tag this article:

Forget oil – the price of wheat has soared by 130% in the past year, prompting world leaders to fly to Rome for a spot of dinner and lively banter. After three days of Italian hospitality, delegates from 181 countries approved a declaration to step up investment in agriculture, coupled with a warning from Ban Ki-moon that global agricultural production must increase 50% by 2030 to support our expanding (and increasingly meat-craving) population.

Perhaps naively, the conference believes this increase is possible despite existing strains on resources. Just how many people (Americans? Armenians?) can the world support, and are increasingly materialistic lifestyle expectations sustainable? In short, what is our ‘carrying capacity’ – if there is one? Opinions are more divided today than two decades ago, never mind two centuries.

Thomas Malthus was the first to challenge the pursuit of indefinite economic growth during the Enlightenment. Founding post-modernism before there was even a modernism, his depressing seminal work, The Principle of Population (1798), described the ecological mechanism behind poverty and misery, with simple but devastating logic:
 
- Unrestricted, populations grow exponentially (1, 2, 4, 8, 16…). However,
- Agricultural production grows arithmetically (1, 2, 3, 4, 5…) and is limited by a finite amount of arable land.

Malthus said that without ‘moral restraint’ on birth rates, this results in population growth outpacing its food base, creating poverty and causing famine, war and disease to bring numbers in line with resources.

A radical pamphlet of its time, Malthus’ essay was in reaction to his optimistic contemporaries, the Cornucopians, who believed technology would allow continued progress and unhampered economic growth. This viewpoint is shared today by the Promethean movement, who argue that Malthus’ dystopian vision has been proven wrong by the Industrial and Green Revolutions, birth control methods, female empowerment, and education.

So after two hundred years, have we finally buried Malthus? To an extent. Thus far, Malthusian predictions of oil stocks and population limits have been foiled by technology, and a third of the world’s population happily benefits from developments that brought falling birth rates and increased agricultural productivity per capita. Yet the majority of the world still suffers the misery of Malthusian checks: famine, war, and disease.

Particularly extreme biocentrics have even gone as far as to say that the AIDS epidemic is a necessary corrective for curbing population, and – as Plague weakened feudalism – could end industrialism, the main force behind the environmental crisis. ‘If AIDS didn’t exist, radical environmentalists would have to invent one’ (Miss Ann Thropy, Earth First!, 1987). How nice…

Wait, there’s more. Garrett Hardin argued against giving aid to the poor, using a metaphor of the Earth as a near full lifeboat with limited supplies surrounded by hundreds of swimmers – the developing world. On utilitarian principle, swimmers should not be rescued as it leaves no emergency resources (a ‘safety factor’), or risks capsizing the lifeboat. But Paehlke argues that the heaviest consumers of resources – the rich world – would do better for the ‘greater good’ by jumping out of the lifeboat and allowing more swimmers to live. This is the root conflict between the environmental perspectives of developed and developing countries: dividing up resources fairly, without wiping life out in the process. Add this to the usual political bickering and reconciliation seems unlikely.

One thing the Rome conference did recognise is that matters are worsened when protectionist trade regulations distort the market. Not that the invisible hand is as incontrovertible as free-market zealots hold, but the resulting levels of environmental degradation and surplus food wasted is criminal. Even within the neighbourly EU, reform of the much-loathed CAP is moving at a glacial pace. Things are less clear-cut when developing countries claim protectionism for their nascent industries and small-time farmers in the global market. Are these justified on social grounds?

The practical and moral dilemmas are complex and it would have been too much for delegates in Rome to set out anything more than predictably watered-down but well-meaning promises. Worse, however, were the deftly shirked responsibilities, especially on bio-fuels, Hungry to sample more Mediterranean cuisine, a follow-up is likely in Spain this autumn, courtesy of Mr Zapatero. Let us hope the politicians can be as productive as they expect their farmers to be.


Further reading:

Malthus, T.R. (1798) An Essay on the Principle of Population – The original tome.

Brown, L.R., Gardner, G., and Halweil B. (1999) Beyond Malthus: Nineteen Dimensions of the Population Challenge - Über-Malthusianism for the modern day. Do not read if you are of a nervous disposition.

Coleman, N. (2007) Malthus was Right   – Mathematician suggesting we colonise the Galaxy…or something.

tag this article:

“What? Sustainability? What the hell has that got to do with me?” The common man may ponder during his day-to-day existence. The answer is not a simple one. In fact, there may not even be a real answer. The knowledge I will bestow upon you will provide you with an outline of sustainability, which you will then use to form your own opinions (although the info will be enormously pro sustainability). Furthermore, I will also be typing Sustainability with a capital ‘S’ to make it seem almost godly to further indoctrinate your young and impressionable minds.

‘Well, what the hell is it then?’ say you.

Simply put it is ‘Meeting the needs of the present generations, without compromising the needs of future generations’. To clarify, ‘if we damage the environment now via pollution, exhausting scarce resources (etc.) then our kids and their kids are going to have to deal with a greater problem that will only get worse with time… unless we work towards Sustainability’.

‘Ok, I get it but what’s everyone else doing about it?’ you ask.

Hmmm, fair question, some don’t give a rat’s ass and others are Sustainability fundamentalists. Those who do nothing make it worse. Most do nothing, actually. Most don’t know what it is really… BUT TIMES ARE A’CHANGING. You can make that difference. I’ll tell you about those who give a damn.

In the design world, many are taking a more sustainable approach when creating products and furniture as well as architecture. One example is ‘Sprout Design ’. They have realised that a company can really benefit from taking the Sustainable approach.  Through reducing the amount of resources used in production and supply chain, you have to become more efficient, thus reducing the private and external costs, lowering price and becoming more price competitive! They also analyse existing products, decide how they can be improved and made more efficiently, and then produce them in a more sustainable manner (at a lower cost!). How RAD, right?

“Yah! That’s quite RAD indeed! Who else is into it? I need to know!” you exclaim.

Now, now, calm down. An architecture firm called ‘BBM Sustainable Design ’ are all about it! They wanted to;
    “…pursue a more environmentally benign architecture which adhered to a rigorous methodology and high aesthetic standards.”
    They use low energy design solutions and actively pursue projects that can demonstrate best practice towards a more sustainable society. They have demonstrated this when they collaborated with a furniture and interiors consultancy called ‘Milk Design’. Together they gave a three-story 1970s house, located in the particularly straight-laced area of Hove, a “radical green makeover’. To this end, the architects have used locally sourced sweet chestnut rainscreen cladding for the first time EVER in a domestic project, giving the house a quite beautiful silvery-grey façade. The interior is plastered with natural clay and insulation is made of recycled paper and jute. Wow!

Are you more aware and inspired? Then do something! Stop reading this (but come back for more news)! Get out there and make a difference!

“That’s amazing! What innovation and thoughtfulness! When I grow up, I want to be them!” you bellow.

Good for you kid, good for you.