A Controversial Assertion on Climate Change

I recently wrote a multi-part series about Turning Climate Change On Its Head.  In this post, I will try to reduce the essence of that series to 30 statements, and a controversial conclusion.  I am dispassionately following the facts where they lead.  You tell me where the logic might be questioned.

The Aanimad Assertion on Climate Change

[It seems that even a single blog post can run a little long for some, so I have added a three-statement summary of my assertion:

A.  Given that life is predicated on growth, biosustainability REQUIRES negative feedback.

B.  Fossil fuels and number-based value systems have resulted in humans neutralizing nature's usual negative feedback mechanisms.

C.  Climate Change IS the missing and required negative feedback.

What follows is the detailed derivation of this assertion.]

1. Climate Change is the process whereby the climate of the Earth is warming up due to the greenhouse effect, which is caused by megatons of greenhouse gases (primarily CO₂) being released into the atmosphere at rates exceeding the rates at which natural processes are able to re-assimilate them.

2. The vast majority of current human-generated CO₂ production is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, which has exponentially increased because of civilization’s exponentially increased use of fossil fuels to provide energy.

3. The energy from fossil fuels has been used to power massive leaps in human technology, survival, and standards of living, including the ability to live in relatively inhospitable climates and to provide food for a hugely growing population.

4. All living things are characterized by a drive for growth and propagation.  Without such imperatives, any species would soon disappear from the biosphere.  Humans are no different.

5. The natural control for unfettered exponential growth of any one species is negative feedback.  ["Negative" does not describe good or bad.  It is used in the scientific sense, as in "feedback in opposite phase with (i.e. decreasing) the input".]  Negative feedback is a necessity for sustainable systems.  [In this case, "sustainable systems" refers to the dynamic balance required to allow a species population to continue to exist.]

6. Negative feedback occurs in two forms: kind and unkind.  Kind negative feedback includes concepts of peak sufficiency, where the organism chooses to alter a behaviour.  ["Peak sufficiency" refers to the peak value, after which more would not be desirable.  It is a maximum, not a minimum.]   Unkind negative feedback includes impacts such as resource shortages, disease, and conflict, which almost invariably arise as a direct result of the growth itself.

7. While physiological concepts of peak sufficiency (as applied to food, sleep, warmth, etc.) have not changed for humans, our knowledge and understanding of science have progressed to the point where, combined with the awesome energy of fossil fuels, we are able to circumvent many of nature’s unkind negative feedback mechanisms, such as disease, food scarcity, and habitat limitations.

8. Having apparently bypassed nature’s unkind negative feedback for population control, humans have followed the natural drives of any species for growth, propagation, and maximal use of all available resources.

9. The rise of agriculture transformed our required food inputs from things found in nature to (mostly) things managed (and therefore ‘owned’) by humans.

10. Since humans no longer felt totally vulnerable to the influence of nature, and saw its resources as boundless, they developed human-centric economic paradigms, independent of natural linkages, consisting predominantly of producers and consumers, where nature’s bounty was simply a given.

11. It is suggested that the evolution of agriculture, trade, and ownership led to increasingly sophisticated numeracy skills, and societies where numbers were used to measure wealth.  For example, trade led to the introduction of some form of money, and ownership led to counting what is owned.  From this arose number-based values, which are different from our innate qualitative values.

12. Number-based values are measures where more is always worth more.  Since numbers are limitless, wealth measured by number is such that More is Always Better, and the negative feedback concept of peak sufficiency does not apply in number-based value calculations.

13. Having removed the concept of peak sufficiency from our predominant measure of wealth, humans eventually created entities (business corporations) who embodied number-based values exclusively, leveraging the intrinsic positive feedback loops of numbers, without being subject to the mortal filters of human qualitative values or even the limitations of human life spans.

14. Adopting value systems which have no concept of peak sufficiency (i.e. kind negative feedback), while bypassing nature’s unkind negative feedback, results in an unsustainable way of life for our species.  (See 5.)

15. Exponential growth of human population and technology transpired over a time that was not long enough for the natural world to evolve adaptations for the changes or processes to deal with the inevitable waste products of exponentially increasing economic activity.

16. As civilization is something that happens with physiological beings (who must live within nature’s complexity on a finite planet), any economic model that does not account for nature’s inputs and waste management is fatally flawed.   (See 10.)

