful rock band (the Beatles brought substantial income to the UK).

Several respondents discussed the concept of carrying capacity in ways that demonstrated familiarity and acceptance of the concept, but there was less agreement about the value of seeking to identify an optimal population. Foran made useful suggestions as to how Australia could assess its progress in living within (or outside) its carrying capacity, by monitoring our international balance of trade and our external debt levels. He also mentioned that current Australian affluence is at the expense of both past and future constituencies. Although he did not explicitly discuss this, this appropriation has a powerful political dimension – there are few if any votes for the deep past or the deep future. Stuart Hill recognised the same issue by calling for 'wise' policies that would consider future generations.

Ted Trainer pointed out that providing modern living standards to nine billion people is impossible, and concluded that we are therefore in crisis. Unfortunately, like the constituencies of the deep past and future, most of these people exert little political influence, a point he did not explicitly discuss.

Criticisms

Most of the formal replies appeared to find the debate, including my report, useful, by either explicitly stating this, or by their tone. There were two exceptions. Rawdon Dalrymple's comments have been briefly discussed. He seemed more critical of aspects of my report being superficial, and perhaps was taken aback by my blundering into international relations.

The other main consistent criticism was from Ian Castles. I felt that, rather than engage with the central issues in the report, Castles focussed on points which, to my mind, were peripheral (such as the success or otherwise of the Australian rephrasing of 'sustainable development' to 'ecologically sustainable development'.)  Ian was critical of my assertion that a gap exists between Australian economists and environmentalists. He disputed that mainstream economists assume that environmental problems are soluble, unimportant, or exaggerated.  But in support he did not provide any evidence that Australia's economic imperatives are driven by an appreciation of the depreciating environmental capital of both Australia and its region. Instead he cherrypicked the literature, reporting examples of environmental forecasts that have proven exaggerated or premature. He observed that many fellows of the Academy of Social Science profess an interest in environment. However, his response demonstrated no understanding of the systemic obstacles which impede the path to sustainability.  My view is not that economists have no interest in the environment, but that as a group they have been unable to advance environmental issues, except at the margin.

Responding to Ian's comments in this way may generate time-consuming correspondence, but it seems more honourable to respond than to ignore them. I think our differences are honestly derived from different experiences, reading different literatures, and a different world view.[1] I would welcome a contribution by Ian that focuses on points of agreement, if any, and his view about the utility of carrying capacity as a concept and the reality or otherwise of future military threats to Australia under conditions of middle or worst-case regional social breakdown, including from climate change.

Business, media and the general public

Overall, I thought the on line debate made a very useful contribution. But I had three disappointments. The most important was the lack of response from the business lobby, despite a formal invitation. This is not because the business lobby has no interest in these matters. Did they feel intimidated by the rather academic nature of my report? Or do they hold the scientific community in such low regard that they feel they can ignore it? If so, this seems ominous; I hope it is incorrect. Secondly, there was little interest in this debate by the media. Again, the two possible explanations that could apply to the business lobby could apply to the media; in either case the media's lack of response is of concern. It is however encouraging that media representatives have accepted an invitation to participate in the forthcoming Fenner conference. Finally, I thought that the response from the general public, though encouraging, could have been larger. I hope that as the format and easy access to online conferences becomes better understood they will attract a wider audience, including from high school, undergraduate, and post graduate students.

There are problems with on-line conferences. On re-reading the general discussion I found several points that remained unanswered (including a suggestion that the AAS was very well funded to explore these questions!) Some interesting threads were insufficiently explored. No rudeness was intended – there simply weren't enough resources to keep track of and respond to all points. More participants could increase the number of unanswered points – but also increase the richness of the discussion. Some of these problems are less likely to be reduced in a face to face conference. On the other hand, logistics and cost restrict many people from attending, and such conferences pass very quickly, unlike on line conferences.

Conclusion

Push and pull factors that drive and attract people to seek greater economic and political freedom by migrating to Australia are already apparent. Extreme weather events, droughts, floods, heatwaves, animal and plant diseases, depleted fisheries and terrorism are also increasingly frequent, as are concerns expressed by the global insurance industry for its sustainability. Defence spending is increasing, and the supply of cheap fossil fuel is diminishing. Inequality both between and within nations is very large (though China is now trying to reduce its domestic inequality). The evidence for adverse climate change grows ever stronger. In my opinion, supported by a large body of scientific literature, many of these phenomena reflect an increased tension between environmental provision and a human population growing in both size and affluence.

At the same time, dominant economic theory holds that the solution to these problems is more of the same – especially more economic growth. There seems little understanding by economists or politicians that this economic growth is undermining the stock of natural resources from which much economic growth derives.

There is also a wide political refusal to soberly consider these relationships. In large part this derives from reluctance by the general population to contemplate unpleasantness and hardship. This reluctance is understandable, but people in leadership disserve their constituents if they fail to grapple with these complex issues.