Infinite Wants, Infinite Resources

Infinite Wants, Infinite Resources

Intuitively we perceive resources as finite because we have no experience of infinity. David E. Nye contends that the carrying capacity of the word is a construction guided by the consumption behavior of a society. I agree with his thesis, namely, that this projection is “but a social construction.” However, I suggest that the world’s carrying capacity is a matter of perception. I am not implying that if we perceive the world as boundless, then it is necessarily so. There is a simple truth that even a middle school student knows: in this world there are renewable and non-renewable resources. However, how we perceive our world around us, as renewable or non-renewable, does influence the answer. Naturally, we have virtually infinite wants. An if we can somehow satisfy those wants with renewable resources, then this world does not have a carrying capacity for humans, ceteris paribus.

One person might set a carrying capacity of x, based on his observation that humans are “dependent on x,y, and z” and there are only a certain number of x,y, and z in this world. A different approach would suggest that there is no limit to human population growth because although humans need x,y,z to survive, our technology permits a limitless supply of x,y,z. I do not believe there is a right or wrong answer to the carrying capacity of humans. Rather, it is a matter of perception. My argument is centered on the relationship between two perceptions: our world’s resources and, our consumption behavior.

We know, though experience, that we cannot breathe under water, nor can we survive in extreme temperatures. Having this in mind, our construction of our carrying capacity would not include humans living in water or in the magma layer of the Earth. Our technological progress now permits humans to live in extreme temperatures and under water.

On a more basic level, we know that without food and water, we cannot survive more than 7 days. What makes us believe that there is not enough food and water for 50 billion humans?

Why do entertain ourselves with questions that have to do with our physical limits when technology constantly expands them? In some sense, our only understanding of infinity is that it is limitless. There seems to be no limits to progress except those we set beforehand. In other words, the questions we ask limit the result we obtain.

Behind this abstract discussion, lies the concept that technology can satisfies our hunger with renewable resources. The only real problem then is us. Can we envision this kind of technology? The answer to this question is not really a matter of being illuminated or not, but really of permitting our mind to float around and beyond “obvious” boundaries.

Take for example the following question: Why should we want another 5 billion people?

Professor John McCarthy of Stanford University illustrates my point: “The questions assumes that ‘we’ can decide how large the population should be and then figure out how to implement the decision. At present there is no mechanism for making a decision about world population or for implementing any such decision.”

Addressing the limits of human population has been severely disputed by economists, politicians and to a lesser degree, by scientists. Since the creation of the nation-state and its implications (artificial boundaries, passports and visas, etc.), human migration and distribution has been severely interrupted. Therefore, the need to place a control on population is more an issue of crowdedness than sustainability.

The earlier question framed is more adequately evaluated if we ask, can the world grow enough food for 15 billion people? Professor McCarthy asserts that, “Yes, it can and with present agricultural technology...biotechnology based on molecular genetics.”

The inability of Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) to foresee the dramatic human progress in the field of science since his time led him to develop his pessimistic prediction that population growth would exceed food supply.

That the human population is placing a strain on the world and interrupting natural processes is not an issue of overpopulation. The unhealthy and unnatural practices humans have turned to have been around even prior to the Industrial Revolution. The environmental culture of human beings has been inconsiderate and intensely supported by centuries of egocentric belief.

The past century witnessed the most accelerated growth in human population. During this short period in human history, more innovation and progress has been produced than any in all of the other periods in world history combined. Increased human population has brought more gifted minds to his world. Likewise, increased crowdedness of human population has brought more tolerance and pragmatism as different religious, ethnic and cultural people interact closely with one another.

Many aspects of the sustainability of the human pace are also used by advocates of population control. With regards to energy, Professor McCarthy and many more scientists assert that the world is not running out of energy. That we tend to equate energy with oil is a misperception and misinformation. In fact, McCarthy asserts that “nuclear and solar energy are each adequate for the next several billion years. Another scientists, Cohen, estimates that at least “5 billion years of energy are left based on extracting uranium from seawater, which the Japanese have already shown work.”

The perceived need to curb population growth can be ascribed to a perceived over-crowdedness. Perhaps the feeling that enough is enough, will lead us to limit population growth. After more traffic hours, more Internet jamming, and crowding of tourist hotspots may give neo-Social Darwinists the upper hand in this debate. However, human life is indeed a divine creation. Humanity has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to adapt. Ultimately, constructing a carrying capacity involves the assumption that technology cannot match our infinite wants with renewable, and therefore, infinite resources.