17. One important fundamental need of economic activity and human survival is energy.  Fossil fuels continue to provide the vast majority of cheap energy, so their exponential consumption is tied to exponentially growing economic activity.

18. One impact of relentless economic activity expansion and population growth is (1) anthropogenic climate change.  Other direct impacts include (2) freshwater withdrawals, (3) nitrogen/phosphorus loading, (4) land conversion, and (5) biodiversity loss.

19. Being disconnected from nature, the neoliberal economic models did not effectively address waste management, resulting in (6) chemical pollution, (7) ocean acidification, (8) air pollution, and (9) ozone layer depletion.

20. The nine impacts listed above are collectively known as Ecological Overshoot.  Climate Change is only one of these serious threats to human civilization and the continuance of our species.  This combination of multiple looming disasters is where the term “polycrisis” originates.

21a. Human civilization got to this point because we adopted a predominant measure of wealth that had no concept of peak sufficiency (reducing the influence of natural kind negative feedback on our consumptive behaviours), and we circumvented nature’s typical unkind negative feedback (which controls population growth).   (See 8 and 12.)

21b.  This is not to say that we abandoned our core qualitative (human) values (like justice, compassion, beauty, joy, integrity, etc.).  Those are hardwired into our brains.  However, we have allowed those values be consistently trumped by number-based values, and created powerful entities (corporations) that do not recognize our human core values.   (See 13.)

22a. Our current economic model of More is Always Better, combined with the absence of integration with concepts of finite resource and waste management, can be directly tied to all nine components of Ecological Overshoot.

22b.  I refer to this situation (where one factor is a key cause of the polycrisis of Ecological Overshoot) as our Value Crisis.  The idea that one factor might be at the root of a polycrisis is where the term “metacrisis” originates.

23. Given that we are in a polycrisis, solving, mitigating, or adapting to Climate Change will likely have minimal impact on any of the other major threats of Ecological Overshoot.

24. However, addressing the metacrisis and correcting the basis of our economic values could indeed mitigate and potentially reverse all of these nine threats listed above.

25. Recent evidence suggests that humanity will not voluntarily comprehensively correct its current way of life and the economic values that underpin that.  I suggest that we are unable to solve the metacrisis on our own.  (See, for example, The Value Change Conundrum.)

26. Any serious attempt to correct our flawed economic values will be vigorously opposed by the massive forces that derive their wealth from those values.

27. Still, Climate Change poses a serious threat to our current way of life.  It is popularly the most pressing (and increasingly visible) threat to our economic activity.

28. Climate Change therefore constitutes one of nature’s most powerful negative feedback mechanisms to the economic values that caused it.

29. The other aspects of Ecological Overshoot will not be far behind, and will have similarly disastrous consequences for human civilization.

30. Unkind negative feedback is never desirable to the targeted species.  We are therefore highly motivated to resist it.  However, the negative outcomes of our poly/metacrisis for the human race are similar, whether Climate Change is ‘solved’ or not.

Concluding Assertion:

a)         The impulse to demand action on mitigating the effects of Climate Change is inevitable for human nature, but that action will not dramatically change the prospects for civilization and our species.   (See 26, 29, 22, 24, 25 and 28.)

b)         On the contrary, given that Climate Change could be the force needed to break humanity out of its flawed economic values, the sooner that happens the better, before the effects of the other aspects of Ecological Overshoot become irreversibly fatal.   (See 24, 27, 21, 23, and 28.)

c)         Climate Change could well be a major part of the solution to our metacrisis.  Our primary focus should be on restoring some precedence of qualitative values to be adopted after systems which rely exclusively on number-based values are no longer working for us, and how to minimize the damage from that transition.

d)         Rejecting the unquestioned precedence of number-based values, acknowledging our interrelationships with nature, and rethinking the definition and role of commercial corporations could be enough to redirect civilization towards a sustainable model.   (See 21, 16, 13, and 5.)

Disclaimer:

? - Am I opposed to citizens demanding action on Climate Change?

No, but only so long as there is a realization that the real challenge is the causal value system underpinning Climate Change.  Our compassionate instincts insist that we do our best to combat the destructive impact of fossil fuel burning, however, I do not accept that any significant gains will be made in the attempt.

If explicit by-products of any climate change action include an increased awareness of the root cause of our multi-part polycrisis (that being a flawed value system), and greater acceptance of our true role within the biosphere, then I have to support that.

If, on the other hand, the proposal is that we can somehow continue our current behaviours and economic model simply under an alternative energy source, then I oppose such delusional thinking.

I also oppose the demonization of the fossil fuel industry.  Those corporations, like all commercial corporations, are acting precisely in the manner that society programmed them and continues to demand them to.

Support for The Aanimad Assertion on Climate Change:

The following scientists and progressive thinkers have signed on as supporters of this Assertion:

John Maskell, PhD - Brockville, ON
Member, Canadian Association for the Club of Rome

Ruben F.W. Nelson - Calgary, AB
Executive Director, Foresight Canada
Member Emeritus, Association of Professional Futurists 

Mike Nickerson - Lanark, ON
Seventh Generation Initiative
Member, Canadian Association for the Club of Rome 
Author of Life, Money & Illusion

Andrew Welch - Alton, ON
Member, Canadian Association for the Club of Rome 
Author of The Value Crisis

#2 - The Law of Negative Feedback

 (This is the third of a nine-part installment, offering a fresh new perspective on Climate Change.  For the big picture summary, see Turning Climate Change on its Head.)

Exponential growth and non-stop resource depletion are entirely unsustainable on a finite planet.  Nature controls for these imperatives by providing negative feedback mechanisms.  Evolution balances these two forces.  However, if the negative feedback is too great, the species will disappear.  On the other hand, the negative feedback can’t fail, because if it did, the unsustainability of exponential growth will be its own demise - it’s the ultimate negative feedback.

Evidence of hare and lynx population cycles

In part 2 (The Law of Propagation and Consumption), we established that, in the absence of counter-balancing forces, every living species would theoretically experience exponential growth.  The reality is that this does not happen in nature.  Populations grow and decline, often in somewhat predictable cycles.  Sometimes a population will decline to the point where a species will go extinct, but it has never been the case that a population's growth has continued unchecked to the point where it is occupying every square inch of the planet, crowding out every other living thing. 

Evolution is a remarkable, self-regulating process, operating in an environment of interconnected systems, whose complexity far exceeds our capacity to fully understand it.  One of the key attributes that evolution has created is a system of negative feedbacks that provide the counter-balancing force to population growth, referred to above.  If we can accept that no species is programmed to control its own population numbers, then this proves that something is controlling that exponential growth.  (Even if a species could be shown to be controlling its own numbers, would that not be evidence of nature giving them negative feedback that they were reacting to?)

We can demonstrate the presence of negative feedback by examining the three possible outcomes of a species population growth:

(a)  Extinction

The population declines permanently to zero.  As mentioned above, this would be evidence of negative feedback going too far, driving a species to extinction.  You may wonder why this does not happen very often.  (In the natural world, with no human interference, the extinction rate is estimated to be between 0.1 and 1 per million species per year).  The explanation is that nature's systems and cycles have been adjusting and fine-tuning themselves over millennia.  In the absence of rare, catastrophic events (e.g. a meteor impact), if the systems did not support the eventual restoration of any given species population, that species would have already disappeared a long time ago.

(b)  Steady population or cycle

Maintaining any living organisms (be they animal, plant, or microscopic) at a precise and constant population number would require a direct oversight that would be out of place in our natural world.  It is easier to accept that biology's intrinsic system designs merely react to the numbers going up or down in such a way that balance is eventually restored.

In the image shown at top, evidence of lynx and snowshoe hare populations in Canada's North over nearly a century was derived from the fur trading logbooks of the Hudson's Bay Company.  What we see is that as hare populations increased, the lynx numbers soon followed.  This is because the snowshoe hare is a common food for the lynx; a greater number of hares mean that a greater number of lynx remain healthy and survive the winter.  Following its own innate propagation programming, more lynx also means more having offspring that will also be feeding on the hares.  Eventually, the hare numbers begin to go down as they are eaten by the growing lynx population.  As soon as the hare numbers drop, so do the lynx numbers, as their food source disappears.  Of course, the lynx/hare pairing is not an isolated system.  Hare populations will also go up and down in relation to their own food sources and how many hares have to compete for that sustenance.

Limited food supply, which becomes scarcer as the consuming population rises, is one of the most common examples of nature's negative feedback mechanisms.  Another is susceptibility to disease due to increased population density.  Note how both mechanisms intrinsically become more effective as the population numbers increase - that's how negative feedback works.

(c)  Uncontrolled growth

All life, as we know it, requires energy consumption and habitat space.  If we presume it possible for any given species to increase in number without end, then the available energy and space would also have to be unlimited.  Neither is true on this finite planet.  Therefore, even if you could imagine a species that was able to circumvent every possible negative feedback mechanism thrown at it by nature (i.e unlimited food supplies, no increased susceptibility to disease, unlimited energy, etc.), that population would sooner or later hit the natural limits of energy and space on a finite planet.  In this case, you could think of those limits as being the ultimate negative feedback.

Astute readers will notice that humans seem very close to being examples of this third possible outcome.  They have adapted to life on every possible environment of the planet, managed their own food sources, cured diseases and increased life expectancies, found new energy sources, and (some might say) are even poised to colonize other planets.  I consider this an illusion, and we'll discuss this next in part 4 (The Myth of Self-Control and Immunity).

Conclusion

Looking at the three possible outcomes, I suggest that, from the collective perspective of any given species, the most desirable outcome is the second one, where nature uses negative feedback to manage the innate growth of their population to levels which can be sustained for many, many generations, evolving as time and other factors permit.  In other words, if we accept the first Law of Propagation and Consumption, then negative feedback is necessary for sustainable species existence.

(Continue to part 4 of 9)

#1 - The Law of Propagation and Consumption

(This is the second of a nine-part installment, offering a fresh new perspective on Climate Change.  For the big picture summary, see Turning Climate Change on its Head.)

All living species are programmed at their core to propagate and make maximum use of available resources.  Evolution has consistently selected for these properties.  When these biological imperatives are unchecked, they lead inevitably to exponential growth and resource depletion.

Aerial view of Cairo, Egypt

Propagation

There is not a single living species, animal, plant, or microscopic, that has not been programmed for propagation of its species.  If it were otherwise, that species would have disappeared thousands of years ago.  I think we can confidently assign the term "Law" to this fact.

From a statistical perspective, we can also state emphatically that the average basic reproduction number, or R0 ("R-zero" - a term we got to know during the CoViD-19 pandemic) has to have been 1 or more.  That means for the average population of a given species, they are producing at least the same number of progeny - and typically, many more.  If they are not, or their progeny are not surviving until they are reproductive themselves, then that species population will be in decline and, again, will eventually disappear.

Death is a fact of life, and for reasons that we will explore more thoroughly in part 3 (The Law of Negative Feedback), we know it to be the case that not every individual in a given species population will survive long enough to produce a replacement progeny.  For that reason, it is almost always the case that the average number of offspring it has will be greater than 1.  In the animal kingdom one of the most prolific species has to be the seahorse, which has about 2000 offspring with every successful mating.  In the plant world, trees can produce tens of thousands of seeds - each with the potential to grow into a mature tree.

Let's consider what would happen if the basic reproduction number is greater than 1, and ALL progenies were to survive to reproductive maturity.  Firstly, the population will grow, obviously.  Eventually, it will double in size.  And then double again.  And again.  By immutable mathematics, this growth will be exponential.  In other words, the growth will not be a straight-line increase.  On top of the population increase, the number of additional progenies in every generation will itself increase, producing a curve that will slope ever more vertically. 

Consumption

The second part of the proposed law - that every species makes maximum use of available resources - is less necessary to my final conclusion.  Still, even though the proof may not be as empirical as for the first, every piece of anecdotal evidence available to us suggests that the second part is also true enough.

It is safe to say that all life, as we know it, needs to consume at least a bare minimum of resources in order to survive to reproductive maturity.  If the consumption of any given resource would be to the organism's advantage - especially if it would further the goal of propagation, there is no species that consistently and consciously makes its own decision to conserve resources instead of consuming them.  And if the population is growing, that survival imperative of that species will drive it to consume all available resources, as needed.

If you combine the consumption of at least a fixed minimum of resources with a population experiencing exponential growth, then the overall consumption of resources will also be growing at an exponential rate.  If these resources are not being replaced at the same rate at which they are consumed, then the species will, once again, eventually disappear.  Since the amount of energy and raw materials on a finite planet can be considered fixed, exponential growth of resources is unsustainable.

What about Humans?

Of course, it is very tempting to think of humans as an exception to the Law of Propagation and Consumption.  Certainly, as individuals, we seem to have acquired sufficient self-awareness and power to eschew propagation and control consumption - at least to a survival minimum.  However, overall, I believe this exceptionality to be a myth - one that we will address in part 4 (The Myth of Self-Control and Immunity) - but first, let's consider how nature typically manages population growth in part 3 (The Law of Negative Feedback).

(Continue to part 3 of 9)

Turning Climate Change on its Head

Inspired by the work of Bill Rees (video), David Korten, and other thought leaders, I am moved to present a clear chain of thought, in six steps, leading inescapably (for me) to a surprising conclusion about Climate Change.  If widely accepted, this would turn the Climate Change Movement on its head.  I don't kid myself that this blog will have the viral impact needed to inspire real change, however, I challenge you, the reader, to choose any of the steps below and show me where my conclusion is problematic.

I present all six in summary here and have prepared a separate blog entry for each one, going into details and more explicitly presenting my case for the validity of my surprising conclusion.

#1 - The Law of Propagation and Consumption

All living species are programmed at their core to propagate and make maximum use of available resources.  Evolution has consistently selected for these properties.  When these biological imperatives are unchecked, they lead inevitably to exponential growth and resource depletion.  (Read more)

#2 - The Law of Negative Feedback

Paradoxically, exponential growth and non-stop resource depletion are entirely unsustainable on a finite planet.  Nature controls for these imperatives by providing negative feedback mechanisms.  Evolution balances these two forces.  However, if the negative feedback is too great, the species will disappear.  On the other hand, the negative feedback can’t fail, because if it did, the unsustainability of exponential growth will be its own demise - it’s the ultimate negative feedback. (Read more)

#3 - The Myth of Self-Control and Immunity

Humans are unlike any other species in the knowable history of our planet.  Our self-consciousness and incredible mastery of knowledge and collaboration collectively power a myth that the first two laws don't apply to us - that we can control our propagation and resource consumption, and that we are immune from nature’s feedback mechanisms.  This turns out to be false under our current paradigm.  (Read more)

#4 - The Complex Crises of Current Reality

Human ingenuity and technology, combined with our unnatural quantitative value system (where More is Always Better), have ultimately led to multiple complex crises that directly threaten civilization as we know it.  They include climate change, the Sixth mass extinction, resource scarcity, global poisoning, food insecurity, pandemic diseases, uncontrolled technologies, nuclear arms, overpopulation, and untenable social inequity.  These have been collectively described as ecological overshoot.  While there is no question that these crises are connected, solving any one of them will not solve the others.  (Read more)

#5a - Impossibility of Effective Climate Change Action?

Either effective action to halt or mitigate climate change is possible, or it’s not.  Let’s consider both options, starting with the second.

Climate Change is already well underway.  There’s a belief that what’s needed is serious political or corporate will, but I suggest the reality is that our predominant societal value system simply cannot accommodate the required actions.  If we also accept the inevitability of the law of consumption, and the fact that immunity from consequences is a myth, climate change WILL be in our future.  (Read more)

#5b - Consequences of Effective Climate Change Action?

It’s even more interesting when we explore what happens if halting or mitigating climate change IS possible - and we do it.  Yes, the effort would be huge beyond belief, but imagine we could actually do it.  So what about the other complex crises currently looming over us?  Even if effective action on Climate Change were possible, we are still subject to all the other crises.  Indeed, while solving Climate Change would probably help with some of them (e.g. the Sixth mass extinction and food insecurity), it would merely allow every other complex crisis - the ones without the present stature and focus of Climate Change - to worsen.  We'd be putting society back on track to its own destruction!  (Read more)

#6 - The Conclusion for an Altered Perception of Climate Change

Putting all of the preceding Laws, Myth, Reality, and Possibilities together, I propose the following conclusion:

Climate Change is negative feedback that nature is imposing on our exponential growth and out-of-control consumption.  As awful as it will be, that negative feedback shuts down our suicidal behaviours and gives us precisely the opportunity we need right now to survive into the distant future.  Climate Change is therefore a critical part of the solution for the continuance of the human species - a force strong enough to cause us to question our value systems and change course with whatever is left of civilization.

(Read more) 

Of course, the obvious cap to all of this is a ninth post, being A Discussion of Our Best Strategy Right Now.

(Continue to Part 2 of 9)